Via Thoughts in a Haystack, here’s an article on A Smart Battle Against Intelligent Design that almost gets the right answer, but then falls into the real trap, the conventional wisdom. First, here are the parts I think it gets right.
For the last 100 years, scientists, teachers and parents have been relying mostly on lawyers to keep religion out of public school science classes in this country. So far, the lawyers have been doing a pretty good job.
But the burden is shifting to the scientists themselves, say experts involved in recent cases defending public school science curricula from anti-evolution revisions.
The lawyers and the courts are not enough, and they seductively lure us away from the real issues, and into the danger of relying on purely legal mechanisms. We’ve been going from trial to trial to trial since Scopes, and we can thank the lawyers that we’ve won them so far, but ultimately trials are little more than band-aids to keep the hemorrhage under control. The issues have to be addressed as scientific issues, not just as a litany of case law and precedent and statutes. Laws change. Rely on the law, and all it takes is a case or two that’s settled the other way, and suddenly the foundation of our strategy to oppose the creationists is pulled out from under us.
So yes, more involvement by scientists is necessary!
It is tempting for scientists to insist that creationist perspectives should not be dignified with a response, says Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and one of the four principal lawyers in last year’s rout of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board mandate to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. But the stakes are too big.
There is an informal understanding that debates with creationists are a waste of time, and accomplish nothing but bestowing credibility on your opponents. I agree with that myself, and so no, I’m not going to ‘debate’ Kent Hovind, ever. The real issue, though, is not that we don’t want to educate the public, but that those ‘debates’ are shams, organized by creationists for creationists in venues stocked with creationist supporters—they are the ones taking the initiative and pushing their ideas in environments sympathetic to their cause, so of course it’s a bad PR move to let them do that.
What we need to do is get aggressive ourselves. Don’t react to creationist scheming, get out and present good evolutionary biology to the public. Leave the creationists out in the cold completely. Put together seminars for the public, offer to give talks at churches, even…as long as they don’t try to dictate that you must give equal time to some creationist fraud. Push forward! The article quotes Ken Miller on this, and I agree with this part of it:
“You are not trying to convert partisans on the other side,” Miller says. “You are trying to reach out to the great middle ground of American people who, if they fail to support science, ultimately threaten the scientific enterprise. If we in the scientific community don’t provide the information, the American people won’t have the chance to come to the right decision, and it will be our fault.”
Unfortunately, it also features the Ken Miller style of appeasement that pisses me off—the usual false caution that we must not dare to mention the godlessness of science, and must instead bow by default towards the inclusion of theism in evolution. This part is dead wrong.
Haught urges scientists to keep religion out of the science classroom. “There are prominent science thinkers and writers who have themselves unconsciously folded evolutionary science into a world view that nature is all there is, so there cannot, a priori, be any other explanations,” he said. “The irony is that this sabotages and subverts the whole mission of scientific education.”
Complete bullshit. The rejection of theistic evolution is not unconscious at all; many of us make it quite explicit and are definitely aware that we’re fighting against a cultural current. There is no a priori claim that there can be no other explanations, so Haught is just making up crap at that point. What we have is an insistence that in order to be of any utility in science, explanations ought to be logical and based on evidence. If there are other explanations, they are useless unless some effect on the physical, natural world can be documented.
He has it backwards. The irony is that allowing the supernatural into our explanations is what subverts science education, and what makes it doubly ironic is that it is that other side, the theistic evolutionists, who have allowed their indoctrination into traditional dogmas to unconsciously color their interpretations, so that they can claim their myths are legitimate scientific explanations of how the world works.
We do have to take the initiative, we have to aggressively sell our stories to the public, and this idea that we have to be tepid accommodationists on this one extremely common part of the scientific persona, and this one widely held and natural implication of scientific understanding, is a denial of the principles that were so apparent in the first part of that article. Weakness doesn’t work. That the gods didn’t poof us into existence from the blood and bones of Ymir is one of the messages we need to get across, and sidling about and saying that maybe Odin was manipulating dead frost giants by way of quantum indeterminacy is still wibbling nonsense.
In my opinion, neither hard-sell atheism nor soft-sell apologia have any place at all in the public discussion of evolution. Evolution stands for itself as the best-supported theory in all of science, completely orthogonal to the religious debate. Even acknowledging religion while talking about evolution (except in the context, obviously, of discussing the evolution of religion itself) plays right into the hands of the creationists.
