Man, I must have smacked Michael Ruse really hard. Over and over, he repeats one simple, common phrase that I applied to him — it must have been painfully memorable.
I have been called many things in my time, but I truly believe that “clueless gobshite” is a first. In a way, I am almost proud of this. After all, if you are in your seventieth year and someone feels so strongly about your ideas that they refer to you in this way, then you must be doing something right. Or if not exactly right, you must have ideas that others want to challenge so strongly that they pull out this kind of language.
It’s a very peculiar phenomenon. Here is the post in which I casually referred to Ruse as a “clueless gobshite”; I criticized him and Andrew Brown much more strongly than that one remark would imply, yet it is all that stuck in his head. He repeatedly agonizes over the cruelty of my remark, and acts as if all I had to say about him was one vicious, cutting cliche, and he encapsulates every criticism in that one insult. Further, he hangs himself on a cross and tries to claim he didn’t deserve even that, that his crime was of being too reasonable, of being generous and charitable.
And yet, I am excoriated at every turn. Why? Simply, because I am an “Accommodationist.” I think that some kind of intellectual meeting is possible with religious believers, including Christian religious believers.
Oh, poor Michael Ruse, that gentle-souled and open-minded fellow who merely wants to reach out to his fellow human beings with sympathy—how could he deserve such unkind criticism? I clutch my pearls with one hand, place the other on my brow, and gaze skyward with eyes welling tearfully, and then swoon upon the fainting couch installed handily near my desk. Michael, Michael, Michael…how could we abuse you so?
Actually, with good reason, and my attacks on his flawed character have been even stronger than you’d guess from his limited quoting. What prompted my rudeness wasn’t his pious apologetics for the common man, but that Ruse visited the Creation “Museum”, ignored the lunacy on display (except to express his sympathy with it), and went on to identify the real culprit in this anti-intellectual abomination.
Michael Ruse went to Ken Ham’s house, twirled about among the exhibits showing dinosaurs with saddles, Noah’s ark being built to carry off members of every species on earth, exhortations to accept Biblical literalism, and accusations of malice and dishonesty against every sensible biologists, and what do he and Andrew Brown do? Why, blame the atheists, of course.
That is insane.
What the hell is wrong with Ruse? How can he stand among the lies, with little children being told abominable fabrications, and think then that the pressing problem is people who demand evidence for their beliefs? I was unimpressed with his momentary show of self-serving “open-mindedness”; but I was disgusted with his completely inappropriate neglect of a genuine problem to fling blame at the people who have consistently opposed every facet of that monument to ignorance.
Michael Ruse really needs to carefully read my original complaint, because I’m not giving him a rhetorical slap because he’s too open-minded. I’m kicking him to the curb because ideas matter (something I would think a philosopher would care about), and he espouses a kind of waffling relativism that acts as if young earth creationism and science are equivalently deserving of respect, and that if atheists would just shut up we’d all be living in a happy, loving relationship with Ken Ham.
He’s not just a clueless gobshite. He’s a traitor to reason.
Regardless of the little personal battles, I thought this was interestingly duplicitous and snake-like, from the execrable Klinghoffer:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/unlike_the_reptilian_dawkins_s_1.html
Yes, Dawkins and Coyne are too mean/smug, and damn that horrid Ruse, he’s just too nice. Not that David evinces any sort of virtue that the godly are supposed to have, Ruse tells it like it is on morality, and is thereby evil because, well, it disagrees with Klinghoffer’s religion.
The complaints from these rodents is only that anyone would dare to be atheist. If they’re “nice,” damn them to hell for lying (well, telling the truth, contrary to religion, and if they’re “mean,” well, what would you expect from atheists?
They’re going to be lying assholes regardless, is the only message to get from Klinghoffer & company.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Dear Mr. Ruse,
QQ moar.
You clueless gobshite.
Ugh…
The old “I must’ve hit a nerve” argument. (AKA, the misquoted “methinks thou doth protest too much” argument)
I used to have to tell my ex-wife this regularly: The fact that I’m arguing with you doesn’t mean you’re right, and if I argue with you strongly it doesn’t mean you’re more right. And if I call you an asshole it doesn’t mean you’re on to something… it means you’re an asshole.
I wish that Ruse would give the full context of the quote:
If that view isn’t clueless gobshite-ery, I don’t know what is.
The whole thing of blaming atheists for fundamentalists doesn’t make much sense. I suppose it might be strategic to do so in order to get moderates on side, but really? really? REALLY?!? Most of these people don’t even know what evolution is – let alone atheism. As a recent Australian study showed, the more devout the religious person the more likely they were a creationist.
In some cases, “open-minded” requires a hole being bored through your frontal lobes.
How do you pronounce “gobshite”? I need that in my vocabulary…
huh, I have been called worse by better and dont lose any sleep over it. With the full quote in context perhaps mewling bulimic would have been more appropriate
@ryan #7 gob like mob shite like shit but with a long I be careful you dont pronounce it like shiite if travelling in the ME
It’s beyond me how any rational educated person could visit that travesty of a museum & not be offended by the ignorant lying duplicity of the place.
There’s no evidence for the feckin’ bible bogey. There’s no reason to believe it exists. Ruse should be ashamed of himself.
Preach on brotha PZ, preach ON!
Accommodationism is one thing, but accommodating Ken Ham is balls out creotarded. SLAM!
Heh heh. “Clueless gobshite”, eh? Looks like PZ picked up a few new useful phrases on his recent trip to Ireland :-)
The ‘shite’ part rhymes with ‘height’, for those new to this endearing turn of phrase.
I’m not even in university yet and the idea of seeing someone believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old enrages me. I’m hoping to take Geology, and it’s really saddening when a man can go to a museum, see such blatant lies, and accept them.
Ruse also seems to need some thicker skin.
The Creation Museum. Holy crap (literally). I just revisited that place thru a couple photo albums on Flickr, and introduced the idiocy to a few friends who had never heard of it before. They had a very hard time wrapping their heads around the stupidity (which I suppose is the point of the place, after all).
