#34290: Michael — 08/08  at  12:46 PM
I'm afraid Mr. Gayle is a little over-the-top, in my estimation: especially in that last sentence you quoted, PZ. And I would encourage him, and others of like mind, to remember that the classes "People whose faith requires them to disregard facts" and "People of faith" are not coextensive. The former class is much smaller than the latter, and those of us in the latter are more than a little tired of being tarred with the same brush as those in the former.

#34299: — 08/08  at  01:54 PM
It may have been "the right thing to do" to correct (some of) Gayle's typos & spellos before quoting his text, but I suspect he was trying to describe "these people" as "a strain of humanity that will always be with us."

#34304: Matthew Goggins — 08/08  at  02:37 PM
Secularism is a great thing.

Referring to religious people as "a waste of humanity" is not a great thing.

Quoting someone who refers to religious people as "a waste of humanity" -- and holding his words up as an example plain-spoken common sense -- is a mistake.

Religious people who have difficulty reconciling their worldviews with science should not be scorned or condescended to. Everyone has beliefs that can be mocked, and religious beliefs often contain nuggets of wisdom that non-religious folks can sometimes overlook.

Let he who is perfectly rational and never in error cast the first stone, sir.

#34305: PZ Myers — 08/08  at  02:43 PM
Hmm. So when someone mentions "Anyone who choses to believe the multiply-translated words of a document whose provenance is not wholy known while ignoring the facts of the world", you automatically assume that they are referring to all religious people?

Interesting.

#34306: — 08/08  at  02:47 PM

Religious people who have difficulty reconciling their worldviews with science should not be scorned or condescended to.

Why not? And what is the appropriate treatment for them?

I would suggest that election to the most powerful office in the land is not appropriate treatment.

#34307: — 08/08  at  03:03 PM
"Referring to religious people as "a waste of humanity" is not a great thing."

But if you read what is plainly written above, you will see that neither PZ nor Gayle have said that.

"Anyone who choses to believe the multiply-translated words of a document whose provenance is not wholy known while ignoring the facts of the world we live in is a waste of humanity." (emphasis mine)

Both are clearly saying that people who use faith as an excuse to ignore the factually obvious are wasting their intellect. Not that all religious people act in such a way.

Rational religious people who are tired of fundamentalist types being singled out as representative of religion as a whole should really be doing more to make sure these people aren't being held up as spokespeople for all of christendon (as they currently are).

If these people embarass you (and they should), then you should be doing the work to correct them, or make sure they are seen as a minority viewpoint within your faith. As it stands, "religious people who have difficulty reconciling their worldviews with science" are not just average churchgoers trying to work out a personal conundrum--They are the people in charge of our government and our national discourse. They are the talking-head pastors who claim to speak for all christians when they show up almost nightly on TV to stump for ID. And they have most definately "reconciled their worldviews" and come down decidedly on the side of ignorance, and are trying their hardest to make sure that no other voice will be heard.

And since I don't hear what is supposed to be an overwhelming majority of rational christians speaking out against this, I must assume that you are the ones who allowed these people to gain power, at least by your acquiescence. So it falls to us secular folks to work against this trend. If you'd like to be the ones to shut these people down, be our guest. We have better things to do.

#34308: — 08/08  at  03:14 PM
"... religious beliefs often contain nuggets of wisdom that non-religious folks can sometimes overlook."

Can you provide us with a concrete example?

#34320: Matthew Goggins — 08/08  at  04:22 PM
PZMyers,

Clarification:

Not all people who are religious are also people who have difficulty reconciling science with their worldview.

When I said, "Referring to religious people as "a waste of humanity" is not a great thing", I was referring to the subset of religious people who do have difficulty reconciling science with their worldview. I don't know how many people that would be, but I've seen opinion surveys that indicate it could be many tens of millions of Americans. That number would also correspond to my own personal experience with religious people.

Sorry for any confusion.


Bayesian Bouffant,

Nice tag!

Scorn and condenscension are powerful weapons that should be held in reserve for use against people who truly deserve to be admonished. Being religious is not always a bad thing, and someone who is religious did not necessarily choose to be religious in the first place.

