asks Dark Tent and others..
No, not in the religious sense. Still, for far too many people, there is a distrust of science because it's viewed as a threat to the beliefs that they hold above all else. Why should an atheist care? Because the very individuals making important decisions on issues that matter - stem cell research, a woman's right to choose, systems and species to protect, and on and on - hold multiple perspectives. A healthy dialogue is the best manner by which to understand your opponent. It's the most effective way to debate rather than by holding an adamant refusal to acknowledge alternative ideas exist.
In Congress I attended the briefings claiming Global Warming was a conspiracy complete with references to Michael Crichton and articulate speakers from esteemed universities. Sure I was infuriated that these folks were in a position to influence policy, but by listening, I could learn how best to make my case. So with regard to those who think I'm advocating acceptance of extremists claiming the Holocaust never happened.. you're simply missing the point entirely and I suspect these comments were composed for shock value.
What's interesting is at the core of this, I think PZ and I both advocate a similar theme in encouraging people who think for themselves to participate in thoughtful dialogue. It's just troublesome that passion too often gets in the way of an otherwise sound discussion when folks react first with anger rather than the patience required for a convincing explanation. My point is very simply to promote universal tolerance regardless of where you fall with regard to religion. All of this mud-slinging is counterproductive. It's in exploring ideas and understanding what motivates people by way of nonthreatening discourse where I see hope for the future of our species.
Lastly, I'll repeat my perspective that religion has no place in science and that's reason for me to keep what I believe out of the blogosphere. So remember folks - PZ included - don't make assumptions regarding my stance on the 'F' word.
- Log in to post comments
a woman's right to choose,
Just a nit here— can't you say "abortion" or the "legality of oabortion"? Without revealing my position (and those of you who make an assumption based on my picking this nit will probably not be correct), this phrase is a euphemism that masks what is really being talked about. For the other things you listed in those examples, you stated them directly, which makes this one glare a bit. The use of euphemism does make clear your view on this issue, whereas "stem cell research" and "systems and species to protect" do not; the latter two descriptions mere indicate the issue. Hence the asymmetry that stuck out, at least for me.
Otherwise, good post.
-Rob
Sheril wrote:
"It's just troublesome that passion too often gets in the way of an otherwise sound discussion when folks react first with anger rather than the patience required for a convincing explanation."
I agree. It's not always what you say but how you say it that is remembered. If you think that someone is persuadable, you have a lot better chance of reaching them if you don't start out by asking how they can hold such a stupid view.
It seems to me that the passionate atheists don't help themselves by denigrating a belief in a deity. They'd do better by recognizing that most people who profess such a belief recognize its irrationality, but find it helpful in their dealings with an inexact an unpredictable world nonetheless.
Here's a personal example:
I'm a nontheist*, and my late sister would probably have called herself a full-blown atheist. Nevertheless I said Kaddish** in her memory on the anniversary of her death and was comforted by the voices of others, including theists, also saying Kaddish for their loved ones.
Other aspects of my life are also informed by religious values, even though I consider the existence or nonexistence of a deity irrelevant.
*nontheist: one who is unconcerned about the existence or nonexistence of a deity
**Kaddish: An Aramaic prayer made up of stanzas praising G-d, offered by Jews in remembrance of deceased loved ones
To be sure, understanding your opponents' or audience's perspective -- their assumptions and misconceptions, their potential objections and counterarguments -- is essential to making any effective argument. And presenting yourself as having a good and open-minded character (ethos) can flow from this commitment to understanding those who beliefs your want to change. (I hope I am doing this right now, by acknowledging our points of agreement)
That said, there is a profound difference between attending to counterarguments in order to respond effectively and persuasively and an ethic of "universal tolerance." There is a difference between figuring out how best to make one's case to other and eschewing confrontation in the name of "respect." The former activities make for good politics and good argument; the latter pronouncements lead nowhere at all.
Or in other words, I can agree with your paragraph about how one might address Congress and counter the claims of others. But that has nothing to do with the content of the paragraphs that follow.
(And, just to be direct, do you think that you are doing justice to the ideas of your critics and questioners by characterizing all their ideas as defensive, emotional, counterproductive "mud-slinging"? This doesn't sound like the best way to make your point and influence others, does it?)
