Julian Sanchez has it wrong

<"Make no mistake: arguing for atheism is making a religious argument, just like arguing for theism."

This is a ridiculous statement. Atheism is (by definition) not a religion, but rather the absence of religion. Your whole post is undermined by this claim.

"Atheism is (by definition) not a religion, but rather the absence of religion."

It is too, if the assertion is a matter of faith.

"Make no mistake: arguing for atheism is making a religious argument, just like arguing for theism."

Oy, my head.
One wouldn't say that arguing for a-science - for a nonscientific worldview - is making a scientific argument, right? (is ID making a scientific argument?)
Perhaps one might say that arguing for atheism is making a _________ argument, just like arguing for theism, with the blank being filled in with a higher category, probably one of those big philosophical words whose meaning I always forget, ending with -ological . . .

I never got the impression that the militant atheist contingent was very large or loud. Granted, scientific prestige is an amplifying force in many circumstances, but so is religion . . . I'm just not sure how much of the creationist motivation is specifically "[a]theists insisting that evolution proves atheism" . . . but I'm sure it isn't helping. But Weisberg - what's his involvement in this issue? Dawkins and all, that's one thing, even long-time newgroup and blog people, but it seems like Weisberg just came outa nowhere and started waving his arms about. Am I wrong?

Just was reading Pennock mentioning that evolution was well-received by "many theologians who are now regarded as the founding fathers of Christian evangelicalism" (Tower of Babel, p. 75; citing Livingstone's book Darwin's Forgotten Defenders).

So, what is an argument that evolution is bigger than heliocentrism? Besides the fall/death/crucifixion/salvation one.

ts has a very good point on Neufeld's post below, though - on a practical level, evolution is just as compatible with religion as germ theory was *only* to the extent* that people realize it. Which is a generous reading of Weisberg's point. In reality, a whole bunch of people realize this, despite what Weisberg and probably Sanchez claim - but agreed, you got folks on both sides (*cough* if you want to say that a small handful of folks out of an already small group, next to to an entire multi-decade movement is a fair comparison*cough*) who are making them incompatible* in a practical sense . . .

* watched Kinsey last night - all this talk about compatibility is reminding me of that bit from right after they married . . . not gonna make analogy, not gonna make analogy . . . I can fight it . . .

"Atheists insisting that evolution proves atheism make it appear as if teaching standard science in biology classrooms is actually state sponsorship of atheism, and this is what motivates creationists/IDists."

That can't be right, can it? Creationists are merely reacting to atheists when they insist children learn the world is 6000 years old?

I do not think political strife in of itself is good or bad, even if it takes 100 years to resolve. It is certainly an energy drain for those who have vested interests in this debate. On the other hand, people experiencing strife tend to want resolutions. So, to some extent, I am relieved that there are opposite poles at play. If there were not, then I'd be more worried about one side taking over the debate by storm.

I would cast the problem this way. It is the apathy of the citizens towards science that is the key problem -- the rampant anti-intellectualism bred by one's comfort with selective ignorance. Sure, there is nothing *in principle* that requires evolution to be in conflict with Christianity. But the mere existence of a principle does not actually force a person to seek it out and to resolve any perceived conflicts. What does it matter to a Creationist/IDist that the overwhelming scientific facts fly in the face of their beliefs? Nothing... except maybe those pesky fundamentalist atheists that are siphoning potential converts away from their groups.

Thus, unfortunately, it seems the only motivation here to force a resolution is that there is such a conflict of worldviews, each being undetermined by the facts available to us. Thank God, for the atheists, right?

I would turn the problem back to Matzke. If the opinions of Weisberg and Sanchez disappeared, would the problem of IDism and Creationism cease and desist? Conversely, if Dembski or P. Johnson were not around, would atheist find less intellectual fulfillment in evolution?

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby

"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology."

-- Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution
http://tinyurl.com/befnj

Why is it that, when people's religious beliefs are challenged, they go ballistic? This has got to be the most tendentious and offensive article I've ever read at PT, and seems to be geared toward rankling atheists and driving a wedge between them and theists, precisely what the article purports to complain about.

Saying "The modern understanding of Evolution obviates religious explanations of otherwise deeply mysterious phenomena (like the origin and diversity of life)" is not logically equivalent to "Evolution proves there is no god."

Thus Dawkins et al and their statements (like the famous "intellectually fulfilled atheist" bit) are simply not saying what fundamentalists say they are.

It's scriptural literalists who conflate their beliefs with the core of theistic faith who are "insulting our intelligence" to borrow a phrase from the Slate piece.

If atheism is a religion, then it is impossible to have no religion. I think it is possible to have no religion, therefore I think atheism is not a religion. Otherwise, you have to equate an awareness of religion with subscription to a religion, and I can't see the logic in that.

I support no football team. I have no interest in football. Does that make me a sports fan, sports fans? And if I say that I don't think that football should be used as the underlying explanation of physics does that mean I'm having an argument about sport or about science? If I was a football fan and made the same statement, would it be materially different?

R

Thus Dawkins et al and their statements (like the famous "intellectually fulfilled atheist" bit) are simply not saying what fundamentalists say they are.

Hear. Hear, Nick.
Let's not allow the religious fundamentalists (nor the vocal atheists) to turn discussions about science into a religious debate. There can be no "resolution" when you're talking about belief (or lack of belief).

Saying that anyone who believes in god is stupid is as useless to the discussion as saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is going to burn in hell.

We all agree that science is about facts and understanding, not about believing or faith. Our objective should be to help the general public understand how science works. It's a waste of time and energy to try to change anyone's belief's. You won't succeed, and it will distract from the real issue: defending science in the classroom (and elsewhere).

[BTW, I spent all last evening when I should have been reading about orangutans going through the discussion under the PR post. It riled me up, but special thanks to Lenny and Ed D for injecting reason into the discussion.]

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby "Arguing for atheism", on the other hand, could maybe be construed as making a religious statement.

The difference should be clear enough.

As has been pointed out, the claim is not that atheism is a religion.

The claim is that by arguing for atheism one start to make it function as a religion.

It is the difference between IS and OUGHT.

I AM an atheist. That is not to state a religious belief, but rather its lack.

But when I say you OUGHT TO BE an atheist, my statement starts to function as a statement of belief.

Hear. Hear, Nick. Let's not allow the religious fundamentalists (nor the vocal atheists) to turn discussions about science into a religious debate.

But when I say you OUGHT TO BE an atheist, my statement starts to function as a statement of belief.

Drat, I left out the best one: one ought only teach evolution, and not ID, in science classes.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology.

— Bradley or Theodosius Dobzhansky

Jacob Weisberg and Julian Sanchez, who both want to argue that evolution is incompatible with religious belief, have to explain why the same logic does not also apply to meteorology, germ theory, genetics, atomism, etc.

— Nick Matzke

Perhaps this is a more appropriate thread to post this in than the one I posted it to before:

This is my goodbye, everyone. I am not even remotely interested in all the dick-waving here. When the loonies leave, someone let me know so I can come back.

In the meantime, anyone who wants to say "Hi" to me can drop in the DebunkCreation list at Yahoogroups. The dicks won't be following, since religious discussions are OT at DC.