You can’t just talk about it. You have to show it.
So, PZ, are you guessing Ruse or Collins for this year’s Templeton prize? I was thinking Collins, but if you keep putting Ruse up on the cross he might come out ahead in martyr points.
It’s certain that Michael Ruse (what an apt name) is no Bugs Bunny.
Haha, what a whiner. I’m glad Jerry Coyne has stayed on Ruse’s case, but this was awesome.
Dear “philosopher” Michael Ruse: Science is NOT the art of equivocation. It is not about reconciliation with supernatural beliefs. It is not about catering to bullshit or wasting energy on make-believe.
It IS about evidence. It IS about excising notions that lack empirical support. Stop “accommodating” fairies and unicorns and get a clue.
“Clueless gobshite” isn’t all that nasty an insult. For Ruse to claim that the burning strength of it somehow purifies him is truly clueless.
Also, Ruse’s assumption that PZ would only descend to such vulgarity if strongly motivated isn’t in line with his usual opinion of PZ. Is it?
PZ dubbed the “museum” Kan Ham’s Monument to Stupidity™ but I think that’s too nice. What it really is is a Monument to Bigotry.
The idiocy is just the wrapping paper around the rotten core.
How anyone could look at that place and give it any amount of respect is just despicable.
This is Ruse posting on BioLogos. The AiG level “they disagree with us because they are angry, and because they’re angry we must be right” gambit is about what you’d expect, whether or not it’s consistent with opinions spoken elsewhere.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that gobshite is a term of Irish origin. ‘Gob’ is slang for mouth here, so gobshite is a purveyor of a steady stream of verbal diarrhoea.
Apologies if someone beat me to it, but I exceeded my ISP’s bandwidth limit this month, and am working with 56kbps dial-up. I had to look up diarrhoea in a physical dictionary. It was feckin’ quicker.
Windows 98 laptop (from 1998, BTW!), with Firefox 0.8.0 from 2004. Works like a charm. Unbelievable.
Ruse is a philosopher? And he doesn’t apparently know that when you have fundamentally differing epistemologies, there’s really no basis for conversation (other than cocktail chatter)? That you have to have at least commensurate basis for forming arguments in order to, well, argue?
I mean, this is kindergarten stuff. Singing kumbaya is good and all — but conversation will never convert someone not already looking to convert (change basic principles of evidence and structure of argument). You can have civil discussions over accommodations in practical terms between groups, but not over what is actually true.
Half-way between your head and your ass isn’t a head-ass amalgamation.
You can’t average being in two places (even though poor statistics often tries). There are real forks, with an excluded interval between.
Reading the thread at Ruse’s place is hilarious — the continual self-applause over their reasonableness, civility and moderation, while simultaneously accusing others of being “egoistic”. The intellectual dishonesty stinks — particularly when folks are lauding themselves for it.
Sometimes positions are mutually exclusive. Sometimes there is no space for discourse — merely toleration.
Hehe, Gobshite, I love it. That’s such a wonderfully old-school insult : )
I agree with everything in PZ’s post, except I wouldn’t say ‘traitor to reason’. It sounds a bit too cultish. Otherwise everything was bang on the money.
Speaking of creation museums, there’s some folks hoping to build the Creation Museum of the Ozarks in Branson, Missouri. They haven’t got it going yet, except for some bad radio spots and a Facebook page.
Oh, lordy loo, how that one will be milked and abused.
The complaint seems to be that it’s very hard to tell religious people that they shouldn’t be at all threatened by the theory of evolution, and that it’s perfectly “compatible” with Christianity — when there are atheists out there publicly explaining how the theory of evolution counts against both the truth of the Bible, and the existence of God. If only the atheists would shut up, they wouldn’t be so scared! Our attempt to show people the right way to do theology would be easier!
And we need to steer them the right way, theologically, in order to gain the victory of making science easy to swallow. It doesn’t matter how we got them to believe — as long as they do end up believing. In evolution.
Gee, I wonder why that approach just feels so … comfortable … to the accomodationists.
Tough. Astrology is compatible with astronomy, and homeopathy is compatible with chemistry, if you go looking around for scientists who have rationalized compartmentalizing special beliefs, into their own, separate systems. There’s private personal truth, and there’s everybody truth. Though the personal truth is the better one, because it’s more important. Even though, it’s private. For some reason.
Pandering to both intellectual dishonesty and superstition in order to make science less threatening, is not promoting critical reasoning. You know, the scientific method. Religion is not personal identity and happy hobby; it’s fact claims about the supernatural — and it will leach into the rest of reality.
Somehow this and the comments remind me of a most awesome t-shirt I once saw. It said “I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.”
If one person calls you an ass, laugh.
If two people call you an ass, consider their words carefully.
If three wise people call you an ass, get fitted for a saddle.
(Don’t know the origin.)
Why do I get the feeling more and more that accommodationists treat religious believers like children? Don’t they think religious believers can handle difference of opinion? That they could participate in discussions on the matter, or that they could separate the science and the philosophy?
sssh, we better not say anything mean or against God. Religious people are too frail to handle the likes of Dawkins. He’s just so strident and militant and he thinks God is a delusion! How can we have a rational dialogue when Dawkins says such mean things about believers?
Personally if anyone called me a gobshite I’d have to thank them for being so creative to use such an old insult.
Sastra: And we need to steer them the right way, theologically, in order to gain the victory of making science easy to swallow. It doesn’t matter how we got them to believe — as long as they do end up believing. In evolution.
They may even have an argument if it was even slightly plausible — but it’s not. No actual creationist will ever be convinced by wrapping evolution in candied words. They do know what they believe, and what basis they use to believe it. They’re not just “mistaken” — they have a fundamentally different basis for interpreting much of reality.
