PZ Myers. 2006 Jan 03. In praise of godless science. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/in_praise_of_godless_science/>. Accessed 2008 Sep 05.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, January 03, 2006
In praise of godless science
I'm flattered that John Rennie puts me in the same paragraph with Richard Dawkins (and Andrew Brown has me going toe-to-toe with a dead mystery writer—I'm battling the godly everywhere), but while I agree in part with what he's saying, there's also a theme that I have often found troubling and self-destructive.
Just to further clarify, I'm absolutely not arguing for a strategic moratorium on anti-religious arguments. Some critics have suggested that outspokenly atheistic evolution advocates such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers should censor themselves for the greater good. I disagree: the scientific community encompasses many points of view and there is no reason to hide that fact. At the same time, let's not play into the hands of the creationists by unintentionally sending the message that science is automatically derisive of religion.
It is entirely correct that the scientific community is full of Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and agnostics and atheists, and I think that's reasonable and fair—we're even pleased to point out to the creationists that many of our leading lights have been and are religious (Dobzhansky, Ayala, Miller, Collins: it isn't at all difficult to find people who can do both good science and follow a religion in their private life). It is self-evident that scientists are not necessarily derisive of religion, and also that science as an abstract concept can't be derisive at all. However, I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion—personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences—and that people can encompass both clashing ideas is nothing but a testimony to the flexibility of the human mind, which has no problem partitioning and embracing many contradictions. There are also many scientists who are capable of suspending disbelief and reading fantasy novels with pleasure; that doesn't mean that magic is a valid way of manipulating the world.
I really think we (not me, of course, but the general "we" of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It's not. The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity. While individuals may be happy to sheathe that knife during the church service, filling the pews with ranks of critical individuals while preaching absurdities is a risky business. Why do you think I can't go to church? It's because I'm sitting there with a demanding and hair-trigger critical faculty, thinking "baloney!" at almost every platitude from the preacher, struggling against the urge to stand up and shout "Show me the evidence!" at the pulpit. Even if I keep that urge in control, it's not a comfortable time. The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA "insane") sects.
We are being disingenuous when we claim science is compatible with religion. It's compatible with a kind of thoughtful religion that consciously sets itself aside as dealing solely with a metaphysical domain, not the world; it encourages the apostasy of deism and agnosticism, and can easily lead people into the path of atheism. It's far more compatible with freethought than the kinds of religions our opponents, the creationists, hold. It does not mollify that family of Southern Baptists to explain that a college education is likely to allow their kids to emerge still Christian, but critical of fundamentalism, and more impressed with the testimony of rocks than the list of begats in Genesis.
So what we get is a common strain of chronic avoidance of the issue among the pro-evolution crowd. We put up a façade that ignores two important things: 1) the majority of scientists are deists, agnostics, and atheists, who want to promote greater science literacy and rational thinking (but not, explicitly, freethought—that's only a common aftereffect) and 2) the creationists aren't stupid about social issues, and can see right through it—and they are well aware that compromise erodes religion, not vice versa. It's analogous to the way the Intelligent Design creationists pretend to be scientists with no religious motivations*, which is similarly false and transparent.
I do not think that we should marginalize the opinions of scientists who are also religious—far from it, I think it is a good idea to have them there to show that you can do good science while holding some unscientific ideas. However, I also think we ought to do a better job of similarly promoting atheist scientists, not instead of but as a complement to those more socially acceptable theists. Science should be seen as a muscular endeavor, and hiding our fiercest and most fearless advocates behind the scenes is a waste of potential and gives the impression that we're timid and ashamed of many of our best and brightest.
Case in point: Richard Dawkins. How often have you heard the phrase, "I love Dawkins' books, but…" followed by excuses that he's too arrogant, he's too hard on the religious, he's a militant atheist? Here in the US at least, you'll often see Ken Miller the Catholic biologist trotted out as the man to emulate, the unintimidating figure of a scientist with something in common with the ordinary guy on the street (unfairly, too, I think—he ought to be praised as a biologist, a lucid writer, a great speaker, not because of his one failing: he's religious), but you'll never see Dawkins brought up in the same way. He's "far too fierce", as if that were a shortcoming.
It's a strength. Creationists hate the guy because he doesn't just stand against one ludicrous symptom of their belief system, he goes straight to the root with scathing rhetoric against the whole monumental pile of rickety confabulations. Look at how they react to him:
The Christian CourierAlbert MohlerProfessor Dawkins is not just an atheist. He is a swaggering atheist. He hates religion with a passion and never misses an opportunity to level a blast at those who profess devotion to the Supreme Being.
Robert FulfordAs a militant atheist, Dawkins is living out the inevitable consequences of the Darwinian worldview. The evolutionary perspective is left with the universe as nothing more than a silent box empty of all meaning, intention, and design. Everything within the box must be explained in terms of purely naturalistic materials and processes. The cosmos and everything within it is nothing more than a marvelous--if often malevolent--accident of nature.
Gregg EasterbrookHe won't mute his views of religion to avoid hurting the feelings of believers, as some scientists do. He lost any respect he had for that practice in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, "when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."
Michael NovakDon't take this personally, but if you are an American adult there is a one in two chance that Richard Dawkins, a renowned professor of science at Oxford, thinks you are "ignorant, stupid or insane," unless you are "wicked." These are the adjectives Dawkins chooses to describe the roughly 100 million Americans adults who, if public opinion polls are right, believe Homo sapiens was created directly by God, rather than gradually by evolution. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Not much to choose from there!
Christian Courier…Dawkins in his apoplexy can find no place for believing Jews and Christians except delusion. He thinks of atheism as a place of honor and of religion as a disease; teaching of the latter, a crime; teaching of the former, a way of light, knowledge, and truth.
Richard Dawkins is a professor of zoology at Oxford University. He describes himself as "a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion". According to Dawkins, "religion is very largely an enemy of truth". He characterizes the idea that man was created by God as "blasphemy," and insists that "we [atheists] have to fight against" this ideology.
The fact is – it is he, along with those of his anti-intellectual ilk, who are the real enemies of truth, and the adversaries of common sense.
Now, really, how can you but admire someone who gets such press from such execrable sources?
When creationists carp at the uncompromising atheism of people like Dawkins, let's not pander to them and thereby validate their complaints by offering up some more palatable Christian proxy, but instead stand up for them. Yes, he's a forthright atheist…and so was John Maynard Smith and Ernst Mayr and Francis Crick and many, many others. We like them. Have you got a problem with that?
Some people already have the right idea. Jerry Coyne reviewed A Devil's Chaplain : Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and thought that ferocious atheism was admirable.
"Modern theists," writes Dawkins, "might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." But Dawkins goes beyond a mere defence of atheism. He also subscribes to the American writer H. L. Mencken's dictum that: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." Why, asks Dawkins, should the public give religious arguments any more credibility than arguments for other brands of nonscientific 'truth'? Curiously, Dawkins does not explore why religious ideas get undue respect. Surely one reason is that arguing about religion (especially when one participant is an atheist) is unproductive, likely to produce only mutual dislike. No rapprochement is possible between those whose beliefs derive from evidence and those whose beliefs either do not depend on evidence or are unshaken by contrary evidence. This is why science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world.
Dawkins' critique of religion rests on three points. First, because different faiths make very different claims about the world, they cannot all be true; and none of the claims (such as the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven) can be scientifically verified. Second, the choice among faiths is not based on rational consideration: the vast majority of people simply practice the religion of their parents. This is especially galling to Dawkins, who sees the easy indoctrination of children as a product of natural selection favouring the rapid spread of information between generations. Finally, Dawkins considers religions to be vehicles of evil because they facilitate the labelling of people as either 'us' or 'them', fostering xenophobia and its attendant horrors — Northern Ireland and the Middle East come to mind.