A more appropriate response to religious problems with science is often to engage in respectful debate. Part of showing respect is to understand that we can often learn a lot from people who disagree with us, and that it is therefore very important to listen carefully and appreciatively to what others tell us.

About George Bush, I disagree with him about stem cell research and a few other things, but I think he's a great president. I have no big problem with his being a born-again Christian.


Mothworm,

Accusing people of wasting their intellect is better than calling them a waste of humanity, but you are still painting with way too broad a brush.

There are plenty (millions and millions) of religious people who have trouble reconciling their religion with science, and there is no good reason to puff oneself up by putting them down.

Everyone has difficulties finding and maintaining a philosophy a life. It's a very challenging project for religious and non-religious people alike. We should be busy helping each other out, and not creating unnecessary negative energy.

We should counter ignorance not just with knowledge, but with humility as well.

You seem to have gotten the impression that I might be a "rational religious" person, as opposed to a presumably less than fully rational religious fundamentalist. Well, I know plenty of very rational religious fundamentalists. I myself, however am a naturalistic materialist, a thorough-going atheist.

One last point, Mothworm.

I said, "Referring to religious people as 'a waste of humanity' is not a great thing." You deny that Gayle said that, and technically you are correct: Gayle was only referring to some religious people, not all.

But that is a distinction without much of a difference. Religious beliefs come into conflict with scientific knowledge on a regular basis -- few religious people are truly entirely comfortable with every last bit of science out there.

For example, even a brilliant scientist like Albert Einstein had a very tough time reconciling the theories of quantum mechanics with his belief in a deist God.


Torbjorn,

Religious people are often suspicious of very radical types who demand sweeping changes in some tradition or other. And quite often, they are correct.

And sometimes the natural religious inclination for tradition and traditional morality can lead to very dramatic positive outcomes. For example, the Soviet-imposed government of Poland was successfully toppled by an alliance between the labor group Solidarity and the Roman Catholic church.

Perhaps you yourself have learned something important from a religious person, or admired something in their character. It's been known to happen sometimes! All I'm saying is that everyone's perspective is worthwhile, even if it seems to contradict what you or I believe.

#34324: ekzept — 08/08  at  04:34 PM
yeah, indeed, "nuggets of wisdom" such as this charming passage:

They took the field against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and slew every male. ... The Israelites took the women and children of the Midianites captive, and seized as booty all their beasts, all their herds, and all their wealth. ... Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the chieftains of the community came out to meet them outside the camp. Moses became angry with the commanders of the army, the officers of thousands, and the officers of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign. Moses said to them, "You have spared every female! Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so that the LORD's community was struck by the plague. Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally; but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man."

(Torah, Numbers 31, in and out from 7-18)

#34331: Cameron — 08/08  at  05:01 PM
Presumably, ekzept, the nuggets of wisdom would be included in the complement of your example.

Really, that was apallingly juvenile.

#34339: ekzept — 08/08  at  05:24 PM

Really, that was apallingly juvenile.

why, thank you, Cameron, i'll accept any claim that i'm youthful, and the impression i'm inexperienced.

but that's exactly what bugs me to no end. people want to claim this is the "revealed Word of God" and, certainly in the context of Genesis, must be interpreted literally or close to literally or, there's at least gotta be a God in there SOMEPLACE, but they want to pick and choose the rest.

who the heck says Numbers 31:7-18 isn't a "nuggest of wisdom"? how exactly do you go about proving it? that's my point. you can't.

if, in fact, someone goes on a campaign of saying "thus-and-so cannot be correct because it's contradicted by such-and-so a passage of Bible", how are they to be refuted? that's my point. you can't.

and if some mass-murdering criminal with a bomb wants to justify their actions based upon a Religious Text, heck, it could be Koran, or it could be Numbers 31:7-18.

call it juvenile if you want. it's simply real. and it does no more, indeed, far better than IDers do to quotes from scientists. at least Numbers 31:7-18 is a complete in-context quote. if all the Bible is to be revelation of the word of God, lends a new meaning to "love your neighbor", don't it?

#34340: — 08/08  at  05:25 PM
To All:

Writing late at night may be great for passion but not for spell-checking. I think I got most of them fixed.

