Blogs / The Intersection

By now you’ve surely heard about evangelist Ray Comfort’s plan to distribute thousands of free copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species–with his own 54-page nonsense ’special’ introduction–to students at the ‘100 top U.S. universities.’ Yesterday they were given out at Duke (pictured), but unfortunately I missed it since I’m on the road.

In response, the National Center for Science Education has launched a campaign to counter the stunt: www.dontdisdarwin.com features resources, a detailed analysis of the Comfort introduction, the NCSE Safety Bookmark (for use with Comfort’s edition of Origin), and this terrific flier–which I’m glad to report was all over the Duke campus today. Help spread the truth by sharing the url and reposting the flier on your own site.

Thanks to Steve Newton, Robert Luhn, Eugenie, Josh, and all the great folks with NCSE.

I have always deeply admired the way Sam Harris argues a point with passion. I happen to disagree with him about Francis Collins, but I have to credit the force of Harris’s take-no-prisoners approach with regard to all forms of “faith”–even when I think it goes too far.

In the process of taking on Collins, Harris also argues against us and against Unscientific America–and for some time, I have been meaning to answer him on this. Life intervened until now; but I trust it is not too late.

Harris quotes one of our book’s passages in which we argue that if we can depolarize the science versus religion battle, we can likely broaden public acceptance of evolution. It’s an argument, Harris says, “that, I fear, most people would accept.” Unlike many New Atheists, then, Harris implicitly realizes the obvious and, indeed, commonsensical force of our argument–even though he rejects it.

Why does Harris reject our case? Let’s run through: (more…)

An excerpt from Robert Wright’s thought-provoking piece in today’s New York Times:

Of course, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on awe and inspiration. The story that science tells, the story of nature, is awesome, and some people get plenty of inspiration from it, without needing the religious kind. What’s more, science has its own role to play in knitting the world together. The scientific enterprise has long been on the frontiers of international community, fostering an inclusive, cosmopolitan ethic — the kind of ethic that any religion worthy of this moment in history must also foster.

William James said that religious belief is “the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” Science has its own version of the unseen order, the laws of nature. In principle, the two kinds of order can themselves be put into harmony — and in that adjustment, too, may lie a supreme good.

Read the full article here…

We think not. Read the reasons in the L.A. Times…

In LA last week, I went on Air America’s “The Young Turks” with Cenk Uygur–and we talked about UA, but mostly, we talked about the arguments of Republican War. It was kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again, and here’s the video:

Audio from this morning’s interview on The Brian Lehrer Show is now available:

Ken Miller has composed a thought-provoking essay about our book entitled, Unscientific America? A Few Thoughts on a Book and its Critics. He begins by considering some central themes:

..In an age when traditional media like newspapers and television have been shedding their science journalists, there can be little doubt that their core thesis is spot on.  As they note, to make matters even worse, the scientific community itself harbors ingrained prejudices and resentments against those whom, like Sagan or Stephen Jay Gould, some regard as mere “popularizers” of the discipline.

And is justly critical on certain points as well:

To be sure, there are problems with this book.  It’s a lightweight – just 132 pages.  It’s too glib – solving science illiteracy and scientific underemployment at a stroke is more than a bit of a stretch.  And the demotion of Pluto from planetary status misfires as an example of scientific illiteracy.

However, most notably, Miller provides perspective on Chapter 8 and the controversy that has ensued over science and religion:

..Myers and his supporters have reacted to these 12 pages of Unscientific America with extraordinary levels of outrage (see, for example, Myers’ final response to the book).  Having read much of their criticism, I reread the book and the offending chapter to search for slander and personal attacks that could merit such outrage.  But I couldn’t find them.  In fact, I couldn’t find anything personal about Myers, Dawkins, or any of the other so-called “new atheists.”  Instead, Mooney and Kirshenbaum make the rather unremarkable point that Myers’ actions in desecrating that communion host were “incredibly destructive and unnecessary.”  They further observe that such events set “the cause backward by exacerbating tensions between the scientific community and many American Christians.”  This assessment seems to me to be exactly right.