These views are summarized in a wonderfully passionate essay, "Time To Stand Up", written shortly after 11 September, 2001. One excerpt: "To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real-world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons, and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic."
Lest you think it's just because he's a fellow evolutionary biologist (we're almost all godless heathens, you know), Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh reviewed the same book, and had this to say.
So the real object of Dawkins's grand Darwinian wrath is not the small person, who comforts herself against the cold winds of reality with the threadbare blanket of religion and the placebos of phony medicine, it is the powerful institutions that exploit her understandable human frailty and give her the stones of illusion instead of the bread of truth.
We have to define Dawkins, therefore, as a moral crusader, a prophet of science as a better way of understanding ourselves than the delusions of religion, whether orthodox or new age. And it is a tragic vision he offers us. The goal of life is life itself. There is no final purpose, no end other than entropy and the end of all endings. But there is deep refreshment to be had "from standing up full-face into the keen wind of understanding". As a recovering Christian, I want to say amen to that…
That's a lovely way to put it, and I agree entirely with it. Unfortunately, people are petty about some things, and when they see someone else throw away their blankie and stride out to face reality, they take it as a personal rebuke, and every suggestion to others that they come out into the light is regarded as an insult to their hidey-hole, their much beloved little binkie. That's too bad, but I don't think the right answer is to reassure everyone that it's OK to huddle away, or that their threadbare blanket is a splendid and precious thing. We shouldn't snatch it away, but sorry, everyone, let's be honest: it's a crutch, a waste of time, a shroud that prevents you from seeing a real and terrible beauty. The real heroes of science are the ones who shed old superstitions and confront a harsh and callous universe without comforting, misleading fables.
Time to stand up.
*I have to make an incredibly charitable concession. I think one of the reasons the creationists push the ID strategy is that they recognize that religious ideas about our origins are currently mired in a ghetto of ignorance—that most creationists believe because they are slaves to dogma. ID is an attempt to provide an intellectually respectable framework within which god-belief can flourish without doing the equivalent of a lobotomy on its proponents, and at least that goal is admirable. It fails because they face the intractable problem of inventing evidence out of a vacuum, and because its leaders aren't very bright. They are cruising along on the brute-force propellant of ideology rather than science, against the thrust of the evidence.
Coyne JA (2003) Gould and God. Nature 422:813-814.
Posted by PZ Myers on 01/03 at 05:34 PM
Godlessness • Science • 2 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Godlessness • Science • 2 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
When is the last time you read of someone on the other side being criticised, in the mainstream media, for using science to tout their religious philosophical view? Certainly many have done so (e.g. Townes, Polkinghorne) and their arguments hold up not nearly so well as Dawkins'. You won't see them taken down a peg for it though, except at places like Pharyngula.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 04:53 PM
-
Incidentally, has anyone EVER heard a Fundamentalist Christian suggest that Christians temper their habitual atheist bashing? Given the massive prejudice against atheists in America, why are we the ones who should be nice and not offend?
I'm still waiting for an apology from George H.W. Bush for his incredibly bigoted piece of atheist bashing in 1988.#: Posted by Gerard Harbison on 01/03 at 04:57 PM -
I'm still waiting for an apology from George H.W. Bush for his incredibly bigoted piece of atheist bashing in 1988.
I hope there's some serious longevity in your family.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:22 PM -
Dr. Myers, excellent piece. I agree with your sense of it.
The only reason the "Dawkins hider" types could have the right tack is--and this is almost conspiracy theory thinking--if they have sat down and thought about the optimal strategy for fomenting a more rational world, and somehow know that it is better to not call a spade a spade, to muffle Dawkins or other straight-shooters, in service of some greater good for society.
But how can anyone know the optimal tack? At least your approach (or Dawkins's) is open, transparent, all cards on the table.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:26 PM -
I once had to employ that " I like Dawkins, but his rhetoric is a little harsh" line. I've got an excuse, though. I'd just started a job in rural North Carolina, and a co-worker spotted me with a copy of Ancestor's Tale, so I wanted to take the edge off any potential confrontation. I was relieved to find out that she was a rational, irreligious lefty, too.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:28 PM
-
Well said, PZ.
For my own part, I simply find Dawkins' writings about religion either obvious or not particularly clever so I am not inclined to invoke his writings when I write about creatoinists and the like.
But creationists love to bring him (or Dennett) up as if he is the Elected Spokesperson for Scientists which is utterly false, regardless of how robust or well-considered his views are.
I haven't heard Dawkins speak publicly so i can't attest to his abilities in, say, a "debate" context.
But Miller does a bang-up job debunking creationism (sometimes he's too generous to his opponents, I think, but other times I think he is strategically employing backhanded compliments) even if he doesn't press the "science versus religion" button.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:41 PM -
But Mr. Easterbrook, ignorant is the charitable description of Americans who don't believe we evolved! Dawkins was offering them a nice, easy out!
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 01/03 at 05:43 PM
-
PZ
"We shouldn't snatch it away, but sorry, everyone, let's be honest: it's a crutch, a waste of time, a shroud that prevents you from seeing a real and terrible beauty."
Preach it, brother! ;)
For the same reason, I advocate at least one decent acid trip for every healthy person above age 16. Acid is to scientific reality what scientific reality is to religion.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:46 PM -
The truth that the religious dare not speak is that it is not just evolutionary biology that threatens their religious belief, it is all of science.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:53 PM
-
Wonderful piece PZ!
"the scientific community encompasses many points of view and there is no reason to hide that fact. At the same time, let's not play into the hands of the creationists by unintentionally sending the message that science is automatically derisive of religion."
The irony of those two statements is thick. It's the creationists who have always prattled out that tired old canard of "science being derisive of religion" not scientists and "we" fall for the emperors new clothes every time. "We" always play into their hands whenever "we" warn "ourselves" against upsetting the religious applecart – think about it. Why "we" continually fall for this rouse is beyond me? I tire of seeing otherwise intelligent people being lead around by the Religious Right's leash. I guess if there's no reason to hide the fact that some scientists are atheists, then why do you John Rennie and others continue to do so?
This is such a non-issue folks but it seems to haunt certain devout members of the scientific community to no end. Somehow the mere mention of it is supposed to legitimize it as a worrisome issue. It's not. As I've said many times before: Science doesn't care about your personal religious beliefs or the lack thereof. Get over it! Reconcile your religious insecurities on someone else's turf and time. -
Thanks for the great post again, Dr. Myers; you deserve to be mentioned along with Dawkins.
I was dismayed to see Gould refer to "non-overlapping magisteria" in his last (?) work. He had been a hero to me up until writing that apologia.
When Bush the First claimed that atheists should not even be considered citizens, that was a clear declaration of war. I have no problem taking their binkies away (or at least holding them up to the light).#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:58 PM -
It's true that there is a hideously prejudiced prevailing attitude about atheists in this country - they're seen as inherently immoral, soulless, baby-Jesus-hating freaks. But is the right response to be prejudiced back, to reply to the bigotry with our own moral superiority. I think that's really the message of PZ's conclusion:
That's too bad, but I don't think the right answer is to reassure everyone that it's OK to huddle away, or that their threadbare blanket is a splendid and precious thing. We shouldn't snatch it away, but sorry, everyone, let's be honest: it's a crutch, a waste of time, a shroud that prevents you from seeing a real and terrible beauty. The real heroes of science are the ones who shed old superstitions and confront a harsh and callous universe without comforting, misleading fables.