As for the current discussion, the immediate cause for the quote by PZ was the excerpt from a Christian group that believes in geocentrism because the Bible says so. That was the actual group whose ignorance was truly a waste.

But they are just an extreme example of the same sort of disregard and low esteem many people hold for the facts of science. Their world-view, whether for religious or for political reasons, often prevents them from accurately comprehending the world around them. I used to feel sorry for their lack of comprehension. Now I just feel anger.

Maybe I was a little hyperbolic in my comment but I am so tired of having to explain the natural world (something I actually love to do) to people who refuse to listen. As Clarence Darrow said: "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding." I refuse to stand by meekly while the feeding goes on.

#34358: Cameron — 08/08  at  06:32 PM
Ekzept, if you're talking to someone who claims that Bible is the revealed word of God who doesn't also note--at the very least--that it was revealed through human beings, your approach may be relevant. But there many believers who would not make that claim. Keep in mind that biblical literalism is a relatively new, Protestant and peculiarly American invention.

You wrote, "who the heck says Numbers 31:7-18 isn't a 'nuggest of wisdom?'" how exactly do you go about proving it? that's my point. you can't." In general, a consensus among readers decides. Most people are not foolish enough to think that the Bible can be read without interpretation, and with interpretation comes the biases and values of the people and time do it. No serious person claims that the Bible doesn't have contradictions--but no serious denies that the Bible was written by many hands over thousands of years. And no one who's read the New Testament would think that every bit of the Old Testament is still in play as a moral document.

#34371: — 08/08  at  07:04 PM
Matthew, thank you for your comments. I'm sorry if I misidentified your affiliation. I'm an atheist as well. When you said "'People whose faith requires them to disregard facts' and 'People of faith' are not coextensive. The former class is much smaller than the latter, and those of us in the latter are more than a little tired of being tarred with the same brush as those in the former", I assumed you were counting yourself as a "person of faith".

I would agree that not all religious people have problems with science or reason. That, in fact, was the distinction I was trying to point out in the OP.

But then it seems like you say exactly the opposite when you say:

I said, "Referring to religious people as 'a waste of humanity' is not a great thing." You deny that Gayle said that, and technically you are correct: Gayle was only referring to some religious people, not all.

But that is a distinction without much of a difference. Religious beliefs come into conflict with scientific knowledge on a regular basis -- few religious people are truly entirely comfortable with every last bit of science out there.

Either people who can't accept science are a small subset of religious people, or they are not. First you said that Gayle disparaged all religious people by referring to the ones who couldn't accept reality-by not making the distinction between the religious and the fundamentalist-and then you say there is no distinction.

I do agree that we should be helping out people who have an inadequate understanding of science. If only there were some place we could send children to expose them to these ideas. Some sort of progressive, hierarchical system of imparting the collected knowledge of the ages. Oh wait! There is! It's the public school system! And the people who "have a hard time reconciling their faith and science" are working really hard to dismantle and obfuscate it!

I do not believe that religious people are bad, though, like PZ, I do think that all religion is bad. That said, if people choose to be religious, I'm not going to try and stop them. In return, I would appreciate it if they wouldn't try to stop me from learning or teaching about things that make them "uncomfortable". Some people may not choose to be born into religion, but once they're adults, they can choose whether to stick with it and how to behave. I wasn't born into atheism. It was a conscious decision after examining the evidence.

"About George Bush, I disagree with him about stem cell research and a few other things, but I think he's a great president. I have no big problem with his being a born-again Christian."

Well, I can't agree with that one. Worst. President. Ever. Though I don't base that on the fact that he's a christian. Pretty much every president we've ever had was (try gettting elected if you're an admitted atheist, then see if there's a "religious test" for public office).

"All I'm saying is that everyone's perspective is worthwhile, even if it seems to contradict what you or I believe."

Sure, but as someone said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". That's when we start getting into the trouble we're seeing here.

#34373: ekzept — 08/08  at  07:10 PM

if you're talking to someone who claims that Bible is the revealed word of God who doesn't also note--at the very least--that it was revealed through human beings, your approach may be relevant. But there many believers who would not make that claim. Keep in mind that biblical literalism is a relatively new, Protestant and peculiarly American invention.

