Our book, Unscientific America, is not out yet. True, it is already shipping to some folks from Amazon, and there are some copies out there (especially on Kindles), but the pub date is July 13. The book tour doesn’t begin til July 16, and is mainly focused in August. Most bloggers, so far as we can tell, have not yet received copies.
The books have been going out in waves, and not in a particularly orderly fashion. Chris sent a courtesy copy to Ophelia Benson, a longtime e-colleague–who chose to read and criticize its chapter 8 in isolation. PZ Myers, who is discussed in this chapter, now has a post up saying the following:
I received Chris Mooney’s last two books as review copies, before the simple folk could get theirs, and I also gave them positive (and sincere!) reviews. I’d noticed that he’s got a new book out, but strangely, I hadn’t been sent a copy this time. I was wondering what was up with that, but now Ophelia Benson has read part of the book, and all is explained. He spends part of one chapter singling me out for criticism! Gosh, I guess he felt he wouldn’t get a friendly review this time.
PZ, as Sheril pointed out, you are on a list to receive the book and it should be on its way. We hope that you, and your readers, will give it a fair shake, rather than going on a few quotations about the eighth chapter alone.
As you’ll see, we disagree about some things. But this book is not about you, or the New Atheism, or science and religion. It is about the vast problem of science in our culture, and science and religion conflicts are just one component of this. The real issue is the future of America, how we dig ourselves out of this economic mess, conquer global warming, and properly educate our citizens. It goes far beyond the arguments we sometimes have here in the science blog world.
We hope that like Dr. Coyne, you will suspend judgment until reading the book, at which point we’ll be interested to hear what you think.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Chris sent a courtesy copy to Ophelia Benson, a longtime e-colleague–who chose to read and criticize its chapter 8 in isolation.”
This isn’t fiction; nonfiction chapters should be able to stand on their own. Besides, it’s common practice for online book reviews to go chapter-by-chapter. Perhaps Benson was just trying to stay topical by looking at Chapter 8 first.
I look forward to the release date!
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Chris,
Yes, I chose to read and criticize chapter 8 in isolation, but there are reasons for that. (And I’ll read the whole thing, and of course say if that changes anything.)
One reason is that you have ignored a number of direct, clear, fair questions I have asked you, here and on Russell Blackford’s blog and I think on Jerry Coyne’s blog too. I’m sorry, but you keep doing that, and what is one to conclude? I have what I think are reasonable disagreements with many of your claims, and you just refuse to engage with them. Very well – I seek out more evidence, and I find it, so I write about it.
Another reason, and a compelling one, is that you keep changing what you are claiming, and, worse, you keep expressing surprise and perhaps indignation at being misunderstood and misrepresented. You’ve said lately that you’re only trying to persuade atheists to make their case better. I quoted from chapter 8 by way of showing that that’s certainly not what you are trying to do there. You also insist that you’re not telling people to shut up. I quoted from chapter 8 by way of showing that in fact you pretty much are – though not literally in the sense of saying ‘Shut up!’
Do you think I gave an unfair account of chapter 8? I’m pretty sure I didn’t. I tried to be careful. Obviously we disagree about whether the history you cite makes your case or not – but I don’t think I distorted anything.
I didn’t know that other people didn’t have copies yet – I assumed they’d all gone out at the same time. I didn’t mean to jump the gun, and I’m sorry about that. But – I don’t think you’ve been arguing fairly here. Sorry to say that, but I don’t.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Is there a distinction made between (socially) benign religious beliefs and harmful religious beliefs? Surely no one is suggesting that we don’t ‘intellectually devastate’ the belief that evolution is wrong?
The problem is that there are those who believe evolution is wrong also considers acceptance of evolution a rejection of their entire religion. Their beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. They can endanger the education of future generations and create mandates against medical research that could possibly save millions. Their beliefs are harmful to society as a whole. Perhaps scientists should only defend science, but as humans we have a greater responsibility.
These are people who are closed to reason. What tools are left in the box to combat their ignorance or delusion? Mockery?
I accept the idea that a scientist can be religion, and I’ll go even further to say that there are religious beliefs that are beneficial to the individual while being socially benign. These beliefs pose no problems to be overcome. The singular, over arching issue is the idea that belief can supersede reality, and it is this idea that requires the intellectual devastation mentioned above.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
It seems to me that Ophelia Benson CHOSE to make her assumption rather than find out if others had also received copies of your book. It’s easier that way!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Come on, Linda, that’s hardly a fair comment. Apart from the unsubstantiated implication that Ophelia somehow acted in bad faith, it’s never the job of a reviewer to go chasing up who else has or has not received a review copy of a book.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Awww, so PZ may have had to, you know, actually buy a copy of the book like the rest of us.
Boo hoo! Can I go bitch on my blog about how I didn’t get a copy for review, so I can get a free copy too?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
When “Sizzle” came out, there was a special deal that all reviews by Sciencebloggers were released simultaneously (IIRC).
I’m sure if Mr. Mooney wanted a synchronized response from his blogging colleagues, he would have attached such wish to the copy he sent to Ophelia.
It seems Mr. Mooney is chronically misunderstood.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
That’s nice, Linda.
It didn’t occur to me that I got an early copy; why would it? It would be incredibly vain to think I was Special in some way! I simply took it for granted that I got a copy at the same time as everyone else.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I think it’s silly and petty to claim that OB “CHOSE to make her assumption”.
The problem I see with the accomodationists is this fuzzy way they use words to not really say anything while making snide inferences about those who are much clearer than they are.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@ Ophelia -
Can you point to exactly where Chris has told your fellow militant atheists to “shut up”? I haven’t seen it. It’s rather odd that you make such an assertion since your friends, most notably, PZ Myers, act less like “godless liberals” but instead, more like totalitarian Marxist – Leninists regarding who can post at their blogs.
I will admit that I am probably the least likely person to criticize you for reviewing one chapter of Chris and Sheril’s book, since it is well known I have done this in the past, and frankly for very good reason, since I was opposing a delusional Xian crypto-fascist named William A. Dembski. But I think it’s more than a bit disingenuous for you to review the chapter and then share it with PZ Myers. In light of this behavior of yours, wouldn’t you say that your complaint about Chris seems more like painting the kettle black?
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Who cares about critic etiquette or whether the books should have all gone out at the same time, etc, etc. (and yes, I’m aware that clearly some people do care)? I think this is dodging what is important here, which is the science and the arguments themselves.
Now with the exception of Ms. Benson and obviously the authors themselves, the rest of us only have the excerpts and what we’ve read from the blogosphere to go on. Based on that alone, I’m still unconvinced that I should shift from the Dawkins, Myers, Coyne camp over to the Scott, Miller, Forrest, Mooney camp. The latter still seems as though it’s position is more about tactics for persuasion than about intellectual honesty. And based on everything I’ve heard from the so-called “accommodationist” position, I think Ms. Benson hit the nail on the head when she concluded:
“Yes of course, but the issue is whether there is in fact a contradiction, not whether or not people have an internal sense of such a contradiction. The chapter never comes to grips with that distinction but instead relies on pointing out the brute fact that many people have combined science and religion in their own heads. The fact that this is fundamentally beside the point never gets a look in.”
Contrary to Gould’s “non-overlapping-magisterium” position, religion clearly does make specific claims that fall into the realm of science (Creation, Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel, virgin births, resurrection, water into wine, etc.). These claims are not consistent with science and have no legitimate evidence that might make them deserving of serious academic discourse. To call something a miracle is no different from just saying it’s magic. And that’s the ultimate position of theistic evolution: magic. And while the approach is different and those defending theistic evolution aren’t necessarily trying to shove it down anyone’s throat, there’s no meaningful difference between the conclusions of theistic evolution and creationism. It’s just that instead of saying god must have done it, the position is that god might have done it. But how would it be meaningfully different to say that the invisible dragon in my garage did it?
Theistic evolution seems to merely be an attempt by those reluctant to give up an aspect of their cultural identities that is tied into ancient superstition in order to reconcile the inherent conflict between the two. If a person has a deeply held belief that 2+2=5 that is tied in with their cultural identity, it’s not the math teacher’s job to encourage them or to bridge the gap. Science should be about educating people how the world really works, not encouraging them to hold onto superstition. If you don’t want to accept reality as it is, that’s fine. But it’s not science’s job to sugarcoat the truth and treat you like a child.