If I were a believer, this would be offensive to me, especially if I combined religiousity in my private consciousness with firm trust in the scientific method when it comes to questions about natural reality. It's especially damaging to those who believe in a separation of "church and science," who are of course under attack from the fundies, and now find themselves assailed as emotionally immature, intellectually dishonest wimps who can't live without their blankies. Why can't we not judge others' private beliefs and means of organizing their internal thought processes? If we accord respect to atheists, as we should, why can't we do likewise for the full spectrum of metaphysical opinions, so long as they do not contradict reality?#: Posted by on 01/03 at 05:59 PM - Hear hear, PZ. Innocent that I am, I tend to be a little surprised at the ready acceptance of the "we shouldn't tell people that science and religion are really in conflict, since people won't like it" idea. That may or may not be a good public-relations strategy. But it's not the truth; and I think that we should first figure out what the truth is, and only afterwards develop our PR strategy to best spread the truth.
-
"If we accord respect to atheists, as we should, why can't we do likewise for the full spectrum of metaphysical opinions, so long as they do not contradict reality?"
I think that's the point. I'm as militant an atheist as anybody and I have no problem with the full spectrum of metaphysical opinions that don't contradict reality. This spectrum reaches from metaphysical naturalism all the way to (possibly) deism. That's all there is to it. Any interventionist deity, any supernaturalism, claimed by religions is clearly contradicted by reality.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 06:09 PM -
The trouble with the generous tack just suggested by dkon is twofold.
1. It won't be reciprocated: The attitude of all but the most generously liberal believers (and they are pretty rare) is that to be an atheist is to be some kind of monster: untrustworthy, cynical and ultimately downright evil. (After all, for the strictly inclined, our state of mind has to be sufficiently blameworthy to merit eternal torture.) As Dawkins emphasizes, the use of religious belief as a marker of 'in' and 'out' groups is not incidental: It's a critical part of the operation. Even the ecumenically minded seem to think that having some such belief is essential for good character.
2. It suggests some kind of intellectual parity between religious belief and atheism. But religious belief is rarely consistent--especially the really fervid variety. And consistency is the best it can do: There's no explanatory power, because there's no systematic theory of God(s) and how they operate in the world. There are no predictions (prophecy being, on the evidence, just another form of tabloid psychic exercise trading in multiple predictions, vagueness, and post-hoc interpretive maneuvers.
Further to this point, the presently fashionable response to the problem of evil is skeptical theism, a view that requires God's purposes in the world be entirely obscure to such poor things as us. (Of course the problem of evil makes little impression on fundamentalists, who are all very happy to relegate the rest of us to eternal punishment in hell, and happy to accept massive suffering in this world as 'god's will', or some mysterious and indirect and strkingly inefficient way to teach us something or other. But this is a real consistency problem for such non-skeptical views.)
Beliefs based in science actually have to pass a real test, in their applications to prediction, observation, and the production of new phenomena. Religious 'beliefs' do none of these things-- the idea that this kind of language is 'truth-apt' in a sense that is on a par with the language of science or simple common-sense is a pure fantasy.
So I think keeping quiet about skeptical views of religion is a form of silent lie-- and that it won't help anyway.#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 01/03 at 06:33 PM -
However, I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion—personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences—and that people can encompass both clashing ideas is nothing but a testimony to the flexibility of the human mind
The two processes are antithetical, agreed. But it is a metaphysical, not a scientific position to say that religious/supernatural phenomena don't occur, which is what Dawkins claims. I don't see a problem with scientists (or anyone else) having faith in things that science cannot examine. I don't do it myself, but I don't object to it in principle.
Of course, the problem comes when religious people invoke their particular dogma in the service of questioning science. That's not good, but it sadly happens a lot.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 06:52 PM -
I agree with Andy Groves that there is no scientific way to disprove purely supernatural beliefs; "nonoverlapping magisteria" and all that. But what I think is most important is to think about this as a human issue rather than a logical one. All humans cling to irrational or arational beliefs, or spend their time in less than optimal manner, or feel emotions which are inherently not logical. Do we all deserve to be excoriated for this? Of course (as a scientist) I respect and enjoy the pursuit of a rational understanding of the natural world, but even scientists do not live by it alone. So if a scientist puts on a yarmulke on Sabbath, or goes to church on Sunday, or performs a sunrise dance on the rez, I assert he/she is just as worthy of respect as an atheist who, I don't know, reads fantasy instead. Or rides a bike.
So on this I would like to disagree with Bryson Brown: I think at a human level, there is an intellectual parity between atheism and religion - because neither is an intellectual position. Both are beliefs that help us live, that organize our brain patters, and that are deeply influenced by socialization. Indeed, I hypothesize that my own wishy-washy agnosticism is a product of a childhood in Soviet Union, where religion was under wraps or forbidden, and thus was not forced on me, while some of my American friends feel a visceral repulsion from even a hint of Christianity because they were clobbered by it. This only demonstrates to me that faith and lack of faith are deeply socialized thought patterns, which is why I think they are two sides of the same coin.
As for the fundamentalists not replying in kind (Bryson's point 1) - well I never expected them to, but why should they set the standard for us?#: Posted by on 01/03 at 07:33 PM -
On the political side of the equation, we are beginning to see a distancing between so called progressives and secularists. For some reason, the Democratic Party thinks it needs more religion to win back a majority of congress and atheists are being told in no uncertain terms to stop wasting America's time with "frivolous" cases like Newdow's Pledge of Allegiance case. It's as if the so called progressives have determined that theocracy is just the spice to win elections. Sadly, they may be right.
Secularists need to quit the infighting and band together before we are crushed under foot of the religious right AND left.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 07:51 PM -
If it is a "metaphysical, not a scientific position to say that religious/supernatural phenomena don't occur," then is it also unscientific to say that paranormal phenomena don't occur? Can a scientist legitimately claim that, on the basis of the evidence, homeopathy, ESP, psychokensis, bioenergetic fields, and astrology probably do not occur and, while not absolutely disproven, should not be included in one's view of how the world works? What about angels and reincarnation? Quantum consciousness and astral projection?
If the first scientist is stepping out of his field, then I think it's a bit hard to explain why the second scientist isn't also stepping out of his field and getting into "metaphysics." Is the dividing line between religion and the paranormal really that clear and strong? Who calls it?#: Posted by on 01/03 at 08:25 PM -
I think dimitry's plea for mutuality misses the point.
I couldn't care less about somebody's metaphysical musings so long as either 1) they don't try to put them into action; or 2) they put them into action but the results are benign or (at least) inoffensive.
It's religion in practice that hurts people, not kooky beliefs per se.
If antireligionists are going to engage the evil of religion, they ought to do it on the ground. It doesn't hurt anyone that Pat Robertson's view about dinosaurs are unsupportable, but it is harmful that he steals money from mentally ill people.
Anybody, of any faith or none, ought to be able to figure that out. If they can't, they're morally blind and deserve the same scorn and social ostracism as any other criminal.
This pragmatic approach also gets me around an obstable that a friend of mine raised many years ago. It's one thing to preach for something, he said, but it just feels weird to preach that there's nothing.
We are often accused of merely having a 'different' faith but still a faith (dimitry isn't the only person who uses this canard). Then other faiths can ask to muscle into, say, the labs on the grounds that faith is faith is faith.
Well, when you preach militant atheism, it does seem to mimic preaching a faith.
Fortunately for atheists, Christian (to take only the local variety of religion) crimes are so prevalent that you could spend a lifetime campaigning against them without ever bothering about metaphysical doctrines.