Evolution is fact. It is fact completely independently of the existence or nonexistence of any deity and equally independently of any individual’s or group’s beliefs. The focus needs to be on the science of evolution. If we can teach people the realities of evolutionary science, let them believe whatever they want. The main thing is that they learn and accept evolution. Not because that will turn them into good little atheists (it obviously didn’t work on Ken Miller, anyway) but because it’s the truth and because our future as a civilization based on science depends on it.
Oh, I forgot to add that I think the soft-sell apologia is more of a problem than the atheist “evolutionists”. Mostly because the rabid, cultish proper noun Atheist is pretty much a myth. There are a few samples, but most atheists in general don’t give a crap what people believe as long as they don’t do stupid things (for example, deny evolution) as a result.
I agree with Joshua on this one. When evolution is discussed religion should not even be involved, in any way. Neutrality is probably the best course of action in fighting ID/C and other such anti-evolutionist nonsense.
“…so that they can claim their myths are legitimate scientific explanations of how the world works” – PZM
Okay, PZ…for the millionth time: Theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and myself are not claiming that our religion is a legitimate scientific explanation of how the world works. How many f-in times do we have to tell you otherwise? OUR RELIGION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!! Why is it so impossible for you to understand that science and religion can be separated? Ughh…
Because folks like Francis Collins keep trying to combine them?
Once again, PZ tees off on his favorite target, Ken Miller. I wish he would spend as much time and energy beating up on Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, William Demski, et. al. who are the real opposition. Prof. Miller is one of the rare working scientists who is willing take time away from his research lab to fight the good fight against the forces attempting to take us back to the 14th century. Unfortunately, all too many scientists look down their noses at those fellows who spend their time in this way. The fact that Miller and Myers don’t agree on theological issues is of little or no interest to all but the most intransigent of the phi0osophical naturalists.
I wish he would spend as much time and energy beating up on Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, William Demski, et. al.
He does.
Well, I agree that Joshua’s post is fine. However – when the discussion turns to the unknowns, philosophy needs to be addressed. Clearly there are many unknowns with evolutionary science – still many questions.
It’s at this point that the philosophy of science must be clearly conveyed. I think PZ did a great job covering the talking points about that.
So when it comes down to it, science doesn’t look for Odins, or yahwehs, or anything supernatural. These types of searches or discussions are futile and not only non-productive, but counter-productive when packaged for public consumption.
On the one hand, I do agree that adding religion into trying to sort out Placoderm phylogeny is about as productive as adding beach sand into cookie batter, but, what do you recommend for dealing with those people who think that science is an affront to God simply because it isn’t necessary to mention God in every detail?
Hello, Pharyngula Readers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)
PZ Myers said: What we need to do is get aggressive ourselves.
Wow, uncharacteristically, I think you are beginning to beat a battle drum: in a matter of attempting to popularize Science in the public psyche, while without your own understanding of Religionism and Scientism–the unfortunate ignorance that both Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have had been beating since the 1990s, but to no avail!
Briefly, and psychologically, Religion and Science are in fact the 2 sides (or senses) of a same coin (or our Mind), a Mind that cannot be teased apart or be marshaled to fight against each other as we won’t be able to contradict our emotions with reasons, within each of ourselves.
Fundamentally, Religion deals with matters of emotion, whereas Science addresses matters of reason; but Science is neutral on matters of Religion. That’s why Scientism as anti-Religionism as propagated in The God Delusion (Dawkins) as well as Breaking the Spell (Dennett) will only further conjure up the religious sentiments against Science, especially in the US and the UK alike–please see also my censored post here, Flock of Dodos (ScienceBlogsUSA; October 3).
What we have is an insistence that in order to be of any utility in science, explanations ought to be logical and based on evidence. If there are other explanations, they are useless unless some effect on the physical, natural world can be documented.
Why follow Scientism of the diehard, hardliners as Dawkins and Dennett, as discussed above? We should be able to use Science, especially Neuroscience, to explain the religious emotion of feelings and sentiments as well.
Why are you evolving into one of the Dawkinsian “ibots”–intellectual robots–as explained here (since April 2), Religious credulity and the recent spate of godly ‘science’ (ScienceBlogsUSA; July 25)?
The irony is that allowing the supernatural into our explanations is what subverts science education, and what makes it doubly ironic is that it is that other side, the theistic evolutionists, who have allowed their indoctrination into traditional dogmas to unconsciously color their interpretations, so that they can claim their myths are legitimate scientific explanations of how the world works.