"All of this mud-slinging is counterproductive."
"It's [PZ's style] almost Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh-esqu."
Nope, no mudslinging to be seen here!
*nontheist: one who is unconcerned about the existence or nonexistence of a deity
**Kaddish: An Aramaic prayer made up of stanzas praising G-d, offered by Jews in remembrance of deceased loved ones
So there you are, someone supposedly unconcerned with the existence or nonexistence of a god sending up prayers praising god...for your sister, a "full blown atheist." Nice. Some might consider tht disrespectful, but hey, what do they know?
"It's [PZ's style] almost Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh-esqu."
Nope, no mudslinging to be seen here!
I would call that an observation, not mudslinging. Just because you don't want PZ to be compared to somebody doesn't mean that there might be something to that comparison. PZ won't deny that he keeps up a strident, take-no-prisoners, no-coddling tone... much like shock jocks do.
Oh MK, I was unaware of the history of the analogy and indeed meant it as a compliment coming from the radio industry with no connection to his views.
Clearly, I respect PZ a great deal. Having spent years as a pop radio DJ I spoke from that perspective. Had I seen the earlier references to Limbaugh, I would have been clearer. But you can't deny these personalities are incredibly successful and influential - in part, because they are controversial and have something to say. Whether listeners agree or not, they pay attention affording a great deal of recognition in our society.
But be assured, I meant no offense.
The fact that they both are well known for their misogynist, racist, bigoted anti-intellectualism I'm sure never crossed Sheril's mind. I'm sure there was NOBODY else out there useful for comparison.
"...they are controversial and have something to say."
Oh Sheril...they have nothing to say. They are ignorant, obnoxious and anti-intellectual. Controversial I'll grant you. The comparison ends there.
But, I'm glad you meant no offense.
MK said snidely
Some might consider that disrespectful, but hey, what do they know?
You know nothing about the relationship I had with my sister. You know nothing of our private discussions of religion.
And, to top it off, you left out a key phrase from my earlier posting:
...comforted by the voices of others, including theists, also saying Kaddish for their loved ones...
There's comfort to be gained from others who also mourn. But then what do you know about that, MK?
Shame on you!
"There's comfort to be gained from others who also mourn. But then what do you know about that, MK?"
Plenty.
Dear Fred,
I am very sorry. I have no excuse. I've also sent you an email. Please forgive.
Also, I apologize to the others who post in here. A little too emotional. Again, very, very sorry.
MK
MK: I'm not quite sure where you are coming from with regard to Howard Stern and anti-intellectualism. Is it a new definition (like "fundamentalist" and "strident") and you simply mean "low brow"?
Maybe it's subtle and I just recognize Rush's literal opposition to higher education more easily.
Sheril, in your post you say,
"In Congress I attended the briefings claiming Global Warming was a conspiracy complete with references to Michael Crichton and articulate speakers from esteemed universities. Sure I was infuriated that these folks were in a position to influence policy, but by listening, I could learn how best to make my case."
From what I have seen your "case" is based on political and emotional appeals much more than scientifically falsifiable theories. It is no wonder that you view the "conversion" of others as essential to your over all goals.
Just as you disdain fundamentalist atheists (what ever that might mean) I have grown weary of fundamentalist Environmentalists.
As a scientist and atheist I base my perceptions of the universe on theories based on empirical observations and the robustness of those theories as tested in the crucible of Popperian falsification. So far the theory of anthropogenic global warming fails any such test.
I worry that just as religious fundies push for public policy that conforms to their absurd views of the universe enviro fundies are now identifying a new "Satan" the evil Mr. Carbon, and self-righteously demanding that the entire world throw all other considerations aside to eliminate this demon from our midst.
To question this orthodoxy is to be seen as a "denier" and "climate criminal" just to name two names thrown at AGW heretics. The "debate is over" and now it is time to rally behind this "moral" question to "save the planet". These are the same tactics, and in some cases even the same catch phrases, that are used by religious zealots to squelch dissent.
I'm not surprised you feel at ease with other "believers".
To all,
MK sent me a sincere, respectful, and heartfelt apology, as he noted here.