Just cataloguing the self-contradictory blatherings of the American Catholic bishops (see, for example, the St. Sebastian v. St. Peter thread at http://www.dailyduck.blogspot.com) leaves me fatigued.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 08:38 PM - I don't really see what you can exclude from legitimate scientific consideration that wouldn't necessarily be an epiphenomenon. If something has an effect in the natural world then what makes it impossible for science to investigate it? What things do people hold religious beliefs about which if true would not in any way influence observable, natural things? It seems to me that only such things can be herded into a 'non-overlapping magisterium' beside science, and don't see that there's then any good reason to give a damn about whatever's found within.
-
I have to disagree. Although PZ has nailed his colours to the mast such that no one would be confused as to where he stands, I am a fan of Gould's "non overlapping magisterium" idea. Science, PZ, is not "antithetical" to religion because Science, properly practiced, has nothing to say about the whys and "ultimate" causes of Nature. Science, indeed causes baser forms of superstition to recede, and properly so. Thus, we believe epilepsy is neural miswiring and not demonic posession; Hurricanes are weather, not divine anger.
The point I continue to make (see link to my blog) is that if the aim is to defeat specious Young Earth Creationism then you should go out of your way to show Science is not co-opted by athiestic zealots. Do you want Young Earth Creationist groups to wither and die? Do you want their "Creation Museums" to go bankrupt? Do you want their funding and Church-based support to evaporate? Firing from the fort of humanism plays to their prejudices. Why not egg on Christians like Kenneth Miller (author of the excellent and relevent "Finding Darwin's God") who are happy to meld Faith in God and all the findings of modern Science regarding the age of the Earth, the reality of Natural Selection and so on, and who does so without succumbing to the specious claims of ID or YEC. PZ has his place, and good on him (up to a point). I get frustrated by his unhelpful contribution to those of us trying to defeat YEC and ID from within Christianity.#: Posted by Nathan Zamprogno on 01/03 at 08:51 PM -
I want to say amen to Nathan who nicely expressed the political arguments for being tolerant and respectful to allies who happen to be faithful. Although a nonbeliever, I completely support the struggle of reality-based Christians against the fundies, just as much as I support PZ.
As to Harry's point:
It's religion in practice that hurts people, not kooky beliefs per se.
Well sometimes the practice of religion hurts people, sometimes it helps them. Tell me how folks like Nathan are being harmful to science or to anyting. I think ultimately the actions and not the metaphysical musings should be the measure of each one, which is precisely why I object to the militant dismissal of all believers, regardless of whether they are on our side (reality) or not.
Dmitry#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:12 PM -
Tell me how folks like Nathan are being harmful to science or to anything.
You mean aside from his haughty condescension, granting that people like PZ have their "place," but excoriating him for being unhelpful in spreading an alleged science-friendly Christianity? Saying that our task is to "go out of [our] way to show science is not co-opted by atheistic zealots," thus ceding the terms of the debate to the fundamentalists and casting his religion as the only legitimate alternative?
That's religious intolerance dressed up in a nice liberal cardigan. If Nathan was serious about defeating YEC and ID from within Christianity, he wouldn't be here castigating biologists who have the temerity to voice their own beliefs. That fact that he is doing so rather counts against his credibility, in my eyes.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 01/03 at 09:24 PM -
There's an interesting idea that I think many people miss. Theism predated atheism as an ideology. The only reason people call themselves atheists is because theists make themelves known. e.g. people who don't believe in unicorns are not called 'a-unicornists'. The need does not arise.
Most atheists only discuss atheism because theists push it politically and socially.
Dawkins himself says that fundamentally he isn't very interested in gods. He tells Ben Wattenburg, on PBS: "If you read my books, you'll find that I don't actually talk about God at all. The reason I seem to always talk about God, if I may say so, is that people like you are always asking me about it. I'm not very interested in God. I mean, from my perspective, why God? Why not Thor or Zeus? Why not Apollo or Athena? There are all sorts of gods that people have believed in, and I don't think any of them are much more interesting than any other."#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:43 PM - Well said, but I'm always kind of bothered by constructions like "harsh and callous universe." If, as I assume, you mean that the universe is neutral, I think it's better simply to say that, and avoid value-laden, anthropomorphic terms that have negative connotations. Hell, even "impartial" would be better, I think.
-
The non-overlapping magisteria argument is faulty on so many levels it's not funny. It was the first serious exposure I had to Gould's thinking and I've doubted his intellect ever since. Sure he was a talented writer and as a lib arts fan I can appreciate his aesthetic sensibilities, but the idea that science and religion exist in some kind of parallel is so absurd he might as well have been suggesting the moon was made of green cheese.
Religion has, and continues to, make claims about the universe which can be tested by science. It routinely plays in science's sandbox and much of religious doctrine is essentially developed from the same motivation as science: the desire to understand the universe. It just happens that like most first tries at something, it's all wrong on every level. This is where you get ideas like the mother seeing a striped or spotted animal can give birth to a striped or spotted baby. The notion that a man in Jerusalem a few centuries ago could come back from the dead is transparently a science claim, every bit as much as questions about where babies come from (sex, naturally)and what happens do you when you die (you decay).
Further, Gould was not only wrong, but irresponsibly wrong to reserve to religion moral codes. He abdicates the responsibility that science ought have in determining morality. Forget clean and unclean animals. Let me know what kinds of diseases an improperly prepared dish might hold for me. Forget abstinence only and other such programs, give us the information on sexually-transmitted diseases, risks of pregnancy, etc. Those are useful tools from which to make moral decisions, not the ravings of a bunch of thoroughly evil desert madmen and their insane followers.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 11:22 PM -
"Indeed, I hypothesize that my own wishy-washy agnosticism is a product of a childhood in Soviet Union, where religion was under wraps or forbidden, and thus was not forced on me, while some of my American friends feel a visceral repulsion from even a hint of Christianity because they were clobbered by it."
I've never met you so I certainly don't qualify as an American friend, but I an an American (to my unending sorrow, I'd be so much happier in Scandanavia or France) but I'll admit a visceral repulsion to every form of religion. I respond to the notion of faith about the same way most people respond to the memory of Hitler. But I did not grow up in much of a believing family. Religion was simply not an issue growing up. It's not this revlusion that provoked me to abandon some kind of childhood religiosity, though. I acquired it honestly as soon as I began seriously inquiring into the history and present deeds of major religions. This led to an inquiry into their ethical systems. It's really been all downhill.
A possible outlier: I am a gay man living in a small town in the Midwest. Whether it's interracial marriage, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, sodomy laws, or whatever the next few decades bring, the holy folk have been uniformly on the side of repression and hatred. Even when I find a liberal happy to waste his sunday mornings and not bother me about my sex life, I discover that this is treated as some kind of personal favor. I'm expected to admire how broad-minded they are because they've figured out a way for their evil master in the sky to ignore a personal quirk of mine.
Well, thanks. It's wonderful to know that one's convictions do not emanage from reasoned consideration of issues like human rights or even natural empathy but rather from an invisible madman in the sky. For promoting that kind of thinking alone, religion does harm and ought be opposed.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 11:38 PM -
These are the adjectives Dawkins chooses to describe the roughly 100 million Americans adults who, if public opinion polls are right, believe Homo sapiens was created directly by God, rather than gradually by evolution. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Not much to choose from there!
Lets not forget that there are more than 5 billion other people in the planet, of which, only approximately 30% ahere to Christianity and so it needs to be remembered that Christians are in the very vast minority.
And anyway, it needs to be recognised how arbitrary religion is. Another approach (other than Dawkins et al frontal attack) is to ask a Christian (or for that matter anyone of any faith) a really hard question like:
(To a Christian) What would you do if Buddhism was "proven" tomorrow?