Candied word may work for “post-Christians” — folks who are no longer Christian by any meaningful yardstick, but merely use Christian language to describe an atheist reality: “God is love”, “Jesus is a metaphor”, “We each have a right to conscience” (in a fundamental way), “Science gives us the truth about the material universe” — you know, folks who are “spiritual”, Catholics who “don’t believe in the hierarchy”, liberal Protestants who believe that the Bible is a “great book of philosophy”. Unitarians who wear a cross.
But that’s not Christianity, but Christian words to describe a non-Christian universe — they just want to be able to claim a group loyalty, a loyalty to a tradition, without making any important epistemological or ontological claims to distinguish themselves from Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment atheism.
They want to have their Nietzche and eat him too.
Who’s worried about them? They’re not the problem — if you want to play at worshipping Odin on your time off as a virtual reality, who gives a crap? But the 50% of Americans who are actual believers — they’re not going to be taken in by pretending that Christianity is just science + metaphorical Jesus, as if their religion was simply a form of literary criticism, or a traditional poetics.
Calling him a clueless gobshite was a little rough. Should we call in the moon patrol? </poopyhead aratina>
Seriously though, it was pretty sickening to read Ruse saying
when it clearly would only make sense to real gobshites and a so-called rational person would have to be clueless to think otherwise.
I’d just like to correct Mr. Ruse: Perhaps if someone calls you a “cluless gobshite” you may be the king of morons regardless of how intelligent you believe yourself to be. Ruse the Goose obviously hasn’t got a clue about how reality works – I just ignore his pretentious attempts at philosophy, or thought for that matter. As Curly put it: “I’m trying to think but nothing happens!”
Oh! That reminds me!
My first visit to Pharyngula was when I saw PZ’s post calling Ruse a gobshite!
That was back when I was a catholic, and I used to feel a lot of contempt for atheists. Thanks to Dawkins I lost my catholicism, and thanks to PZ I finally became an atheist.
So if nothing else, PZ, thank you for calling out a clueless gobshite! I might still have been muddled in religion if not for you.
Why do I get the feeling more and more that accommodationists treat religious believers like children? Don’t they think religious believers can handle difference of opinion? That they could participate in discussions on the matter, or that they could separate the science and the philosophy?
This is why I went full bore on Mooney in such a way that he shit his pants from being so upset.
It is treating them like children. What he and Ruse and all the other Theist humpers are essentially doing is patting the morons on the head and saying, “There, there. It’s okay that you want to cling to your delusion. It’s not your fault you’re so pathetic and stupid that you have to do that.”
Maybe if Mooneytits and Ruse were female, they’d have a better grasp of just how patronizing the “There, there, don’t worry your pretty head about that” really is.
Of course, then we might be dealing with more posts like PZ Myers, Mind Your Manners.
frog, Inc #31 wrote:
Heh, it’s funny — as I was reading your description of the fuzzy wuzzy liberal believers, I thought to myself “… and then here comes alternative medicine.” A fundamentally magical view of reality has a hard time keeping itself into corners where it makes no difference.
As Greta Christina has pointed out on her blog, this “it’s a metaphor” game seems to be just that. If this was what they really believed, they wouldn’t be so damn put out over atheism.
Last year I attended a ‘debate’ between Ruse and William Dembski. I had read that Ruse was a favorite of the IDers in such venues. I saw why. Ruse, although defending evolution to some extent, his obsequiousness to Dembski and his veiled suggestion that the IDers should be respected because they were ‘sincere’ was disgusting. I found this behavior of Ruse more repulsive than his accomodationism.
What’s unbelievable is the number of security vulnerabilities you are likely presenting to the Internet.
Get yourself a modern firewall. Quickly.
I think that some kind of intellectual meeting is possible with religious believers, including Christian religious believers.
Does this worthless wimp also suck up to terrorists?
I don’t see any difference between suicide bombers and people who believe in the Jeebus zombie. They are equally insane.
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
A traitor, you say?
That is giving too much credit to the fellow, in my opinion. He is mere philosopher of sorts.
Never expect intent where stupidity is as, if not more, likely.
elucifuga #38 wrote:
In a debate, that’s only a good tactic if it allows you to shove the knife in deeper. Doesn’t sound like Ruse carried through.
Bad form.
OMG I hadn’t seen that one before. What a pompous, sorry waste of human flesh Sheril is.
Fuck off, Sheril, and you know where you can put your fucking opinion about “manners”.
Sastra #42
Ruse not only did not shove the knife deeper, he hardly parried Dembski’s thrusts!
But…but…but…What if Ruse’s mother had read that PZ called her darling son a gobshite? Since Ruse is in his 70s his mother is probably in her 90s. Don’t you want her to live her few remaining years in peace, knowing that her beloved offspring is admired in the blogosphere? WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ADULTS?
a. human. ape #40 wrote:
No, that’s hyperbole. They’re not terrorists.
Of course “some kind of intellectual meeting” is possible with religious believers. PZ — and Dawkins, Harris, etc. — have often said that they can work with moderate theists in order to fight creationism, or promote good environmental policies, or give to worthy causes, or what have you. They’re not the enemy.
But the “intellectual meeting” to be had with religion itself, is going to be in the area of intellectual debate. The beliefs are going to be dragged out into the light, formulated like good little hypotheses, and then picked apart and abused — because they don’t work. Reassuring religious believers that supernatural beliefs are quite respectable if they can manage to re-formulate them around facts in reality so they can still “work” for them, is not an “intellectual meeting.” It’s the kind of pandering that’s sometimes called “forbearance.”
And yes, it does treat the religious like children. It’s another version of “you can’t teach a pig to sing.” And as long as they don’t say the word “pig” to their faces, they think the religious won’t be bothered by the condescension.
frog Inc #22:
Nice line.
Which is where the fundamentalists win one over the moderates. Moderates aren’t bothered by it; fundamentalists see right through it and know exactly what’s going on.
I lost most of my respect for Ruse when he went on media tours with Dembski to play “good cop bad cop” a few yeas back.
he was either hard up for some cash, or saw it as an opportunity to reinject his mostly forgotten name at that point.