So I acknowledge and accept it here as well.
It appears we can get a little emotional about our rationality sometimes.
I'm sorry but I have still have trouble with the word "tolerance" (and it's sneaky sibling "respect") with regard to other people's beliefs.
I was raised a Christian, I have several liberal Christian friends and as I rule I don't challenge their religious beliefs, nor do I particularly concern myself about what those beliefs are. However if anyone were to ask me what I thought about Christianity I would have to say that I think it is baseless and self-contradictory and furthermore the whole business of the mass/communion and the crucifixion is very macabre. However no-one has ever asked me, so I've never mentioned it. I suspect that if I did I might lose some friends! I think it's fair to call my attitude tolerant. I think it might be a bit of a stretch to say that I respect the beliefs in question.
Irony:
And yet you use the word "fundamentalist" as a pejorative term synonymous with "rude" or "extremist", completely failing to understand that Fundamentalism is a sect of Christianity like Evangelicalism, Catholicism or Calvinism, and that being a fundamentalist says nothing at all about a person's personality. I think fundamentalists who saw you using the name for their theology as a synonym for personality types you find distasteful would be pretty insulted. It's like saying, "Sam Harris is a catholic atheist--and by 'catholic' I mean fat and ugly."
In your attempts to paint others as intolerant and closed-minded you've stereotyped millions of Americans--self-described fundamentalist Christians--as rude extremists. I'm not saying you did this purposefully, but that's kind of the problem. "Universal tolerance", as you call it, is pretty much impossible. Without even realizing it you've been promoting negative religious stereotypes about a whole swath of people.
I guess another irony is that the term "fundamentalist", the name of a Christian theology, really has become a pejorative term in a lot of people's minds. Perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens have accomplished more than Nisbet thinks they have.
Wes has brought up the same point that has been brought up several times but never addressed, that applying the term "fundamentalism/ist" to "atheism/ist" doesn't even make sense. Sheril says that she has been following the comments, but she has yet to acknowledge this important point on contention.
It's nice to see more people expressing useful ideas on this topic. I've been reading ScienceBlogs since it began thinking that it was a great idea. It still is, but PZ's religous rants do not do it credit. One thing science bloggers can do is show how science and its methods improve our lives. PZ's rants are the antithesis of that -- that is, unless you think making emotional metaphysical and epistemological claims is somehow good example of how good science is done. Science and rationality don't need a Rush Limbaugh.
Tantalizing taboo topics is my most recent post on this subject looks at what Ronald Aronson had to say in a recent article in The Nation. John Wilkins has one of the best collection of thoughts on the matter -- and he's a philosopher! ;-)
Where are the social scientists when you need them? I'd much rather hear their professional views on religion than listen to PZ rant well outside his competency. (Why aren't the social sciences better represented on SciBogs?) The irony is deep and rich when a Myers takes on religion and promotes atheism using all-encompassing, inflamatory rhetoric rather than the tools of science: study, understanding, gathering evidence, making a rational case with argument based on reason, pointing to peer reviewed literature and the work of others, etc. Turns out the science writers and Wilkins the philosopher have a far more rational, scientific approach than the biologist does.
Anyone with a minimal capacity for reason is qualified to criticize religious faith - its incompatibilities with rationality are both obvious and straightforward.
Unless you have an extraordinary new argument, this is not an issue worth discussing. The unwillingness of various people to acknowledge that religious faith and scientific inquiry are incompatible is a different issue, and one closely related to various anti-science movements in popular and political culture.
Trinifar, you managed to use the work "rant" several times in connection with PZ's blog. As far as I can tell, his views on religion are very similar to mine. He is much more forthright than I am in expressing them. So I'm wondering, do you object to his views, the way he expresses them or the fact that he does express them?
And just to clarify something (and plagiarise PZ's latest post):
What he said!
Caledonian: Anyone with a minimal capacity for reason is qualified to criticize religious faith -- its incompatibilities with rationality are both obvious and straightforward.
As I recall you are a scientist. Why not try to contribute to the discussion rather than repeating what amounts to bromides? There are endless aspects of human culture that are not rational, most are completely benign, many are quite useful, even pleasurable. What is it about this metaphysical topic that has your knickers in such a twist?