It really shows how arbitrary religion really is! -
those commenters who seem to be finding fault with the tone of prof myer's post might reread it carefully looking for inflammatory content as I did after reading those comments. I found none: it is not hysterical; there is no name calling (OK, labeling that specific group "insane" may not be clinically accurate, but as shorthand for "emotionally and/or intellectually crippled" it's close enough) and some very mild snarkiness in the last paragraph; it makes some concessions to more rational forms of religion; and it calls for no aggressive action other than forthrightly stating facts or opinions. hence, the inevitable conclusion is that those commenters simply don't like the message (the incompatibility of science and religion). a message challenging one's core beliefs, religious or not, is inevitably going to grate, but that doesn't make the tone inappropriate.
a quibble with the message: it might be useful to modify it by limiting the religious postures deemed incompatible with science to those that include belief in observed manifestations of the supernatural, thereby accommodating what I would guess is a sizable number of people who might consider themselves to be religious but whose beliefs don't actually conflict with current scientific knowledge.
another quibble, actually a complement to pete k's comment: his implicit definition of atheism (= not theism), tho not the webster definition (belief there is no "diety"), is probably closer to the posture of most non-believers. however, my impression is that the common understanding of the term is closer to the webster definition plus an element of militantism (hence the use of that word in several quotes in prof myers's post). thus, care in using the term is advisable, perhaps limiting it to self-identified "atheists" and otherwise using terms like "non-believer", "non-religious" (my label of choice), or "freethinker" that convey fewer implicit meanings. but whatever the term, I agree that emphasizing the low incidence of religious fundamentalism among scientists might be good policy, raising as it would the question why so few among a large group of really smart people are so disposed.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 01:38 AM -
One of the best essays I've read in ages. Personally, I've never read anything by Dawkins on the topic of religion where I haven't found myself nodding in agreement.
Nathan Zamprogno said:
The point I continue to make is that if the aim is to defeat specious Young Earth Creationism then you should go out of your way to show Science is not co-opted by athiestic zealots. Do you want Young Earth Creationist groups to wither and die? Do you want their "Creation Museums" to go bankrupt? Do you want their funding and Church-based support to evaporate?
Yes, but that doesn't mean we have any desire to see it replaced with an equally silly, though less scientifically incompatible, belief system. You may stop at wanting to oust the creationists from christianity, but some of us would like to live in a rational world where the dictates of an ancient mythology doesn't enter into the decision-making process of a majority of the voting population in the first place.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 01:54 AM -
A great article: in principle, I agree with it entirely. I look forward to the day when rational thinkers feel free to advocate rational thought as loudly and fiercely as the fundamentalists trumpet their nonsense. In a sane nation, views like Dawkins' would be -- at the very least -- respected as part of the debate, rather than dismissed as ranting invective; and morons like Easterbrook would be widely laughed at and pitied, as we laugh at him and pity him.
Unfortunately, the US at present is not in such a position. It is a nation where atheists can be derided as "non-citizens", and are less well trusted than used-car salesmen. That's why I still have a lingering doubt about declaring all-out war between atheist scientists and religious irrationalists -- just on practical grounds, if we start this war, do we have any hope of winning it?
The position Prof. Myers takes is of course right: many popular religious beliefs are simply incompatible with the scientific mindset, and if that's the truth then we have a duty to say it. But there's a gap between what we should do and what we can do -- or rather, what it would be advantageous for us to do. To draw a timely analogy: Saddam was a horrible dictator, and the world would be a better place with him removed from power; but unless there's a way to do it that overall achieves our goals, and doesn't just make things worse, then it's not the appropriate thing to do.
Doing "the right thing" isn't always enough. We have to be able to do the right thing and do it right. In this case, if we join the fundamentalist preachers in saying "you've got to choose: you can have your religion, or science, but not both", which way do you think a majority of Americans will move?
Before I'm misunderstood, I should say that I'm not advocating a particular course of action here -- not saying that we should all become Ken Miller. I'm just pointing out that we should keep in mind the outcome we want, understand the situation we start from, and tailor our actions accordingly.#: Posted by logopetria on 01/04 at 03:03 AM -
Actually, I think the idea of non-overlapping spheres is quite useful, as there are spheres that do not overlap with science, specifically ethics and aesthetics.
The reason that they do not overlap is that science cannot determine whether one goal is "better" then the other. Most human ethics are based on the idea that human life should be preserved, but how can this be proven scientifically? Science can only say how well a given method works at preserving human life, but it cannot demonstrate that the goal itself is superior to other goals.
At least I've yet to hear anybody explain how it can.
The problem with Gould's theory, as well as the discussion here, is that Christianity weds the non-overlapping spheres quite closely to the overlapping ones. Christian ethics stem from empirical assertions; God exists, and wants us to do some things but not others.
A moments reflection will tell us that an assertion that something exists, and has certain traits, is in fact a scientific assertion, and can only really be made if it has first been ascertained scientifically, that is, through observation.
American religion is best expressed as a hierarchy:
It consists of empirical claims, which express
Ethical claims, which in turn lead to
Real-world practices.
In some ways the pro-religion and anti-religion scientists are talking past each other; the former admire the ethical claims and practices, and thus feel that theempirical claims are irrelevant, whereas the latter focus on the absurdity of the empirical claims, which are important because they form the basis of the ethics and practices.
Me, I see no problem in addressing all empirical claims through science. Yes, it may hurt some people's feelings, but when your ideas aren't subject to criticism, mental decay sets in. Not criticising or discussing things leads to real-world trouble.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 03:11 AM -
Actually, no one needs to gloss over their views about religion in order to sell the theory of evolution. It does a fine job of selling itself. It's accepted everywhere biology is done. Resistance is futile.
Biology may be particularly corrosive of faith. Perhaps less than half of working scientists are believers, as Myers says (a recent Atlantic article says about the same). The famous survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences, if I recall correctly, found far fewer, and nearly none among biologists. Mathematicians were the most credulous. Go figure.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 03:25 AM -
When I was a child growing up in mid-twentieth century America, virtually the only hoboes one saw were people who voluntarily chose a tramp's life, insane asylums were the places psychotics were sent so they wouldn't harm themselves or others, and shanty villages of homeless people were a memory from the Great Depression.
Now we live in a society where the homeless camp under bridges and in parks, and the insane wander the streets when they are not in the clutches of our largest provider of mental health "services" - the prison system.
Certainly there are charitable atheists but when you get down in the trenches with people who are struggling day to day to relieve the suffering of the least of us, they are almost inevitably religiously motivated. I did see a news item recently that reported that a humanist organization was involved in Katrina relief, but that's an exception that proves the rule. When was the last time you heard about an atheist soupkitchen or a freethinker's homeless shelter?
Surely there are many times when one wishes the religious kept their beliefs out of the world. The French and the Mexicans have good reason for being so vehemently anti-clerical. But the idea that we would always be better off if people kept their religious beliefs to themselves is just hogwash. The world would be a much sorrier place if Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his religious beliefs private. And King was someone whose speeches were chock full of the puerile piddlings of Scripture.
There are also times when one might wish the scientists kept their beliefs out of the world. Biologists tend to start to mumble and shuffle when somebody brings up eugenics ("well, you know, that's social darwinism and that's Spengler, and (cough), he wasn't really a biologist.....") as if many scientists didn't zealously embrace eugenics and weren't just as convinced that they were striding out into the cold bright light of empirical reality. And it's not just something that's a century or more old; one of the interesting tidbits to come out of the South African Truth and Reconciliation hearings was the admission by some microbiologists that they took grant money to develop pathogens that would kill blacks but not whites.