As I explained above, religious beliefs are emotional as well as supernatural and cultural as you and I analyzed before here, Dawkins-Paxman interview (ScienceBlogsUSA; September 28).
To win the public psyche back into Science, we, as well-trained scientists, must help the public understand the differences between Science vs. Scientism, Evolution vs. Evolutionism, Religion vs. Religionism, ect. Perhaps reading my book Gods, Genes, Conscience may help all the Darwinist evolutionists, godless and theistic alike!
Weakness doesn’t work.
I agree, weakness in all that we have discussed above, will not help bridging the gulf between Science and Religion today and beyond (please also see Let’s begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!).
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter–just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)
Best wishes, Mong 10/4/6usct3:03p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
NOMA is a ridiculous idea in and of itself. Your godd’s testable claims are provably wrong, and if he doesn’t actually affect the universe in any way we can ever measure, then he’s not worth worshipping.
YOUR GOD IS A LIE. SORRY.
So, Dr Mong, do you know what was God’s plan in designing placoderms?
Seriously, if one believes a bunch of stuff that has no verifiable basis whatsoever what is it but nonsense then?
How many f-in times do people have to tell you to produce evidence for it’s claims or otherwise. Something, anything, other than men in pointy hats saying stuff you garble down.
Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
JimC,
Wow…arrogance and ignorance, what a great combo!
You need to understand something Jimbo…first, I’m not trying to push my religion onto anyone here. Second, I have absolutely no use for providing evidence of my religion. That is completely ridiculous. I don’t have any scientific evidence for my religion. That’s the whole point! It’s called faith…look it up in a dictionary. And just because I have it doesn’t make me an ignorant fool. I have what’s called humility (you should look that one up to, Jim). I recognize that I don’t have every answer in the cosmos. Do you? I think it’s fine that you’re an atheist and I would fight with my life for your right to have that belief. But, man, don’t go sticking your head out to tell me my beliefs are bogus because I don’t have any evidence for them. You remind of me of the ID-friendly guy that Casey Luskin was talking about a while back. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/report_on_ken_millers_talk_aga.html
Listen, I’d like to echo a previous post by saying this whole theistic evolutionist vs atheistic evolutionist debate is so incredibly counter-productive right now. Maybe if our school systems were absolutely perfect at teaching science, this discussion would be worthwhile. But there are much more important issues out there, folks. I know you have the right to talk about whatever you want, but ask yourself this, “Are we really accomplishing anything with these debates?” or are we just beating our chests like gorillas?
I think one of the main reasons that people like PZ are so pissed off about this issue is that they have this misconception that people like Dr. Miller are proselytizing when they talk about their religion. He most certainly is not. He is just pointing out the obvious (to me at least) idea that evolution does not equal atheism. It’s perfectly okay to be an atheist and accept evolution, but it most certainly isn’t required. That is his message, not that atheists are wrong. You’re just being paranoid because you’ve just been dealing with disingenous creationists for way too long and it’s hard for you to accept that theists can actually say something useful without proselytizing.
Miller’s book is “proselytizing” for his view of theistic evolution.
What I am pissed off about is the assumption made that because we argue for atheism as a good, human philosophy, we are therefore claiming that evolution “proves” atheism, and must be told how stupid we are. Since we do not make such claims, it is annoying to have to deal with those dismissals from our own side. Jebus, man, I go out of my way in my talks to secular groups to say that atheism is NOT a prerequisite to being a good scientist.
Oh, and that “quantum indeterminacy” stuff is not useful.
We can. However, the explanations work just as well or better without the assumption that there is any “there” there.
Religious experience is real – the way a hallucination or a dream is real. It’s a real experience of unreal subject matter.
What we call “emotions” are particular patterns of activation in the brain, many of which can now even be detected and measured. They are not a non-physical phenomenon.
If you had actually *read* Dennett instead of just dismissing him, you’d probably know that.
It’s quite possible that any attempt to understand religion will result in the hostility of the religious, a point I belive Dennett addresses; but that doesn’t mean we should abandon the attempt.
PZ,
I hate to get into a battle of semantics but…if your definition of “proselytizing” is loose enough to include Miller’s book then it definitely is loose enough to include your argument for atheism by saying that it is “a good, human philosophy”. I actually don’t think either of them qualifies as “an attempt to convert another person to your beliefs”. Miller presents his beliefs (just as you do every day on this blog), that’s it…you may choose to accept them or not…take it or leave it.