The unwillingness of various people to acknowledge that religious faith and scientific inquiry are incompatible is a different issue,
Other than the religious right which is often as much a political movement as a religion, there are large numbers of religious people who don't experience any incompatibility between their faith and science -- some are even scientists. I don't see anything rational about sweeping generalizations.
Wes: (Pay attention, matthew)
While there are many Christians that view themselves as fundamentalists, it is not a sect. There are Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians... the list goes on... but there has yet to be a Fundamentalist Conference.
In previous posts, a working definition of the term "fundamentalist" has been established, such that its application to other creeds is potentially appropriate. To recap: it is, essentially, the dogmatism of fundamentals; one accepts certain assumptions as unarguable and builds a world-view around them unquestioningly. From that standpoint, Newtonian physics seems demonstrably to be a fundamentalist creed; atheism can be so described as well.
Global Warming (or Inter-Global Catastrophic Meltdown) has been documented. The future geothermodynamics remain unclear; this makes an alarmist take on the subject seem quite like a closed-minded fundametalist dogmatism. And yet, since the worst-case scenario is cataclysmic, it is perhaps wise to treat the subject as a serious one.
And so dogmatism and fundamentalism are potentially useful attitudes. Perhaps not so much in an experimenter, but that's rather a special case, is it not?
-JM
Something tells me we might not get an answer to it. Call me closed-minded, but it often seems to me that the people who most vociferously praise open-mindedness really don't spend a lot of time actually considering other people's views. More often it seems that they spend time avoiding confrontation with other people's views, without really understanding what said views are (or even trying to).
Sheril probably hasn't spent much time studying fundamentalist theology or attempting to understand what fundamentalism is--if she had, she wouldn't be using it as a descriptor of personality. I happen to be one of those "intolerant" atheists who think religion is complete nonsense, but I'm also a descendant of a fundamentalist minister and the son of a fundamentalist church elder. I know fundamentalist theology pretty well, and I know and love many fundamentalists. Their theology and their philosophy is deeply misguided and ludicrously divorced from reality, but they aren't all rude. They aren't all extremists. They're people just like the rest of us. Some of them are very kind, caring, polite people, whose minds are unfortunately warped by a very bizarre and irrational belief system.
People who use "fundamentalist" as a general-purpose insult term against people they don't like just don't understand that.
Anyone who accepts Newtonian mechanics unquestioningly, and "builds a worldview around them", also rejects scientific inquiry. I don't think there are actually very many people who treat any of the findings of science as sacred dogmas, and I doubt even more that any scientists do so.
To recap: it is, essentially, the dogmatism of fundamentals; one accepts certain assumptions as unarguable and builds a world-view around them unquestioningly. From that standpoint, Newtonian physics seems demonstrably to be a fundamentalist creed...
I'd agree with your first point. Fundamentalism isn't a sect. Fundamentalism can exist within sects, without everyone in the sect accepting it. It also exists across sects, as it's a kind of reaction to the modern world.
I disagree that Newtonian physics is fundamentalist. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. If I'm not mistaken, Newton helped formulate the scientific method, which is all about doubt. You can doubt even established theory, Newtonian physics included.
Right Wes, "fundie" may be derogatory, but "fundamentalist" is not. The closest Ms. Kirshenbaum has come to defining fundamentalist is when she said:
"I by no means purport atheism is fundamentalism, but rather that any belief has the potential to approach that level when we get to the point we're not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives."
You will not find a defintion of fundamentalism anywhere that includes "not listening to other people" (or one that does not include "a form of Protestant Christianity"...) A fundamentalist may not agree with you (ever), but there is no reason to say that they are people who are unwilling to listen.
fundamentalism
noun 1 a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fundamentalism?view=uk
One of the things that I find disturbing about the notion of tolerance is that we are asked by the likes of Sheril to tolerate nonsense. Interpersonally I am more than willing to appear tolerant in order to maintain a modicum of decorum so that I can work peaceably with someone whose views I think are totally whacky. My best man's parents come to mind: Assembly of God attendees who are gung-ho for Creationism in public schools and think that the war in Iraq could bring about the rapture. We can be good neighbors that care for our community. That level of tolerance is great.