Here’s the crucial part:

While Myers and others may advance the argument that religious faith is the arch-enemy of scientific rationalism, this doesn’t imply that insult and ridicule are appropriate tools with which to defend science. Similarly, the blunt tactics of such folks are no reason to reject the “new atheists” as advocates for science, as Unscientific America seems to do, and as others have explicitly suggested.  Scientific rationality is too important a cause to limit participation in its defense.  We need each and every voice in our society to speak up for science, no exceptions.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum are right that the tactics of bloggers like Myers have surely reinforced creationist claims about the nature of the scientific enterprise.  It is for that reason that the producers of Ben Stein’s notorious anti-evolution movie “Expelled” were delighted to feature PZ Myers in that film.  Myers’ anti-religious views made a perfect foil for the scientific and historical nonsense dished up by “Expelled,” and that’s the unremarkable point highlighted by Mooney and Kirshenbaum.  They had the nerve to point that out, and that’s why we’ve got a brawl in the scientific blogosphere.  It’s a brawl, unfortunately, that will only serve to weaken the public case for science, no matter who hangs in there for the last word.

Miller understands why it’s necessary to move the book’s message into the public consciousness and as he explains, ‘there are times when stating the obvious is the most important thing one can do.’ Read the full article here.

As the two of us grapple with a book tour, other book projects, cross-country moves, and much else, we’ve been pretty hamstrung in our online replies to the “New Atheists.” So this post will try to make up a bit of that slack.

At the outset, let us say that we always knew Unscientific America would be controversial. Indeed, we’re glad it has touched such a nerve in some quarters—to us, this underscores that its critique was much needed.

In Chapter 8 of Unscientific America—just 12 pages of a broader book–we argue that an entire movement attached to “science” today is not really much invested in effectively reaching the U.S. public, but rather, has become radicalized around the counterproductive project of blasting other Americans’ religious faith. This movement is most vociferous on the Internet and, more particularly, on science blogs like Pharyngula, where its adherents seem unswervingly certain their way is the right way, and seem to little value civil dialogue with those who might disagree. (For one seconding of this opinion, see here.)

Given that one point of Unscientific America is that this entire “dialogue” is not constructive, but rather destructive—not conducive to reason, nor to advancing the place of science in our society—it should come as no surprise that we do not keep up with it as much as many others do. This partly explains why we haven’t said much for a week or more, as does the fact that (as shown in our recent Boston Globe article) there is much else in our book that we want to discuss besides the unending battle over science and religion.

Furthermore, we have had more mainstream media audiences, as well as public audiences at book events, to address. The response to the book in such venues is, as a rule, starkly different from the “New Atheist” response on the Internet–where the vast majority of our critics do not seem to have read the book. This, too, has made us hesitant to respond, as it seems very unlikely that what will result is an informed, dispassionate, or civil debate.

* * * * * *

Still, there are some things that should probably be answered, at least in brief. Unfortunately, even some New Atheists who have read the book are reacting to it in a way we can scarcely comprehend–with a case in point being Jerry Coyne.

For several months, Chris tried to engage in a civil debate with Dr. Coyne about the merits of “accommodationism.” There was some progress, perhaps, but nothing like what might have been accomplished in a simple in-person debate or discussion. Still, Chris hoped Coyne would give Unscientific America a fair reading.

He became concerned a few weeks back, though, after posting (along with a few supporting words) a video of Eugenie Scott talking about science-religion compatibility. Merely for posting this video, Coyne accused Chris of “dissembling” and “using authority arguments.” Scott was also accused of dissembling—simply for making an argument she believes in.

Then Coyne began to review our book, and strongly misstated our views. While we won’t respond to him on every detail, we’ll make a few remarks to underscore the nature of the problem.

Take something like this from Coyne:

Where does the problem come from? In an earlier book, The Republican War on Science, Mooney laid it largely at the door of political conservatives.  But, say M&K, we now have another enemy: the scientists themselves.

We’re baffled anyone could read us this way. The scientists are our heroes. Granted, we talk in the book about how they have not always invested adequately in communication, and we call for a change of mindset and of culture in this respect—but to claim that we depict them as the “enemy” boggles the mind. If that was the case, then why are our audiences full of scientists–wanting to hear how they can be part of the solution?

