No PZ wouldn’t have been in his rights since Brown’s Faculty Senate would have endorsed her demand for his immediate resignation as a Brown University professor, simply because “CrackerGate” violated the cultural, ethnic and religious diversity which Brown prides itself on – and as important too – the fact that it stresses tolerance – including religious tolerance – as a hallmark of a Brown education. PZ would have been subjected to a psychiatric exam first – and if he was judged to be sane – then asked for his immediate resignation.

What is your source on that last claim, that “they are not representative of the whole?”

It’s not like he did this in from of a classroom of students as part of his course. (But if it was relevant to the curricula, no biggy either.)

Had Myers conducted “CrackerGate” as a professor of biological sciences at Brown University – which is where Ken Miller teaches – I am reasonably certain that he’d be known now as a former Brown University professor of biology. Why? Brown’s president would have recognized that “stunt” as an example of Myers’s religious intolerance, and therefore, an act unworthy of a Brown University professor. I am reasonably confident that she would have demanded his immediate resignation.

The church has every right to ban him from the premises for desecrating their idols, or mistreating a cracker as it were, but they’ve no rights beyond that.

Funny, I can find lots of muslim clerics who say they don’t have much sympathy for women who get raped because they dress provocatively, inviting the lust of many men who would clearly be aroused.
Clearly, the “blame the victim” mentality is indeed very popular around here.

–Coyne

1. Collins isn’t a scientist, he’s an administrator, and has been for a very long time.

2. If you read the (serious) comments about Collins’ appointment, most point out that if a person holds a head/spokesperson role, they shouldn’t use that position to promote a personal ideology (or personal business interests, or any other personal interests).

You said, “The 1984 fear is one that is legitimate only if we accept the authority of the scientist to determine our beliefs. Criticism, however, never has that force.” Agreed, as you’ve worded it. But what I’ve seen happening is that criticism isn’t enough. Politicians are being lobbied by scientists domestically and through the U.N. to establish public policies based on what many are calling questionable science (re: global warming). And so it moves beyond mere criticism and influence, and beyond mere debate. It moves into the realm of law and of force ala Orwell. The scientists aren’t directly exerting force; but many are using politicians to wield force on their behalf, and to coerce others into submitting to their science.

It will be an unholy alliance that we’ve seen before, when religion was at the helm. If the domain of science has no restrictions on it, then we can expect the political machine to invade every inch of that scientific domain, controlling its content and its outworkings by rule of law: political, scientific, and economic freedom will vanish in order to follow the law of science, not as determined by scientists, but by opportunistic politicians. We saw it in Germany; we saw it in Russia; and we may well see it here shortly.

I’m just suggesting that there is great temptation for those who are absolutely convinced they know the truth, to impose their truth on others, just like religionists. It’s a Marxist bent, I think. Not everyone likes to control the conversation, but enough do. So as long as it’s mere criticism and influence, I have no problem with it; let free speech reign. But my background in history and PoliSci lead me to think that it won’t remain in the debate stage for long each time. Hence the fear and distrust of “science” on the part of the public.

Frankly, the public is having a hard time telling who knows what they’re talking about with regard to global warming, and so they’re upset about the carbon tax. They don’t know who to trust, ‘because they’re all “scientists”, and they’ve all got “credentials”, and they all sound “convinced” of the truth of their cause. The logical conclusion is that none of the experts really knows for sure. Thus the public is unwilling to accept a whole new level of taxation to fix what may be an unfixable problem, or that may not be a problem at all. Personally, I’m not questioning global warming; I”m questioning the proposed CAUSES of it, and so are most folks I know (not that the folks I know are the best arbiters of truth).

Second response. You said, “I really don’t think the “new atheist” reaction to, say, Collins, is about the fact he has faith. It’s the fact that his faith interrupts his science.” I don’t know Dr. Collins to be able to say one way or the other, but in what way does his faith “interrupt” his science? Is that an a priori assumption flowing from the fact that he has religious beliefs and thus cannot be objective? I just don’t see the causal link (sorry). He discovers A causes B and thanks God for it; A still caused B; he’s just attributing it to the hand of God instead of the laws of existence. So what? I don’t think it’s grounds for opposing him, or striving to have him removed. There are too many other historical circumstances that are frighteningly familiar for me to embrace that kind of logic: like the removal of Jewish scientists from their positions in Germany prior to WWII…

I think it’s the politics of science, and not science itself, that can be troubling. Anyway, thanks for the conversation, Ben. Gotta run. I won’t be back to this thread, and probably not the blog either. Too many Asberger folks throwing flaming darts at each other… (grin)

Yes, I do find the death threats and other assorted acts to be completely outrageous and I would hope that some people end up being arrested for them. That sort of behavior is completely immoral and unethical; it is downright disgusting.

I also believe that what Myers did was a mistake done out of anger. It is quite understandable that he would be angry as that sort of thing would piss me off as well. However, while his intentions were good, I believe the what he did was counter-productive. It simply made things worse because before you had a bunch of religious fanatics behaving a way that I believe most people would find indefensible. Now, you’ve added to it someone from the other side doing something that is offensive to a lot of people. Yes, I do understand there is a huge degree of difference but the net result is you irritate and turn off people who were previously likely to be on your side or at least willing to listen. That is a mistake in my opinion.

As far as whether Chris and Sheril should have elaborated more on that, I concede I was looking at it too narrowly at first and they should have added something more to explain what led Myers to do what he did.