#56484: — 01/05  at  03:09 PM
I'm trying to figure out how many metaphors get mixed in this letter but I can't keep count:

The puff piece on Dawkins was a little too amusing. An acerbic tongue can gain applause among devotees, but he will go the way of Stephen Jay Gould—influential for about two months after his death, then largely ignored if not forgotten by all except the cultists they inspire. Those whose works are primarily in the realm of thought dogma leave little of substance. His argumentations may raise the bar, but history has a way of seeing those kinds of achievements surmounted. He may think he is a billion-candle-power light, but the Stonehenge of attitude he surrounds himself with casts some mighty long shadows.

#56486: The Birdwoman — 01/05  at  03:12 PM
I tend to wince at Dawkins' wilder atheistic comments as they alienate so many people (while semi-secretly agreeing with every anti-religious statement he makes). However, he does tend to make pronouncements about subjects about which he clearly knows very little. I've had people who know far more about religion and philosophy than I tell me that many of his arguments are not at all new and have been countered many times. On a more personal note, I was deeply offended when he compared feminism to crystal healing in A Devil's Chaplain.

As a lecturer of mine once said, he's a clever bloke, but an arrogant git.

#56491: — 01/05  at  03:25 PM
I think this was my favorite: The image of Richard Dawkins is one of an intellectual bully who shouts loudly when his sermon is weak and uses bombastic techniques to sell his books and lecture tours. If so, it is because Dawkins is not well versed in science, specifically mathematics and biochemistry, and misses the point. Evolution is easily supported with fossil records. The trouble with it is the use of the term "random" to describe the chance construction of the molecules of life. After Earth cooled enough to allow life to begin over 3 billion years ago, it is presumed to have been in the form of cyanobacteria found in strobilus fossils that produced oxygen that made future evolution, as we know it, a possibility. Obviously, this means that DNA was already present as soon as the world was cool enough to allow water to exist. There is reason to believe that it formed the basis of human DNA and that it has always had the capability to produce higher forms of life. This is why some medical opinion favors the thought that the human embryo and fetus must pass through primitive stages, including fish and reptiles, to develop into a baby from a DNA molecule with a long history. For example, any developmental anatomy book will carry proof that the 4- to 5-month-old fetus has gills and some people are born with tails. The important point, however, is that if life-giving DNA was present at the very start of the Archaean Age, how did this happen? This is not a simple high school acid-base experiment, and a look into the biochemistry of the cell should convince anyone that it was not accidental. This is a result of constructing an incredibly complex system of amino acids in precise order, and the concept of "random" is simply not credible. I thought that after the 1980s, when it was shown that this was beyond mathematical probability, that most responsible scientists have avoided using the term. While "intelligent design" is a term objectionable to evolutionists, they have no viable alternative.
James N. Greene
Mount Vernon, Missouri

Oh, brother.

#56492: — 01/05  at  03:30 PM
I haven't read the article or the letters, and I'm simply going to post my thoughts on the whole evolution/atheism/public debate issue.

In no way do I advocate that atheists sticking up for evolutionary science go out of their way to keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) under wraps. That would be unfair.

By the same token however, I don't advocate that the same folks go out of their way to trumpet how evolution justifies, leads to, or otherwise supports their atheism.

Whether one agrees with it or not, at the very least it has to be acknowledged as an obvious fact that one of the primary and most effective arguments (in the public arena)of the anti-evolution movement is that evolution = atheism. This argument, as wrong as it is, preys on the fears of otherwise ambivalent people that if we teach their children evolutionary biology, they'll grow up to become atheists.

Thus, when people like Dawkins justify their atheistic beliefs by referring to evolution, they're playing right into the anti-science movement's strategy. Further, when the same people even go so far as to insult, degrade, or otherwise denigrate the idea of even having religious beliefs, they're doing far more harm to the cause of science than anti-evolutionists could hope.