Oh, and for the record, the “quantum indeterminacy” stuff wasn’t useful to me either.
I go out of my way in my talks to secular groups to say that atheism is NOT a prerequisite to being a good scientist.
But that is all Haught is saying: Science’s self-imposed restriction to naturalistic explanations is not the same as saying that the naturalistic is all there is.
The fact that people on your own side aren’t getting that message from what you (and Larry Moran and Dawkins, etc.) are saying is perhaps reason enough to revise how you put it. Both theists and atheists could probably do with being clearer about when they are speaking as scientists and when as philosophers/theologians.
Wow……standard retort, people are ignorant if they don’t understand my religious blatherings. Not one thing I said was ignorant or arrogant seeing how I simply parroted your language back to you.
Arrogant statement check. Hypocrite.
Arrogant statement number 2. Hypocrite times 2.
Arrogance and ignorance. Hypocrite times 3. A great combo. I’m not an atheist.
Oh and how does pretending that somehow your beliefs explain something when they don’t provide any answers whatsoever? How are those answers any more pertinent than those of any of a myriad of religions.
You got all that from what I wrote in those few sentences huh? Impressive. My question for you would then be why do you think your beliefs have any value even as faith compared to many other faiths minus any evidence. I presume your a Muslim.
Of course this is correct. But unless one addresses the underlying pathology that is faith in things for no rational reason whatsoever it simply is applying window dressing.
You keep peeling the skin off the religious apple and you reach the core.
Haught is clearly wrong in the quote PZ publishes. However…
Haught was one of the witnesses who helped provide a successful resolution to Kitzmiller, (as did Ken Miller, btw). Haught’s testimony made the point that “intelligent design” creationism, as theology, was as worthless as it was as science.
I realize that PZ and many others hold the opinion that theology itself is worthless and therefore an argument over how worthless any particular theology might be is pretty much besides the point. Nevertheless, Haught’s arguments in the trial may be of interest to those of us who believe that the best way to defeat christianists is to discredit them in every possible way. That includes confronting them on their utterly atrocious ethics and the genuinely foolish religious beliefs they claim to hold (actually, christianists are a political movement and their “beliefs” are opportunistic).
Quoting JimC:
“Seriously, if one believes a bunch of stuff that has no verifiable basis whatsoever what is it but nonsense then?”
“You keep peeling the skin off the religious apple and you reach the core.”
“I’m not an atheist.”
(singing) Which one of these is not like the others? Which one of these just doesn’t belong?
haha, one can have a god belief and not be religious. I guess egbooth you simply wouldn’t understand a fideistic style of belief. One can know ones beliefs are likely bunk and keep them for purely emotional or familial reasons. Or one can keep a belief personal and not be religious at all.
I do agree with you on one point from above, the not having any evidence. Where you and I part company is seeing religion in any form providing any answers whatsoever to any question.
egbooth:
I think PZ is doing a good job of explaining that he isn’t using science to claim atheism, while Miller is using science to claim religion, and worse using it so his religion claim science.
“The yin part of Miller’s book wherein his goal is to assert his religious faith as supposedly supported by scientific data, … What we see, instead, is a display of an intelligent and insightful mind desperately trying to prove to himself that his religious faith has a rational foundation. … If Bohm’s view will one day triumph, the foundation of Miller’s argument would collapse. … On page 225 he writes, “One of the most remarkable findings of cosmological science is that the universe did have a beginning.” … Miller asserts that unbelievers among scientists are in an “anthropic trap.” … ( http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Yin.cfm )
To summarise, if you were Miller, you have to choose the Bohm interpretation of QM, exclude the eternal inflation multiverse, and exclude anthropic theories. Neither of which seems reasonable to physics today. Theistic evolution similarly messes with evolution directly.
John:
You forgot that PZ claims other explanations are useless unless they can document an effect. Haught claims that (evolutionary) scientists are unconscious about that this property follows from science methods, and that this means scientists are injecting science into the science classroom. That is not only riddled with errors, it isn’t what you claim he is saying.
JimC,
Humbly, I’m not very familiar with fideism but it seems that your statement “One can know ones beliefs are likely bunk” is not fideistic. Am I wrong? It seems that Fideists throughout history definitely didn’t consider their beliefs were likely bunk, they just knew that they couldn’t empirically or logically prove that their God exists. I guess that makes me a fideist. (BTW – I’m not Muslim). I’m thinking we have more in common than you think; your words were just confusing the way you put them.