I really hope I don’t try something as disingenuous when i hat MY mid-late 60’s.
Ichthyic, I dunno. What if there’s $$$ in it and you want for a comfortable retirement? ;)
Of course, then we might be dealing with more posts like PZ Myers, Mind Your Manners.
and who posted that post?
Sheril.
not Matt.
and who posted the latest screed on “politeness” at the intardsector?
yup, Sheril, not Matt.
Sheril noted that the sciblogs were much more personable and agreeable BEFORE her arrival (I can direct quote that for anybody).
conclusion:
Sheril=Yoko Ono.
Clueless Gobshitery is contagious.
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/23/new-harris-poll-finds-nearly-one-fourth-of-republicans-believe-obama-may-be-the-antichrist/
Sastra:
They’re not [all] terrorists.
fixed that for you.
you know for a fact that some of them are.
Ichthyic #53 wrote:
True. But I guess I was just assuming that Ruse wasn’t talking about that particular subset.
Why would you assume that? He made the statement in the context of visiting Ham’s Creation Museum. There’s a fair amount of overlap between Young Earth Creationists and terrorist groups like Army of God.
That’s so unkind to Yoko Ono.
The Curvature did a really interesting series on Yoko Ono awhile back. Really puts a new spin on the whole Beatles thing.
@3 “I used to have to tell my ex-wife this regularly: … if I call you an asshole it doesn’t mean you’re on to something… it means you’re an asshole.”
Hmm. Ex-wife, eh? There’s a lesson there, somewhere.
That’s so unkind to Yoko Ono.
well, she always has the option to sue.
;)
I actually enjoy Ruse’s work for the most part. In print, he is able to make nuanced positions that don’t concede much to the creationists while striking a sympathetic tone.
That’s much harder to do in person. For me, Ruse’s chief misstep lies in the fact that, as an extemporaneous speaker, he often appears more interested in being affable and interesting than principled. He does not seem to appreciate that what he might say as an academic and public intellectual has little to offer to those of us who have to labor in the public schools to defend evolution.
I have often taken flak, for example, for being willing to point out the obvious truth that some religions have no problem accommodating the fact of evolution, and others do. This is something that, in the past, Ruse has no problem acknowledging. This is not a talking point for or against religion: the idea is to deny the fundies an easy polarity, as in ‘you must choose between God, and Darwin.’
More recently, however, Ruse has gone out of his way to not merely acknowledge the possibility of accommodation, but to put a premium on not giving offense to the other side. To me, this seems to mean that I couldn’t employ this (NCSE-approved) strategy because it would inherently privilege some viewpoints as compatible with science education, na na na na poo poo.
Well, gee, Dr. Ruse, of course it does. That’s the whole point. Students need to know that religion isn’t science, and that some faith-inspired positions are in direct opposition to what we actually see in the natural world. At the same time, students need a comfort zone in which to think critically about something that may challenge cherished assumptions. Your squeamishness on the possibility of conflict, as I read you, would effectively deny me one of my best talking points.
And that’s what it comes down to for these accomadationists, I think. They remind me of Humphrey voters in 1968. I mean sure, the Vietnam War is a huge, evil mistake, but we don’t want to actually say that because it might make some people mad. Instead, let’s offer a tepid endorsement of the war so we can all get along.
I have often taken flak, for example, for being willing to point out the obvious truth that some religions have no problem accommodating the fact of evolution, and others do.
the reason is that you often portray abrahamic sects as being part of that, when at best you CANNOT say that it’s the religion that is accommodating (look at the fucking dogmas), but it’s the people adhering TO the religion that can be accommodating.
moreover, within xianity, to do so requires compartmentalization, period, so even then, “accommodation”, is only based on reconciling dissonance via irrational compartmentalization.
sorry Scott, that’s just the way it is.
There is nothing moderate about believing in a magic fairy who hides in the clouds.
There’s no moderate theists for the same reason there’s no moderate flat-earthers. Believing in magic (god) is insane.
Also, there’s nothing moderate about sharing an idiotic belief in supernatural magic with people who believe the universe is 6,000 years old, or who believe killing people gives a person a free ticket to a magical paradise. Christians who think they are moderate are part of the problem and they should be treated with contempt.
It isn’t rational to be too hyperbolic, Ape. Believing in magic (god) is irrational, but not insane. There are many theists who don’t have an anthropomorphic view of Abraham’s god. I agree it’s a form of compartmentalization and silly and frustrating and sometimes contemptable, but you make your argument an easy target if your they are easily dismissed as illogical and oversimplified.
And yes, Mr. Hatfield still frustrates me as a rational thinker, too. I think you’re either obstinate or so indoctrinated as a child that you can’t break rank as a theist, Scott.
…if your arguments
theyare easily…@Scott Hatfield:
Why is that a good thing? What goal do you believe it serves to have “nuanced positions” that “don’t agree” while still “striking sympathetic tone” to creationists? What does “sympathetic tone” mean? Is it, “I don’t agree with you, and I think you’re flat wrong, but I so totally respect you?” Surely the creationists aren’t getting the point that Ruse (as you claim) doesn’t agree with them. They’re hearing “nice” non-confrontational words, and taking those to mean “see, I’m not wrong.” So what you do you think has been accomplished? What “good” has been done, and for whom?
I’d be willing to bet that’s not what you’re actually taking flak for Scott. No reasonable person denies the obvious fact that some religious people/religions don’t deny evolution. What people usually object to is the idea that, because of that obvious fact, that means “religion and science are compatible.” You may not be claiming that, but I have a hard time believing you’re getting flak for the mere highlighting of the obvious and uncontroversial fact that some religions and religious people say they accept evolution.
It’s much more likely that the flak you’re getting comes from people who believe you’re saying, “and therefore, religion and science are compatible.” Before you reply, please read my last sentence again. I qualified it by noting that some people may believe that’s what you’re saying. I think you’d agree that the plain fact of compartmentalization does not mean there’s epistemic compatibility between religion and science. And if that’s not what you’re saying, it may be wise to be clearer about what you are saying.