No matter how justified you feel in calling religious belief idiotic, stupid, insane, delusionsal, etc., any time you do so in the context of the public debates over evolution and science education, you're doing far more harm than good for our side. Grand, sweeping personal attacks do absolutely nothing to bolster the argument for good science.

I agree that when creationists make stupid arguments, we call them on it and point them out as stupid arguments. But that's vastly different than calling people derogatory names simply for having religious beliefs. When a person does that, I will be one of the first ones to call for him to sit down and shut the hell up, because such a person is aiding and abeting the enemy.

If a person cannot argue in favor of science without insulting everyone who holds religious beliefs, I certainly don't want that person on my side.

#56496: Jonathan Badger — 01/05  at  03:38 PM
"However, he does tend to make pronouncements about subjects about which he clearly knows very little"

As does anyone on either side on the debate who claims to speak of "theology". My background is microbiology -- I've observed many microbes. Yet people get doctorates in the so-called field of theology without ever once observing a deity or even any effects that can't be adequately explained by natural causes. What a joke and an insult to those of us with real academic degrees.

"I've had people who know far more about religion and philosophy than I tell me that many of his arguments are not at all new and have been countered many times"

Yes, many of his ideas indeed go back to Hume or even to Lucretius. But the theists *haven't* countered them except in cop-outs similar to "the Lord works in mysterious ways", "It's all part of God's plan", etc.

"I was deeply offended when he compared feminism to crystal healing in A Devil's Chaplain"

Feminism is many things. I doubt Dawkins has any gripe against the idea of women getting equal pay for equal work. But when some feminists start talking about the powers of "female intution" or that mathematics is flawed because it is "phallocentric", then Dawkins has a point.

#56498: Tom Morris — 01/05  at  03:52 PM
The Birdwoman: I don't think he compared feminism to crystal healing. He compared a certain type of academic feminism to crystal healing - the sort of feminism which is under discussion in Noretta Koertge and Daphne Patai's book "Professing Feminism", which he wrote the introduction for. I've read both editions of Koertge and Patai, and the practices in there are absolutely ripe for criticism. There is the conflation of the discovery of social patterns and biases among scientists (that they are primarily geeky white guys - at least in physics, less so in bio) with rejection of the scientific method (because they are white men, they hold an overbearingly naturalistic and reductionist view of the world, which, as we all know, is very, very silly - thus we can quite easily ignore scientists as dogmatic fools). The almost genealogical (in the Nietzschean sense) method used by some of these authors regarding science is silly. Yes, Isaac Newton was a white, Anglo-Saxon man. That doesn't mean that apples don't drop on black, African women's head.

There is also some very bizarre practices involved in the teaching of Women's Studies, such as the practice of one academic who gives materials to her students in sealed envelopes and tells them that they are not to let men see the contents of them, as well as complete dismissal of views one doesn't agree with on the basis that the author of said views is male. The method - "Plato? Man! Marx? Man! Nietzsche? Man! Bacon? Man! Isaac Newton? Man! Darwin? Man!" - seems to cut a fair few thinkers out of our canon.

Having met Dawkins, and discussed one or two of his statements about things outside of science, which he is so frequently bashed for, I'd say that he's not arrogant. His method may include the drawing of hasty generalisations, but they're often correct generalisations.

#56500: — 01/05  at  03:59 PM
Jason, great post. I couldn't agree with you more and couldn't have said it better.

#56507: PZ Myers — 01/05  at  04:13 PM

I haven't read the article or the letters

Bad start.

No matter how justified you feel in calling religious belief idiotic, stupid, insane, delusionsal, etc., any time you do so in the context of the public debates over evolution and science education, you're doing far more harm than good for our side.

That's what they all say.

I always feel that when someone says, on one hand, that we need to support our science and teaching with evidence and reason (Yay!), but this little idea of mine about a magic man in the sky who does all kinds of miraculous things is not to be touched by the same criteria (booo...), they are doing harm to our side. What excuse is there for setting aside one set of ideas from the demand for evidence, and not the other?

