I am unsure we disagree about that particular test for cognitive compatibility, though I would stress that testimony alone is insufficient, though necessary. If folks get along with two separate sets of views only by ignoring the relationship between them, then surely we don’t learn anything valuable by observing what people endorse in testimony. In order for us to demonstrate dissonance, people have to be confronted with the conflict to see how they respond. If this is true, then it’s not right to say that they are the only ones that can answer. The answers become evident only in experiment.

addressing “New Atheism” as an “it” is a convenient way to avoid addressing substantively specific arguments made in specific case about specific things. It is a kind of demagogic hand-waving that serves as a subtle ad hominem, intended to discredit a commenter a priori, as in “ah, another New Atheist!” or, “as New Atheists says”.

It is a logical fallacy: the identity of a messenger has no bearing on the merit of a specific argument, nor can a particular argument be dismissed by associating it with a label.

This is a depressingly frequent tack here, apparently – I only came her because of the favorable review of the book on Daily Kos, and expected to find a high quality of intellectual argument and rational ferment on a blog discussing science.

Instead, I find the same largely poorly grounded arguments, ad hominems and mischaracterizations one finds on any partisan ideological blog – the only difference here is the preponderance of multisyllabic words.

I have now read hundreds of comments in every single post since this controversy emerged, and I’ve even gone back a bit farther on this blog. It’s all quite depressing. I see no signs of people engaging in thoughtful exchange of ideas with the intent of mutual learning and growth, just a lot of people digging in to attack the idealized straw men of their perfect demons.

This is certainly not exemplary of scientific thinking, quite the contrary, it is faith-based thinking that seeks rationalization in service of confirmation bias.

One of the biggest misconceptions I see in attacks on atheists (and, by the way, having mostly gray hairs at this point, I know as well as you do that these attacks on atheists are nothing new and have absolutely nothing to do with the writings of “New Atheists” over the past few years), is the notion that we arrive at our atheism irrationally, as an act of faith, and then, only then, do we look around at the world and say, “ah, religion is the enemy, I’ll try science”.

The reason most leading scientists are atheists or agnostics is because it is likely the consistent application of critical thinking and the scientific method that led them to conclude that it is extremely unlikely a god exists, that there is no evidence for any supernatural phenomena, that science has worked just fine over the years as it continuously replaces supernatural explanations for phenomena with natural ones, and that there is no rational reason to suppose this trend will not continue.

At least speaking for myself, I am an atheist because I approached the question rationally, not the other way around.

And that, specifically, is why atheists have always been vilified and attacked over the past several hundred years since the birth of the modern scientific method of inquiry – because theists know damned well that rational thinking and the scientific method are, in fact, the greatest threat to the power based organized religions have built by inculcating uncritical faith-based thinking in the populace.

That is why the arguments Mooney and Kirshenbaum are so dramatically counterintuitive and contraevidential; because the only way to increase the role of reason in government is to increase rational thinking in the public, and that kind of thinking is undermined directly by religion, which teaches religious or faith-based thinking.

Now, I don’t expect, based on the patterns I observe of your call and response with other regulars here, that it is likely you will engage in the substantive argument respectfully and directly. Instead, it is likely you will find a way to sneak in some reference to “you, like other New Atheists” and will derail the conversation to a discussion about history, rather than current reality, and that you will prefer to talk about the early, tentative steps of the first scientific researchers – who, logic tell us, would all have been religious thinkers, since that is what preceeded scientific thinking – rather than talk about what we today consider thinking based on reason and the scientific method vs magical, religious or faith-based thinking.

You see, the issue I have is not with any particular “religion”, nor with individual faith, per se; the issue I have is with the practical affect of widespread belief in imaginary beings affecting our world, and the belief that our decisions should be guided not by our shared ability to reason but instead by sectarian beliefs about mandates delivered from supernatural sources.

Practically speaking, as a political activist, not a scientist, science reporter or even a science hobbyist, I am interested in the effects irrational thinking has on policymaking and public support for rational policies.

It is quite evident that the primary barrier to more rational/scientific thinking is religious thinking, and it is religious thinking that must be addressed.

Telling scientists to stop criticizing religious thinking will not cure America’s anti-science, anti-intellectual disease.

“Cognitive compatibility”, is a question that only those who have had successful careers in science while they are religious can answer, you can’t get more valid evidence than their clear success of compatibility.”

Sorry Anthony, but your perception train has run off the rails.

This is not about science and religion being compatible, they obviously are. The proposed accommodation is between “New” Atheism and religion where the latter see science as a neutral knowledge base and a neutral field of study which is compatible with theism and the former see science as an indispensable criterion in support of their disastrous life choice – atheism. They cannot allow science to accommodate theism because that would threaten their very raison etre.

Now if you’re talking about “cognitive understanding” instead of “cognitive compatibility”, that’s a different issue. Both sides understand each other perfectly and part of that understanding is that they don’t want anything to do with the other.

“FF, don’t waste your time, SF is not an honest broker.”

Take Ben’s word for it, FF, SF is not an honest broker, neither is Ben.

SF is a theist to the core and is convinced that accommodation is unworkable because there is absolutely no philosophical basis for any kind of negotiation between theists and the “new” atheists. Neither think the other should exist.

The “New” Atheists see theists as delusional child abusers who deprive their children use of their most cherished gift – their rational faculty – by a kind of intergenerational acculturation to myths and imaginary fantasy beings.

Theists see the “New” Atheists as a ranting, rather small but growing, rabble who are attempting to appropriate science as their own private domain as a foundation for their primary agenda – the promotion of atheism.

Again, let me assure you that SF is not an honest broker.

“Cognitive compatibility”, is a question that only those who have had successful careers in science while they are religious can answer, you can’t get more valid evidence than their clear success of compatibility. That isn’t a matter that can be determined in the absence of their testimony. Their experience is the real world, new atheist theories are a model which ignore or arrogantly characterize their experience, generally against their testimony. Coyne, for example, is entirely incompetent to replace his baseless assertions for what they say.

But my question still applies: what bearing does contingent historical fact, which seems to be a Scott argument writ large, play on the question of cognitive compatibility?

I never said that, in fact, I said anyone who said that would have no basis to come to that conclusion.

I said that it was an indisputable FACT of history that both modern science and democracy arose and flourished in cultures where monotheism predominates. That they couldn’t also flourish in cultures where polytheism or atheism predominates is, I believe, being proved wrong.

I did say that none of the officially atheistic governments that I’m aware of have allowed democracy. Unless you can name one or more, I’ll have to assume that is also a fact of history.

Anthony, assuming it is true that rapid-discovery science could only be found in monotheistic cultures, how does that have any more bearing on the compatibility argument than Scott’s argument did?

Only a fool of a Took like yourself (or more likely, a willing servant of Mordor) would make such a rather inane – and IMHO bordering on insane – comparison (@ 56) between not commenting on “Unscientific America” fully until having read it in its entirety and the words and deeds of Adolf Hitler. But I suppose what more can I expect from someone who is obviously enjoying his membership in the Coyne/Myers Militant Atheist Borg Collective.