One would think that our host would know better. There's lots of stuff that Professor Myers holds in low esteem, particularly Evolutionary Psychology, that others are just as firmly convinced are just good, empirical, "realistic" science. Perhaps a little humility (Christian or Pagan) would be in order. My prediction is, although some things will remain firmly fixed (heliocentrism, common descent, the atomic hypothesis), that lots and lots of things that we are now sure or fairly sure are true will turn out, in a century or two, to either be flatly wrong or true only in almost unrecognizably modified form.
One of the ironies of the times is that the most militaristic among us are the Christian fundamentalists and yet the machinery of death, on which we Americans spend more than the rest of the world combined, is kept oiled and running by the combined toil of tens of thousands of scientists and engineers. Although rest assured they're mostly liberals and at least agnostic!
When the Christian Peacekeeping Team in Iraq was kidnapped recently, I did some reading about them. It turns out that some twenty years or so ago members of several Anabaptist denominations (you know, those radical protestants that take that bit of the puerile piddlings of Scripture about not killing to heart and refuse to bear arms, though many have served bravely as ambulance drivers and medics) met and decided that passive pacifism wasn't enough. They decided that what was needed in these times, and what their religious convictions demanded, was an active pacifism. So they go out into the world and put their bodies between warring peoples. They don't just read the Sermon on the Mount, they try to put it into effect. I think we could use a lot more of that sort of radicalism and a lot less realism. (Maybe that's why we haven't found any SETI signals; anybody who might have sent a signal were lead by realists.)
I'm an atheist. That is, I think that disembodied entities are flatly impossible (so no ghosts, demons, angels, or ancestral spirits for me, much less any traditional or contemporary god or gods). But this strident atheism that proclaims we're going to leave all that bad religious stuff behind (oh, but if you insist you can keep your religion, just keep it at home, OK?) and bravely face the pointless universe under the banner of science is ahistorical bullshit. As if science were something more than a small ship of knowledge on a still very large sea of ignorance and mystery. As if people in groups aren't going to continue to need ritual and narrative and dance and music to guide us on our way - all that religious stuff.
And that phrase, "puerile piddlings of Scripture," that's just plain coyote ugly. I'd rather chew my arm off than be associated with atheism if that's what atheism is. I need a new neologism.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 04:19 AM -
My experience is that atheists are immoderately fond of narrative and dance and music, among other things.
#: Posted by on 01/04 at 04:45 AM
-
I agree with the article, in as much as Prof. Myers makes it very clear that religion which makes claims about testable phenomena is in direct conflict with science. But, the most intriging sentance, IMHO, was the following, "The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA "insane") sects."
It seems to me that what needs to happen is to eliminate both the willful manipuation of the faithful by church leaders, and the willful ignorance of the faithful.
It would probably be far easier to reduce the ignorance of the faithful if the manipulation by the leaders ceased. Since the leaders have a vested interest in maintaining their cash cow, of course they will attack anything which threatens to reduce church attendance.
Would publishing the financial records of church leaders help? I doubt it. It's been done, along with publishing other peccadillos. The leaders just ask for forgiveness from their flock of sheep, and continue as before. Opiate indeed.
Disclaimer: I am specifically referring to fundamentalist churches which hold the bible (or koran, or torah, or etc.) as an idol to worship in it's perfection. Churchs which promote the idea of a personal relationship with a diety without inflexible dogma don't seem to be as much as a problem.
-Flex#: Posted by on 01/04 at 07:08 AM -
Great post. Dawkins should be required reading for American High School Seniors.
I too find science and religion incompatible. Just as the Discovery Institute has set out to make creationsim respectable, I would like to see a group set out to make atheism more widely accepted. It seems so clear to me that there is no God. I am stunned when I hear people speak of their religious beliefs. It makes no sense. I think the more people like Dawkins and yourself who openly state their atheism the better. Most atheists are "in the closet." I profess from here on to mince no words about my atheism.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 08:18 AM -
Nathan --
While NOMA may be compatible with some forms of Deism, it is precisely counter to _any_ form of Christianity. It says, basically, that all _facts_ are with the sciences, and everything non-factual can be left to religious causes.
This is all well and good if you are a deist, but not if you are a Christian. Christians must specifically believe that God has intervened in history, at a minimum in the resurrection of Jesus. If science contains all of the facts, then anything that would be non-scientific (i.e. Jesus rising from the dead) would also be counter-factual. Therefore, in order to be a Christian, there is a minimum of one event which must cross the line between magisteria.
It is one thing to say that science is materialistic as a result of methodological issues, but if the materialism of science is the result of methodology, then it can't speak to the factuality or non-factuality of assertions of things that lay beyond its methodology, and it is easy to confuse the cases of "science says X because that is the only reasonable explanation" and "science says X because that is the only reasonable explanation _allowed by its methodology_". These cases are not equivalent, but they are often confused.#: Posted by Jonathan Bartlett on 01/04 at 08:38 AM -
Samnell:
"Forget abstinence only and other such programs, give us the information on sexually-transmitted diseases, risks of pregnancy, etc. Those are useful tools from which to make moral decisions, not the ravings of a bunch of thoroughly evil desert madmen and their insane followers."
You are confusing expedient decisions with moral ones. I think you should clarify your terms, because what it seems to me that you are asserting is that there are no moral decisions at all, only expedient ones, and the goal is to find decisions which are the most expedient. If I read you wrong, please let me know.#: Posted by Jonathan Bartlett on 01/04 at 08:42 AM -
that's just plain coyote ugly.
Hey! Leave my religion out of this!#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 01/04 at 08:42 AM -
Enon Zey
the machinery of death, on which we Americans spend more than the rest of the world combined, is kept oiled and running by the combined toil of tens of thousands of scientists and engineers. Although rest assured they're mostly liberals and at least agnostic!
This makes absolutely no sense. First of all, it conflates religious beliefs with a political system. Are you saying that conservatives are not capable of being agnostics or atheists?
Second of all, most of what takes place in the military is engineering, not science. I haven't done any formal research but my personal experience is that engineers have a great propensity towards fundamentalism and fascism. So I'd like you to come up with some data to back up your assertion that these miltary scientists and engineers are liberal "or at least agnostic"#: Posted by on 01/04 at 09:03 AM -
Jonathan Bartlett wrote
You are confusing expedient decisions with moral ones.
He's in good compnay if he is. From Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary
MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.
It is sayd there be a raunge of mountaynes in the Easte, on one syde of the which certayn conducts are immorall, yet on the other syde they are holden in good esteeme; wherebye the mountayneer is much conveenyenced, for it is given to him to goe downe eyther way and act as it shall suite his moode, withouten offence.
_Gooke's Meditations_
Just thought I'd lighten your day
.
-Flex#: Posted by on 01/04 at 09:08 AM -
<blockquote>And that phrase, "puerile piddlings of scripture," that's just plain coyote ugly. I'd rather chew my arm off than be associated with atheism if that's what atheism is. I need a new neologism.</blockquote>
It's interesting how deeply imbedded respect for that bad ol' book is in our culture. State the plain truth -- that it's got some brilliant bits, it's got some long ghastly stretches, and overall, if it weren't for a near-universal pattern of indoctrination, it would be panned as a sloppy mish-mash of crazy thinking--and people start talking about chewing their arms off.
Enon: it's not worth it. It's just a book. And your arm won't grow back. -
Jonathan Bartlett: It is quite true that Christianity puts the problem with Gould's thesis in relief. However, deism has the same problem: "external to the universe"? Well, if that's taken in the physicist's sense of universe, it is pretty reasonable to claim that a creature which caused the expansion of a hubble volume is not a god - it could in principle have been done by an insane child, after all. If it is the original sense of universe, matters get worse, since "outside the universe" in that sense is nonsensical. (Outside everything?)