#56510: — 01/05  at  04:21 PM
The most annoying letter, because it is such a pathetic cop-out:

If Dawkins is correct in his surmise that the gene is the fundamental unit of survival, he's put his finger on the very reason why so many find it difficult to swallow the theory of evolution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Cold logic would say that therefore human hopes, dreams, personality, and accomplishments are, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless. Since we are emotional creatures, this is just too much to take in, so we find meaning and purpose in religion or postmodern claptrap, however pathetic these may be.

Whose "we" exactly?

I hope I don't catch any of that "cold logic."

#56516: — 01/05  at  05:09 PM
Dr. Myers,

I think you missed my point entirely. Nowhere did I say you cannot debate, discuss, or otherwise evaluate religion using whatever criteria you wish. In fact, I believe the exact opposite. As an atheist and a person--who like me--values evidence, reason, and logic over faith and emotional appeals, you should be (and are) free to do that to your heart's desire.

My point is that when you are participating in the public debates over evolution and science education, you are not doing our side any favors (and are actually doing harm) when in doing so you denigrate all religious belief (e.g. by using terms like, "little magic man in the sky").

If you are completely unable to defend science without directly and intentionally insulting everyone of religious faith in the process, then you need to stop. You're making our side look bad and aiding and abeting the enemy.

If I'm wrong, then perhaps you can explain how personally insulting people of religious faith furthers the cause of science in America.

#56521: pdf23ds — 01/05  at  05:39 PM
"one of the primary and most effective arguments (in the public arena)of the anti-evolution movement is that evolution = atheism. This argument, as wrong as it is,"

But, if I can speak for him, PZ has argued here, repeatedly, that it's not a fallacious argument. (Well, that science = atheism, not just evolution = atheism.) Furthermore, he's somewhat opposed to religion on its own sake, not just creationism.

Arguing that denigrating religious belief wins evolution no brownie points in the public debate is the same as arguing that feminism wins Democrats no brownie points in the public debate. It may be true, but that doesn't mean feminists or atheists shouldn't stand up for their beliefs for that reason.

#56523: — 01/05  at  05:45 PM
Jason,

You are correct. Thank you for pointing this out.

The reality of the matter is that most people will choose their position not on the evidence and reason, but upon the credibility (perceived or real) of the figures which are viewed as having an authoritative opinion on this matter.

#56526: — 01/05  at  06:22 PM
True science is not possible where dogma holds sway. E.O. Wilson, in one of essays that accompanies the collection of Darwin's works that he edited, states that Darwin's loss of faith enabled him to formulate the theory of evolution; it was not that his nascent theory caused him to lose his faith. I suspect that is often, if not always the case. Martin Luther was right about faith strangling reason. For reason ever to take hold, faith must first give way. That is not even arguable. Dawkins is a hero.

#56529: — 01/05  at  06:47 PM
I always feel that when someone says, on one hand, that we need to support our science and teaching with evidence and reason (Yay!), but this little idea of mine about a magic man in the sky who does all kinds of miraculous things is not to be touched by the same criteria (booo...), they are doing harm to our side. What excuse is there for setting aside one set of ideas from the demand for evidence, and not the other?

I think many people who have religious faith would say that evidence for that faith is meaningless to them. That's fine when their claim cannot be tested empirically; it's not fine when they make a claim about the natural world. In other words, I have no problem with someone saying "My faith in God gives me strength in life". I can't really argue with that as a scientist. If, on the other hand, someone says "My faith in God tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old", then we have a problem.

I think the point that you are missing is that many people's religious faith doesn't really clash with investigations of the natural world. That was the point I was trying to make in my comment in another thread. Defenders of evolution frequently invoke methodological naturalism to say that creationism in particular, and the supernatural in general, cannot be analyzed by the scientific method. That cuts both ways. If someone says "I think a supernatural God exists", a scientist cannot reply "No it doesn't". All they can do is to say "Science has no way of addressing your claim". To say "There is no scientific evidence for a supernatural God" is simply missing the point.