Sorry, I find it hard to believe you’re getting pushback for “being willing” to note that not all religious people deny evolution. I know of no atheists, new or otherwise, who actually chastise people for stating that obvious fact.
I just called him the George W. Bush of science and reason. Do you think that’ll hurt his widdle feewins?
tee-hee
frog, Inc. @ 31
I’ve never heard that reality expressed so well and so economically. If I wore one, my hat would be off to you sir/madam.
@ Truthspeaker
“YOU VOTED FOR HUBERT HUMPHREY! AND YOU KILLED JESUS!”
“Windows 98 laptop…”
Hey! Windows ’98 ain’t to be sneezed at. Took me a long time & lots of system restores to get XP more or less stable.
Ruse is simply a narcissist. It’s all about him.
If atheists did not exist, he would have to invent them – to blame and scapegoat.
He has no ideas. Therefore, he defines himself by what PZ says about him: “I must be another John the Baptist, because nobody listens to me, either!” Gag. He’s an anti-anti-creationist.
He won’t even go down in history as a pseudoscientist. He’s not even that interesting.
Ichthyic (#62):
“the reason is that you often portray abrahamic sects as being part of that, when at best you CANNOT say that it’s the religion that is accommodating (look at the fucking dogmas), but it’s the people adhering TO the religion that can be accommodating.”
No, my fishy acquaintance, that is simply untrue. Many sects (including those from the Abrahamic tradition) have statements in which they assert that evolution is not incompatible with their religious understanding. It’s not just the individuals in those cases, but it is the institutions. You may feel their positions are incoherent or require compartmentalization, but the fact is the outfits hold official positions of accommodation. You are welcome to argue with them if you like.
IaMoL: “I think you’re either obstinate or so indoctrinated as a child that you can’t break rank as a theist, Scott.”
(shrugs shoulders) Sorry if it frustrates you. It doesn’t frustrate me when I consider the views of atheists, rational or otherwise. I really do try to avoid making assumptions about the personal history of others. I’m told that many atheists are often badgered by well-meaning Christians who assume that they are ‘angry at God’, for example, and that this is often seen as presumptuous and insulting.
I suppose it’s possible that I’m personally obstinate on a variety of issues, but I can honestly say that I did not have a dogmatic upbringing. My mother was raised in a Baptist church, but she could care less what the SBC proclaims as official doctrine and has for many years attended a mildly-evangelical Methodist church which in her part of the world (Texas) is probably considered ‘liberal.’ My father has always been more critical of conventional religion, and I was not raised to adhere blindly to any strict formalism. My brother and his wife often go to UU functions. He’s probably one of the least dogmatic people I know, and he was raised in the same house as yours truly.
So, sorry, while I’m not insulted, I think your characterization is presumptuous and, more importantly, just doesn’t comport with my experience.
JOSG: “What does “sympathetic tone” mean? Is it, “I don’t agree with you, and I think you’re flat wrong, but I so totally respect you?”
My guess is Ruse would take exception to that, but I can’t speak for him. For me, a ‘sympathetic tone’ is more along the lines of ‘I understand why you are invested in your beliefs, but science is not about validating your beliefs, or mine. It’s about using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena in terms of natural causes. Let’s dialogue about what that evidence is, and how best to respond to that evidence.’
By the way, while I don’t presume to speak for PZ, from his descriptions of his undergrad classes, I think this is pretty close to how he approaches things. ‘Sympathetic’ doesn’t mean ‘compromising’, it simply means that you acknowledge the difficulties, and then treat the people you are addressing as adults who are capable of dialogue, and able to make up their own minds—-until, of course, they prove otherwise by their actions.
If PZ takes an approach radically different from that, I would love to hear what it is. Frankly, from what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure I would enjoy his evolution course.
“You may not be claiming that, but I have a hard time believing you’re getting flak for the mere highlighting of the obvious and uncontroversial fact that some religions and religious people say they accept evolution. “
Oh, I get flak, alright. I can see, however, that I wasn’t clear about who (tries) to give me grief. It’s not skeptics or scientists who complain, see. The people who give me flak about sharing what NCSE calls ‘The Creation/Evolution Continuum’ are fundamentalist Christians who object to any other viewpoint other than their own being acknowledged to exist.
When this happens, I explain that I use the pedagogical strategy to advance a legitimate secular purpose, and suggest that they read up on the case law, and failing that, to go suck a lemon, er, Lemon Test.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
Kristine: “Ruse is simply a narcissist. It’s all about him.”
You could say the same about a lot of public intellectuals, including certain atheists. I think PZ’s criticism is a little bit more substantial than that.
Kristine: “He has no ideas.”
I assume you mean original ideas of his own. However, one could reject his tactics on how to engage creationists (as I do), while still admire some of his works, particularly those that survey the growth of evolutionary theory and how it relates to various ideas/movements in philosophy.
That’s the way I feel, but of course that sort of topic is a tad esoteric and a bit of an acquired taste. But that really is the bulk of what Ruse has done in his career. That makes some of the noises he’s making now all the more disappointing.
I think it means to tell a creationist( I guess that would mean the off-the-street-randomly-encountered variety, not the professional contortionists) he/she is wrong and why, listing your arguments, but don’t do what they do and just duck and weave and yell and scream.Ridicule Ham or Behe, there is no other way to deal with those wilful liars, but any random creo, I think we should still at least try and have an argument, give them the benefit of the doubt to start with.
PZ gave the creo at the GAC the finger, but only after he asked him what his best argument for ID was and he came up with IC.That’s how it should be done.
As to Ruse, we could probably have a discussion if it wasn’t Ham and the CM we were talking about, but since it is Ham, as far as I’m concerned, ridicule and active opposition are the only way to deal with he-who-lies-to-children-to-make-a-living.