There is also, as others remarked, the ethical problem. Science has a lot to say about ethics, though not quite in the way one often thinks. A good way to think about it in my view is to recognize first that any ethical system that does not take into account consequences of actions (or rules) is otiose (even John Rawls says so in A Theory of Justice). Then what is science for? Determining the outcome of actions or rules. The plans for actual implementation of rules based on science is technology in my view, hence why technology and not science is morally committed.
As for metaphysical views that have no impact, so "let me live in peace" - well, we live in democratic societies, so we have to come to agreement about how to live together, hence debate and discussion is necessary. I also have a hard time believing that there is truly a view that has no practical import whatsoever. (I have yet to encounter any, and I've made a miniproject for many years looking for them.)
Incidentally, Gould's thesis is also found in a book The Sciences and the Humanities, written many years before. The author, like Gould, fails to realize the factual claims of religion seem to be central to belief (what was that about "if he has not risen, our faith is in vain" or something like that?), though admittedly in some cases the beliefs are more or less in opposition to scientific views of the world. (I will be the first to admit that this comes in degrees.)
(If Raven is reading this thread, I realize I still owe you some of my detailed work on the incompatibility thesis. If you wish, email me about it - I've been busy.)#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 01/04 at 09:57 AM -
"Mathematicians were the most credulous. Go figure."
makes perfect sense. both deal in fantasy worlds created out of thin air (reproducing-kernel hilbert spaces, galois fields, et al) and "religiously" follow unfounded dogma (aka axioms).#: Posted by on 01/04 at 10:12 AM -
The creationists will always be able to find somebody, no matter how obscure, to fit their stereotype of the Nasty Atheistic Darwinist, and then use that person to "prove" the stereotype. (Look at how Republican wing-nuts have seized on Michael Moore to fit their stereotype of the Flaky Pacifistic Democrat, even though Moore voted for Nader in 2000.) So if you happen to be an atheist who believes in evolution, I don't see what you gain by hiding your atheism.
#: Posted by Seth Gordon on 01/04 at 10:25 AM
-
"scientists and engineers [are] mostly liberals and at least agnostic"
"engineers have a great propensity towards fundamentalism and fascism"
to make a reasonable guess, it might help to understand what used to motivate the choice of engineering as a prefession (being an retiree, I can't speak to present situation). engineering was the preferred stepping stone out of the lower middle class for moderately bright people and consequently tended to be fairly representative of that demographic group. therefore, altho I have no data except the personal experiences of nearly 50 years dealing with many engineers, I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least older engineers are on average quite mainstream - which, unfortunately, appears to be closer the to the second quote than the first.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 10:42 AM -
State the plain truth -- that it's got some brilliant bits, it's got some long ghastly stretches, and overall, if it weren't for a near-universal pattern of indoctrination, it would be panned as a sloppy mish-mash of crazy thinking--and people start talking about chewing their arms off.
I know what you're saying, but I do have more respect for ancient writings than that. One reason is simply that it is ancient, and often writings from certain times and places are rare. Another is that the Bible contains historical information that cannot be gained from any other source, though it is true that dealing with such evidence is dicey and difficult. Even as simply a snapshot in time (probably around the period of Babylonian captivity) of what Jewish scholars thought important, it is of interest. Culturally it is important, of course, with a need to know the Bible to really understand Shakespeare and many other writers well.
Most, perhaps all, of the books are not sloppy as individual works. Though the histories and stories don't utilize the methods that we expect today, much of the information is relayed carefully and with due concern for veracity (the difficulty regarding veracity is that the "standard" used is generally agreement with the cult and with earlier "holy writings--yet one should not fault the scholars for not knowing what we know today).
The fact is that mostly we try to take ancient writings on the terms of their context and standards of thinking. The Pentateuch is best understood as foundational for henotheistic Israelite religion, with interesting slips about the past tolerance for polytheism showing through. The Psalms are excellent cultic hymns, some of which apparently were sung in Temple ceremonies. The histories contain important information, though one must use them cautiously. Prophetic books record the problems the Jews had in coming to terms with the apparent breaches of promises by Yahweh, but also interestingly include denunciations of wealth and privilege that would make many leftists happy. The NT continues much of that prophetic tradition, trying to work through Yahweh's lapses, plus some more denunciations of oppression (with unfortunate quietism being urged by Paul).
That hardly covers the worth of such ancient writings. Of course the sloppy mish-mash is there in the collection of these many disparate works together into a single "book", with near pagan rituals being prescribed in the early books, and Platonic-style depictions of God appearing in the NT. Together it makes little sense. Separately many of the books make sense according to Jewish, and, later, Christian cultures. Little of it has much meaning for today for those who are well-educated (not that many, really), except as evidence of the evolution of culture from earlier times.
I write this because I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm#: Posted by on 01/04 at 12:27 PM -
I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.
And here I was just thinking I ought to get a new sig quote.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 01/04 at 12:53 PM -
First off, I think PZ wrote an excellent post laying out his opinion on this issue.
Secondly, I’m appalled that he would mess up a blockquote in a comment.
56105: Andy Groves — 01/03 at 06:52 PM
I don't see a problem with scientists (or anyone else) having faith in things that science cannot examine. I don't do it myself, but I don't object to it in principle.
I think a lot of comments are putting too much emphasis on scientific solvable problems. Our lives are not run like that. Take Andy here. I’m sure this is how he starts his normal day:
He wakes up at the scientifically optimum time; he’s done experiments where he set the alarm for 5 minutes before work or class and 5 hours before so he can find the best time. He decides which maroon pants to wear because of experiments colleagues have done on the issue. Same with the paisley shirt. He determined scientifically that waffles are the best Wednesday breakfast as opposed to pancakes…
My point is that a lot of our decisions in our lives aren’t scientific. Faith is just one more thing that can coexist with science because it’s in another part of our lives. Life is like a box of chocolates, it has a lot of compartments. ;)#: Posted by on 01/04 at 12:58 PM -
Rennie might place PZ and Dawkins in the same sentence, but they do not in fact make the same sorts of comments about religion. At least sometimes Dawkins rather oversteps the bounds of proper claims about religion, calling religion a "virus", and asking if religion is the root of all evil (I think his answer is no, but the suggestion is that it is the root of many of the evils which sociologists and psychologists would typically ascribe to more secular causation). I don't see PZ using as immoderate language as Dawkins uses, so one might ask why.
PZ might tell us, of course, but I think that on this side of the Atlantic there is some reason to speak more cautiously about religion. I do agree with Seth Gordon, that there will always be a villain, and I think that Dawkins is providing us the service of being said villain, while being conveniently (for us) British. So he acts as the outlier (bad cop, in a way), so that other people may sound more moderate, as indeed I believe PZ Myers does. The creationists are going to use someone's quotes to claim that evolution exists simply to do away with religion (not Dawkins' claim in the least, but it typically ends up that way after the ID/creationist twisting), and it hardly matters that they can use Dawkins instead of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
PZ can say whatever he wants based on nothing other than his own understanding of the matter. I think, though, that he is one of the Americans who permits other scientists and educators to sound more moderate in comparison with him, even as he sounds less militant than does Dawkins.
Btw, I think Rennie was setting up something of a strawman, at least when it comes to PZ. I've never seen where PZ suggested that science "is automatically derisive of religion" either intentionally or unintentionally (the fact that ID/creationists misconstrue statements, sometimes apparently wilfully, should not be a constraint on what scientists say). He quite properly notices that science shoots down virtually all non-trivial religiously derived claims about the world, but of course he knows that some religions make no, or virtually no, claims about the world. It is not unreasonable to ask if the latter religions are saying anything at all within the realm of sense, however.