Religion says a cracker magically transforms into the body of Christ. Science says that’s almost certainly not true. This is conflict. To say that faith is as viable a means of determining truth (or even viable at all) as science is almost certainly not true. That is conflict. To just say, “well that’s my personal belief” or “that’s just my faith” is just a lame excuse to dodge having to defend the indefensible. It’s special pleading. And while people are free to hold whatever crazy beliefs they wish, I think science should apply appropriate peer pressure discouraging that kind of superstitious nonsense in the same way that (to borrow one of Sam Harris’ bits) we discourage the belief that Elvis is still alive or the belief in little green men from Mars abducting people. To quote Jefferson, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
John, Ophelia ultimately derives the “shut up” claim from the fact that Mooney’s advice about strategy (phrased in statements like “you have no business doing x”) has a peremptory force that derives from special features of the context. When explaining the force of context, Ophelia used the illustration of a rebuke from a friend that would otherwise be simply a natural expression. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2817 (see comments)
In other words, there’s no force to the locution. In other words: utter drama.
But in defense of Russell/Ophelia, it isn’t at all clear what Mooney expects the new atheists to do, or why they’re meant to do it, if we’re supposed to be doing something that Coyne hasn’t. Maybe it’s in the book?
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@ Skepacabra -
Having consulted with the Klingon deities in orbit above Qo’nos, I can say that your assessment of the situation is absolutely wrong. Your comments are replete with a lack of any kind of substantial understanding as to what religions entails, such as your absurd assertion that, “Religion says a cracker magically transforms into the body of Christ” (No, it is my understanding that a cracker is seen by the Catholic faithful as a spiritual representation of the body of Christ, not literally, as a representation of his actual flesh and blood.).
I am convinced that we have two competing faiths here. One is the vociferous faith of non-belief, as evidenced by Militant Atheists like Coyne and Myers who accept, without question, the fact that science operates according – and is fundamentally friendly – to an Atheist worldview
(No, I strongly disagree, not merely because I am a Deist. I see science as taking an agnostic position on whether or not religion is important, simply because religious faith does fall out of the scope of possible scientific inquiry.). The other is the faith represented by theistic evolutionists and others.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
She posted the review on her blog, doofus. She shared it with you and me, too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Kwok: “(No, it is my understanding that a cracker is seen by the Catholic faithful as a spiritual representation of the body of Christ, not literally, as a representation of his actual flesh and blood.).”
Wiki transubstantiation, Kwok.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Ben,
I think Ophelia, PZ and, of course, Jerry Coyne too, among others, need to remind themselves of this observation which Jerry Coyne posted over at Jason Rosenhouse’s blog a few days ago:
“…We’re all in the pro-evolution battle together.”
This sentiment is also shared too by Ken Miller, who, according to Jason Rosenhouse’s brief summary of Ken’s talk last Thursday morning at the 9th North American Paleontological Convention (held on the campus of the University of Cincinnati) said:
“Near the end of his talk Miller addressed the big accommodationism debate. I was gratified by his blunt statement that everyone should be speaking for evolution, not just theists and not just atheists. I think that’s exactly the right note, and is one I have expressed here many times.”
I think it’s been an absolute waste of time trying to decide who is – and who isn’t – “accomodationist” towards religion, and I wish Coyne, Myers et al. would recognize that sooner rather than later, so we can go back to the main task of confronting and defeating evolution denialists of all stripes, from the likes of Ken Ham to Bill Dembski, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@ gillt -
I wish I could summon the Mahdi right now…. (Think of British General “Chinese” Gordan being besieged by the Mahdi’s troops at Khartoum.).
@ Sven Di Milo -
Oh I’m so sorry. I thought that was written in Imperial Romulan, not English.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
You’re batting zero today Kwok, nothing more to it than that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
@ 17 -
Sorry, gillt, but I meant British General Charles “Chinese Gordon” Gordon (I believe Moses ur, excuse me, Charlton Heston, portrayed him in a film dramatization of that very siege.).
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@ 20 -
Only in your wildest dreams, gillt. My best comment (@ 16) is one which you and your fellow Coyne/Myers IDiot Borg drones ought to heed.
Now where is the Mahdi…..
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
John Kwok, so where’s the bit where you apologize for accusing me of ’sharing’ my post with PZ? And call me disingenuous? And talk of the pot painting the kettle black?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
John Kwok again, # 10 -
“Can you point to exactly where Chris has told your fellow militant atheists to “shut up”? I haven’t seen it. It’s rather odd that you make such an assertion since your friends, most notably, PZ Myers, act less like “godless liberals” but instead, more like totalitarian Marxist – Leninists regarding who can post at their blogs.”
Ben Nelson # 12 got it wrong. I quoted several passages from the book in two posts at my site and then concluded
“One thing that’s interesting about this is that it shoots to pieces Mooney’s recent claims that he hasn’t been telling anyone to shut up. The whole chapter is all about telling ‘the New Atheists’ to shut up – not literally as in ‘Hey, New Atheists: shut up!’; but plainly nevertheless, as in ‘We should instead adopt a stance of respect toward those who hold their faith dear.’ It’s true that it’s not literal censorship, or even a literal command to self-censor – but it’s pretty damn close to being the latter. It is very strong moral advice to self-censor. I think it’s pretty disingenuous of Mooney to keep expressing shock-horror that everyone thinks he’s telling us to shut up. That is pretty much what he is telling us.”
Please note that I say he is not literally telling us to shut up.
The posts are here
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2823
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2824
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@ Ophelia -
You wrote your scathing review of Chapter 8 of “Unscientific America” knowing full well that PZ Myers would be foaming at the mouth, once he picked up on Chris and Sherril’s critique of his behavior. So why should I apologize for making an observation that appears to be true?
Again, please tell me where Chris has said that you and your fellow atheists should “shut up”? IMHO you are still painting the kettle black.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Oh I see! I did a bad thing by posting about what is actually written in the actual book, because once I posted about it, PZ might see it!
Does it occur to you that PZ might see it once his copy of the book arrived? Why aren’t you chastizing Chris and Sherril for sending PZ a copy of the book? Surely they are very much to blame!
Why you should apologize is because you called me disingenuous for no apparent reason, that’s why.
I just did tell you where. You would have to follow the links and read. I can’t do your reading for you.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Hi Ophelia:
Don’t know you, so I don’t know your politics yet. Are you in the “religion is bad, science is God” crowd or the “agnostic” crowd?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@ Ophelia -
I am neither an atheist nor do I share Chris’s politics (except when it comes to both government usage of science and the public’s understanding of science). However, I am still puzzled that you are still insisting that Chris is telling you and your fellow Militant Atheists to shut up. According to my understanding of what Chris is saying, he is correctly advising you to conduct yourselves in a more responsible manner than by being abrasive – and in the case of Myers’s ridiculous “riff” on the Eucharist – and making your points in a responsible, adult manner. Look, Lawrence Krauss – whom I would regard as someone allied to you, Coyne, Dawkins and Myers – made exactly the very points Jerry Coyne could have made against the World Science Festival last month, here in New York City, but, unlike Coyne’s rather boorish behavior to the Festival founders and co-directors, physicist Brian Greene and journalist Tracy Day (Brian’s wife), did so in a dignified, responsible manner. This, in essence, is what Chris is correctly complaining about with regards to militant atheist behavior and he isn’t the only one. Historians of science Janet Browne, Ed Larson and Ronald Numbers said that they found Dawkins’s behavior counterproductive in fighing evolution denialists at an NYU commemorative symposium on Darwin that I had heard there earlier this spring. Philosopher of science Philip Kitcher believes that Dawkins’s words and deeds have been counterproductive. So if you’re going to criticize Chris, then you better be prepared to respond to the accurate criticisms voiced by the likes of Browne, Larson, Numbers, and Kitcher, among others.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Chris, might you be up for a new book project?
Something like “The Democratic War on Religion”, or probably much better (because a lot of Democrats are religious), “The New Atheist War on Religion.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
John Kwok,
I don’t answer to the pejorative – childish, irresponsible – “militant atheist,” and neither does any other atheist I know. I advise you to conduct yourself in a more responsible manner than by being abrasive, and by calling people “militant” merely for writing things that you disagree with. You should make your points in a responsible, adult manner, like all the hotshots I know but won’t bother to mention because it’s so tedious to read endless name-dropping.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@ gillt -
I think I’m winning this by a knockout. You and your fellow Coyne/Myers Borg Collective acolytes should realize that there are many scientists, historians and philosophers of science who are quite disgusted with the abrasive tactics favored by your Militant Atheist messiahs Coyne, Dawkins and Myers, among others. Hope you have a suitable set of responses to the legitimate complaints against New Atheist behavior that have been stated by such prominent historians and philosophers of science as Janet Browne, Philip Kitcher, Ed Larson and Ronald Numbers.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
@ Ophelia Benson -
I’ve had had some excellent exchanges with Lawrence Krauss in person and via e-mail, and he, alone, has given me ample reassurance that there exists some semblance of sane, rational discourse within the ranks of the “New Atheists” (Again, I prefer the term “Militant Atheists” as an apt description of the abrasive behavior which Chris is accurately criticizing you and your compatriots of doing.).