Saying plainly that you don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist is not plain enough? Putting up a slide at a talk with a list of scientists who are religious, from Asa Gray to Ken Miller, and saying that they have made essential contributions to biology is not plain enough?
Jebus. How stupid are the people who aren’t getting this message? Isn’t there a point where we ought to be able to say that if you’re this dumb, I’m just going to have to write you off and ask you to stay home in this debate?
Getting out there and educating people with good science is hindered by the fact that people have to stop and pay attention to it, and most people don’t have the time or understanding to follow along.
If they have the time and understanding, or the time and the inclination to attain the understanding, chances are they are already on the Evolution team.
If the idea that forcing their beliefs on public school students isn’t repugnant to these people, we’re clearly already dealing with clever induhviduals.
It’s unfortunate that these few idiots are out there ruining the name of many religions in their own quest to feel better about themselves.
It’s not that your religion is not scientific, it is that it is anti-scientific. How stupid do you have to be not to have picked up on that?
Saying plainly that you don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist is not plain enough? Putting up a slide at a talk with a list of scientists who are religious, from Asa Gray to Ken Miller, and saying that they have made essential contributions to biology is not plain enough?
Jebus. How stupid are the people who aren’t getting this message? Isn’t there a point where we ought to be able to say that if you’re this dumb, I’m just going to have to write you off and ask you to stay home in this debate?
Well, I did include people other than you. And how many people see your talks compared to read your blog? I think you should be saying it as often as you think Miller and Collins should be saying that their theology is not science.
Anyway, the people who really count in this, the great middle ground of American people, may be stupid or they may just not be paying all that much attention but they don’t seem to be getting it. Everyone who cares about science education should be saying it to them as often as it takes.
Just to throw in my two cents. A while back on PZ’s Daughter’s site I had a brief exchange with something claiming a theological view which ***didn’t*** conflict with science, except that, imho, he makes a sort of, “fish swim, the sea has fish in it, therefor the ocean swims”, category error. But, *his* religion equates nature *with* spirituality. The two are integral and inseperable. If your religion is wrong about, it must be because you failed to understand the nature of the world in that case, not because someone is making stuff up to make you look stupid and you’re actually right. Unfortunately, radicals are re-writing that religion to, turning it into the same BS God driven idiocy the rest have. Why? Because having a God which you can piss off means you need someone to tell you why you are pissing them off, and who ever has the direct line to that God has *all* of the power to dictate what you think, what you do, what you become and how much money they can rob you of in the process.
The problem with most religions isn’t that they deal with unknown that science can’t. The problem is, they deal with **unknowables**, which are qualitatively no different than stuff we can list the exact author, date and genre of publication, like AD&D novels. But, since we can’t list an exact author, give a precise date, prove that the guy that wrote it was making it up and its been jammed on the “religion” shelf along side, “Feng Shui for Dummies”, and, “A begginers Guide to Healing Crystals”, the following get a free pass, without anyone having a right to question them:
1. It must be true.
2. No evidence is required.
3. Any suggestion that at best, it isn’t compatible with science, or at worst, is 50,000 times more improbable and/or impossible than the ones that “are” marginally compatible, is proclaimed to be based on fear that it might be true, brain washing and scientific dogma or close mindedness.
People are not getting it because in any given year there are 100,000 times as many TV shows about Psychics and Angels, 100,000 times as many rag magazines posting news about the latest image of Jesus in someone’s toothpaste, and 100,000 times as many myths and urban legends being recycled in which “faith” produces some miracle, than there are even something as basic as a story about how ones car mechanic sat down and throught through a problem with their car and “discovered” the solution (never mind much of anything, other than crime dramas and a few sci-fi shows that try to present scientists as anything other than bumbling idiots).
One thing is clear. If you treat children like idiots, they act like idiots. Treat them like smart people and they learn more than you expect them too (since societal standards are so unbelievably low to start with). Take the ones you treated like morons and treat them like *bigger* morons as teens, then even ***bigger*** morons as adults, what the do you expect, a nation of PHDs who enjoy reading “American Scientist” more than “The Weekly World News”? Of course not. You expect what we actually get, billions of people that would rather watch “Supernatural” or “Ghost Hunters”, instead of The Science Channel. Duh!