And no one who's read the New Testament would think that every bit of the Old Testament is still in play as a moral document.

there's an incredibly wide spectrum of implication of "revealed through human beings", most of which is not accepted by any of those who believe in it. it can run from minimal corruption to wholesale documentation centuries after the fact, with corresponding flexibility about the meaning of the original text.

i personally doubt biblical literalism is an American invention. there were Jewish sects who believed in it well before there was any kind of Europe.

the trouble with New Testament revisionism on the Old is that its own pronouncements might be turned "wrong" way up by a hypothetical future "New New Testament". by What Authority does the New Testament or that hypothetical obtain its dominance? through its own writings?

no matter, we already know New Testament has problems, having been written, as you say, "through human beings", including an anachronistic depiction of Jewish authorities during the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate, a failure to faithfully capture the views of James, Jesus' brother, a compulsion to present four inconsistent views of a self-important history, a downtoning of the political meaning of That Someone being crucified, apparently to appease Roman authorities at the time of publication, and a portrait of Pilate which can only raise eyebrows. (a "tougher than thou" governor really going weak in the knees because of either a threatening rabble crowd or a random pretender to Messiah-dom and throwing his career away?)

and, surely, we can find similar moral weaknesses in this New improved Testament, as well as inconsistencies with the Old in which it is inferior, like its take on lesbians. there was no prohibition on lesbianism explicitly anywhere in Old Testament tradition. it is there only by inference.

#34381: Michael — 08/08  at  07:29 PM
Matthew, thank you for your comments. I'm sorry if I misidentified your affiliation. I'm an atheist as well. When you said "'People whose faith requires them to disregard facts' and 'People of faith' are not coextensive. The former class is much smaller than the latter, and those of us in the latter are more than a little tired of being tarred with the same brush as those in the former", I assumed you were counting yourself as a "person of faith".

Mothworm--

That quotation was mine, not Matthew's. I am a person of faith, but not of the fundagelical variety. I can't speak to Matthew's situation.

#34419: Matthew Goggins — 08/08  at  11:01 PM
Mothworm,

Thank you for your comments.


First you said that Gayle disparaged all religious people by referring to the ones who couldn't accept reality-by not making the distinction between the religious and the fundamentalist-and then you say there is no distinction.

There is a distinction, but it's more a distinction of degree than a qualitative difference. That is to say, I think the vast majority of religious have at least some small difficulty reconciling science with their religious beliefs. And the degree of difficulty people have in reconciling the two domains runs the whole gamut from no difficulty whatsoever to total denial of scientific facts and theories.

But my point was not that Gayle was insulting religious people by assuming they had problems accepting science. My point was that it's not good to look down on religious people even if they have problems accepting science.

And why is that? Because most people, religious or not, have problems accepting a lot of things, and it's unfair to single out those people who have trouble with science in particular.


I do not believe that religious people are bad, though, like PZ, I do think that all religion is bad.

While I can definitely understand why you might think all religion is bad, I cannot unreservedly agree with that sentiment.

First of all, there are billions of religious people in the world, and it is impossible to make broad generalizations about all their religions and all their beliefs.

Second, religion, like most things, is a mix of the good and the bad. Saying all religion is bad is like saying all government is bad, or all weblogs are bad, or all restaurants are bad: each of these claims may be true in some sense, but so what?

Third, people have a inalienable right to do bad things. The first step in persuading them to abandon foolish or outmoded habits is to accept that they have the right to have them in the first place, and may even have excellent reasons for holding on to them.

After all, who appointed you or me to be a good-thinking monitor for the human race?

If we are to make a difference in making the world a better place, we cannot get very far with arrogant posturing and assertions of intellectual superiority. We need to engage other people as equals, as partners in the journey to establishing the truth and the right.

For example, I'm not sure you realize how dismissive it sounds for you to say, even casually, that you "do
not believe all religious people are bad." Well, la di dah!
I'm sure "all religious people" are truly grateful for such a big-hearted concession on your part!