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Ooh yeah that’s a good idea! The New Atheist Democratic Godless Communist Leftist Faggot Evil Secularist Don’t Forget Leftist War on Religion Complete With Guns and Bombs and Missiles and Nukes. I can’t wait to read it!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
‘Again, I prefer the term “Militant Atheists” as an apt description of the abrasive behavior which Chris is accurately criticizing you and your compatriots of doing.’
Well that clears that up. So any epithet is all right, no matter how inaccurate and no matter how deliberately ‘abrasive’ (to use your word) – yet you give the putative new atheists advice on how to be more adult and responsible.
What a poltroon.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Ophelia Benson, have you ever tried meditation?
I divide atheists into fun atheists and new atheists.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Anthony McCarthy wrote: I divide atheists into fun atheists and new atheists.
Apparently the “fun atheists” are the ones who don’t rock the boat, don’t point out the hypocrisy and hatred inherent in religion, and leave goddists like McCarthy and Kwok feeling good about themselves. “New athiests” aren’t as nice to goddists as “fun atheists” are.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Wow, it’s like I’m back in grade school!
Besides, who cares if Chris Mooney did or didn’t tell you to shut up? All this offense at slights, real or imagined, is nothing short of total drama. Completely worthless, completely juvenile, and completely laughable. It’s almost as if these folks feel that if they don’t respond in some way to someone who says “Shut up.” they actually have to shut up. Sheesh.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I thought Chris preferred civil discourse and not the name-calling, offensive lying crap that comes from Kwok. This is expected from Religionists, I guess. Too bad Chris puts up with it here. It makes this place be one that is not worth coming to. Too much garbage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
No, fun atheists are fun and aren’t boringly obnoxious and predictably ranty.
– leave goddists like McCarthy and Kwok feeling good about themselves.
Are you telling me that us Goddists have more fun?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I pretty well agree with TomJoe on this one, though I’ll nevertheless make one last attempt to explain my problems with the “shut up” interpretation, in the hopes of preventing any drama in the future that is unprepared to suffer through a fallout of incidental pedantry.
Ophelia must be exaggerating when she says I “got it wrong” after my #12 post, because the locus of her disagreement are materials that were not present in that post. What I didn’t mention, but which is altogether clear for those that read and were part of that discussion that I linked to, is that the entire debate which Ophelia and I just engaged in on her blog (linked above) was about Mooney’s admonition in every sense, literal and otherwise.
As I said above, all hands agree that there is no peremptory force to Mooney’s locution: there is no literal command, “Shut up”. Instead, Ophelia pointed to context, using an illustration where personal relationships provide the extra force. Presumably, this was a relevant illustration to our present case: the extra force comes from some relationship that Mooney has with the rest of them as an ally-cum-turncoat who purports to be making a moral claim when giving his (contentious) advice about strategy. Very frustrating, for one who disagrees with him.
But instead of replying to Mooney by saying, “Your advice has been taken into consideration, and discarded”, we are told that he is doing something quite a bit more: he is giving a covert command. This is because the advice is phrased in such a way and in a certain context that invokes certain powers that are silencing. But if this is meant to be more than just personal interpretation of context, then it must be grounded in some kind of publicly assessable facts or norms that uniquely demonstrate how we’re supposed to treat advice as if it were like a command. Otherwise, I can say that everything that anyone ever says to me is a command, and when pressed, I can just say “it’s context”. There is no conversation possible in such cases.
Norms of subservience are an example of useful norms in this sense. If my drill sarge says “this should be done”, but doesn’t say “Do this”, then ceteris parabus I’ll still treat the former as if it were a command instead of an interesting suggestion. But Mooney’s blog posts are not the boss of anyone, certainly not of Coyne. Norms of charity apply to fact-claims, and if the factual and the moral were both the same kind of truth, we might say the force comes from there. But as I briefly alluded to out in the above debate, only a lunatic applies charity to ought-claims, and I take “none of your business” to be an elliptical member of that kind since the issue at hand primarily dwells on motivational powers of locution and use (for what else is there to distinguish a command from other grammatical moods?). Emancipatory norms are relevant for select kinds of actions; if I am a woman and I feel that I am being sexually harassed, and I have stated such, then as a rule my discomfort ought to be taken as an indicator of a problem with the situation and treated with all due delicacy and expediency. But these cases are predicated upon a well-known class of actions that we have a special interest in resolving; I am not sure what special non-idiosyncratically-defined class of actions Mooney has committed.
In conclusion, I am perplexed by Ophelia’s perplexion at Mooney’s perplexion at Coyne’s commisseration of Blackford’s accusation that Mooney told the lot of them to shut up.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
— In conclusion, I am perplexed by Ophelia’s perplexion at Mooney’s perplexion at Coyne’s commisseration of Blackford’s accusation that Mooney told the lot of them to shut up. Ben Nelson
I’d call it making up something to criticize he didn’t really so so they’d have something to accuse him of as the come here over and over again to read his alleged commands.
Sort of like a couple of months ago someone accused me of forcing atheists to go on to the blog where I filled in weekends for three years, and making them read what I posted there. It reminds me of :
“I hate that movie, it’s so filthy and disgusting”.
“Yeah, I’ve thought so every time we’ve watched it”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Ophelia, although I think you’re probably right about the issue, might it not be more productive to let the “shut up” thing go? It seems to me that that particular thread in the debate focuses too many people on how certain remarks are perceived and how they make this or that guy feel. The real point, though, is quite separate from that.
I’d love to see, for example, some real evidence for the claim that the confrontational tactics of Coyne, Dawkins et al. are in fact counterproductive. Where are all those open-minded people that have been turned off science because some of the more vocal members of the Really Quite Popular Atheists have linked their criticisms of religion with science? I’m thinking of something like RD.net’s Converts’ Corner, which at least offers some real-world evidence for the opposite, namely that their approach—in the case of TGD, writing a book that is both philosophically valuable and funny—seems to be working for one or two people.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Really quite popular with who? Other new atheists? Well, what a surprise.
The times I’ve told people on general political blogs, the leftist ones I got to that I was fed up with their anti-religious invective I’ve usually had agreement that it’s gotten obnoxious and old. Just like when I’ve told them to can the sexism and homophobia, which are about the same thing.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
» Anthony McCarthy spoke thusly:
Really quite popular with who? Other new atheists? Well, what a surprise.
No, Anthony, and I’m surprised that you would think that other people just rely on their prejudices. TGD has sold upwards of two million copies. I’d say that makes it a pretty popular book. PZ’s blog is apparently visited by some two million people per month. Again, I’d say that’s a pretty objective measure of popularity. As I seem to be saying more often these days, if you want to argue with that, knock yourself out. But please don’t pretend that fact-free dismissive commentary qualifies as an argument.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Peter Beattie, is that two million people or two million hits? I’m not surprised that PZ is popular with new atheists, he’s sort of like their Rush Limbaugh, though I’d imagine a lot of his fans tune in more than once a day.
What’s he looking for free books for with that kind of a base?
I do know there are those who got tired of his act, even some atheists. Let’s see how long he can sustain it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Peter,
“although I think you’re probably right about the issue, might it not be more productive to let the “shut up” thing go?”
No, not really, because I think the overall issue matters. As many people have pointed out, there were those who told black people to be quiet and polite and patient during the civil rights movement, too; there were those who told women to do the same; there were those who told gays to do the same. I think it matters that lots of people are falling all over themselves to tell atheists to do the same, and that even some atheists are joining in, and that CM and SK are among them, and that CM keeps moving the goal posts and stonewalling questions. He moved the goal posts by saying he was just trying to advise people how to make their case more effectively, so I quoted what he said in 8 in order to show that that is not what the two of them said there. Sure, it’s tedious, but – no one else had done it yet, so I did it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“As many people have pointed out, there were those who told black people to be quiet and polite and patient during the civil rights movement, too; there were those who told women to do the same; there were those who told gays to do the same.”
