(You have to feel a little bit sorry for the Templeton people — they are trapped in a game of Brewster’s Millions: there they are with a billion dollars in the piggy-bank, and they can’t even give it away)

-cvj

I must admit, my initial take on the issue was it was an essentially an argument between Mark and Sean as to which was the more dedicated atheist:

Mark: I am such a staunch atheist, if wouldn’t go to a Templeton Conference EVEN IF YOU PAID ME!

Sean: What a coincidence, the Templeton people just offered me $6,000 to go their conference.

Mark: Not even if you paid me $6,000!!!!

Sean: OK, OK, I am such a staunch athiest, I am going to put my money where Mark’s mouth is! I won’t go the Templeton conference, even though they would pay me $6,000. Sigh.

I take your point. One thing to avoid (which can be rather hard on the Internet) is being a pushy jerk about expressing your opinion. That’s really an orthogonal consideraton to the opinion being expressed, but it is good to keep in mind. People who find ways to wedge their pet soapbox into every discussion might think they are being “vocal” when they are really being “annoying.” (It’s more likely when the speaker perceives him or herself as being in a minority group, such as those near the edges of the political spectrum, some Linux and/or Mac users, etc. I’ll stop before I invite flames upon me. )

I usually avoid political discussions because there is a strong tendency for them to turn into “smug asshole” contests, which usually leave you disgusted with the side you were already unsympathetic toward. (Sure, the guy arguing your side was a smug asshole too, but he was *your* smug asshole.)

Anyway, I’m wandering. I guess my take is that the image of science will probably do fine if (a) scientists take the time to explain the science they do, and (b) avoid using their position to bludgeon people with their non-science opinions.

Mom always said to be honest, but she also said to be polite.

Oh yeah – that’s the one. But I think there is such a thing as a virtuous lie or virtuous silence.

“…I don’t think being a vocal atheist could have any positive impact on scientist’s career or social perspectives on scientists. In most cases it would have no effect (as it should), and in a few cases it might have a negative one.”

I agree that it SHOULD have no effect on social perspectives, but I disagree that it rarely DOES. I think that most people aren’t quite as rational as, say, the readers of this weblog.

“Just because there is a stereotype doesn’t mean we should all strive to be the opposite of it. ”

I’m not suggesting striving to be the opposite. By all means, be an atheist if that’s what you believe. I’m just dabbling with the idea that total disclosure isn’t the best way for some scientists to go. People are already uncomfortable with what science has to say. Atheism can only make them more uncomfortable. One might say, well that’s THEIR problem, but it’s science’s problem too if it makes them anti-science. Maybe the world needs to take baby steps.

Or maybe honesty IS the best policy (so says dear old mom). I admit that covering up the truth can lead to more problems down the road.