Joshua Rosenau has dealt with another of Coyne’s critiques, his assertion that he could find “little in Unscientific America that has not been said, at length, elsewhere.” Well, this is a popular book that synthesizes much past work (and cites it extensively); what’s probably most new is the nature of the synthesis. As Rosenau notes, our book is not unlike many popular books in this respect–including many recent books about evolution and atheism. (It is not like there are many “new” arguments for atheism out there).

Then Coyne continues:

And what is new—the accusation that scientists, in particular atheist-scientists, are largely responsible for scientific illiteracy—is asserted without proof.

We’re stunned anyone could read our book this way–and saddened anyone would seriously think we’re making such an obviously incorrect argument.

As we describe it, scientific illiteracy—really, the gap between science and society–is a complex, multi-faceted, multi-decadal problem. As such, the idea that the “New Atheist” movement of the last few years could have caused it is incomprehensible to us. Not only do we not think this, but we cannot comprehend how anyone could think this.

In the present moment, the “New Atheists” may be counterproductive, and may divert resources and energies that might be far better used elsewhere. The movement may also have the effect of making our society more, rather than less, polarized around science–of adding fuel to a longstanding and fruitless culture war with science trapped in the middle of it.

We think these things are true. But they’re vastly different from blaming the “New Atheists” for decades of problems they weren’t even around for–at least not in their current form. And we even say this directly in the book: “Of course, the New Atheists aren’t the origin of the cleft between religious and scientific culture in America–they’re more like a reaction to it” (p. 98).

What we actually claim in Unscientific America is that longstanding habits of disengagement from the public, on the part of the scientific community, have contributed to the science-society gap that we now have. But such disengagement is only one contributing factor, and there are gobs of others listed and discussed in the book: political cynicism, public ignorance and anti-intellectualism, a poor educational system, media inaccuracy and irresponsibility, entertainment stereotyping, religious dogma, and so on. Scientists are only one part of this mix, but a key point of the book is that they are a crucial part of it. For too long, some scientists have pointed the finger at others–journalists, educators, and so on, and often with good reason–yet have not looked adequately at themselves.

As you can see, ours is a vastly different and more nuanced argument than the one Coyne limns. Were we to go through his full review and respond on every point, you would just hear us stating over and over again this observation. There are some aspects to his critique that are thoughtful, but in saddling us with weak arguments that we do not hold (and so cannot possibly defend), Coyne is not fairly measuring our book.

* * * * * *

Meanwhile, we see PZ Myers has decided to comment on us again, and misrepresents our arguments even more than does Coyne: “Their explanation for scientific illiteracy in America is simple: it’s the scientists’ fault for being so aloof and distant.” As just explained, this is false.

What’s more, Myers really doesn’t seem to want people to read our book:

I will say one good thing about their op-ed, though. It contains the full content of their entire book. Read the essay, now you don’t need to buy the book, since it covers it fully, including all the non-existent details for how to actually implement their solution.

We have a better suggestion: If you are interested in this matter, then read the book, read all the critics, and make up your own mind. Isn’t that what a freethinker, a practitioner of reason, would do?

* * * * *

For our part, we believe the blog-based “New Atheist” reaction to the book simply reinforces Unscientific America’s critique. This movement on the Internet–motivated not so much by science as by culture war instincts, and sadly, showing far too little investment in civil dialogue—isn’t helping us build a better relationship between science and American society.

Someone had to say it–especially as it happens to be true.

Each day, it seems, I see more evidence that many “New Atheists” read Unscientific America differently from other people who care about or are interested in science.

The latest case in point: A review by science writer Eric Berger over at his excellent Houston Chronicle blog, SciGuy. Berger writes:

Mooney and Kirshenbaum persuasively make a couple of points that have already proved unpopular in the burgeoning community of science bloggers:

1) New Atheism will not endear science to the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God, and 2) Science blogging may actually degrade American scientific culture, rather than revitalize it.

On the atheism point, the book drew immediate criticism from Pharyngula, a popular New Atheism blog. While I am certainly sympathetic to the right of anyone to hold his or her own beliefs, what New Atheists ignore is that their shrillness gives all of science a very, very poor reputation in middle America.

Berger, of course, is a science writer who writes for “middle America”–well, Houston, anyway.