The problem that religion has with science is that the latter began to rise at least partly because religion had begun to fall under the weight of critical thought--and the desire to have evidence to back up all claims. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all had competing claims, and at least some Xians sought to enlist evidence in favor of their own religion. This did not work too well for that purpose, but it was found that increasingly we were able to understand the world by actually considering the evidence apart from religion.
The Age of Exploration increased the pressure on religion, for many good moral religious people were found to have beliefs which were different from Xianity's beliefs, yet no independent evidence was going to show Buddhism to be wrong, and Xianity to be right. Many Xians wanted, and many presently do want, independent evidence confirming their beliefs.
It is an affront to many Xians to tell them the lie that science is compatible with their own religious beliefs. This should not be done on the principle that we ought not to lie to folk, "even if they are ID/creationist". Otoh, I would not want all evolutionists to be in the mold of Myers and Dawkins. It is well that many Xians can and do offer an alternative path to rejecting God for those who wish to be honest about science. I don't see the point for myself, but I primarily wish for science to do well in this society, with little concern for "how well" religion does.
All that having been said, I am not one who thinks it necessary, nor particularly helpful to the project of science, to often point out the consequences for religion that science brings to a society. Science erodes religion? Fine, let religion erode. The purpose of science includes learning and discovering methods of dealing with the evidence, it is not its purpose to come to one conclusion rather than another, even about religion. The positive (in the non-moral sense) practice of science is our concern. Confronting religion when it is not necessary to do so suggests to the suspicious that evolution might exist for reasons other than the practice of science.
Confrontation of religion by the bulk of scientists would almost certainly be damaging to science teaching, then. Sensible observations that science erodes religion both in its skepticism of "unproven claims" and in its tendency to displace the myths and metaphysics or religion is a bit of honesty, which should not be censored, not even self-censored. It grants the proper respect to the fears of many religious folk, presents a straightforward choice to them, and it rightfully implies that religion is not going to be supported by science in any foreseeable developments. But even such observations have their place and time, and hardly should eclipse the positive case for science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm#: Posted by on 01/04 at 01:23 PM -
'Science, properly practiced, has nothing to say about the whys and "ultimate" causes of Nature. '
This is simply bullshit. It is parrotted over and over again. Science has much to say about the why's and to presume religion has something to say about it at all is another load of bullshit.
How can believing in Santa Claus be a 'why' to how your presents appear except for the most infantile?
If you think science doesn't have the answers fine, it doesn't on all fronts, but don't pretend religion offers any either.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 02:17 PM -
Great White Wonder:
If they're "obvious" how does that make them non-useful? Dawkins is useful precisely because he's right, and obviously so.
Dkon:
Religions like the kind PZ and Dawkins and Dennett go after have naturalistic consequences: they describe the physical world in a certain way. When the real world doesn't match up with their expectations, what do you want them to do? Accept it? Most of them don't, and some of them are violent about it.#: Posted by Elf M. Sternberg on 01/04 at 02:17 PM -
"You are confusing expedient decisions with moral ones. I think you should clarify your terms, because what it seems to me that you are asserting is that there are no moral decisions at all, only expedient ones, and the goal is to find decisions which are the most expedient. If I read you wrong, please let me know."
I think most of what is generally conceded as moral in nature really has no impact on morality at all. Almost the entire set of sexual morality collapses once you remove the evil sky daddy and his insane followers. The only question I see in the whole of human sexuality which has any moral impact at all is the issue of consent. When is the most or least desireable time to have a child, who to have one with, who to have sex with in the absence of procreational intent, these issues are either clearcut science (risks of STDs, etc) or trivialities of personal taste (this gentleman prefers blonde gentlemen).
But continuing the issue of sexual moralities, the only real moral issue I see is consent (an issue which, I will note, is quite absent in the Bible). Sex is only, in my view, morally permissable when all parties give knowing consent. Why is this? Why, observation has shown that human misery tends to have deleterious effects on people and being raped would, to put it mildly, likely invoke such misery. Therefore it stands to reason that the moral course tends to limit and prevent human misery. Science is not only more than able to tell us how to do that, but has made tremendous inroads towards doing so on a broad front.
I don't think that my consent rubric could be called expedient (except insofar as one is trying to avoid prosecution and minimize human suffering). But it is true that I see most "moral" issues as having no moral content whatsoever.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 02:20 PM -
I should note before someone mocks me for it that obviously I should have typed "Spencer" rather than "Spengler." I've had the name Spengler on the brain because of something I've been reading recently.
ctw:
"...finding fault with the tone..."
Well, sure. Nietzsche comments somewhere about disagreeing with an opinion because of the tone with which it is expressed rather than the substance. Dawkins-style atheism, with its gleeful derision of all religion, reads to me like a bad Ayn Rand novel (isn't that redundant?) with Richard Dawkins as Howard Roark. But I disagree with the substance too.
#: Posted by on 01/04 at 03:42 PM -
Those of you who were fans of Babylon 5 will undoubtedly remember "Mr Morden", the sinister agent of the Shadows. His task was to sidle up to various characters and ask them, "What do you want?" I would put the same question to Professors Dawkins and Myers.
Both men are devastating critics of organized religion. Both men are formidable advocates for atheism. But to what end?
Like many other agnostics and atheists, I agree with most of what they write, I'm heartened to read the case against the excesses of religious belief put so eloquently and I applaud the courage and determination with which they do it. But isn't that just preaching to the choir?
While it goes without saying that they should not be censored, nor should they censor themselves, the question is raised as to whether their words are matched to their purpose. Is what they write likely to sway those whose beliefs need to be modified if the rising tide of religious bigotry is to be turned back?
The great faiths of the world are not monolithic structures. They encompass a range of views of which the extreme right wings are the real danger. Isolate the extremists from the main body of the church and you will have gone a long way towards an achievable goal.
Certainly, tarring all believers with the brush of fundamentalism will not further any strategy of 'divide and conquer'. Lumping the good together with the bad will only force them to unite against a common threat. And there are many good people out there. Offending them or even making enemies of them unnecessarily, rather than helping them cultivate tolerance and moderation, is tactically inept, to say the least.
I simply do not believe there is any realistic prospect of significant numbers of believers being persuaded to moderate or give up their faiths in the short or medium term. Richard Dawkins has called religion a virus of the mind but perhaps a better analogy would be symbiote. Would the religious "meme" have survived and flourished along with its host if both had not found the relationship beneficial? Can something so deeply rooted in human culture and consciousness be eradicated or only managed?
Which brings us back to the question, "What do you want?"#: Posted by on 01/04 at 04:08 PM -
That "religion" is rooted in consciousness is lazy thinking...of course it isn't. Are those of us who lack religion unconscious?
It is embedded in culture, and it's that incestuous re-inoculation of every generation with the tradition, all the social pressure and threats of hellfire and promises of a heavenly candyland made to impressionable children that keeps it going. To argue that because something is it must be beneficial is simply the naturalistic fallacy and panselectionism all tangled together. Even under adaptationism, it could be that religion represents a local optimum that keeps us trapped far from a more global optimum.
What do I want?
1. Better education for everybody, free of the meddlesome and wrong interference of religious nitwits. A thoroughly secular education for all; let the religious poison their own kids' minds on evenings and weekends, but at least give the poor kids a fighting chance.
2. A widespread recognition that religion is a poor guide to the real world. Government and education should be completely secular -- I want those good Christians to gasp in disgust when some vote-pandering demagogue trivializes the metaphysical meaning of their religion by using it in campaign literature. Let people be elected on the basis of what they'll do in the real world, not on which brand of Jesus™ they worship.
Basically, let's see religion recognized as a hobby with no special authority, neither praised nor condemned, except in those pathological cases of excessive religiosity that nowadays earn the esteem of every rednecked cracker and rube in the country.#: Posted by