I look forward to the time when PT becomes useful again, instead of just a private forum for certain people to (1) preach their religious opinions and (2) pick fights.

Take care, everyone.

This nonsense is as much a diversion from the "war" on creationism as the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror.

The goal of defending the teaching of evolution is to protect and strengthen the teaching of science in the public school system, not wade directly into the culture wars.

Let's not allow the religious fundamentalists (nor the vocal atheists) to turn discussions about science into a religious debate. There can be no "resolution" when you're talking about belief (or lack of belief).

— Gerry L

Make no mistake: arguing for atheism is making a religious argument, just like arguing for theism.

This is a ridiculous statement. Atheism is (by definition) not a religion, but rather the absence of religion. Your whole post is undermined by this claim

— Nick

I would argue that agnosticism remains neutral on the concept of religion. Whether or not Atheism is a religion is unclear to me, although it seems to be a faith based interpretation.

— PvM

I would argue that agnosticism remains neutral on the concept of religion.

Whether or not Atheism is a religion is unclear to me, although it seems to be a faith based interpretation.

Thence we devolve into a discussion whether lack of evidence is evidence...

If you are a convinced atheist who is also supporter of science, you need to decide which is more important to you:

* defending and promoting science

* tearing down and destroying religion

'Cause they aren't one and the same thing. You may have both ends. However, in doing the latter, you are actually, right now, harming the cause of the former. There are plenty of religious scientist types (who fully accept evolution and a 14-billion-year-old Universe) whom you will tweak off. And you will play right into the hands of the creationists who want to argue against evolution on the basis that the people who support it are trying to destroy religion.

If you think that destroying religion is more important than promoting science, then go right on ahead with your attacks on religion.

On the other hand, if you think that promoting and defending science is more important, you are making a grave tactical mistake by insisting that you have to tear down religion in order to defend evolution. You're throwing away allies, tilting against windmills, and undermining hard-argued positions.

Decide which is more important to you. If it's defending science, then for the sake of good tacitcs and good sense, bite your lip on destroying religion until science isn't in so much cultural peril.

-Rob

Atheism isn't a religion, but (qua proposition) it is a statement about religion, namely the statement that theistic varieties of religion are wrong.

Is arguing for atheism "making a religious argument"? Matter of definition: it is making an argument about religion; it's not arguing in a religious mode.

As for schools: Keeping religion out of science classes doesn't mean that a scientific discovery not dependent on any particular religious position is unmentionable as soon as someone finds a way to use it to support a particular religious or anti-religious position. You can't keep something out of schools just because it can be used in a religiously partisan way. (Else I can keep anything out of the schools, by starting a new religion based on it.)

Perhaps evolution is evidence for atheism. (Good for atheism, if so.) Perhaps it's evidence for, say, Hinduism. (Good for Hinduism, if so.) None of that can possibly make a difference to whether it's right, or to whether it's scientific, or to whether it's OK to teach it to children. To disqualify something from teaching in schools because of its consequences if true is stupid.

The reason you don't see meteorology advanced as a evidence against religion is that theologians never advanced and "Arguement from Rain." They did, however, advance an "Arguement from Design," to which evolution is undeniably relevant. And it's important to see the difference between relevance and proof. Rarely do atheists even come close to saying evolution disproves religion, but they're right to say it undermies it.

Atheism isn't a religion, but (qua proposition) it is a statement about religion, namely the statement that theistic varieties of religion are wrong.

— g

Perhaps evolution is evidence for atheism. (Good for atheism, if so.) Perhaps it's evidence for, say, Hinduism. (Good for Hinduism, if so.) None of that can possibly make a difference to whether it's right, or to whether it's scientific, or to whether it's OK to teach it to children. To disqualify something from teaching in schools because of its consequences if true is stupid.

* defending and promoting science * tearing down and destroying religion

I'm afraid I think Julian Sanchez is right. The usual emphasis on how compatible religion and evolution is politically seductive but scientifically indefensible. Religion and evolution are "compatible" in the same way that doodling sea monsters in the blank spaces on ancient maps is compatible with cartography - it's harmless fun as long as nobody takes it seriously. But people _are_ taking it seriously, so it's regrettably important to be curmudgeonly about it: lack of scientific knowledge is _not_ license to fill the gaps with elaborate speculation. Faith in the apologist's sense of belief without regard to evidence is _not_ intellectually respectable.

In particular, while liberal Christians are relatively science-friendly in practice because they're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either, even if it's a tradition that does date back to Augustine. If you actually read Augustine, it turns out he's simply raised unfalsifiability to a principle, as when he says, ""Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative." That is, cynically but not unfairly paraphrased, if it's embarrassing, it's figurative, never mind figurative for what. That's not compatible with science, that's anti-scientific at the most fundamental level.

ts:

Yes, "atheism" sometimes means "lack of belief in a god" rather than "the proposition that there is no god". But that sort of "atheism" isn't the sort that evolution might putatively provide evidence for, because it's entirely about what goes on in one person's head. For the same reason, it isn't something that can be argued for (except maybe by psychologists studying the person in question). Belief in evolution (or any other scientific or other proposition) could cause atheism in this sense, but not support it.

You're right, of course, that some people think certain ideas are terribly harmful even if true, and it's not hard to cook up imaginary scenarios where something of the sort is right. So maybe "stupid" was too strong a word. But I think you'd need a very convincing case to justify not teaching something true for fear of its harmful consequences. And I think it's clear that whatever case there may be (for some) against teaching evolution lest it lead to atheism is not strong enough for such an argument to work. I'm fairly sure Ruse, e.g., doesn't offer any such argument.

Rob, making that choice isn't necessary, but you are partly right. People should probably not attack religion on Panda's Thumb. I think defending evolution and attacking religion are both important, but attacking religion on a forum for defending evolution will have those negative consequences you mentioned. People should not discontinue attacks on religion, but they should keep it off this site for strategic reasons.

i would put this on the bathroom wall, but the Bathroom Monkey* hasn't cleaned it lately, so we can't write anything there:

What's up with the interminable tedious arguments in the comments lately? Why's it happening?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_commercial

If you are a convinced atheist who is also supporter of science, you need to decide which is more important to you:

* defending and promoting science

* tearing down and destroying religion

Well, that's a good post. Although, I would point out that defending science is often seen as a threat to religion. Many people are in love with the idea that God was somehow involved in evolution. Other people are in love with a literal Genesis account. Any scientific evidence which contracts this is in contradiction with their particular religious beliefs. This isn't to say that it's in conflict with religion, in general, but it requires some adjustments and most people have a severe reaction to changing any of their religious beliefs. Similarly, many people had attached geocentrism to their religious beliefs. Copernicus gained plenty of scorn (especially from contemporary protestants, who saw solarcentrism as a threat to their particular religious beliefs).

Martin Luther called the theory, "The over-witty notions of a fool, for does not Joshua 10 plainly say that the sun, not the earth, stood still?" John Calvin cited Psalm 93:1, "The earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved ... Who will dare to place the authority of this man Copernicus above Holy Scriptures?"

Looking back at this, even religious people would laugh at the illogical adherence religious people displayed towards geocentrism. Perhaps one day, people will realize just how illogical it is to say that evolution is a threat to religion because they will have dismissed the need to have God intimately involved in their creation - just as people dismissed the need to have the sun and planets circle around them. But, that day is not today. Hence, for some people, arguing for evolution will invariably be "a direct attack on their religion". There's simply nothing you can do to disentangle the two in their minds.

