This nationally syndicated show, hosted by Warren Olney, is having me on today as part of a panel of discussants on the topic, “Theology and Evolution.” I’m hoping we’ll talk not only about how some fundamentalists interfere with scientific literacy on this topic, but also the broad middle ground of America which doesn’t see the need for science and faith to be in conflict. Perhaps we’ll also discuss the New Atheism as a scientific response to the ongoing war on science from the fundamentalist side. In any case, I’m told that I go on the air at about 210 pm ET, and you should be able to listen here….
Your Bloggers
Chris Mooney is a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT, and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. For more information see his bio and events.
Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research associate at Duke University and co-author of Unscientific America. Sometimes she's a classicist, radio jock, or congressional staffer. For more information, visit her website.
Visit Sheril and Chris on Facebook, Unscientific America on Facebook and Twitter (@Intersection_), and The Science of Kissing on Twitter (@Sheril_).
RSS feed for The IntersectionOur New Book
Unscientific America on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"!
Excerpt; Book Website; Facebook Group; Twitter; YouTube Lecture; CSPAN Book TV Talk; Bloggingheads; Amazon; Barnes & Noble; Firedoglake
Reviews: RealClimate; DailyKos; Houston Chronicle; Gather.com; GoodReads; IndyWeek; Chad Orzel; James Hrynyshyn; Gene Expression; Charlotte Observer; Ken Miller; Peter Kareiva; Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media; Joe Romm; Josh Rosenau; Financial Times; Durham Herald Sun
Articles and Adaptations: Los Angeles Times; The Nation; Boston Globe; Salon.com; Newsweek.com; HuffingtonPost; Buzzflash.com; Powell's; the Guardian
Interviews: NPR's Living on Earth; WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show; KPCC's Patt Morrison; Time.com; WUNC (North Carolina); "Word of Mouth" (N.H. Public Radio); Examiner.com (Steve Andrew) ; Examiner.com (Mary Spiro); Herald Sun (profile of Sheril); Science Progress; The Science Network (Roger Bingham); The Young Turks; NPR's Science Friday (Ira Flatow); IEET Changesurfer Radio; Tech Nation; Bob McChesney; "Lateline" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation); LateNightLive (Australian Broadcasting Corporation); USA Today
On C.P. Snow: The Culture Crosser; The Science Lover and the Snob; Bloggingheads; NYAS Two Cultures Conference
Policy Fellowships For Scientists & Engineers
Science Debate; in ScienceOur Books
Storm World * 2007 *
Website/Amazon
The Science of Kissing * Coming 2010 *
New Scientist
The Sunday Snog
Neuroscience Experiment
October 30th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I’m sure that somebody has written this before, but your phrasing suggested to me the following somewhat inflammatory observation:
“New Atheists are the fundamentalists of atheism.”
OK, OK, I’m reinventing a wheel that was invented thousands of blogs ago…
October 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Chris,
Who else is participating in the program? Ken Miller? Jerry Coyne? PZ Myers? Lawrence Krauss? I looked at KCRW’s website and it didn’t list the panelists.
Thanks,
John
October 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Good luck, Chris. I’m looking forward to hearing this discussion.
This may be helpful: >”Perhaps we’ll also discuss the New Atheism as a scientific response to the ongoing war on science from the fundamentalist side.”<
However, I am slightly concerned that to much of science gets dragged into this. To me that’s become a problem for two main reasons:
One, the obvious which is to paint “new atheism” to broadly and reinforce an idea of “atheism=science”, this problem also involves the fact it’s starting to get confusing on who one is talking about with regards to “new atheist” (it’s starting to look pointless and if one keeps saying Dawkins and his followers, then that person should be clearer), also part of that is a “new atheist” such as Christopher Hitchen’s doesn’t speak from the authority of science (not being a scientist). This doesn’t begin to to approach the issue that people outside who we commonly call “the new atheist” refer to themselves as “new atheist”. One other biggie is that fact that even though you can point out the discomfort some “new atheist” have with the term, even with “atheism” itself, like Sam Harris, trying to approach the issues to broadly only works to confuse the argument being made.
Two, which is also an extension of ‘one’ is this can actually work to reinforce a problem within “atheism” these days and that is to what extent science has “something” to say about the “supernatural” (since religion as commonly understood involves the notion of “supernaturalism”). This has become a major concern, ideas such as “science can study the “supernatural”, “science can falsify the “supernatural” and “the supernatural is within the realm of science” has become part of an “atheism” belief system unfortunately do largely to Richard’s carelessness in many regards on the issue, but has been reinforced by others. The first real signs of danger were Richards insistence that he was in “a war between naturalism and supernaturalism”. Which has no real meaning in a scientific sense, it has only worked to confuse the issues at hand.