Many sects (including those from the Abrahamic tradition) have statements in which they assert that evolution is not incompatible with their religious understanding.
…and then as soon as you explore the tenants of the actual religion itself, you find inconsistencies between these statements and their religious beliefs.
sorry, logically all these are are placatory statements, made so that any given sect doesn’t “seem” so irrational.
you can’t claim to be xian, and not claim certain things that are simply unsupportable.
we’ve been over this before, you know it, I know it.
but the fact is the outfits hold official positions of accommodation.
this is no different than claiming that since there are religious people who do science, there is no conflict between religion and science.
surely by now even YOU can see the flaw in that logic, Scott?
You are welcome to argue with them if you like.
we do.
did you need to review?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/
@ Scott Hatfield:
First, please stop using “dialogue” as a verb. It’s twee. It’s also universally diagnostic of people who are more concerned with affecting an “I’m nice and non-threatening, maybe even (tee-hee) a Unitarian” than they are about getting at the truth of serious questions. The same applies to the qualifier, “for me”: I’m not interested in your qualified, equivocating “niceness.” I’m interested in what you actually believe, and what you’re willing to proclaim.
I don’t care how you feel, Scott, any more than I care how why you like asparagus. I only care about what you claim to know, and why you claim to know it.
Why do you think a God exists? Concrete answers, please. Totally uninterested in what your “heart” tells you, and don’t give me any Karen Armstrong equivocations.
What do you, Scott Hatfield, believe and why?
Specifically.
(Fixed.)
The thing of it is, though, is that you can easily find inconsistencies between the religious beliefs and things the believers simply take for granted as being perfectly normal. You can find plenty of inconsistencies in the religious beliefs themselves. Inconsistencies are everywhere. Religions are in some ways fundamentally inconsistent.
But many believers shrug and get on with the parts they think are important, and shove the rest into a box inside their heads that says “Not Important” on it.
If they can be convinced to put everything that is actually anti-evolutionist into the box marked “Not Important”, well, I suppose that’s a tiny step forward.
A teeny, tiny, baby step. Maybe when they’re Actual Grownups™, they’ll also be able to set Baby Jesus aside. Oh, I’m sorry,that’s rude and Militant™.
Josh wrt Scott H @ 77,
please stop trying so hard to come across as a total dick, I find it rather embarrassing.It’s not needed, is it?
Ruse is still crying over that? Ugh. His time would be more well spent in coming up with a logical reason for his stance, not that I think he could find one.
@Rorschach, # 80:
If you want to continue our argument from the other other night, and from another thread, (and I don’t), let’s take it to email, please.
This is you being an ass towards Scott, it has nothing to do with our disagreement the other night.
He didn’t quote Armstrong, so why did you bring it up? And all of a sudden “heart” and how someone “feels” about an issue are out?
That’s clownshoe territory, sorry.Plenty of things to nitpick with Scott Hatfield, but not this cheap shit please.
We can but hope.
I’d really prefer to talk about our differences by email, Rorscach, if we must talk about them. My conversation with you is separate from mine with Scott.
Are you confused? I dont have any differences with you, I disagreed with you on an internet blog the other day, and I am doing so now.Please address my arguments wrt what you wrote to Scott, thanks.
Josh:
Well said, and not very Militant&trade at all, at least not from where I sit. This reminds me of something someone said in the affirmative atheist thread, that someone called themselves “post-theist”, as in having outgrown all that god nonsense.
Rorschach, I didn’t see anyone call for a referee. Josh and Scott can handle their own conversation.
@Rorschach, #86
You and I have had striking differences in opinion here in the past few days. I don’t think it’s accurate to say we don’t have any differences with each other: we clearly do.
But they’re not of a piece, and they’re not necessarily a part of my conversation with Scott Hatfield.
I’d prefer to talk about them separately.
tenets
yes, thanks.
If they can be convinced to put everything that is actually anti-evolutionist into the box marked “Not Important”, well, I suppose that’s a tiny step forward.
indeed, and one would only encourage such compartmentalization during the heat of a legislative debate about science standards, say, but stressing the many discussions we have had about tactics vs strategy, at Pharyngula, at least, we should still be able to explore and critique any details of any argument presented.
right?
@Kel #29: I disagree; the accommodationists don’t treat the religious as if they were children, they treat the religious like absolute imbeciles. “Oh yes, whatever you say, science is compatible with religion you know.” That’s a pretty vile condescending attitude held by those who pretend to be buddies with the religious. If the religious genuinely wish to talk about things with reason then they should be treated with respect. If they only want some imaginary semblance of credibility by association by being seen standing next to someone like R. Dawkins while squawking about how science is merely another belief system and how evolution isn’t true then they should be treated with contempt. However, to treat all religious people like morons as the accommodationists do in practice while lipsyncing denunciations of the ‘harsh’ treatment given by the ‘new atheists’ is sheer hypocrisy and poor behavior; it is a two-faced lie as good as any the pope himself has to offer.
Caine,
Ahem.
That’s exactly how I feel too. I became acquainted with his work during a “Philosophy of biology” class a few years ago. I liked Monad to man: the concept of progress in evolutionary biology, Evolutionary naturalism: selected essays, Taking Darwin seriously: a naturalistic approach to philosophy, The Darwinian revolution, etc. My interest in the creationists’ stupidity being more recent, the first times I saw PZ being very critical of him, I thought he was wrong, that he had missed something, didn’t understand what he said, etc. But I have to admit that Ruse has proven many times now that PZ was right in the first place on this particular topic…
John, sorry if I missed something…I’m freshly awake and moderating another site while commenting here. Perhaps I should just drink my tea.
@ Madscientist, #91:
Yes. That.
Still the best essay written on the subject of accomodationism, and the main one that started off much of the debate over the last year (by Jerry Coyne):
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing
if those following this thread have never read it, please, PLEASE do so to really understand what the real arguments are in this debate.
Scott should read it twice.
You are asking something impossible.