Although, you make a good point that people should strive to avoid making atheism and evolution into a package deal - explicitly attacking religion is just going to make things worse.

Julian, Tim, and Jacob Weisberg are right. Nick is wrong.

The conflict between religion--or more specifically Christianity and other traditional forms of theism--and evolution was quite clear to Darwin himself, and seems quite clear to most ordinary people and to most professional biologists (see the results of the Cornell Evolution Project, or Larson and Witham's survey of the religious beliefs of scientists, for details).

I suspect that even most non-believers who publicly promote the "non-overlapping magisteria" line do that for pragmatic, political reasons, rather than because they really believe there is no conflict.

Hmmm... an appearing, disappearing retort from Sandefeur. This has all the makings of an intramural blogfight.

Could I just humbly suggest that this is indeed an important issue that needs to be discussed openly and intelligently, and furthermore that since the science of evolution is not a political "big tent" as ID aspires to be, this discussion should be pursued forcefully but nondogmatically? If we're going to all "be on the same page, rhetorically" I think this should only come about as a result of healthy debate and discussion.

Crazy, I know, especially from someone who chooses for his handle a title that is the apotheosis of dogma and obscurantism, but still...

Religion, in the generally accepted meaning of the word, has nothing to do with anything, except bullying others to fear and hate (and cloyingly, narcissistically love) in a similar fashion to oneself. ToE can, like any real human thought, stand on its own.

About theists, with slight offense, I rather like WSB's cynically logical take on the effects of [a] One-God Universe(s), where he simply turns the contradictions inherent in such a nonsensical, useless idea into an indictment describing a vicious, callous Being, and exposing the silly bamboozling expressions of religions' descriptions for what they are: self-inflated/-ing bullshit.

Listen, you wanna believe in this God-stuff? Well, as long as I have breath in my body, you got me fight'n for yer rites! ... No, I do NOT wish to make a donation.... Yeah, well I'm busy on Sunday. I got some breathing to do.... I'm gonna, what? Oh! Burn? Where? ... Right ... Thanks for the pamphlets, yeah ... Listen, I'm just going to close the door now. And don't let me see you talking with my kids if I'm not around.

So what happened to Tim's entry, for which I composed a long comment only to see it vanish in a puff of smoke? I do hope that this isn't case of people proving his thesis by their actions.

Those who claim that science can say nothing about the God hypothesis, that science can neither support nor undermine that hypothesis, are saying that every conceivable set of scientific observations would be equally compatible with the idea that the world was created by God. That seems to me absurd. It seems to me even more absurd when the hypothesized God includes the characteristics of omnipotence and benevolence, as it does in the case of Christianity. We would expect a world created by a loving God to look different from a world created by an evil or indifferent one, just as we would expect a human society created by good men to look different from one created by evil men. We would expect a world created by an omnipotent God to look different from a world created by an incompetent God, just as we would expect a watch created by a master watchmaker to look different from a watch created by someone who knows little about making watches. If God is so mysterious that we can infer nothing about him from observing the world he supposedly created, then we can say nothing meaningful about him at all.

Tim, please bring back your post!

Yes, "atheism" sometimes means "lack of belief in a god" rather than "the proposition that there is no god". But that sort of "atheism" isn't the sort that evolution might putatively provide evidence for, because it's entirely about what goes on in one person's head.

— g

For the same reason, it isn't something that can be argued for (except maybe by psychologists studying the person in question). Belief in evolution (or any other scientific or other proposition) could cause atheism in this sense, but not support it.

Agnostic 1. Someone who defers belief or non-belief in a god until the evidence is in. Usually accompanied by the assertion that the evidence is not in.

People should not discontinue attacks on religion, but they should keep it off this site for strategic reasons.

The subtitle--The Case Against God--has a twofold meaning: first, it refers to the philosophical case against the concept of god; and secondly, it refers to the psychological case against the belief in god. As a philosopher, I am continually amazed by the credence given to religious claims in the intellectual community; and, as a human being, I am appalled by the psychological damage caused by religious teachings--damage that often takes years to counteract....

It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself. There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature--and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.

It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism; such efforts are usually futile. It is my purpose, however, to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful, In other words, I have attempted to remove the veneer of intellectual and moral respectability that often enshrouds the notion of a god. If a person wishes to continue believing in god, that is his perrogative, but he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity.

I think Tim is writing a reply as a primary post, which is all for the good. It wasn't clear to me what Tim was intending with the previous post, but I had been meaning to bash on Jacob Weisberg's Slate article for some time anyway, and Tim gave me the inspiration.

As a commentator said, there is no harm in airing differences publicly on this issue, the IDist "big tent" model is pernicious.

I'm not sure why

— Nick Matzke

I think Tim is writing a reply as a primary post

I deeply appreciate the comments of Rob, who put it better than I have managed to, yet.

The more-or-less official position of the national science and religion organizations, and lots of other prominent spokespeople, is that there is no necessary conflict between evolution/science and religion.

This stuff really tears me up. Is the choice between supporting science and science education and confronting religion a false dichotomy? I think it might be. My position is pro-rational and cannot be reduced to a simple either/or. I support rationality in part by supporting science, but that's not all there is to it. I am willing to, as someone said, "bite my lip" in some forums, but why does this have to include not commenting on the absurdity of the notion that evolution does not obviate the truth claims of, for example, Christianity, which holds it as self-evident that "creation" requires a "Creator," and ultimately, a "redeemer"?

Having said that, I should emphasize, as I have in the past, that acceptance of the fact of evolution can never, by itself, necessitate atheism. My reasons for being an atheist are theological and metaphysical, not scientific. But please bear in mind, for the atheist, evolution is the only game in town. So while not every theist is going to admit to evolution's correctness, very nearly all modern atheists must. I don't wish to confuse a robust defense of evolution with an ad hoc attack on theism, but I do view them as of a piece: advancing a rational worldview, free of corrosive superstition.

Must I really "choose this day whom I will serve"?

If you think of religion anthropologically as an integral aspect of culture rather than as adherence to a set of propostions, American atheists certainly have a religion but it isn't atheism. It is the civic religion of the Americans, which includes a whole series of rituals involving, importantly, marriage and funerals as well as various political occasions.

The more-or-less official position of the national science and religion organizations, and lots of other prominent spokespeople, is that there is no necessary conflict between evolution/science and religion. 2. In a kind of a can't-help-themselves backlash against the dominant view (if it wasn't such a ubiquitous view, they wouldn't be complaining about it)

I quote the Talk.Origins Jargon File

A better analogy than atheism and "not stamp collecting" or atheism and "not liking sports" is atheism and "disagreement with Democrats." As with religion, in politics disagreement implies that you are taking some other view. Agnosticism and "apatheism" are other possible non-theist positions, but they are all some sort of answer to the question "Does God exist?"

I refer you to Mary Midgley

And they're fooling themselves. It's absurd. There is a conflict. PT wouldn't need to be here if there were no conflict. And trying to resolve it by dissing the atheists, who are the only ones with sensible ideas on the subject of religion, is counterproductive.