Anyway, give ‘em hell!
October 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Great job, Chris. Sounded very good, clear, concise and stayed on point. Just wish you had more time.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Thanks everybody. Just finished the show and will post a link to audio if there is one.
New Atheists were not represented on the show, though James Haught of Georgetown, who was on, criticized Dawkins once or twice. I didn’t; if I had, I would have taken a different line from Haught’s, which wasn’t quite fair I didn’t think. But I am certainly on Haught’s side of the issue.
There was also a Notre Dame theologian on–Gerald McKenny, who took a position on science and religion very similar to Haught’s, but from a Protestant perspective–and, surprisingly, a bonafide Young Earth Creationist, Terry Mortens0n of Answers in Genesis. He and I really got into it at the end, as you can imagine.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
>”a bonafide Young Earth Creationist, Terry Mortens0n of Answers in Genesis.”<
You were good, Chris, but that guy by far was my favorite!
October 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Now that I’m thinking about it, I would like to ask you something, Chris. I’m not quite sure the best way to phrase this, but since I see that you will continue to say “New Atheist”, always capitalized like that too – is it possible you could briefly outline what you mean by this, and if you are what one may say is “anti-new atheist” as Michael Shermer has said of one of your blogpost?
October 30th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
One more question, If I may. This came to mind after reading an obviously “ant-Dawkins” remark on the other thread and just watching the new episode of Mr. Deity, Mr. Deity and the Identity Crisis. Now, after watching the video, I really want to know if you, Chris and Sheril think it’s out of line? I honestly do want to know. I can’t seem to shake the idea that you’re not clear yourselves on the line of criticizing religion, and it concerns me.
It shook me pretty good when you said of Coyne: >”why is he criticizing people like Miller and Giberson for their attempts to reconcile modern science and religion?”< (speaking for yourself and Barbara Forest). There was some rather strange back-and-forth with Jerry, but the situation never became any clearer. I should add that I had my own criticism's of Jerry in that review, especially his nonsense on science with regards to the "supernatural" (The Big Jesus went into goofy land again recently with his "weak-sense atheism", which supposedly is "atheism" in it's "weakest" sense so he could say his "atheism" is scientific - BTW, I call Jerry The Big Atheist, because of his Oral Roberts inspired argument about what would convince him a "supernatural force/god" existed and that the "supernatural" or some part of it - a new argument to make it even more strained - is within science - Oral claimed to have seen a 900 foot Jesus in NYC, Jerry recounted that "vision" in that same review). But, overall it was a good review, right on the mark and rigorous in many respects. It was disappointing, to say the least, to see Josh Rosenau point out Jerry's lala land invention, but then turn around and go deeper into lala land.
So, even after your throat clearing you never (again) made clear what boundary you are enforcing. It's certainly *not* noma, a few obvious and well known indications of that would be Stephen Gould's support of the Skeptic's Society and his critics of the Templeton Foundation and certain scientist doing exactly what Miller and Giberson have done. In fact, that is where Gould's comments: "wooly metaphor misportrayed as decisive content" comes from.
Anyway, here's the Mr. Deity video. Let me know what you guys think...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o
October 31st, 2009 at 11:03 am
testing
October 31st, 2009 at 11:21 am
The audio for the show is available at
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp091030science_religion_and
Interesting show but I think the AIG guy really threw a monkey wrench into the whole discussion, and he got way too much credibility in the process. I would have liked to have heard more back-and-forth between Chris and the other guests about the acceptance of Science by more traditional or mainstream churches. A creationist spouting crackpot nonsense almost forces immediate rebuttal, which will not sway them at all, but needs to be done for the listeners. Chris did this well, but it really defocused the discussion. Olney made a mistake putting him on the show.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Sorry I should clarify: Olney made a mistake putting an AIG guy on the show.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The most penetrating discussion of science/religion is in a book I am currently reading: The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong. She follows the dual threads of logos (nature/science) and mythos (supernature/religion) and argues how each addresses needs of humans. As a modern person, steeped in science and logic, I nonetheless find spiritual pursuits equally satisfying.
This is not to say that Religion gets a free ride; quite the contrary. The more one learns about mythos, the less relevant Religion seems. It is not about joining clubs (churches/temples/mosques) with various degrees of exclusion and pathetically silly rules, but about an inner search within the voids and stillness of oneself.
Thus, the outward person can easily accomodate science and all its outward quests and marvelous discoveries without threatening the inner spirituality; they are two different and independent journeys for mankind and in no way inherently conflicting.