But when it comes to the political arena and the world of education, I must say that the gloves must come off, that reality must be shown to them and that a scientific approach in the overwhelming number of cases leads me to sometimes socially intolerant positions in the light of evidence. Lawrence Krauss is fond of saying that one of the great things about science is that it isn't fair because it tells you what is wrong. Belief that there is evidence in a sky god or any other supernatural force is a sham and I won't have people try to build policy on the backs of non-existent turtles that they believe are holding up the earth.
To tolerate lies, distortions, and misdirection is to give it tacit support. About these things we mustn't be silent nor should we, as Russell said, be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
Calling the various assertions that people can make about the world "perspectives" implies that, just as multiple perspectives of an object are all equally valid and incomplete, all sets of assertions are equally valid and incomplete.
This is grossly wrong.
What benefit is there to tolerating and listening to the 'perspective' of the TimeCube guy? Or the people who insist that alien spaceships are hiding behind comets and will take the chosen ones to a celestial realm? Or the people who deny that human beings can have an effect on global climate and insist that the evidence for climate change is part of a vast conspiracy?
What benefit is there for people practicing the methodology of science to treat non-scientific methodologies as useful?
I'm sorry but I have still have trouble with the word "tolerance" (and it's sneaky sibling "respect") with regard to other people's beliefs.
Where I went to undergraduate school we had A. J. Ayer as a philosophy professor for a few semesters. Unfortunately, I never took a class with him. But I did take a class with one of his colleagues, who once told me that some of the other professors would visibly tense up and give him a wide berth when the guy walked by on the sidewalk. I think he said something like "you could just see the hair bristles go up when they walked by each other."
And this is just when he started teaching at the school. They knew him by reputation only (and he sure had a reputation). A lot of this is about who impugns whose methods and legitimacy. Positivism dismissed the authority of just about all the figures that the other profs considered central to what they did all day (for instance, German schools of philosophy).
It's worth noting that these are PHD's, with years of education at very good schools. If these guys can't settle their differences enough to pass on the sidewalk without getting visibly peeved at each other, on the verge of a catfight, what about the rest of society?
This is why the Enlightenment value of tolerance is so important. When you do proofs in geometry, you always accept premises. Well, different people accept different premises, and each can be legitimately held. You can disagree about which premises to accept, but "agree to disagree", as they say--accepting that someone has arrived at their premises in a non-arbitrary way. Certain basic conflicts have been around for a long time and aren't going away any time soon.
You also have to understand that the vast majority of people don't have the time or the inclination to break these sorts of things down. And that's not a mortal sin. As long as they're minding their own business and not impinging on the rights of others. And if they're not minding their own business, then you shouldn't compromise--but a non-nasty attitude and a good sense of humor certainly helps. Oh, and you should expose yourself to a wide variety of views, and not just A. J. Ayers', or any other single school of thought.
Caledonian,
To characterize those of us that don't ascribe to climate catastrophism as "...people who deny that human beings can have an effect on global climate and insist that the evidence for climate change is part of a vast conspiracy." and then lump us in with religious loonies is illogical as well as insulting.
I am an athiest and a scientist. That humans affect the planet in various ways in not in dispute. What is in dispute is the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 is going to cause future catastrophic warming. A rational examination of the evidence has lead me to the conclusion that there is no immediate cause for concern let alone justification for retooling the worlds economy.
On the contrary those that angrily demand the elimination of CO2 production in the name of "Gaya" display the kind of irrational zealotry usually reserved for those that worship deities.
Leaving aside the question of why we would want to abolish the discrimination that makes science useful...
The majority of scientists seem to disagree with you. How do you explain this fact?
Actually, _you_ found one.
It starts after the number 2. Doesn't mention protestantism at all.
At least this post has helped me understand why Bart Simpson is always so pissed about something. He has no way to vent.
You got me on that one uriel.
Caledonian,
There is no evidence that a "majority of scientists" agree that we face a climate catastrophe. The only points agreed to by the majority are that the temperature has increased less than 1 degree C in the last one hundred years, man made CO2 has increased, CO2 is a green house gas, and that some warming probably will result from this increase.