I do agree that this debate should not be going on here, though.

If you think of religion anthropologically as an integral aspect of culture rather than as adherence to a set of propostions, American atheists certainly have a religion but it isn't atheism. It is the civic religion of the Americans, which includes a whole series of rituals involving, importantly, marriage and funerals as well as various political occasions.

Ok. Let me see. Lots of religions, with a range of views. Within each religion you have various denominations, sects, etc. (It sounded like somone was saying that different varieties of Christianity were different religions?) The whole thing is a very difficult to define (and in some sense artificial) category. *Anything* that makes certain claims will be in conflict with certain versions! OECism isn't compatible with YECism! Taking religion as a broad category, or even just picking Christianity as the majority religion in the U.S., it's pretty safe to say that it can coexist with science. That's what it reduces down to, y'know - not religion vs. evolution. After all, large numbers of people manage it.

ID does seem very Straussian.

" lack of scientific knowledge is _not_ license to fill the gaps with elaborate speculation. "

This is up there with the comment about the logical equivalence of various statements (which I do fully agree with). It' not realistic. (After all, most people have a limited role for formal logic in their lives. ) We're not the licensing agency for that sort of stuff. And given that there are areas where science cannot by definition go, we don't get to say what might or might not be there - or if there's any there there - from a scientific standpoint. Religious, philosophical, curmudgeonly, whatever. But given the nature of the debate it is quite important to be clear. Same goes for whatever you think might not be compatible with science. I wonder if Sanchez and especially Weisberg are participating in perhaps the one of the few real mainstream media bias thingies - real religion involves fundamentalists, preferably speaking in tongues or handling snakes, and can only happen in a megachurch. Anything else isn't *real* religion (I'm overstating, because it isn't a total view - it just clicks into place for certain kinds of reporting).

I have great faith in people being able to deal. Misplaced, perhaps . . .

"I suspect that even most non-believers who publicly promote the "non-overlapping magisteria" line do that for pragmatic, political reasons, rather than because they really believe there is no conflict"

Well, the extent of my public promotion is a no-traffic blog, comment threads, and letters to the editor, but I really believe there is no conflict. Is there a conflict with specific versions? Yes, but one more time for the road, in that case we are talking about most of the world-based academic disciplines, hard and soft, from physics to linguistics. And there's that same conflict *within* those belief systems. . . . it just starts getting a little silly.

Remember, methodology and metaphysics are *not* the same.

I know very little about the modern history of creationism, but I wonder what role atheists claiming support from evolution actually played. My understanding is that historians have generally argued for other forces as playing a big part in the 2 or 3 waves of 20th century creationism?

LOL, PZ. Get out of the quicksand, Panda's Thumb! You don't want us barging into your nice comfy quicksand pool? ;-)

Your view doesn't appear to be even the majority one, let alone "ubiquitous."

I think many supporters of evolution see this fight primarily as a political and pragmatic one, and believe that the most important goal is to establish the view in the public mind that science and religion are not in conflict to prevent the creationists and IDers from winning the battles over public education, even if they privately reject that view.

— Don P

In particular, while liberal Christians are relatively science-friendly in practice because they're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either,

No, you are quite wrong.

An inability to read human literature as anything other than either literal truth or as meaningless falsehood is not very intellectually respectable. Yet that seems to be the position that you are trying to force people into.

-Rob

"The absurdity of the notion that evolution does not obviate the truth claims of, for example, Christianity, which holds it as self-evident that "creation" requires a "Creator," and ultimately, a "redeemer"?"
My little dictionary says obviate is "to prevent by making unnecessary." No, I'm not playing word games, I wasn't sure what it meant. If that's the general meaning here, it would seem to me that it *doesn't* - not for Christianity. But trying to deal with this level of philisophical debate makes me feel like I have stuffing for a brain, so I dunno.

Enough for me. I'm going to raise a glass to Jim, who brought up a very important perspective, and then I'm tiptoing out the door. Enjoy! Play nice. Remember, no circular firing squads.

Well, that's a good post. Although, I would point out that defending science is often seen as a threat to religion. Many people are in love with the idea that God was somehow involved in evolution. Other people are in love with a literal Genesis account. Any scientific evidence which contracts this is in contradiction with their particular religious beliefs.

I would certainly agree that science is incompatable with some religions.

I would go further to say that those religions are wrong....

But science is not incompatable with religion generally. If you think it is, then you don't really understand religion; the only religion you understand is the creationist's sort of religion, which is the "poor substitute for science" sort of religion.

-Rob

And they're fooling themselves. It's absurd. There is a conflict. PT wouldn't need to be here if there were no conflict. And trying to resolve it by dissing the atheists, who are the only ones with sensible ideas on the subject of religion, is counterproductive.

Nobody is dissing the atheists. There are atheists and the religious who are outraged by the creationists' attack on science and on evolution. We all share a common cause-- or so I thought. I thought the point of PT was to defend against ignorance about evolution and attacks on science, not to attack religion.

What we are dissing is the notion that you must be an atheist to really want to defend science. That is not productive, and also demonstrably false. They're the radical fringe that says "you must destroy religion to defend science," and I consider them no more defensable than the religious who say "you must destroy science to defend religion."

-Rob

Do you now? The moral philosopher Mary Midgley who is anti-science, anti-reductionism, anti-meme, anti-gene, pro-Gaia-theory? That's the most amazing bit of cherry picking I can recall seeing. You might as well have found a pack of monkeys at typewriters -- they would have been as relevant.

anti-science, anti-reductionism, anti-meme, anti-gene, pro-Gaia-theory?

In particular, while liberal Christians are relatively science-friendly in practice because they're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either, No, you are quite wrong. An inability to read human literature as anything other than either literal truth or as meaningless falsehood is not very intellectually respectable. Yet that seems to be the position that you are trying to force people into.

ts,

No, I don't think the goal (of establishing in the public mind the view that evolution and religion are compatible) is possible, but more than that I just think it would be wrong and misguided to do it even if it were possible, because I think it's a lie. I don't have a good answer about what strategy would work best in the fight over public education, but I know it shouldn't involve the false claim that there is no conflict. Your quote from George Smith really expresses my own views well.

As for genes and Gaia, the Gaia model is no more metaphysically burdened than, say, Dawkins's "selfish gene" model.

In support of the proposition that science popularizers have fairly commonly gone far beyond the science into some pretty fantastic metaphysical territory which would be called religious in any other context ... It is simply paying attention to the truth of the matter, which is that some prominent evolutionists have mixed the religion and science fairly flagrantly

Well, that's a good post. Although, I would point out that defending science is often seen as a threat to religion. Many people are in love with the idea that God was somehow involved in evolution. Other people are in love with a literal Genesis account. Any scientific evidence which contracts this is in contradiction with their particular religious beliefs.

This isn't to say that it's in conflict with religion, in general, but it requires some adjustments and most people have a severe reaction to changing any of their religious beliefs.

I would certainly agree that science is incompatable with some religions. I would go further to say that those religions are wrong. But science is not incompatable with religion generally. If you think it is, then you don't really understand religion; the only religion you understand is the creationist's sort of religion, which is the "poor substitute for science" sort of religion.

*pokes head back in*
"They're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either"
Why on earth not?