There are plenty of people who are happy to incorporate every new scientific discovery (including evolution) into their world view, but nevertheless have faith in a supernatural being. More often than not, that faith is important and comforting to them. Those people may find creationism deeply offensive or embarassing, but they will probably also resent the hell out of Dawkins telling them that they are idiots. If I had that sort of religious faith, I know I would. Dawkins is perfectly entitled to call them idiots, but to claim he has scientific justification for his view is wrong-headed.

#56534: — 01/05  at  07:09 PM
For the Pharyngula Britpack, I'll just mention that Dawkins is presenting a show arguing for atheism on Channel 4 this Monday at 20.00, "Who is this God Person, Anyway?" "The Root of All Evil".

#56540: Ian Gibson — 01/05  at  08:02 PM
What annoys me most is that being religious is the default position - it's expected everyone will have at least some kind of religion; most Christians (i.e. most people in the USA) seem to respect even Scientologists, New Agers, etc. more than atheists - after all, they at least believe in something..

I have never been religious in my life, and yet I still feel pretty uncomfortably admitting (that's the word for it - a dirty secret!) to not being religious. I couldn't imagine mentioning it at a job interview, for example. Claiming to have been abducted by aliens would be much less risky - more people can identify with that.

Given this, it's more than a little ironic that we have all these Christian fundamentalists whining about the 'attack on Christianity' (i.e. Christianity not being specifically favoured by the state) and how they're an oppressed minority!

Reminds me of the story Bertrand Russell told about when he was sent to jail for anti-First-World-War propaganda. The guard who checked him in asked his religion. He answered 'agnostic', and the guard said 'that's a new one on me - but I suppose they all worship the same God.'.

#56541: Ian Gibson — 01/05  at  08:16 PM
P.S. In response to Andy Groves:

'many people's religious faith doesn't really clash with investigations of the natural world.'

It does if they claim that a God or gods created man in his own image, for instance. We can now emphatically state that this is not the case. This is the point that Creationists have grasped that more 'mainstream' Christians have not: if evolutionary theory as presently understood is true, then even the most liberal, metaphorical interpretation of the creation stories of the great monotheistic religions cannot be true.

By following where science leads, you end up having to dilute the Bible/Koran so much that you don't really accept any of it any more; only doublethink can solve that little issue.

#56542: — 01/05  at  08:21 PM
"That cuts both ways."

No, it doesn't.

It has been argued elsewhere here that you can't phrase the question meaningfully within science and/or get high enough confidence to exclude weak positive answers in real test series, for example on effects of prayer.

I don't find these arguments decisive.

The question has been put in many different ways and all answers, noncontrolled and nonplanned as they are, have been negative for thousands of years. There is problems to clump together different tests in a sort of metaanalysis, but I must conclude that the aggregated answer is negative, since there is absolutely no signal and the negative answer is so easily falsified.

So I would say that it is a scientific fact that all theories that gods exist are false. We have no observations of any of the effects purported gods would have. It could obviously be much better tested, but we don't bother to test for other stuff without having any evidence of phenomena whatsoever, so why bother here?

Of course, if someone come up with an observation of such effects that fact would be contradicted immediately. Fat chance.

#56548: — 01/05  at  08:39 PM
Dawkins is FAR too kind to religious knuckleheads.

I don't care if we DO represent science, Evo or pet dogs... call a spade a spade. Why beat around the bush? I believe that anyone that believes in fairys, elvs,Elvis, Mohamed, or the Christian God can not be believed or trusted to be rational.

This is 2006! We don't sit around our caves anymore worried that the gods are angry with us... or do we?

Any and all religious out there...Please get a clue or a fact checker.

#56549: — 01/05  at  08:39 PM

Greg Peterson: E.O. Wilson, in one of essays that accompanies the collection of Darwin's works that he edited, states that Darwin's loss of faith enabled him to formulate the theory of evolution; it was not that his nascent theory caused him to lose his faith.