There is a difference here, though. The struggle in those cases were to win rights that properly belong to those groups. The struggle here does not seem to be about winning civil rights for atheists, better consideration for scientists or science, but for atheists to force their beliefs on groups that hold other beliefs. The dynamic is one of proselytizing zeal to missionize and convert, and is completely different than the dynamic that characterizes rights campaigns. This is about atheists who believe that they have a monopoly on correct, proper, and healthy belief, and want to make everyone believe as they do. In that sense, the dynamic is no different that when Christians or members of any religion who likewise believe that their beliefs are the only ones that are right, proper, and healthy seek to make their system of belief dominant. Now if the atheists doing so were not conflating their views with science qua science, I don’t think there would be a problem (I detest proselytizers all stripes because I see the practice as largely obnoxious and disrespectful of others, but I acknowledge their right to do so). However, by making that conflation, they are putting forth a portrayal of science and of scientists that is neither correct nor beneficial to science in the long run. This is my opinion, and I acknowledge that it is born of my own experience, as well as my own sense of self interest. I am a scientist, and I dearly hope for a faculty position one day. I hope to one day face a class of students of many different systems of belief and teach them without them worrying that my intent is to strip any of them of the faith that may or may not sustain them as human beings, nor do I want the student-teacher relationship start with their sense that I hold them in contempt for their beliefs when that is not the case. Teaching is hard enough without having to worry about that. Religiously, I have found that a tolerant (within limits, of course) and respectful pluralism is best. I work in a lab that has through the years had many people of different faiths, ranging from Protestants of various kinds, to Catholics, to Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, and atheists. All have worked together to advance knowledge in our field, and have done so with respect for one another even when our beliefs are not the same (the only conflict I can recall was a young man who had discovered atheism not to long before, and took it upon himself to go around telling everyone who was not an atheist that their beliefs were false and therefore wrong. It created a good bit of tension, it interfered with work, and it wasn’t pleasant. However, after the kid realized that no one wanted to be around him or talk to him or help him, he eventually settled down – thank goodness). I don’t see how this is a bad thing. I don’t have to agree with someone in all particulars to be in accord with them, and it certainly doesn’t threaten me for them to hold beliefs I might strongly disagree with. Our history is rife with the story of how intolerance and contempt for differences of belief only lead to disunion, anger, hatred, and all too frequent bouts of extreme violence (See the Catholic – Protestant conflict that was the Thirty Years War – you may say that that was because their beliefs were false, but the combatants on both sides would have said the same of each other). Why can’t we learn some lesson from that history and apply it here? So what if you think your beliefs, whatever they might be and whomever you might be? How does that give justification for contemptuous or obnoxious behavior? There is already far too much of that in the world.
As I said, this is my opinion. I only offer it as that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You know what ultimately gets me about this whole “Shut up” situation? It’s that Coyne has basically said the same thing about Kenneth Miller! Has Ophelia taken him to task? Doubtful.
I’m going to quote from a blog entry I’m making on this whole situation:
Of course, Jerry Coyne plays the role of total hypocrite in all of this because he expressly argues that using scientists such as Ken Miller, who happens to be Catholic, to defend evolution means that science then approves of his religion. That is, of course, total horsepuckey.
Exactly why Ken Miller is called a “religious scientist”, replete with quotation marks, is beyond me. Dr. Miller is an established Professor of Biology at Brown University. He does research, and publishes regularly, in peer-reviewed journals. He’s a scientist, no quotation marks needed. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Jerry; rather, since Ken Miller is Catholic, he needs to be stifled, ignored, relegated to Warehouse 13, lest anyone get the impression that science implicitly endorses his faith.
Ophelia, will we be seeing a rebuttal to Jerry Coyne’s comments? Somehow I doubt it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Mel said: “This is about atheists who believe that they have a monopoly on correct, proper, and healthy belief, and want to make everyone believe as they do. In that sense, the dynamic is no different that when Christians or members of any religion who likewise believe that their beliefs are the only ones that are right, proper, and healthy seek to make their system of belief dominant.”
Umm. No. Atheism is an absence of belief or faith in an unseen, unevidenced supernatural entity or entities. Atheism promotes the use of rational thought as a means to access truth. This is quite a bit different than belief systems which promote their particular irrational brand of unseen, unevidenced sky fairy (and the according dogma) as a means to truth.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@48
You will notice that I did not say anything about the source of the beliefs in question, as it was irrelevant to my point. Atheism is, indeed, by definition an absence of belief in a deity, but that does not mean that it is without beliefs. The dominance of science as the sole proper way to approach the universe, for instance, is a belief that not all agree with. Whether you think it justified or not (and everyone who believes anything strongly thinks they are justified in that belief), it is still a belief.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
“This is about atheists who believe that they have a monopoly on correct, proper, and healthy belief, and want to make everyone believe as they do.”
Well, not really, mel. There are a few things worth defending here:
1) there are good secular reasons to live a moral life and fulfilled life–and that the religious do
not have a monopoly morality or a rich inner and social life
2) really only secular values should be enforced through law–this is really the extent of the extremist atheist militancy
3) secular values have over time permeated religious institutions. Religion is given a lot of credit for achievements that the social institutions of religion have helped bring about only after those institutions had adopted secular values
4) that secularists, atheists, agnostics aren’t out to get the religious, that secular values are not any sort of threat to religious individuals–although we do expect that advocacy of secular values would erode (note the connotation of a slow, natural decline) churches and their authority in society
5) science isn’t always a part of this, but the organized opposition to good science education is almost entirely from religious institutions–it’s worth asking why other social institutions don’t organize against science eduction (of course, Mooney wrote an excellent book about corporate and political opposition to science, but that type of science opposition isn’t over public education, and also is understandable in terms of clear conflicts of interest)
6) Science and secular reasoning isn’t so easy to draw limits around as some people seem to think it is–there are really no formal limits to what can and can’t be studied by science, and our imaginations (and funding, of course) are the biggest obstacles to what that sort of reasoning can study
7) I’m sure I’m leaving good things out, but it’s due to oversight on my part, not because I’m ashamed that nothing tastes as sweet as the tears shed by a pious person as their faith is broken under the weight of cruel, unrelenting logic
I think OB and others* are concerned that Mooney and others are willing to sell out advocates for secularism and atheism under the guise of “science education,” although the real reason is something more like making nice with the religious colleagues by portraying the evil, militant atheist extremists as the common enemy of all reasonable people.
I mean, just look at Crackergate. PZ Myers defiles a eucharist, which is, fine, rude. But the only way “defiling” a cracker can be considered as rude is if there are people out there who are eager to take offense over it. Now, if someone wants to hold a cracker sacred, then fine, let them; but why in the world should they expect everyone else to hold a cracker sacred? Shouldn’t we expect them to let other people just see a cracker? And the appearance is that Mooney wants to excuse the people who take easy offense over that, and throw them an enemy, PZ Myers and the “new atheists,” so they–Mooney and McCarthy and the religious in general (though of course there are religious people who are completely accepting of even us jack booted, baby eating new atheists, and even appreciate our position)–can all ally against their common enemy.
I’ll grant that to some extent, atheism is for some people just a bit of an intellectual game, maybe a fun debate. Closely related to that is that it’s a mental exercise or debating point that tests the limits of scientific and secular reasoning.** It’s also an expression that certain religious sorts of values, like a life after death, or a spiritual free will (as opposed the for-all-intents-and-purposes or “illusory” sense that we all experience), aren’t particularly desirable, and that a fulfilling life doesn’t require them.***
Now, mel and McCarthy have objected to conflating science and secularism and/or atheism. Probably the best thing would be to point out that science as a social institution, as a way to communicate and debate ideas along with the evidence supporting them, is certainly a valid way to talk about god, religion, etc. There’s no particular reason that the discussion of god or miracles, and the phenomenon of belief in gods or miracles, for instance, can’t include facts about nature. Some gods might be defined in a way that suspiciously looks as if they were defined specifically so that the natural world can give us no evidence about them. But why does that have to end the debate? Those definitions of gods are also human constructs, and therefore they seem like fair game for investigation.
And I’ve gone on longer than I meant to, so I’ll stop now. And I’m not here for a debate, so I’m not going to engage in one. I just mean to help clarify some of the perspectives in this argument, and what is perceived to be at stake.
*including me
**for those keeping score, the current most defensible position is that science can circumscribe all remotely possible gods as being gods that really aren’t at all worth basing moral values around, probably aren’t worth “worship” or “awe”, and the senses in which they might be said to exist–or sustain existence, or whatever–are nearly meaningless, at best
***in some cases, I think that the difference between those calling themselves atheists and those calling themselves agnostics is that some agnostics “want to believe”
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Peter @50: Now, if someone wants to hold a cracker sacred, then fine, let them; but why in the world should they expect everyone else to hold a cracker sacred?
They don’t expect it. What should have been reasonable to expect however is that Myers wouldn’t entreat people to enter their places of worship and start stealing the Eucharist to mail to him. How else do you think he got that Eucharist?
In other words, not only didn’t he not respect them, which is his right, he actively entreated people to go out of their way to do things to offend Catholics. You don’t think that crosses some sort of line?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Peter,
I do see many of your points, and I agree with many of them. I am an ardent secularist and a scientist (sixth year grad student who will be getting a PhD in evolutionary biology at some point in the next six months), after all. My problem is with some many engaged in this debate who seem to take the view that, as they justify, or believe they justify, their beliefs with science, they are justified to hold in contempt all who do not likewise do so, to ridicule them, to mock them, to be obnoxious to them…and so on. I grew up in the South, in the very buckle of the Bible belt. I was the only one in my rural school who said I did not believe in god, and was mocked, ridiculed, and subjected to all sorts of obnoxiousness from other students who believed that my beliefs were not as justified as theirs. When I see the same behavior from people coming from the other side of the spectrum, I don’t see it as any better just because they see their beliefs as better justified. The world is better served when there is more tolerance of differences and more respect for one another. Reasons can always be formulated for the pushing of one’s beliefs on others, and everyone who is absolutely certain of their beliefs feels absolutely justified in pushing those beliefs. That doesn’t make it right.