Two things: we're throwing around meaningless nouns. "Religion"? What does that mean? Looking at religion through the lens of anthro (or sociology) seems much more useful here . . . (not that I am, which is depressing, since I majored in it . . .)

Let's just say religion and science were incompatible, deeply, truly, unfixably incompatible. You think it would matter? Most cases, people believe what they want. They'll tell you they want taxes cut and services expanded. And yeah, if push comes to shove, they'll *probably* act in a different fashion - but where/when does that occur in this situation? Folks aren't generally entirely rational, which is sometimes silly and sometimes very sane (and sometimes a nightmare, true). But honestly, they could be completely incompatible, and people will somehow imagine a way around it (of course, while species aren't fixed and immutable, religions are?).
Likewise, they're not, I truly believe, but if groups of people think they are, then for them . . .)

*stumbles off*

Huh? You practically quote me in saying, "But science is not incompatable with religion generally.", but then say (as if you didn't read the rest of my post), "If you think it is, then you don't really understand religion..."

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was trying to agree with you. I guess I was just too redundant in so doing.

-Rob

Huh? You practically quote me in saying, "But science is not incompatable with religion generally.", but then say (as if you didn't read the rest of my post), "If you think it is, then you don't really understand religion..."

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was trying to agree with you. I guess I was just too redundant in so doing.

The "you" in that sentence was "one", not you specifically.

-Rob

Dan S:

Well, I just went to your "no-traffic blog" and read your attempted fisking of Weisberg. I won't be going back there again. Your critique of his piece is juvenile and dishonest.

It's the same sort of conflict as arises with many of the other roles people adopt - ones to which they are implicitly or explicitly trained to apply various modes of thought and behaviour. The fact of the existence of these (often conflicting) roles is revealed by statements such as "speaking as a mother ..." and "as a friend you should ..." even if the rest of those assertions is false, absurd or whatever. If the conflict of different role-playing wasn't well known then people wouldn't be adopting that phraseology at all.

It starts early. Kids are made to choose between being law-abiding (as a good citizen) or loyal to their mates (as a friend). It progresses to many other, sometimes subtle differences, eg in driving technique (as a learner striving to stick to objectively good standards versus get-away driver). It's hardly surprising that some people can have both a scientist hat in which they do good science (despite any religious beliefs) and a religion hat in which they go to church etc (and which they carefully don't examine too closely). These things do conflict. It's just that people are quick-change artists rather than wearing all their roles at once and forcing them to be simultaneously asethetically compatible.

Your critique of his piece is juvenile and dishonest.

It's hardly surprising that some people can have both a scientist hat in which they do good science (despite any religious beliefs) and a religion hat in which they go to church etc (and which they carefully don't examine too closely).

Oh, they don't examine it too closely?

Most don't, but some do. Maybe you can't imagine how that could be, but then, you probably don't know a whole lot about the different sorts of things that people who practis religion think. A couple of examples:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNG9BBN70C1.DTL

http://www.ctns.org/

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert(freakin)Einstein

ts,

Well, for example, he substitutes the term "theistic evolution" for the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," to make it appear that Weisberg is foolishly characterizing a 38% share as "not many people," when I think it's obvious that Weisberg was, quite reasonably, interpreting the phrase "God guided this process" as a rejection of the naturalistic, unguided processes described by evolution. He pretends that Weisberg's statement that evolution led Darwin to agnosticism somehow does not include the example of the behavior of parasitic wasps that Darwin cited. Every one of his criticisms of Weisberg is either trivial or wrong.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert(freakin)Einstein

— jamey leslie

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

— Albert Einstein

What we are dissing is the notion that you must be an atheist to really want to defend science. That is not productive, and also demonstrably false. They're the radical fringe that says "you must destroy religion to defend science," and I consider them no more defensable than the religious who say "you must destroy science to defend religion."

Rob: "An inability to read human literature as anything other than either literal truth or as meaningless falsehood is not very intellectually respectable. Yet that seems to be the position that you are trying to force people into."

Not at all. Conveying ideas with metaphors and allegory and other forms of non-literal writing is a basic human impulse and it couldn't be clearer that there's lots of it in the Bible. The trouble is that it's far from clear that any of the passages relevant to the evolution debate were so intended. For example the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2 is part of the J narrative, which is a tightly integrated composition beginning with the establishment of the world and ending with the establishment of the kingdom of David and Solomon. The end of it reads like history, and various clues suggest that the author was writing not long this period, so most likely it _was_ tolerably accurate history. It's a literary history, and uses literary techniques such as puns and ironic self-reference to make a more gripping story, but there's no sign that the author was in the habit of making stuff up wholesale as an allegory for something else. The author knows what a parable is, and distinguishes it from the regular flow of the narrative, as in Judges 9:8-15. And to cap it off, the single most likely candidate for an allegory, the talking snake of Genesis 3, is the exception that proves the rule. The text tells us explicitly what the significance of the talking snake is, and it's not an allegory, it's a simple-minded Just So story. The snake is the ancestor of today's snakes that crawl on their bellies.

Well, for example, he substitutes the term "theistic evolution" for the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," to make it appear that Weisberg is foolishly characterizing a 38% share as "not many people," when I think it's obvious that Weisberg was, quite reasonably, interpreting the phrase "God guided this process" as a rejection of the naturalistic, unguided processes described by evolution.

He pretends that Weisberg's statement that evolution led Darwin to agnosticism somehow does not include the example of the behavior of parasitic wasps that Darwin cited.

Every one of his criticisms of Weisberg is either trivial or wrong.

TS writes "There's certainly no debate as to whether science is compatible with civil rituals" thus agreeing with me without apparently realizing it. I'm not saying that the civic religion of the atheists contradicts their atheism. It also doesn't contradict the Christianity of the Christians who mostly follow America's civic religion, but superimpose another set of doctines and beliefs on top of it in something like the way that many Japanese are at once Shintoists,Buddhists, Marxists, and Christians.

The notion that believing in the truth of a body of propositions is the central characteristic of belonging to a religion is rather parochial. It would be bad for religions in general if that were really the case, since the assertions associated with the various religions are pretty obviously false if construed by the usual criteria.

How about this? Can we say that God "exists" for the Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the same sense that a 10 beats a king in pinochle?

TS writes "There's certainly no debate as to whether science is compatible with civil rituals" thus agreeing with me without apparently realizing it.

I'm not saying that the civic religion of the atheists contradicts their atheism.

The notion that believing in the truth of a body of propositions is the central characteristic of belonging to a religion is rather parochial.

ts,

You're damn right it's "uncharitable" to Weisberg. Dan S. deliberately substituted the term "theistic evolutionists" for the wording in the poll question to try to make Weisberg's perfectly reasonable "not many people" statement appear foolish. And as for the wasps, I think it's clear in context that by "evolution" Weisberg wasn't referring to any kind of formal definition of that term but to Darwin's work in evolutionary biology more broadly. Dan S. isn't making any kind of serious critique of Weisberg, he's just looking to score juvenile debating points through tendentious readings and other rhetorical devices.

The notion that believing in the truth of a body of propositions is the central characteristic of belonging to a religion is rather parochial.

How about this? Can we say that God "exists" for the Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the same sense that a 10 beats a king in pinochle?