I don't want to be harsh on you, cause you sound like a good person. But I do want to get my point across: non-religious people are not better (or worse) than religious people. If anyone thinks otherwise, then he's judging people unfairly; in short, he's being a bigot.



Well, I can't agree with that one. Worst. President. Ever.

Well, different strokes for different folks. I definitely respect your opinion.

If you're interested in why I disagree, you can check out this post I wrote a few months ago.


Thanks again for your reply. I agree with you that facts are more important than opinions, and I hope you don't find my opinions too offensive.

Cheers!

#34422: Matthew Goggins — 08/08  at  11:32 PM
Richard Gayle,

Thank you for your comments.

I am tempted to register my gratitude and leave it at that, but I do want to make a few points, so here goes.


Maybe I was a little hyperbolic in my comment but I am so tired of having to explain the natural world (something I actually love to do) to people who refuse to listen. As Clarence Darrow said: "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding." I refuse to stand by meekly while the feeding goes on.

You called folks who are wilfully ignorant of basic science a "waste of humanity". Such rhetoric might well be indulged and forgiven as a little dramatic, or a little overheated. But I can't agree that it's only "a little hyperbolic" -- it's actually diametrically opposed to the truth, as hyperbolic as it gets. But your willingness to concede that it is in fact hyperbolic is duly noted, so let's move on.

About ignorance and fanaticism and all that: Are only religious people guilty of these sins, or can the secular and the non-religious fall into the traps of fanaticism and arrogant ignorance? This is not a rhetorical question -- I'd like to know your thoughts about it.


... a Christian group ... believes in geocentrism because the Bible says so.

[ .. ]

Their world-view, whether for religious or for political reasons, often prevents them from accurately comprehending the world around them. I used to feel sorry for their lack of comprehension. Now I just feel anger.

I try not to let other people's beliefs get me angry. If I get tired trying to explain my point of view, then I just don't bother continuing to do so.

I certainly understand your frustration, though.

But you know, if it's not geocentrism, it's creationism. If it's not creationism, it's Intelligent Design theory. If it's not some scientific matter, then it's some hot-buttion political controversy. Life is way too short to let ignorance give you agita every time it raises its provocative head.

And you know, the earth does seem to stand still after all. It's not like the earth's zooming through space in its orbit around the sun is such an obvious fact to someone who knows nothing about astronomy and physics. There are plenty of things you and I don't know or believe that will seem as obvious as geocentrism to people living 500 years from now, so maybe you can find it in yourself to be tolerant of those who place too much faith in the Bible.

Like I said before, let he who is perfectly rational cast the first stone.


Thanks again!

#34499: — 08/09  at  11:24 AM
Matthew:

"And sometimes the natural religious inclination for tradition and traditional morality can lead to very dramatic positive outcomes. For example, the Soviet-imposed government of Poland was successfully toppled by an alliance between the labor group Solidarity and the Roman Catholic church."

This is not an example of any specific wisdom nor of wisdom that the non-religious party overlooked, quite the contrary.

Apparently your sweeping statement was wrong. And that would not be surprising since religions assimilates earlier thoughts. There would be no particular wisdoms that religions have privilege to.

#34509: SweettP2063 — 08/09  at  11:49 AM
Interesting discussion above.....

Where is the next JFK? To rid ourselves of the wrongwing bible thumping crowd we need a leader to say basically the same thing in the JFK link.

Unfortunately--no one has the huevos.

#34545: — 08/09  at  02:34 PM
It is refreshing to find a theist who understands the value of separation of church and state:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050809/cm_usatoday/areligiousmannotrightnotleft;_ylt=AiAhLRJ7LQW.XFMc4.CP7_as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

By DeWayne Wickham
Tue Aug 9, 6:52 AM ET

It is Jakes' super-pastor standing that makes his answer to the question so important. "I don't think we are a Christian nation," he said. "And I don't think we were meant to be."
...
Jakes, on the other hand, sees a clear distinction between his ministry and the role of the ministers of this nation's government. "As we continue to try to politicize God, or market God, or say that America is Christian, or that God is with one (political) party, or that God is here and not there, it only further points to the fact that we don't understand how big God is - and how great God is," he said.