As to the whole desecration of a consecrated host, I think the whole thing was ridiculous. The kid who initially took a host did a silly, juvenile thing. Those who made death threats against him were in the wrong, too. What PZ Myers did was likewise silly, juvenile, and in the wrong. I am not a Catholic, and I don’t hold the host sacred. However, I am cognizant that there are many to whom it is sacred. I have friends who are devout Catholics who give me a sense of how important it is to them, just as one of my dearest friends is a devout Muslim who holds the Koran dear to her. I would never desecrate a host for that reason, nor would I desecrate a Koran. What purpose is served in needlessly provoking and mocking them by desecrating it? You may say that the host is just a cracker, and, yes, it is to you or I, but there are those to whom it is not. What cost is there to respecting them? Consider it in another light. Say I have a chipped tea cup that belonged to my great grandmother. I loved her dearly, and I keep that tea cup on a shelf with her picture. That tea cup means a lot to me. I see it as a connection to her. To someone else, it is just a lump of ceramic. Should I not be upset if that person smashes it because to them it is just a lump of ceramic? I would be wrong to make death threats against that person, but would I not be justified at being upset and viewing that person in distaste henceforth? I see the cracker situation the same way. There are things that are very important to people, that bear great symbolic or sentimental meaning to them, for reasons that may not make sense to anyone else. Just because another does not have that same sense of meaning, that does not justify him or her destroying those things, and it certainly does not absolve him or her of impropriety in doing so.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
@ TomJoe (@ 47) -
Thanks for your defense of my friend Ken Miller, whom I had the privilege of assisting at his very first debate against a creationist, which was held at Brown decades ago. Recently I heard Ken say – it was in May at a private lecture he presented to our fellow college alumni here in New York City – that those who accept faiths which are hostile to science should discard them ASAP, preferably immediately. He has also stressed that when discussing issues that concern religion and science, then scientific considerations are paramount. If Coyne implies by his comment that “religious scientists” like Ken Miller and Jesuit brother – and noted Vatican Observatory astronomer and planetary scientist – Guy Consolmagno are acting merely as apologists seeking to reconcile science to religion, then he is quite mistaken. No genuine scientist I know of – religiously devout or not – would act in such a fashion (Sadly such behavior can be expected only from “creation scientists” such as the Dishonesty Institute’s Intelligent Design advocates, who, by their behavior, should be regarded as mendacious intellectual pornographers.).
IMHO Ophelia Benson is a mere hypocrite if she can condone Jerry Coyne’s risible accusation while whining about Chris Mooney’s harsh, but accurate, assessment of the ludicrous and quitet brash behavior favored by prominent Militant Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and now, unfortunately, Jerry Coyne too.
@ TomJoe (@ 51) -
PZ Myers was interested in starting an altercation and insulting the Roman Catholic Church by his crude, but effective, “CrackerGate” stunt (I am not of course condoning the absurd mistreatment of the student Myers was trying to defend. However, as a tenured college professor, he should have acted in a manner befitting his status, not as the bizarre agent provocateur of Militant Atheism that he most certainly is.).
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
@ Ophelia Benson -
It takes one to know one. If I am a poltroon, then you are most certainly a feckless poltroon and a cynical hypocrite who condones absurd conduct of your Militant Atheist allies while challenging what is reaonable, well-considered, criticism of their behavior from reputable science journalists like Sheril Kirshenbaum, and especially, Chris Mooney.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
@ TomJoe, Mel
Defending Crackergate wasn’t really my point.* I agree that it was rude, although I think what PZ did was sarcasm and satire, and I think that has value. But I think you can think it went too far, and yet that that incident is still not worth lining the “New Atheists,” as vigorous defenders of secularism, up on one side against the religious, on the other side, and goading the religious into thinking that those nasty militant atheists are the real enemy. Especially for political expediency.
And besides, as far as I can tell PZ Myers did that as an advocate of secularism, and didn’t bring science into that particular demonstration at all. So why is Mooney bringing up his actions as an advocate for secularism in a book ostensibly about public perception of science, unless it’s to demonize a certain subset of atheists? Not saying there isn’t a good reason, but I think that’s the perception of us militant atheists.
*hope that I can say that without sounding too much like I think Anthony McCarthy sounds when he says that, no offense Anthony
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 am
Entirely OT, but – Anthony, I responded to your comment about Marilynne Robinson here, in that thread that has fallen off the front page . . .
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
Peter,
I know that wasn’t your point. I just used it as an excuse to express my opinion on it, as it has really bothered me since it happened. I have had things important to me (no, not a teacup) destroyed by others because they were important to me and not to them, so I can empathize with those who were upset, and I have a hard time with those who don’t see what was wrong with what Myers did.
Reading back through Myer’s post for the desecration, I don’t see much high minded defense of secularism in it. I see seething contempt for beliefs he does not hold, disrespect, and zero empathy. I see the certainty of one who believes he is absolutely correct in what he is doing, and no questioning of that certainty. I don’t see anything in that which can count as a defense of secularism. You are correct that he doesn’t explicitly link science to the demonstration, but he continually makes it clear that he sees his views as justified on the basis of science, and that his views led to the desecration. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the issue, but I don’t see anything good or helpful that can come out such instances of needless, juvenile provocation for the sake of provocation – especially if they come to be seen as emblematic of secularism.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
@ Kwok #13
You debate like a fourth-grader. You’re not helping the camp that you’re trying to defend. You made no attempt to actually refute any of my points (in #11 and simply provided an asinine response. If I’m so wrong, surely you can explain why. And as someone already pointed out, you’re dead wrong about transubstantiation. It does refer to a belief in a literal transformation. And such a transformation is in direct conflict with known science. Few death threats go out because of mere symbolism. And it was death threats and intimidation that led PZ Myers to draw attention to the issue in the first place, not merely for sensationalism, as he’s been accused.
Next, this whole “New Atheism” nonsense has to stop. There’s nothing new about 2400-year-old arguments. I hope those leading the “accommodationist” (simply for lack of a better term) side like Mooney will at least concede that this term has become merely an ad hominem tactic to undermine atheist activists to avoid actually challenging their position on intellectual grounds. Not one of the currently popular religious critics is advocating the absolutist position they’re being charged with. And each of them has gone out of their way on numerous occasions to point out the limitations of science in regards to religious claims. But to say that one has to claim mere agnosticism towards specific religious claims like transubstantiation is absurd. No one is merely agnostic about Santa Claus or leprechauns, or genies. Why not? Why is it that we can we ridicule those that believe in leprechauns or that Elvis is still alive but we cannot ridicule people for believing that a wafer made in an ordinary wafer factory can literally transform into the body of Christ? It’s special pleading. The only reason seems to be because we don’t want to hurt the delicate feelings of the many people who happen to believe it. And if that’s the reason, then it’s not good enough. The burden of proof lies with the believer.
Also, I’m planning on hosting a party soon. Since science and religion do not conflict, can someone please provide me with the scientific mechanism that allows one to turn water into wine? Thanks.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 am
@Mel, all posts
Yes!
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 am
Oh goodie, another attempt to sidetrack the debate away from a point you really can’t defend. To wit:
» Anthony McCarthy said:
Peter Beattie, is that two million people or two million hits?
Does either make it less than the most popular science blog on the Intertubes?
I’m not surprised that PZ is popular with new atheists,
You actually know what the ratio of atheists to non-atheists is on Pharyngula? I’m very much looking forward to your sharing the data with us. Because it would be a shame if you had just implied that you know something that you really have no way of knowing.
And the first point I actually made was about Dawkins’s TGD. I wonder why you didn’t even mention that. Surely you must have the figures to prove that the roughly two million copies that book has sold all went to militant atheists too.
he’s sort of like their Rush Limbaugh,
You mean in that he’s popular? Well, yes, I suppose there’s no denying that Rush is popular too.
though I’d imagine a lot of his fans tune in more than once a day.
Oh no sir! We actually keep the page open all day so as not to miss anything.
I do know there are those who got tired of his act, even some atheists.