"Your critique of his piece is juvenile and dishonest."
Why, thank you! Usually Ijust aim for infantile and mendacious . . .

"Well, for example, he substitutes the term "theistic evolution" for the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," to make it appear that Weisberg is foolishly characterizing a 38% share as "not many people,"

I was (unthinkingly, perhaps) going by religioustolerance.org's description of earlier Gallup surveys and overall viewpoints:

"Theistic evolution: (39% support). 1 The universe is over 10 billion years old; the earth's crust developed almost 4 billion years ago. God caused the first living cell to appear. Humans evolved out of lower forms of life under the direct guidance of God. God steered evolution, at least to some degree, as a mechanism to guide the development of new species."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm

I definitely agree that the poll questions are pretty crappy and not really getting at what's going on. Given the numbers, I assumed that their "God had no part" question was getting mostly atheists, while the guided bit was getting most of the rest, along with some ID folks. I probably should have laid out these assumptions, instead of making blanket statements. I'm a pretty slow writer and somewhat fuzzy thinker, and am trying to do too many things at once. If anything, it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate mischaracterization.
- Thanks, ts.

"when I think it's obvious that Weisberg was, quite reasonably, interpreting the phrase "God guided this process" as a rejection of the naturalistic, unguided processes described by evolution."
I see that as an example of "believ[ing] in both." In my mind the big thing is whether they believe or demand that science can detect/prove this guidance. IDers may be taking a much bigger chunk out of this group than I assumed. What sort of views would you see people who "believe in both" as holding?

Can folks suggest some more polls, beside the Harris one? That's just frightening - over half of respondents think we should teach evolution, creationism, and ID? Yikes.

You're damn right it's "uncharitable" to Weisberg.

And as for the wasps, I think it's clear in context that by "evolution" Weisberg wasn't referring to any kind of formal definition of that term but to Darwin's work in evolutionary biology more broadly.

That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries. I get the feeling that Weisberg has yet to read either of the two excellent modern biographies of Darwin, one by Janet Browne and the other by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. I hope he does soon. Darwin's life as he actually lived it does not boil down to the sort of shorthands that people like Weisberg toss around. Darwin wrestled with his spirituality for most of his adult life. [lots of relevant bio info]

— Carl Zimmer

Doctrine has always been part of Christianity, but formerly most people also lived the faith in their everyday lives to a vastly greater degree than they do now. As almost everybody has come to live in a largely secular way, adherence to religion tends to be defined as holding certain opinions.

Small example: when most folks argue about religious faith nowadays, they appear to be talking about belief in the existence of a creator god with certain qualites. If you read older religious books, both Protestant and Catholic, you find that the faith in question refers to the confidence or hope that God or Christ will save the sinner despite his or her unworthiness.

By the way, the difference beween religion = membership in a community with shared rituals, endogamy, and enforced moral rules and religion = purely personal choice of a set of ideas explains why it is possible to maintain both that religion is in deep decline and religion is undergoing a revival. Church attendence is down, but people keep on saying they believe in God and even the literal interpretation of scripture when asked survey questions.

Don P. -
edited my post to reflect this discussion. While your assumptions about my intentions were fairly uncharitable (although, granted, you did assume that I understood what I was reading, and *knowingly* twisting it, so . . . ), it was very helpful. I would like to second ts' remarks about relaxing, though . . .

And yep - he is arguing causation, and doesn't seem to offer sufficient (or well-supported) evidence. While to imagine evolution plays *no* role seems extremely unlikely, I really would like a bit more meat here, given the claim.

"What is the central characteristic of belonging to a religion, then?"
Oh c'mon, ask a hard one!
That's a joke. It's a very important question, though. Do we know? We're all thrashing around a bit . .

he being Weisberg, that is.

Jim, that's great stuff.

Oh, they don't examine it too closely? Most don't, but some do.

Maybe you can't imagine how that could be,

but then, you probably don't know a whole lot about the different sorts of things that people who practis religion think.

Oops, I'm misusing "apologetics" a bit there and hit the post button before ever coming up with a more accurate word. Um ... on the rather banal side "the [pretence of compatibility] agenda" is more it. I had this feeling there was a single word for it somewhere though. Oh well.

While to imagine evolution plays *no* role seems extremely unlikely, I really would like a bit more meat here, given the claim.

— Dan S.

ts:

I wasn't clear enough. (My wrists are a bit dodgy so I'm trying to be brief.)

The proposition "I lack a belief in God" is purely about what's in the relevant person's head. It could be true even if there were conclusive proof of theism or false if there were conclusive proof of atheism (it would just mean the person in question was wrong). Even if (say) Dawkins is right about the implications of evolution, you can't get from there to "I lack a belief in God". You might (under the same hypothesis) be able to get from there to "Belief in God is irrational" or "Belief in God is wrong", which are statements about how the world actually is.

If you argue that the reasons commonly given for belief in God are invalid, you're not arguing for the proposition "I lack a belief in God" but for the proposition "It is sensible to lack a belief in God".

Part of the trouble is that I was trying to make one distinction do the work of two. There's the distinction between a claim about how the world is ("There is no god") and a claim about what a given person believes ("I believe that there is no god"), which is what I was addressing. And there's the distinction between levels of disbelief ("I believe there is no god" versus "I don't believe in a god"), which I wasn't.

I don't think evolution and theism can be incompatible unless evolution provides support for something beyond "weak atheism"; if all it does is to knock down certain theistic arguments, it can't rule out the possibility that other arguments might support theism. (Maybe there are no such other arguments, but that's not something evolution itself tells you.) Which is why I assumed a stronger meaning of "atheism" above. Sorry if that caused miscommunication.

If you argue that the reasons commonly given for belief in God are invalid, you're not arguing for the proposition "I lack a belief in God" but for the proposition "It is sensible to lack a belief in God".

Rob: this is what we call a straw man around here.

What we are dissing is the notion that you must be an atheist to really want to defend science. That is not productive, and also demonstrably false. They're the radical fringe that says "you must destroy religion to defend science," and I consider them no more defensable than the religious who say "you must destroy science to defend religion."

— PZ Meyers

Nobody has said that. I'm probably the most recklessly brutal atheist in the PT crew, and I haven't said that. I do think religion is a waste of time, a lot of empty noise, but I certainly recognize that many of the most respected defenders of science have also been religious.

What that kind of thing really is is a routine attempt to demonize atheists and treat them as a "radical fringe" that undermines science. It's very annoying. Stop it. You see, many other respected defenders of science have been atheists.

I would also add that while you certainly can find a fringe of atheists who say stupid things---atheism is not a cure for stupidity---it is the dominant strains of theism in this country that are advocating anti-science. It's also annoying to put words in the mouths of a small minority of atheists and make them the enemy, when the problem lies in a prominent majority of theists.

Again it appears I know more than you do and more than you say I do. Your examples don't show what you believe or pretend they show. The CTNS look like professional apologists and people who carefully keep their hats separate. The Templeton prize is similarly a joke to encourage more dishonesty by holding up as an example the most prominent intellectually dishonest person who fits the apologetics agenda.

I like SEF's approach in many ways.