Not to depart further from the topic of this thread, but a little investigation of the evidence reveals that CO2 increases produce logrithmic increases in radiative absorbtion, meaning that most of the warming possible from CO2 has already occurred and that further increases will result in less and less warming.
The scary forecasts of large increases in temperature are based on purely speculative positive "climate forcings" demonstrated only in highly theoretical climate models.
One need only look to the satelite data on troposhperic temperatures, which have not increased, to see that these models fail pitifully when compared to the real world. Indeed the "majority" of climate modelers will tell you that climate models should not be used to "predict" climate but only as experimental tools to investigate the possible interactions of the input variables and not as realistic depictions of future climate.
Also as far as the "majority of scientists" is concerned, the majority of geologists considered plate tectonics to be nonsense only a few decades ago. Science is advanced by departures from consensus not slavish adherence to it.
If this is Lance Harting (and I think it is), he's probably not worth debating, since he pulls his facts from places like Steve Milloy's Junkscience.com.
Jon,
I linked to information at Milloy's website once, like two years ago. Get over it. Besides, Milloy often has links to peer reviewed scientific studies on his site.
If you have an issue with the statements I made in the above post please address them directly and not by trying to make ad homs linking me to sources you deem inadequate because of your political biases.
Here is the issue Lance: you didn't cite a single source for any of your claims.
Matthew,
I wasn't submitting a scientific article for peer review. I was addressing a comment by Caledonian in which he made a sweeping generalization linking religious nuts with those of us that don't think we face a "climate catastrophe".
Did you really want me to go into an annotated review of the literature? I'd be happy to, but this is probably not the best forum for that discussion.
I'm sure that the retreat of the glaciers is just a random fluctuation in the climate that will even itself out soon.
Lance, I'd like to take your post to Caledonian and make a few interjections - mine are preceded by: "me" - Dave
There is no evidence that a "majority of scientists" agree that we face a climate catastrophe. The only points agreed to by the majority are that the temperature has increased less than 1 degree C in the last one hundred years, man made CO2 has increased, CO2 is a green house gas, and that some warming probably will result from this increase. ME: (so we all agree then, that man is having an effect - just question about how much - it's a start - none of the range of predictions show a drop, and some, when factoring in the feedback loops are really scary)
Not to depart further from the topic of this thread, but a little investigation of the evidence reveals that CO2 increases produce logrithmic increases in radiative absorbtion, meaning that most of the warming possible from CO2 has already occurred and that further increases will result in less and less warming. ME: (we haven't reached stasis (energy balance) yet - so the excess CO2 amount currently in the atmosphere is continuing to add to the heat energy staying on earth - also if you take more than CO2 into account - notably the positive feedback loops, the forcing jumps a lot - plus a few degrees is a lot of heat with major effects)
The scary forecasts of large increases in temperature are based on purely speculative positive "climate forcings" demonstrated only in highly theoretical climate models. ME: (well, the same quality of advanced modelling is used for aerodynamics - I trust you don't fly :+) plus I don't think my house will burn - but because it's a major blow if it does, I get insurance - same preventative philosophy should apply for the possibly massive effect of climate change)
One need only look to the satelite data on troposhperic temperatures, which have not increased, to see that these models fail pitifully when compared to the real world. ME:(the latest readings do in fact show the expected warming once the error giving the spurious results was factored out) Indeed the "majority" of climate modelers will tell you that climate models should not be used to "predict" climate but only as experimental tools to investigate the possible interactions of the input variables and not as realistic depictions of future climate. ME:(Well, as Michael Crichton was quoted: "you can't predict anything" and he followed that by "And I never will" :+) so someone can predict, but maybe only novelists)
Also as far as the "majority of scientists" is concerned, the majority of geologists considered plate tectonics to be nonsense only a few decades ago. Science is advanced by departures from consensus not slavish adherence to it. ME: ( there are still a few geologists who think plate tectonics is a crock - just as there are a few climatologists who still think that about climate change - the consensus used to be "no anthropogenic climate effects", but it's been departed from, thanks mounting evidence and to predictions matching observations, and a new one has formed and we get closer to reality - science at work )