I guess that’s proof that he’s not really popular at all. Yeah, that must be it. Damn, why didn’t I see that brilliant argument myself? Thanks, Anthony, for making me see PZ for the unpopular hate-monger he really is.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 am
— As many people have pointed out, there were those who told black people to be quiet and polite and patient during the civil rights movement, too; there were those who told women to do the same; there were those who told gays to do the same. Ophelia Benson
You are British, if I understand, and I’m not current on the situation there. Here atheists have been covered by civil rights laws for more than forty years within the class protected by bans on discrimination on the basis of religious belief. The religious office holders who didn’t exclude atheists on the basis of the contemporary, and much more fun, version of obnoxious atheism, M. Murry. It was because they were dedicated to justice out of principle. There wasn’t then, and in almost all places, still would be no problem with a politician criticizing PZ Myers for his offensive antics if those became an issue in their campaign. I doubt any would actively seek his endorsement and might hope he never imposes that burden on their campaigns. You might want to see what happened when the Edwards campaign briefly hired Amanda Marcotte before someone looked at her blog’s archive. It’s a good indication of the real political effect of that kind of thing in the real world.
As a gay man who is active in the gay rights movement since the early 70s, I really, really don’t want new atheists getting involved in the gay rights struggle, insulting the voters and losing, for us, what they’ve had for forty years. So don’t use me as an excuse for your juvenile venting.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
– Peter Beattie, is that two million people or two million hits?
Does either make it less than the most popular science blog on the Intertubes? PB
You said “PZ’s blog is apparently visited by some two million people per month.” There’s a big difference between two million hits and two million people. I can assure you that Rush Limbaugh gets a lot bigger audience than Science Friday does on the radio. Rush wouldn’t get his traffic if he didn’t pander to the lowest level of audience and featured calm reasoning and well researched logic in promotion of atheism and he knows it. It’s a geek show that is popular with the kind of people who flock to car crashes.
— You actually know what the ratio of atheists to non-atheists is on Pharyngula?
Do you? I’ll bet that a blog whose obnoxious purpose is to insult religious people doesn’t attract too many of them, minus a few scrappers who like to fight with his audience. I’ll bet most atheists wouldn’t choose to be regular readers. The two or three times I got involved with a discussion I found his readers are some of the most predictable and silly debaters this side of Town Hall and Freep. The two times PZ answered me I found out that he’s a crybaby whose defense was essentially “you’re being mean to me”. And I only pointed out that the scientist he was slamming had a better publication record than he did and was actually doing research.
— And the first point I actually made was about Dawkins’s TGD. I wonder why you didn’t even mention that.
He had a best seller. Ann Coulter has them too.
TGD is one crumby work of scholarship. I’ve said it before, when one of my brothers who majored in history read it he decided to stop calling himself an atheists “because an agnostic is a smart person who doesn’t believe in God”. He wasn’t the only one to notice that RD was one pretty lousy scholar.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 am
Oh, and predicting that someone is going to bring up that poll saying people would vote for almost anyone before they’d vote for an atheist for president. If you think insulting most of the voters is a way to get them to vote for you, I guess we never will see an atheist elected as president.
You do know that the voters are not covered by the “no religious test for office” provision in the Constitution, don’t you? You do understand that you can’t force them to vote for an atheist, you’ve got to persuade them to consider voting for one. If you don’t realize that, I wouldn’t be surprised now, not after the past decade of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and PZ.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 am
Oh dear, Anthony, I think you’re out of your depth, and that with the water only coming up to your ankles. I’ll try and make it as simple as I can:
– I remarked that a certain group of atheists are popular.
– You said they weren’t, or were so only among their acolytes.
– I pointed to the fact that PZ’s blog is probably the most popular science blog there is. I also pointed out that RD’s book is extremely popular by any standard.
– To which you replied by questioning the number I quoted, which is irrelevant since popularity is a relative concept and Pharyngula is, as far as I’m aware, relatively the most popular science blog there is. In defence of your questioning the popularity of Pharyngula, you pointed to a couple of people who were turned off by the general atmosphere over there.
– I asked again whether you didn’t think that PZ and RD are popular and whether you had any evidence to back your claim that PZ and RD cater only to a narrow demographic.
– You said, ‘Well, any asshole can be popular.’ Which actually concedes my point. You added, ‘And anyway, RD is a lousy scholar.’ In support of which you quote your brother as saying so. He is a historian, so clearly he is the most qualified person to judge the book. [My interpretation, since the remark seems to serve no other observable purpose.]
So, in summary, you didn’t address the point in question even once; you resorted to name-calling instead of citing even one piece of evidence in your support; and you think that a handful of people you happen to agree with constitute enough reason to favour their point of view. This would be a brilliant bit of comedy—I can kind of see Monty Python doing a sketch along those lines—if there weren’t quite a lot of people who think that this is a proper discussion. But what are you going to do if that kind of thing is pretty much all you see in the media.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Peter Beattie, I’m always so interested to be told by new atheists who’ve made basic mistakes such as confusing hits per month for people per month that I’m “out of my depth”.
Here is what I said that got you worked up: “Really quite popular with who? Other new atheists? Well, what a surprise.”
In order to convince me that PZ’s fan base doesn’t consist largely of new atheists and spills over into the general population you would have to explain why large numbers of the religious folk go there to be told how stupid and ignorant they are, agnostics who often don’t seem to get much better treatment from the new atheists or atheists who not only think they’re on the wrong path but are obnoxious jerks would frequent the place. I gave you one group of religious folk who might frequent it, people who like to fight with PZ’s regulars.
I also noted that his popularity was not likely explained by the science content of his blog but by the gutter level anti-religious bigotry without which no one in the world outside of Morris would have likely heard of PZ Myers. I also noted that Rush Limbaugh gets an audience who one could suspect don’t listen for objective news.
As for the numbers, I was questioning what you were measuring, not the number. Getting what you’re measuring wrong is a pretty serious mistake, for sciency kinds of guys.
I pointed out two things about RD, that Ann Coulter was one of his fellow best sellers and that scholarly deficiencies of TGD have been noted by many reviewers and readers, my agnostic brother among them. As time goes on and Dawkins’ act gets tired I suspect he, like PZ will try other things to keep his audience who seem to be very easy to please, if serious attempts to find the truth are any indication.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Peter Beattie, I forgot this
— You said, ‘Well, any asshole can be popular.’
I never said that because I don’t use that kind of jr. high language except when I’m quoting someone who does. Really, it sounds more like PZ’s fans than it does me. Maybe PZ himself.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Anthony, you’re a priceless asset to this blog.
» Anthony McCarthy cleverly said:
Peter Beattie, I’m always so interested to be told by new atheists who’ve made basic mistakes such as confusing hits per month for people per month that I’m “out of my depth”.
Oh, you’re funny. I don’t know who told you that, but I’m not a new atheist. Nor does it matter either way, but I can see that’s not something you’re concerned with. The point is, has been, and will remain that Pharyngula is really quite popular—whether counted in page impressions or unique hits is, again, totally irrelevant. Even if the metric were wrong, my point about popularity would remain. Your attempt at a tu quoque argument is rather cute, though. Hilariously beside the point, like most of what you’ve said, but cute.
Oh, and has it occurred to you that you have picked up on the one thing in my original post that was entirely tangential to its contents? Why don’t you do us all the favour of commenting on the meat of that post, which was to say that, “I’d love to see, for example, some real evidence for the claim that the confrontational tactics of Coyne, Dawkins et al. are in fact counterproductive.”
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
OK, I’m so interested in how someone named Peter Beattie can make such an egregious mistake while allegedly defending science against the onslaught of irrationality between hits per month and “people per month” and then tell me I’m out of my depth. And then give me two more opportunities to point out his glaring mistake.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
@ Anthony McCarthy
You understand incorrectly. Ophelia Benson is an American.
You don’t get to claim the moral high ground, McCarthy, by appealing to your status as a gay man and activist, as if that made your views self-evidently right. As a gay man and activist myself, I very much do see the American push for social acceptance of non-theism to be parallel in many ways to the civil rights struggles of gays and blacks. Not in every way, but in some important ways.
Also, I don’t understand your objection, since it’s aimed at something no one actually claimed. Who said that the “new atheists” are or should be “getting involved in the gay rights struggle?” I don’t think you read Benson carefully. She was making a comparison to the issues surrounding gay rights, such as the “be quiet about it” stance conventional America took toward gay people. She was not stating that “new atheists” have been or should “get involved” in gay rights issues. I don’t think that was unclear, so I’m puzzled at your objection.