Do we mean logically incompatible, or practically incompatible? If we insist on the former, then past a certain degree we're demanding more consistency than we often find in other domains - from the morals/ethics example to more banal cases. Perhaps there are two debates here: can evolution and [religion] co-exist sustainably, and can evolution and [religion] be combined in a coherent fashion. Or something

Weisberg had a lot of wiggle room with "Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief,"

But then he tossed this up:
"but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well)"
That takes more than a simple assertion (and even if Weisberg is correct about Darwin - click the link ts has - that's of little relevance.

ts - I really like Zimmer's writing. Darn, I now have to dig up a biography of Darwin . . . the more I find out about the man, the more impressed I am.

and yes, SEF's saying there *is* a conflict. I really like the point about roles . . .
We have to look at people's real behavior here.

fundamentalists on both sides --- atheism and Christianity --- have, for the last 100 years, used evolution as a club to beat up on the other side.

It is too, if the assertion is a matter of faith.

It's called reality, Rob, and, as is typical, you are misrepresenting it again.

For those who believe the Bible is literally true, evolution contradicts their belief system.

Yes, those people have a lot more problems with all aspects of reality than they do merely with evolution.

The improbable or plainly impossible beliefs of the various religions are not random fantasies. For example, they always have a law-enforcement function. People get upset when they notice that bad things happen to good people, but they get livid when good things happen to bad people; and they are rightly frightened by what they find in their own black hearts. Absent hellfire, what prevents them from acting on their antisocial impulses? That's a lot of what God's for, sociologically speaking; and if the answer isn't very satisfactory from a philosophical point of view, you've got to admit that the question is serious. Arguments about atheism and religion that act as if what's at stake is the true or falsity of a few propositions miss a crucial angle.

Note that God is not the only way to enforce a moral world order against the evidence. The law of karma plays the same role in Buddhism. Like Yahweh, the Dharma can only be known by revelation or supernatural insight, which is to say there's no cogent evidence for it either. On the other hand since the machinery doesn't have to real in order to function, the imaginary status of divine things doesn't matter very much except to a tiny minority of people who care about factual knowledge.

Neither are dreams entirely random fantasies. They are based on other cultural things - hence demons and witches becoming alien abduction. Lying to people by making up a religion to get them to do what you want has the same sort of dubious ethics as a doctor knowingly giving a placebo. The difference is that some of us now agonise about these issues a bit more openly rather than taking a simplistic ends-justifies-the-means approach.

"That said, the idea that evolution is completely compatible with all religions is demonstrably false: For those who believe the Bible is literally true, evolution contradicts their belief system"
I would agree with one big caveat: like species, religions aren't fixed and immutable. There is variation and change. Certainly, evolution is not compatible with specific *varities* of religion. You basically say this with "for those who believe . . ." but just reminding myself . . .

Why *does* evolution* get beat on? (to repeat that question)? SEF's suggestions make sense, but I think there's more. Is (like over at the Pharyngula thread) that it touches directly on the people are special bit?

ts,

Yes, you are punchy. Yes, you should get some sleep. You seem to want to pick an argument with everything anyone says, including people like me who strongly agree with you on the important issues being discussed here. I hold no particular brief to defend Weisberg, and I don't agree with everyone he said in his piece myself, but this "it was wasps, not evolution" argument is just juvenile nitpicking.

By the way, the difference beween religion = membership in a community with shared rituals, endogamy, and enforced moral rules and religion = purely personal choice of a set of ideas explains why it is possible to maintain both that religion is in deep decline and religion is undergoing a revival.

Absent hellfire, what prevents them from acting on their antisocial impulses? That's a lot of what God's for, sociologically speaking; and if the answer isn't very satisfactory from a philosophical point of view, you've got to admit that the question is serious. Arguments about atheism and religion that act as if what's at stake is the true or falsity of a few propositions miss a crucial angle.

Dan S:

I agree that the Gallup poll is ambiguous, but I think the totality of the evidence regarding public opinion on evolution and religion, or more specifically traditional forms of theism like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, seriously undermines, rather than supports, your "no conflict" view. And the evidence from expert scientific opinion undermines it even more strongly. The low rates of theism and religiosity amoung scientists themselves suggest a serious conflict, and the results of the the Cornell Evolution Project, which asked professional biologists about their beliefs regarding the compatibility of evolution and religion explicitly, confirm this conclusion. I agree with Weisberg that the conflict isn't really subtle or arguable at all; it's pretty obvious from even a cursory comparison between the claims of theism and the nature of the world as revealed to us by science, and that's why only a small fraction of scientists share your "no conflict" position.

I think there's more ... that it touches directly on the people are special bit?

Why *does* evolution* get beat on? (to repeat that question)? SEF's suggestions make sense, but I think there's more. Is (like over at the Pharyngula thread) that it touches directly on the people are special bit?

Don P., I don't see any reason to be so agressive - Jim's not making an obscurantist claim via an abusive use of language - indeed, he's setting out a valuable division, and *describing* (I believe) claims. And it doesn't sound like ts is just picking arguments, either.

The wasp/evolution thing doesn't seem like nitpicking at all. It's almost the only evidence Weisberg gives that evolution *does* undermine faith in any broad sense. Carl Zimmer's post at the Loom provides a much more complicated and rather different account. It's quite possible that these things combined to shape his views - Paley's vision of a happy world perfectly designed by a benevolent God overthrown, turning out to be neither perfectly designed nor happy, a world where organisms were ceaselessly locked in a Malthusian struggle, and beloved daughters died in childhood. Indeed, in reply to a letter asking about religion, he wrote: "This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one whereas . . . the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have developed through variation and natural selection." (quoted in Pennock's Tower of Babel, p.70). But that's not what Weisberg says.

[The wasps were a really bad example, though, because they span both things, so you have a point . . .]

"The low rates of theism and religiosity amoung scientists themselves suggest a serious conflict."
They are suggestive, . Some new study out of Rice University found that among natural scientists generally, abouy 38% (weird) claimed not to believe in God, with 41% of biologists not believing; on the other hand, only about 31% of social scientists didn't believe (they were surprised by the lower number, who knows why). The Cornell Project* would* seem to confirm that evolutionary bio was being swamped by other sub-disciplines, with much higher numbers among the evolutonary biologists. All I can say is that scientists aren't philosophers or theologians.

Dan S:

Weisberg refers to Darwin's "discoveries," which would presumably include the parasitic wasps that Darwin discussed in support of his agnosticism. It isn't merely the existence of evil in some general sense that Darwin found inconsistent with an "omnipotent and beneficent deity," it's the cruel nature of natural selection itself.

As for the Rice University study, your link is to a short news report that provides almost no information about what the scientists were actually asked, so I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the statement that "nearly 38 percent of natural scientists ... said they do not believe in God." If the questions defined God in a broad sense that would include some form of philosophical deism then it wouldn't surprise me if the rate of disbelief was much lower than that found by the Cornell study or Larson and Witham's NAS study, nor would that result support your "no conflict" position, because we're not talking about the God of deism here. We're talking about the religious God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other traditional forms of theism, a God that is generally posited to be benevolent, omnipotent and in some sense involved in and attentive to human affairs.

Evolution is still (relatively) new

"So, unless the Americans never really got it at all (beyond some tiny minority say), something else must have set them off into creationist fantasies again later."