He continues:

Secondly, on blogging, I think the following point is the most salient from the book:

The single biggest blogging negative, however, is the grouping together of people who already agree about everything, and who then proceed to square and cube their agreements, becoming increasingly self-assured and intolerant of other viewpoints. Thus, blogging about science has brought out, in some cases, the loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-strewing minority of the science world that denounces the rest of America for its ignorance and superstition.

I couldn’t agree more. And this just doesn’t happen among scientists, of course. This trend toward echo-chamber communities on the Web really decreases the opportunities for meaningful dialogue among those who disagree.

Seriously.

You can read Berger’s full review here….

In this post, we complete our rebuttals to PZ Myers’ review of our book, Unscientific America. For those who’ve just arrived, we previously laid out the course our response would take here, and began to respond here and here. This is the fourth and final post.

9. Bigotry. At the end of his review, Myers says something astonishing. He claims that our “bigotry blinds [us] to a range of approaches offered by the ‘New Atheists’…a group that is not so closed to the wide range of necessarily differing tactics that such a deep problem requires as Mooney and Kirshenbaum are.”

This is a baseless accusation. Chris is an atheist, and he is not bigoted against himself, his mother (an outspoken secular humanist), or any other atheists. Sheril is Jewish an agnostic, and not bigoted against Chris or any other atheists, either.

Myers provides no evidence of our supposed biogtry. He just makes an inflammatory accusation, one not at all conducive to rational or calm discussion.

It is precisely this kind of rhetoric that led us to address Myers so directly in Unscientific America.

10. The Trouble With PZ Myers. In his review, Myers doesn’t address our criticisms of him–of his public writings and actions. But we will end by elaborating upon why, in the wake of the communion wafer desecration, we decided we had to speak out about Myers in a way that would really be heard.

Though we have not said so until now, Myers is among the central reasons we left ScienceBlogs. There were many factors involved, of course, but one was our shock at what he calls “Crackergate.” We describe the full incident in the book, but let us quote from Myers’ words when he closed off comments (there had been over 2,000) after posting his picture of the defiled eucharist with a rusty nail driven through it:

What effort I put into [the desecration] was not in response to the reality of your silly deity, but in response to the reality of your dangerous delusions. Those are real, all right, and they need to be belittled and weakened. But don’t confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted, and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god.

Now I’m afraid I’m going to have to close this thread. Its purpose has been well served: the fanatical Catholics and their crazy beliefs have been fully exposed. Over 2300 comments on this subject in 20 hours is quite enough.

Watching all of this, we were appalled. We could not see what this act could possibly have to do with promoting science and reason. It contributed nothing to the public understanding or appreciation of science, and everything to a nasty, ugly culture war that hurts and divides us all.

We recognize that Myers writes entertainingly and sometimes hilariously; we know he’s kind and soft-spoken in person; and we realize he describes science accurately and insightfully. And we understand he’s a very good teacher as well.

Nevertheless, in his online persona–and nowhere more than with the wafer desecration–we believe he cultivates a climate of extremism, incivility and, indeed, unreason (the opposite of calm and respectful debate and exchange) at ScienceBlogs. And it is past time that someone spoke out about that, as we did in Unscientific America.

For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers. After all, he can send a lot of angry commenters your way. And he, and they, are unrelenting in their criticisms, their attacks, and so on. Just read our threads over the last week–it’s all there, the vast majority from people who have not read our book and do not seem inclined to do so.

But we’re not afraid of Myers or his commenters. They can leave hundreds of posts on our blog–we readily allow it–but our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience. It’s already happening. And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.

We know how many others agree with us, because we have heard from them. We also know the standards of intellectual decency, fairness, and so on that we’ve learned from years of journalism and in academia. And if, as our book proposes, we are going to be training young science communicators, they must learn at least two basic lessons they will not be getting from Myers: civility and tolerance.

Our core concern, though, isn’t really about Myers or his blog. What worries us is what they say about the world of American science as it appears on the Internet. For Myers is, as we all know, the most popular blogger on the most popular science blogging site–and has a horde of loyal followers who see themselves as the disciples of reason, and swear by “science” (when they’re not just swearing).

And this is his most famous performance: Desecrating a communion wafer.

That doesn’t just say something unflattering about Myers–it says something devastating about all of us.