I’m not an accomodationist when it comes to any religion that makes claims about the real world. Then I’m a militant anti-clericalist. But if someone has faith based on faith alone, on “feelings” or on wishful thinking, and recognizes the absence of evidence, I’m just not interested in picking their brains.
It doesn’t mean I’m right not to challenge them, it’s just that I fail to see the necessity of doing so.
@Caine, #94-
Yes, you should just drink your tea. If you’re up at this “ungodly” hour of the morning, you have my deepest sympathies. Anyone reasonable ought to be in bed. And anyone unreasonable.
So, I’m out. Night all.
Welcome to the club of Commenters Behaving Badly as Defined by Rorschach, Josh :)
You and Ichthyic may have partly mistaken Scott’s meaning, though:
Right before the “taking flak” quote, Scott was talking about defending evolution in the public schools, so he is not necessarily referring to reasonable people here :)
But if someone has faith based on faith alone, on “feelings” or on wishful thinking, and recognizes the absence of evidence, I’m just not interested in picking their brains.
just curious, would Miller fit in that description, or no?
Right before the “taking flak” quote, Scott was talking about defending evolution in the public schools, so he is not necessarily referring to reasonable people here
:P
No, he’s made claims about the real world, eg his quantum bullshit justifcation.
windy,
not sure why you would want to conflate “I am disagreeing with you on X” with “you are behaving badly”.Certainly not what I said.
Why would you suggest it?
I don’t see how asking that question is to ask something impossible. It seems entirely reasonable to ask a person what they believe in, and why, particularly if they’re willing to proclaim that belief to the world, or to use it as a conversational point in argumentation.
I only see a necessity to challenge this when:
a. Someone like Scott asserts it publicly, as he did above, and thus made it a subject of public conversation
b. Uses it as a basis for formulating public policy (no, I’m not accusing Scott of that)
I don’t think my stance is unreasonable.
Maybe you have a point there.
I wonder about this, because of all those who say they are compatible there’s seldom a decent explanation as to how they are compatible. At best the arguments are usually framed in terms of a lack of incompatibility (Why can’t God use evolution to create us?), but if there’s a good way to reconcile God and methodological naturalism (in full framing mode here) then where is it?
I think there’s no wonder fundamentalist believers are on the rise. People who train themselves in apologetics can run rings around those who have no firm ground by which to hold down their beliefs. They blame the atheists for highlighting the incompatibility, they decry the fundamentalists for misinterpreting the bible – but where’s the solid ground by which there is something to affirm for the moderate? Getting indignant at the first sign of criticism from a nebulous view isn’t really sufficient.
Because you won’t get more justification than what you know already: he tells you he wants there to be a God, he feels there’s one, but he can’t justify why. What else do you want to know ?
Depends on what he’s telling you that for. If it’s to justify a behaviour or an argument then I think it’s reasonable to challenge him on that. If it’s only to let you know something like his aesthetical preferences why would you be bothered ?
Then he’s making a claim about the real world. That I won’t tolerate.
negentropyeater | March 24, 2010 4:20 AM:
Someday, neuroscience will pick their brains, and then we’ll know. Until then – amatuers discussing why someone has faith can be an interesting (for some) BS session … but it’s unlikely to be more.
You were not just disagreeing with Josh on the issues here, you were judging his behavior. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but you seem to have an itchy wagging finger lately. It comes off as patronizing.
(Re @92: yes John, this is also a comment on someone’s behavior, no need to point that out or we’ll get stuck in a recursive loop :)
So Ruse likes moderate Christians like the Lutherans?
When discussing fact claims, yes, of course they’re out.
I want to know how they can consider themselves sane, rational people if they believe in things that they admit they have no evidence for. I don’t know about you, but if I were aware that I believed in something based solely on wishful thinking I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror. I’d be ashamed to go out in public.
That’s compartmentalization for you. I don’t understand how people can just switch off their rational faculties when it comes to certain topics — and I often wonder if I do that, and where — but I don’t think it makes a person glbally irrational and insane.
It’s the people who start fabricating “evidence” to support their irrational beliefs who worry me, not the ones who shrug and say “I dunno, it just feels right to me.”
Ichthyic:
“…this is no different than claiming that since there are religious people who do science, there is no conflict between religion and science.”
Please recall that you are the one who previously in this thread made the distinction between individual Christians attempting to accommodate evolution, and between religious dogma (which is institutional).
You are now trying to pretend that this distinction is irrelevant, when you previously based a claim upon this distinction. The fact is, you made a claim which is not factual. That particular misstep does not invalidate your argument that religion is incoherent, inconsistent, etc. so I don’t see why you can’t simply admit that you misspoke. I make mistakes, you make mistakes, let’s move on.
By the way, the reason why some of you people keep making these kinds of rhetorical overreaches is that you habitually muddle claims about the natural world with a logical critique of supernaturalism. You don’t need the former to do the latter, and people can hold all variety of opinions about the latter while affirming the former. It would be so much simpler and neater for your position if that were not the case, of course, but your case doesn’t hinge on making that linkage.
JOSG:
Appreciate your interest, have no interest in proselytization, but if you wanted to know more, you can check out my personal blog and look at posts called ‘Behind the Curtain’. Leave a post if you like. I don’t feel Pharyngula is an appropriate forum for discussing my own personal religious views. I comment on matters of interest to me on science, education and public policy….especially on questions of how best to teach evolution in the public schools. It’s what I do for a living.
Oh, and to clarify, my ‘feelings’ were in reference to the sum value of Michael Ruse’s body of work as a philosopher. This was not an attempt to substitute an uncritical emotional stance for an analysis of faith-based claims.
(rolls eyes) As if I would be even interested in making such an ‘argument.’
Ta-ta. Must actually earn my paycheck now, teaching my evolution unit. Anyone who is interested in what I actually teach can check out my class blog over the next few weeks and see for themselves….