I don't have a biography of Darwin to hand, but my recollection is that he lost his faith (iirc, when his father expressed religious doubts shortly before dying & Christians assured Charles that his father was burning in hell forever) after formulating the concept of natural selection.

#56553: — 01/05  at  08:51 PM
Dawkins is science's Ralph Nader. He's knowledgeable, passionate, and speaks his mind without worrying about how it plays in Peoria. All rationalists, in their hearts, want to "vote" for him. But, just like with voting for Nader, this brings up the sticky issue of losing the center (as Jason argued).

Dawkins knows it, too: "the sort of language that I’m using,” is “tactically unwise.” (unless that was a bad paraphrase from interviewer).

Consider this incendiary Dawkins quote:

"I think that scientists who say they are Catholics or Jews or Muslims owe it to us to say how they reconcile this with the sort of petty, cheap, parochial, niggling religion which goes with those titles."

Rephrase that as "Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are petty, cheap, niggling, and parochial". Do such barbs undermine rationalist agendas in an Abrahamic-religion marinated U.S.? One could imagine it might.

Tactics should be an open topic for discussion.

#56554: — 01/05  at  08:56 PM
Thanks for the heads up, NelC.

#56582: logopetria — 01/06  at  03:14 AM
Tastant:
"Tactics should be an open topic for discussion."

Exactly. There are two distinct subjects being discussed here -- a) to what extent are religious and spiritual beliefs incompatible with a scientific point of view? and b) what should we do to improve the public perception of science and reduce the grip of religion on the nation? Even if, with Prof. Myers, you believe the answer to a) is "They're utterly incompatible", the answer to b) doesn't follow immediately. Question a) is, essentially, a philosophical one; but b) is largely a tactical question, and needs to be addressed accordingly.

Think of it this way: if religious people are really all brainwashed, irrational and deluded, why should we think that we can convince them round to sanity just by plain rational argument and statements of testable fact? We've been trying that for centuries, and it doesn't seem to be having much effect. Similarly, when someone fears that space aliens are controlling his thoughts through a mind-ray, it's not much good just to say "Take off that tinfoil hat and stop acting crazy!"

Some of the commenters in this and previous threads (and I apologise in advance for any offence I cause) remind me of the naive kind of anti-capitalist campaigner, who thinks that by handing out flyers outside a McDonald's he's helping to bring down the system. I'm not drawing an analogy between belief in capitalism and belief in religion, of course. But the lack of tactical thinking by the campaigners, and the attitude -- that if you just keep putting the facts out there, people will eventually understand their error and join you -- seem quite similar.

#56585: — 01/06  at  03:34 AM
Except religious belief IS illusional and irrational and idiotic and ....

Unreasoning belief, and the believers.

The believers, in all the monotheistic religions, and even that religion-without-a-god, communism, seem to have common characteristics, as do those religions.
All seem to suggest that religion is a very bad idea, and that religions, and especially their believers, will do certain unpleasant things.
In order to combat this pernicious mind-rot, I’m proposing some falsifiable tests for religions, and some suggestions as to what rational people should do about it.


A set of testable Propositions


1. No “god” can be detected - OR - God is not detectable
2. All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.
3.All religions have been made by men.
4.Prayer has no effect on third parties.
5.All religions kill, or enslave, or torture.


Try that for size, please?

#56587: — 01/06  at  03:54 AM
I think we benefit the cause of science education by standing up for free thought. It's useful to counter the general impression that "everyone believes in God" and "atheists are bad, scary people" by providing counter-examples.

Science and scientists are held in high esteem by the American public, by and large, and having a certain number of them stand up and say "evolution is science, creationism is religion, and, by the way, I'm not religious" will promote tolerance for freedom and also emphasize the distinction between science and religion, the very question at issue.

We're not trying to persuade everybody, only those who actually think education in science is a good idea.