Even rediculous stuff like Eureka are marginally better than having a dozen new, “Family who goes to church, sees ghosts, has a bunch of regurgitated moral issues, with simplistic and one sided answers, and who in season two discover they all have psychic powers!”, type shows. Ok, its an exageration, but not by much…
Bluntly: PZ, Dennett, and friend are hostile to “theistic evolution”, not because they “can’t understand religion”, but because they understand it all too well. Specifically, they’ve repeatedly experienced the proverbial “camel’s nose in the tent”. Yielding any ground whatsoever to the religionists, is taken as a mandate for them to announce from the rooftops: “see, even the scientists admit God is more important than science!”
Do you really think the fundies would recognize a deist as “religious”? I doubt they would. As far as the Religious Right is concerned, evolution == science == atheist == evil. The benefits of science are irrelevant to their thinking — indeed, if more kids died of disease, injuries, etc, that would just be “God’s will”, and more power to the preachers. If you don’t want your kids dying of preventable causes, if you don’t like them being intimidated, deceived, and occasionally molested by men in black dresses, or even if you want to keep the world intact for their children and grandchildren — well then, you’re “standing against the Will of God”, so you must be EEEVVVILL, no further questions needed.
After going through that a few times, damn right you quit making allowances for scientists who make a public point of their religion, and leave truck-sized holes for the evangelists to bring their faith into the science classrooms.
Kagehi, barring a few minor points, I can’t say I disagree with your entire thesis. It was a pleasure interacting with you on Skatje’s blog. I got tremendously busy in work and could not reply to your last message there.
And you don’t have to specially mark *his*; it is a ‘he’ indeed :)
And just one thing, please don’t mind :) ‘rediculous’ is incorrect (you have used it earlier also). The correct spelling is ‘ridiculous’.
After reading the various comments on this article, I thought I’d throw in my 2 cents. This is how I see the debate over religion and science.
If someone feels that there must be a God of some kind, then they’ll believe it.
If someone has no such feeling, then they won’t believe it.
Since such a being is definitionally not an object of any empirical observation, there’s no objective way to convince either side to believe the contrary, since the belief is based on what the person feels, not on any empirical observations.
So I don’t argue with people over whether some kind of God exists. That argument will always go nowhere, and it’s always nothing more than “I feel this” vs. “I feel that”. De gustibus non est disputandum.
But what annoys the shit out of me is when people take a theistic belief and try to broaden it into the empirical realm. “I feel God exists, therefore so-and-so turned water into wine and rose from the dead etc.”
Bullshit. That’s a claim about the physical world, and it can be tested by empirical methods. It turns out the story of a so-and-so who is part man, part god and turns water into wine and rises from the dead is a commonplace story in the mythologies of many different cultures, some of them predating Christianity.
We can evaluate the claim empirically. It has nothing to do with “faith”. The mythological claims of various religions, when simply mythological, are no more harmful than Beowulf or the Iliad. But when people use “faith” to try to claim these myths are empirical facts, that is complete nonsense. Jesus rising from the grave is no more a matter of “faith” than the Sun going around the Earth is. Both are disconfirmed by material facts. Both claims are false. And “I feel there’s a God” is no excuse for accepting either.
You believe in God? Fine. Believe in him. That’s cool. I won’t argue with you. But don’t think that believing in God necessarily entails empirical claims (like “Jesus was a God”) and that these claims are not subject to scientific investigation. You might feel that there’s a God, and I might feel there isn’t, but science doesn’t really care what we feel.
PZ is right for the most part. Any time someone makes a claim about the physical world, it can potentially be tested scientifically. And when religion makes these claims, they must be just as liable to disconfirmation as any other claim about the physical world. “Faith” is no excuse. If you have “faith” in geocentricity, you’re just plain wrong. If you have “faith” that an actual historical person actually arose from death, you’re wrong. Period.
PZ: It seems like, where evolution is concerned, people tend to stake out positions and then talk past others based upon their preconceptions of what you might possibly say. Some seem determined to paint you as an anti-religious bigot no matter what you actually say, for example.
Here’s my two cents on appeasement, etc. NOMA and other such strategies are not only probably wrong, they’re boring. What makes science exciting is that it pushes against the boundaries. We sell our students short if we neuter science of that excitement. In that sense we certainly *should* ‘teach the controversy’—-but we have to make clear that there is no *scientific* controversy.