If, instead, you mean to say that you resent atheist rights issues being compared to the gay civil rights struggle, that would make more sense in context, but I’d still differ with you. There are parallels; you don’t get to draw a special, privileged circle around the gay rights struggle as if it were so unique, so sacrosanct, that making comparisons to it somehow sullied or insulted it. That reminds me of the frequent (and morally reprehensible) claims by some African-Americans that gays have no right to compare their woes to the struggles of blacks, that drawing such a parallel demeans the black rights movement. That’s insulting, and disgusting. I feel the same way about gays (and remember, I am gay too) who get all up in high dudgeon over atheists noting parallel societal attitudes. Ranking oppressions isn’t ethically defensible, and it makes one look provincial and petty.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
“I’m so interested in how someone named Peter Beattie can make such an egregious mistake ”
Geesh, cuz as he pointed out, it’s not actually an “egregious” mistake.” His point was about the popularity of the blog, and the most common measure of blog popularity is blog hits. In some contexts, it matters whether you’re talking about distinct people visiting, or total visits, but not in the context he was using. His worst offense here was that he was casual with his language.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Anthony, why don’t you just stop whining and get out of the puddle? It’s a pathetic sight, really, to see someone who is unable to muster a single argument in favour of his claims, and instead pats himself on the back for spotting what he has conviced nobody but himself is an egregious mistake that, even if it were true, would be utterly irrelevant to the point. If you can’t or won’t give evidence and rational arguments in a discussion, you should probably stay out of them. Until then, I’ll stay out of yours.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
PB, you are being silly. I’ll rely on third parties who could find this interesting to read what we have said to each other on this thread and judge for themselves who is all wet.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
JoshS, the comparison of the program of the new atheists and the gay rights struggle is absurd, pointing that out to OB was the gist of my comment. The request for the voter antagonizing new atheists to not make things harder for those of us who are not protected by federal civil rights laws, is a long standing request.
As for claiming “moral high ground” all I was trying to do was looking at reality and drawing reasonable conclusions based on that. I don’t see it as a game of moral one ups mans ship.
As to her not being British, I misinterpreted her website, I guess.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Noted, but hard to parse, and even harder to understand. You have no evidence that “new atheists” antagonize voters, that “new atheists” are even on the radar screen of voters who are anti-gay rights, or that any anti-gay rights voter is thinking or stating, “Oh, I was going to vote for full equality for gay people, but since the new atheists support that, and since I dislike them so intense, I withdraw my support for gay rights.”
Oh, and by the way, your awkward grammatical construction is also noted. Avoiding being clear about who made the “long standing request”, so as to make it appear the “request” enjoys broad support, and isn’t just your personal hobby horse, doesn’t help your case.
And no, comparing atheist rights to gay rights is not an act that is self-evidently and obviously absurd, no matter how many times you make that flat assertion. I agree that it’s a subject that can be debated, and that conflicting points of view are worth weighing and hashing out. It’s clear that you think that, but that’s not the same thing. I wish you’d be a little less peremptory, and a little more willing to admit there might be those who disagree with you sincerely, and who deserve more than a contemptous characterization as holding obviously absurd beliefs. You don’t have privileged access to “reality,” McCarthy, no matter how snarkily you write. Come on.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
@ NewEngland Bob -
Noting how you comport yourself elsewhere online, I would have thought that you might really be a native of Mecca or Medina or even Riyadh, not someone who claims to be a New Englander, and certainly, most likely, one who doesn’t hail from Rhode Island. Methinks you’re a bit hypocritical in condemning my comments, when you seem as guilty too.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
— You have no evidence that “new atheists” antagonize voters,
I’m quite convinced that telling the large majority of voters, who have already said they wouldn’t vote for an atheist will not be won over to support gay rights by new atheists telling they they are a bunch of stupid, ignorant, faith head, idiots. Just call it a hunch.
If you think this is snark you should see me when I’m not trying to be polite at the request of the blog owner. The awkward grammatical construction is the result of having to type and edit this largely by memory. I have very poor eyesight.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@John Kwok
Please refrain from insulting remarks about Muslims. Please. It is unnecessary and wrong, and I expected better from you than that Mecca remark.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@ Mel -
I am merely observing that NewEnglandBob is as fanatical and sanctimonious as Saudi Wahhabi Sunni Muslims, and decided to use a bit of sarcasm to make my point (For the record, I have one relative who is a prominent Muslim – American.).
July 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Again, OT: Anthony, another reply re: Marilynn Robinson here.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:35 am
I’m so glad we could all discuss such this legitimate scientific controversy in such a mature fashion. I think we’ve all grown from this experience.
With so-called rational people like this, who needs creationists?
July 4th, 2009 at 12:56 am
@ Skepacabra -
If I debate like a “fourth grader”, then surely you must have just graduated from kindergarten (Perhaps my reference to Klingon “deities” went over your head, as a not so subtle joke poking fun at the sanctimonious behavior I’ve seen all too often from militant atheists like yourself, NewEngland Bob, Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne, and especially, your Messiah, PZ Myers.). Hey, why worry yourself to death about the Marxist – Leninist tone I’ve been reading all too often from you and your fellow Militant Atheists? Why not have a little fun at your expense?
July 4th, 2009 at 1:50 am
@ McCarthy
Well, then, harumph! Yes, yes, it’s all quite obvious, isn’t it? Harumph!
July 4th, 2009 at 2:04 am
@McCarthy -
There. Fixed it for you. And you think of yourself as a champion of equal rights? Get the hell off my team, McCarthy. You ought to be ashamed.
July 4th, 2009 at 8:38 am
@ JoshS -
McCarthy has stated that he is himself gay in his sexual orientation, and I do respect him for not only stating that but for offering his own perspectives as a gay man who is also religious. While I don’t agree with every word he has written here, his comments have, in general, been far more thoughtful than your frequently ludicrous attempts at trying to be “reasonable”, as you demonstrated earlier this morning (@ 82 & @ 83). It’s a pity that you’re not as zealous as you could be in replying to the risible, often absurd, attacks on mainstream religions such as Roman Catholic Christianity that I have read all too often at your Messiah’s personal website (I am referring of course to that great “savant” of Militant Atheism, one PZ Myers.).
July 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
@ JoshS -
I don’t think that you should criticize McCarthy for stating more than once that he is a champion of equal rights, especially in light of recent incidents like this:
http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid94769.asp
(Incidentally I bring this up too as another partial response to Mel (@ 77) since my prominent Muslim – American relative does have friends who would support the intolerance of the kind depicted in The Advocate article, whose link I’ve just provided.)
July 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@ John Kwok -
Your complaints are against stereotypes that don’t actually exist. If anything, there’s equal amounts of “sanctimonious behavior” on both sides, as this very comments section illustrates. Instead of people actually making rational responses to rational arguments, people seem more interested in rejecting those that disagree with them out of hand. We’re not dealing with creationists here; everyone on this forum should be able to behave rationally. Though I haven’t seen much indication of that. People would rather bitch about critic etiquette than the subject at hand. Both sides of this issue have strong opinions, so your definition of what constitutes as “militant” seems quite inconsistent…unless you definition defines a militant as someone who simply disagrees with you. I have yet to see you rationally defend your position with anything other than ad hominem and silly straw men like calling PZ Myers our “Messiah.” That’s an absurd accusation, and you should know better. Merely defending someone in a particular argument requires no dogmatism at all. o one has accused you of worshiping the likes of Mooney, Scott, Miller, or Forrest. Nor has anyone but yourself shamelessly tried McCarthyist scapegoating. And there’s a reason why. They’re anti-intellectual, childish arguments.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@ Skepacabra -
If my complaints are against “stereotypes that don’t actually exist”, then why do they form an important aspect of Sheril and Chris’s new book? A part that was apparently “dissected” recently by Ophelia Benson.
My definition of militant atheism is based upon both the ideas and behaviors of adherents like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins who believe that only their unique scientific worldview is correct, that it should become widespread amongst the scientific community, and last, but not least, it should be accepted by the general public – and if necessary, rammed down their throats. It is this latter point that has annoyed such prominent historians and philosophers of science as Janet Browne, Philip Kitcher, Ed Larson, and Ronald Numbers, to name but a few (I mention them only because I have heard them comment on Dawkins’s behavior during talks and Q & A sessions that I had heard from them here in New York City over the past few months.).
As for referring to PZ Myers as your “Messiah”, I have done so with ample sarcasm, but I feel justified not only because of Myers’s past absurd behavior towards me and Ken Miller, among others, but more importantly, because he has an online “flock” of followers – zealous acolytes (or, again , with ample sarcasm, members of the Coyne/Myers Militant Atheist Borg Collective) – who act as though every word written by Myers should be taken literally as “GOSPEL”; in plain English if someone takes his thought as “GOSPEL”, then it should be obvious that that person regards Myers as the “Messiah”.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:35 am
@ John Kwok -
But PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins et al don’t believe that only their unique scientific worldview is correct…at least no more than any other rational scientist with a strong opinion. That’s my point. You’re inferring far more certainty in them than actually exists. Dawkins even creates a 1-7 scale of certainty where he places himself at a 6. It’s fine if you don’t agree with them but you should be able to make a rational argument for why you don’t agree with them rather than simply writing them off as dogmatic or because you don’t happen to like their tone. That’s fine. They choose to be blunt and unapologetic about their position and that can be off-putting to some people. But merely criticizing their tone or how they choose to express themselves does not make them wrong.