SH
As I’ve always said: You can respect people’s right to an opinion different from your own, but you can never respect the actual opinion. If it is different than yours, then you obviously consider the opinion wrong. You can’t respect something you believe is wrong.
Ruse can try to be nice all he wants, but not denouncing the Creationist Museum as the complete lunacy that it is goes way beyond being nice. It means he cares not for reason, science, evidence, research, nor truth.
He is in fact a traitor to reason and an enemy to science.
Sastra: As Greta Christina has pointed out on her blog, this “it’s a metaphor” game seems to be just that. If this was what they really believed, they wouldn’t be so damn put out over atheism.
It may be that the “moderates” react so strongly to outspoken atheism precisely because it calls out their lie of being “Christian”. It makes it obvious that we hold the same world view — except they insist on using magical language to describe the world.
Christians for two thousand years held a fundamentally different world view, where this world was basically a lie, an illusion, a trap. The “moderates” however are materialists, believing in the world-as-perceived. They just insist on using out-of-date poetic language so they can pretend to be a continuation of that tradition.
For some reason, atheists who have a more similar worldview piss them off more than fundies, who have an essentially distinct worldview. Why? We make them out as liars.
@Carlie (109)
I’m not about to try to defend any Christian sect, but your example is from the Wisconsin Evengelical Lutheran Synod — just about as wacko fundamentalist of group of Lutherans one can find.
Please recall that you are the one who previously in this thread made the distinction between individual Christians attempting to accommodate evolution, and between religious dogma (which is institutional).
no, you are the one who is now conflating the two.
as I said, individuals can make up their own rationalizations in order to compartmentalize the nonsense that exists within the tenets of their own religions.
that they need to to begin with because of the tenets of the religious organizations they belong to is pretty clear.
The fact is, you made a claim which is not factual.
this, is a lie.
do show me ANY abrahamic sect that does not purport at least a belief in a personal mono-theistic deity.
I make mistakes, you make mistakes, let’s move on.
i would, if i had. You’ve totally missed the argument there, Scotty.
Icthyic, you and I both seem to be on the point of concluding that the other is operating in bad faith.
That’s too bad. I don’t want to go there. Maybe I’m at fault. Maybe I did miss the argument. This was all prompted by your first brief:
“…the reason is that you often portray abrahamic sects as being part of that, when at best you CANNOT say that it’s the religion that is accommodating (look at the fucking dogmas), but it’s the people adhering TO the religion that can be accommodating.”
Now, how am I supposed to unpack this comment of yours? I interpreted your allusion to ‘fucking dogmas’ as representing the official teachings of churches, whereas the phrase “the people adhering TO the religion” as individual believers.
Did I err?
Perhaps I did, because your latest brief seems to say something different:
“…as I said, individuals can make up their own rationalizations in order to compartmentalize the nonsense that exists within the tenets of their own religions.
that they need to to begin with because of the tenets of the religious organizations they belong to is pretty clear.”
See, I don’t disagree with this. Obviously, people who are already committed to a particular belief system will tend to cotton to any ‘explanation’ that allows them to preserve that belief. If THIS is what you were trying to say the first time, then I concede your point but I urge you to format your prose more intelligibly.
That sentence was a train wreck.
On the other hand, if you are trying to say that there aren’t any religious organizations that teach that the acceptance of evolution is compatible with faith, then you’re wrong.
And, really, this is the point that I’m attempting to make when I raise ‘The Creation/Evolution Continuum’ in the classroom setting. It is neither legal or ethical for me, a public school teacher, to highjack the science classroom to privilege my personal views. All I’m doing is providing a context for students who are struggling to make sense of evidence that challenges their beliefs. My observation is that students who receive information about the diversity of religious opinion are more likely to approach the core content (evolution, natural selection, age of the Earth, common descent) with an open mind. In my experience, they learn the material faster, they understand it better, and they are more likely to do better in future science coursework.
As a science educator, that’s really what I care about. In that setting, I can’t afford any sort of investment in the question of their personal metaphysics, or rationalist critiques of same. Either behavior would strike me as equally, um….fishy.
Assertively…SH
PZ, I’ve attacked his mixing of the supernatural 22Skeptic Society Forum as contradiction in an agnostic;he conflates intent -teleology- with no cosmic intent- teleonomy, contradicting himself as creation evolutionists do! Natural selection and other natural causes exhibit no intent whatsoever. To do so begs the question that divine intent had us or a comparable species in mind as our friend Jerry effusively illustrates in ” Seeing and Believing.” That is part of our rebuttal.
This argument itself is the atelic or teleonomic argument, which not only defeats all teleological ones but also others so that there can be no First Cause [ intent ], no Grand Designer and Miracle Monger and no divine actor in history..
Scientists are studying how people view patterns as agency. The argument from pareidolia notes that people see intent and design instead of teleonomy and patterns as people see the pareidolia of Marian apparitions or Yeshua in a tortilla- no there there!
And this argument exhume supernaturalism more than other arguments based on people’s notions like Xenophanes,etc.as they have scientific backing. None exhibit the genetic fallacy,eh!
PZ, you might ever use these arguments from the side of science to illuminate that creation evolution obfuscates matters!
And our friend Paul Draper emailed me that Scot is making a demarcation fallacy in exhorting us others not to claim that science cannot gainsay religion. No, our friend so errs, eh! Ruse and she thereby help the supernaturalists, the twins to the paranormalists,both whom our friend Paul Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” a must read boob for us naturalists, rationalists and skeptics.
Check out Rationalist’s blog@ and the Agnostic Evangelist’s blog @ Google Blogs, please folks!
I correctd too late- book. Scott.
From the side of relgion there can be that compatability like relgion can be compatible with the paranormal. Indeed, there is telepathic God and clairvoyant prophets!
I like boobs!
Also, there is Carneades’s blog @ Bloggers.
Now we’ve so many books and sites to proclaim our evangel!
And Ruse also abets the superstitious with his claim that biology underpins original sin and other stupid matters!
Google also skeptic griggsy to see why theism utterly fails.