Commenter Ted Lawry pointed me at this Discovery Institute article, in which they accuse scientists of smugness. Their authoritative source is Andrew Klavan.
Klavan noticed something interesting about the speakers: the scientific atheist “spokesmen” share, almost to a man, what Meyer calls an “element of smugness in the way they communicate.” Klavan mentions Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan. Oh, there’s Lawrence Krauss, and many others. Dr. Meyer recounts a memorable debate he had with Krauss that illustrates the point.
It occurred me as I was watching this conversation… I bet you could turn the sound off on a video of any of the well-known scientific atheists and they would likely be identifiable by the smugness that radiates from them, by the manner of speaking not by the words. Again, this is without any sound. You could try the experiment yourself sometime. Meanwhile, watch and enjoy Klavan and Meyer:
First, in case you’ve never heard of Klavan, he’s an obscure conservative babbler on the dying Daily Wire The only time I’ve heard of him was on a video where a bunch of these Daily Wire writers were huddled up smoking cigars and bragging about how they never do the dishes or laundry because their wives do them for them. Inspiring.
Secondly, his accusation is more appropriately directed at the creationists. The scientists he is complaining about are confident, because they come equipped with a battery of evidence. The creationists are the cocky, arrogant ones: they’re the people making extravagant claims without an iota of evidence. So sure, watch one of the videos from our side, and you’ll notice that we’re all forthright and bold where it is warranted; the creationists are even more arrogant, and their sole source is their interpretation of the Bible.
I do wonder why anyone should give a damn about Klavan’s opinion of science, since he has no qualifications other than being a pompous loudmouth.
I wish I could talk and communicate with the ‘smug’ of Carl Sagan!
Klavan is the dumbest of the dumb and the smuggest of the smug. I wrote about him here:
https://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/01/net-neutrality-fairness-doctrine.html
I see nothing wrong with being smug.
(The basis for it, however, is a different thing)
But Limbaugh and Coulter are bywords for intolerance!
PZ, we work to avoid being obsequious. So, objectively watching your videos, we’ve never noticed arrogance or ‘smugness’, not in your words, tone of voice or expression. You are an educator, open to intelligent discussion, not one of these pompous arrogant creationist xtian terorists who envision jebus standing behind them with a shotgun aimed at their enemies. You touched on words that are important to differentiate: smugness vs. confident. We fully agree with your contention that ‘the scientists he is complaining about are confident, because they come equipped with a battery of evidence.’ While all the creationists and xtian terrorists exude a sense of hubris and arrogance and to use the phrase ‘holier-than-thou’ piety with nothing factual or rational to back that up.
Let me also remark that your article about ‘regretting youthful insensitivity to the plight of others’ and your title question of this article indicate a sense of honest introspection that I truly respect. It is the opposite of the blow-hards that shovel bs with no sensitivity to anything other than preserving their own puffed-up ego and self-image.
In the case of Lawrence Krauss, it’s not just ‘confident, because they come equipped with a battery of evidence’, but having done the hard work, and know how to solve 4-dimensional nonlinear partial differential equations from General Relativity to yield results from the early Universe that match the measurements.
The creationists? My estimate is that high-school algebra is beyond them. They’ve learned some rhetorical tricks, but that’s all.
“Am I smug?” – Well, Minnesota smug. : )