In doing so, we need to be up-front with kids. Religion doesn’t occupy a privileged position in science; any claims that it makes that lead to predictable consequences in the real world can be tested–and should be. And students need to be told this.
But there’s a way to do it in a user-friendly way that acknowledges religious concerns and implications without attempting to either antagonize or appease religion. Really, to teach evolution well we have to acknowledge the former; we simply have to make sure we don’t privilege any metaphysical view in doing so.
Just my two cents. I think you’re doing a pretty decent job, PZ, and I can distinguish between your personal views on religion and how you present the science….SH
Not if you are going to then call Ken Miller a “creationist”, if Larry is then going to create web sites trying to claim that theistic evolution is no different from ID, and Dawkins is then going to claim that any non-theist evolutionist who doubts the utility of attacking religion is to be compared to near-treasonous politicians like Neville Chamberlain, then, no, it isn’t “plain enough”. If the “enemy” includes people like Ken Miller, then it includes all theists because his form of theism is about as mild as it gets. It suggests that such statements like “you don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist” are not particularly sincere reflections of your beliefs but simply slogans you repeat when you see that they could be useful.
Perhaps you think that fellow biologists who happen to atheists (such as Eugenie Scott and myself) are just being political when we say “you don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist”, I don’t know.
“Jebus, man, I go out of my way in my talks to secular groups to say that atheism is NOT a prerequisite to being a good scientist.”
Thanks, that was very clear. In mild defense of myself and perhaps some other folks who didn’t “get” this before, it is the first time I can remember seeing you spell it out like this. I’m sure you have done so and I just failed to see it.
Where I don’t mind seeing religion and think it can do some good is in encouraging ethical behavior (in the Opus-holding-the-umbrella, Gandhi saying “all religions are true” sense of ethical behavior). Of course, I don’t mind seeing atheists do the very same thing.
Where I *do* mind seeing religion is in the following circumstances:
One is trying to invent supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, which, to use an earthy but IMO apt expression I learned in Oklahoma, is “about as much use as tits on a boar hog.” Ask (nearly) any Creationist telling you about Biblical inerrancy whether the Earth orbits the Sun, and you’ll likely get “Yes” for an answer. Apparently the story of Joshua doesn’t qualify for the same literalist treatment as Genesis. (See the Martin Luther quote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_disputes_over_heliocentrism .)
The other is something I call “Chevy Chase” religion. Back when the show Saturday Night Live began, Chevy Chase did a satirical news segment called Weekend Update. (Do they still have it? Haven’t watched in ages.) He kicked off each segment as Weekend Update “anchor” by saying, “Good evening, I’m Chevy Chase – and you’re not.” All those people we’ve heard far too much from who feel they’re morally superior to [insert name of disfavored person or groups here], not due to acts of kindness but simply because “I’m [insert name of favored religion here] – and you’re not”? That’s Chevy Chase religion, folks.
I also happen to think it’s a “mug’s game” to try to *disprove* religious belief (as distinct from supernatural explanations for natural phenomena) scientifically, but this post is already long and that is probably a subject for another time.
I don’t have any scientific evidence for my religion. That’s the whole point! It’s called faith…look it up in a dictionary.
I want to know just how believing something you have no reason to believe, to the point of defending it to the death in the face of all contradicting evidence, stopped being a cause for embarrassment and started being a moral good, even a moral necessity.
Everyone knows what faith is, and they know you have it. They just aren’t as impressed by that as you are.
And just because I have it doesn’t make me an ignorant fool. I have what’s called humility (you should look that one up to, Jim). I recognize that I don’t have every answer in the cosmos.
Not only does it make you an ignorant fool, it makes you a champion of ignorant foolishness. Scientists recognize that they don’t have every answer in the cosmos, even better than you do. What they don’t feel the need to do is make up an explanation, or give up trying to find any answers before they even start.
Dawkins is a prophet. From The God Delusion:
Well, maybe not so much a prophet as familiar with tired old arguments.
I think Kristine said it best the other day on the Dawkins and Paxman thread:
[This is emotional blackmail, not an argument. Ironically, it mimics the accusation leveled at Albert Einstein that Dawkins quotes extensively in his book: “Mr. Einstein, you may know a great many things, but you obviously know nothing about God!” And who sounds arrogant? It’s really just another ad hominem attack after all.]
Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter–just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)
Best wishes, Mong 10/5/6usct2:15p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.