I’m trying to be as reasonable and willing to hear out the other side as possible. I’d be more than willing to change my position if someone gave me a good reason to believe science and religion can be reconciled. But I haven’t seen one. All I see from the other side are arguments for why it may be strategically wise to ally ourselves with religious moderates instead of suggesting they grow up and join reality. And it might very well be strategically wise to do so, but that’s not the discussion. I don’t care whether it’s strategically wise or not. I care about what is true.
Can a scientific-minded person be intellectually honest with themselves and after leaving the proverbial lab, go home and lower their standards of evidence to let themselves be ruled by an active belief in magical, unfalsifiable explanations based on nothing but faith without being at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical? I don’t see how. If you can just accept one kind of unfalsifiable magical thinking, why not another? Why then shouldn’t one also accept homeopathy or Young Earth Creationism, or the vaccine/autism hypothesis, or that 9/11 was a U.S. government plot, etc? If not merely special pleading, why does religious belief get the free pass from criticism when nobody complains if you tell people their wrong about other things?
July 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@ Skepacabra -
With regards to your last paragraph (@ 88), the answer is most definitely yes. Here are some relevant examples:
Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the architects of contemporary evolutionary theory and among the 20th Century’s foremost evolutionary geneticists.
Francisco J. Ayala, Dobzhansky’’s student, himself an eminent evolutionary geneticist
.
Peter Dodson, vertebrate paleobiologist who specializes in ceratopsian dinosaurs.
Keith Miller, invertebrate paleontologist (No relation to Ken Miller), an Evangelical Protestant Christian.
Michael L. Rosenzweig, eminent ecologist, a devout Conservative Jew (Incidentally a graduate school mentor of mine, who never discussed his Judaism with me when we talked about ecology and other aspects of evolutionary biology. I only heard about his Judaism occasionally, in private.).
Jeremy L. Jackson, an eminent marine ecologist, who criticized Dawkins and Myers for their outlandish behavior last week at the 9th North American Paleontoological Convention
(according to mathematican Jason Rosenhouse’s report at his blog).
Darryl Domining, vertebrate paleobiologist who studies fossil sirenians (sea cows and manatees) and their distant relatives, who is a professor at Howard University and affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution.
Simon Conway Morris, distinguished invertebrate paleobiologist who, along with his fellow graduate student, Derek Briggs, and their Cambridge University Ph. D. advisor, Harry Whittington, reinterpreted the paleobiological significance of the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale Fauna (reported incorrectly by Stephen Jay Gould in his “Wonderful Life”) who accepts a much stronger version of the anthropic principle than does Ken Miller.
And then there are of course these two whom I have mentioned repeatedly, who have stressed in public that they insist upon the supremacy of science over religion on issues where both may “conflict”:
Ken Miller, cell biologist, devout Roman Catholic, and who is among our best proponents for teaching evolution in science classrooms.
Guy Consolmagno, noted Vatican Observatory astronomer and planetary scientist, who is also the curator of the Vatican Meteorite Collection and, since 1989, a Jesuit brother.
There are of course these notable atheists who believe that science can co-exist with religion:
Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education
Edward O. Wilson. eminent Ecologist, founding father of conservation biology, pioneer of sociobiology, and along with the late Robert MacArthur (who was Michael Rosenzweig’s Ph. D. advisor), developed some fundamentally important concepts in theoretical population ecology and biogeography which are still quite relevant today, including, for example, conservation biology.
I’ve only scratched the tip of the iceberg. There are many other scientists who are religiously devout and remain “Intellectually honest with themselves’. If they didn’t then they wouildn’t be able to work as scientists, conducting research, and having that research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:40 am
John Kwok @ 89 -
By the standard you are using the practice of medicine and homeopathy are compatible.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@ jake -
No, absolutely not. All the people I cited (with perhaps the possible exception of Simon Conway Morris) place their strict adherence to science and the scientific method “light years” ahead of their religious considerations. Ayala, Rosenzweig and Wilson are all definitely scientists of the first rank, who have probably made more important – and more lasting – contributions in evolutionary biology than either Coyne or Dawkins. And then of course, there’s Dobzhansky, whom I would place after Ernst Mayr and Sir Ronald A. Fisher as among our most important 20th Century evolutionary biologists.
Your “comparison” is not merely risible, but it is actually quite pregnant in its breathtaking inanity.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@ John Kwok -
I think you missed the part about having to be intellectually honest with themselves. I don’t deny that there have been brilliant scientific minds who believed in god. That is indeed undeniable. What I’m arguing is that their reasons for doing so are neither rational nor scientific and that simply saying, well, that’s just my faith is a cop-out to avoid addressing the inherent inconsistency in their standards of evidence. While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can just as easily be rejected without evidence.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:04 am
@ Skepacabra -
On the contrary, I disagree. I think they are being intellectually honest with themselves as I have noted. Indeed, since you raised that observation, then let me ask whether you and your fellow militants are being intellectually honest with yourselves in believing that you can persuade religiously devout Americans into rejecting their religious values, recognize evolution as valid science, and embrace the New Atheist agenda espoused by the likes of Coyne, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Myers? At least one of your more prominent leaders, Lawrence Krauss, is enough of a realist to realize that this won’t happen any time soon.
If you want to use me as an example, you could ask how I, a registered Republican, could accept evolution as valid science (Incidentally there are quite a few Republicans who do.). Human beings are by the very nature, inconsistent, and yet they can still be intellectually honest with themselves and others.), without realizing that I could do this, in part, because I was trained as an evolutionary biologist, and because, more importantly, my very conscience would expect no less from myself.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Good info!
July 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Again, how are you defining the word “militant?” It seems to me that to you militant simply means anyone who passionately disagrees with your position. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative
I’m certainly not engaged in any warfare or combat. And all I’m doing is responding to someone else’s blog and commentors on that blog, so can’t be accused of being “active.” At most, I’m re-active or defensive. If you’re advocating for those you disagree with to be “not active,” then you’re indeed effectively telling us to “shut up,” which is one of the charges commonly made about those taking your position on this topic. And if it’s our mere opinion itself that you’re calling militant, regardless of whether we’re active, reactive, defensive, or almost entirely silent about it, then you’re radically redefining the word.
Now I’ll say once again that I do not fit either definition of the word. And if you are simply opposed to the conflict, clearly you are yourself guilty of also guilty of passionately defending your opinion.
Now you said: “Indeed, since you raised that observation, then let me ask whether you and your fellow militants are being intellectually honest with yourselves in believing that you can persuade religiously devout Americans into rejecting their religious values, recognize evolution as valid science, and embrace the New Atheist agenda espoused by the likes of Coyne, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Myers?”
As I’ve already stated, whether or not it’s an effective strategy for persuasion wholly irrelevant to whether or not it’s true. But neither strategy has proven very effective in changing the minds of the deeply religious. However, it wasn’t until the so-called “New Atheists,” as you like to call us, started letting their voices be heard that we started to see a rapid rise in atheism and a rapid decline in evangelism in the U.S. It could be a coincidence. But I doubt it. And whether or not the culture war ends soon is also irrelevant. And if you’re really going to argue that everybody’s inconsistent, then you’re opening the door to justify belief in anything. If you’re rational person, you should be seeking to be as consistent as possible. And to argue that a person can consistently embrace a scientific worldview while at the same time believing that different languages came about because god wanted to punish humans for trying to build a tower to reach heaven is absurd.
“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
-Frederick Douglass
July 6th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
@ Skepacabra -
It is ironic that you quote from a great believer in democratic government, Frederick Douglass, since the online behavior I have read from many of your compatriots is one that I would recognize in the zealous acts of the Red Guards during the People Republic China’s infamous, nearly decade-long Cultural Revolution.
In the Intersection blog on survey data on science and religion, John Kotcher has brought to our attention the writings of eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, who, writing over at the Huffington Post, has observed that atheism is a ’stealth religion”. His assessment may be correct, especially in light of the abysmal online conduct I have seen from your fellow militant atheists here and elsewhere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/#blogger_bio
July 7th, 2009 at 4:32 am
The real issue is the future of America, how we dig ourselves out of this economic mess, conquer global warming, and properly educate our citizens. Hhmmm.
Well, speaking of “educating our citizens” and conquering “global warming” in the same sentence, is it not curious that current global temperatures match the 1980s global average?
Facts, as John Adams famously said, are stubborn things.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am
[...] Kirshenbaum consider inimical to public acceptance of science. Mooney and Kirshenbaum posted a note on their website that they had sent P. Z. a copy of their book, asking him to refrain from reviewing it until he had [...]
July 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] on Mooney’s and Kirshenbaum’s part to be such a breach — and Mooney and Kirshenbaum responded that the process of sending out review copies had just been disorganized, and that he had always [...]