I'm not familiar with the literature - pulling stuff out my behind, I'd say the popularity probably relates to specific intersections of cultural wars and political aims - anti-social darwinism the first round, opposition to the "'60s" the rise of right wing fundamentalists, and reaganite right for the second, and now, I dunno - rightwingers again?. But I don't know what started each going - in that second wave, YEC creation'science' has its roots in the 50s, I think? So . . .[shrug]. I have to read some more . .

You know, I'm not sure how to take that wasp quote. I have to . . .yeah, read some more . .

Yes, you are punchy. Yes, you should get some sleep. You seem to want to pick an argument with everything anyone says, including people like me who strongly agree with you on the important issues being discussed here. I hold no particular brief to defend Weisberg, and I don't agree with everyone he said in his piece myself, but this "it was wasps, not evolution" argument is just juvenile nitpicking.

— Don P

What I DID SAY, what I DID [BLEEP] SAY, and still stand by, is that those who insist that atheism is a prerequisite for being a good, intelligently respectable, and thoughtful scientist are a radical fringe.

— Rob Knop

Rob Knop: What we are dissing is the notion that you must be an atheist to really want to defend science. PZ Myers: Nobody has said that. Rob Knop: HELLO? Have you READ the discussion? They very beginning of the whole thing comes from an article entitled "Evolution vs. Religion: Quit Pretending They're Compatable".

Many biologists believe the answer is to present evolution as less menacing to religious belief than it really is. ...

But let's be serious: Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief, but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well). ...

That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. ...

So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect?... One possible avenue is to focus more strongly on the practical consequences of resisting scientific reality. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, can the U.S. afford---ethically or economically---to raise our children on fraudulent biology? But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence, and the president is doing that already.

— Jacob Weisberg

Weisberg refers to Darwin's "discoveries," which would presumably include the parasitic wasps that Darwin discussed in support of his agnosticism.

It isn't merely the existence of evil in some general sense that Darwin found inconsistent with an "omnipotent and beneficent deity," it's the cruel nature of natural selection itself.

Manual trackback:

"Becoming what you most dislike" on Telic Thoughts

Anybody still here should click that telic thoughts trackback; sample
"Where have I heard this before? Oh yes, here it is:

"Naturalistic evolution is consistent with the existence of "God" only if by that term we mean no more than a first cause which retires from further activity after establishing the laws of nature and setting the natural mechanism in motion."
Phillip E. Johnson, "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", First Things (1990)

What's interesting is how ID critics for years have been talking as if Phillip Johnson's views on the relationship between evolution and religion are hopelessly wrong, yet here we find Paul the scientist saying the same as Phil the creationist."

Good job, guys! Thanks a big %^&^& lot.

No one, absolutely no one, has said that atheism is a prerequisite for being a good, intelligently respectable, and thoughtful scientist. What you "did [BLEEP] say" --- your misrepresentations and misunderstandings of what others have said --- is irrelevant.

— ts

But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence, and the president is doing that already.

— Original article:

Religion and evolution are "ccompatible" in the same way that doodling sea monsters in the blank spaces on ancient maps is compatible with cartography - it's harmless fun as long as nobody takes it seriously.... In particular, while liberal Christians are relatively science-friendly in practice because they're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either,

— Mark Barton

So you deeply appreciate "bite your lip" and his question begging false dichotomy? I myself thought that was the worst post of the bunch, short of the top article. You really should get ahold of Tim Sandefur and read what he posted -- it goes directly to why Rob's post is so wrong and so offensive.

— ts

What's interesting is how [some] ID critics for years have been talking as if Phillip Johnson's views on the relationship between evolution and religion are hopelessly wrong, yet here we find Paul the scientist saying the same as Phil the creationist."

Here are some examples:

— Rob Knop

YOU SAID THIS THING.

Dan S says: "I'd say the popularity probably relates to specific intersections of cultural wars and political aims - anti-social darwinism the first round, opposition to the "'60s" the rise of right wing fundamentalists, and reaganite right for the second, and now, I dunno - rightwingers again?. But I don't know what started each going - in that second wave, YEC creation'science' has its roots in the 50s, I think? So ...[shrug]. I have to read some more . ."

You are correct that you need to read more in this area. A good place to start would be Ronald L. Numbers' book The Creationists. As Numbers shows, creationism was birthed not just by Darwin's theory, but also by the "higher biblical critcism" that took off in the late 19th century. The latter demonstrated that the Bible also evolved; that, e.g., the Pentatuch was not authored by Moses, but rather was an amalgem, an edited collection indicating clear syncretism drawing on older, pagan mythology.

Fundamentalists in the first decades of the 20th centruy rejected both Darwinism and biblical criticism. These two disciplines powerfully challenged core beliefs about Xianity's sacred text, and gave rise to the anti-intellectualism seen today in fudnamentalist circles.

The first creationist society was established in the '30s, and there is a relatively direct line running from the individuals involved in its formation, to the present creationists.

Mona, thanks for the reference!
Now I just wish I had the time to read more . . .
Hmm, maybe if I spent a little less time writing blogcomments . . . nah . . .

There are plenty of religious scientist types (who fully accept evolution and a 14-billion-year-old Universe) whom you will tweak off. And you will play right into the hands of the creationists who want to argue against evolution on the basis that the people who support it are trying to destroy religion.

I have [bleep]ed the various naughty words in this thread. Please keep it vaguely civilized if possible.

ts to Rob: "I did not say "that atheism is a prerequisite for being a good, intelligently respectable, and thoughtful scientist" so STOP LYING."

Rob also quoted two remarks of mine in support of this and I feel misrepresented as well. My point is close to the opposite of Rob's paraphrase: given the current state of the evidence, (weak) atheism is a _result_ of being a good scientist. Moreover, I don't think that this conclusion is just me being snarky and pulling a No True Scientist argument because some people disagree with me. Every scientist I've ever read or quizzed who was to any extent conventionally religious has been quite cheerfully and openly running a double standard - one standard of evidence for work and one for Sundays (or other holy days).

the Darwinist establishment despises (yes I say despises) theistic evolution. They view theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant, who desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist, but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists (Richard Dawkins is a case in point).

No they don't despise theistic evolutionists.

Is that clear enough?

I would hope the atheist here at Pandas Thumb will comment on this statement by an un-named IDist: the Darwinist establishment despises (yes I say despises) theistic evolution.

— vile Sal

Salvador asks: "Is that true? Do atheists despise Theistic Evolutionists. Do atheists view Theistic Evolutionists as week-kneed sychophants? I'd be curious to know? Speak your mind. Tell it like you see."

I don't know who or what the "Darwinist Establishment" is, that you also wrote of, but it is true that some evolutionary scientists have stated they do not believe theistic scientists who accept the fact of evolution are intellectually consistent. Dawkins, for example. But as an undergrad I was taught Biology 101 -- including its evolutionary underpinnings -- by an Iraqi-American who was a devout Sunni Muslim. His daughter and I were friends, and he was well-respected by the rest of his dept., evolutionists all.

The mistake I think many make is assuming that because the pitbulls who defend evolution against ID/Sci-Cre often (tho hardly invariably) are non-theists who are ALSO displeased with Xian fundamentlists quite independent of origins issues, that these represent all scientists. Scientists going about their daily work simply are not concerned with the religious beliefs of their colleagues, or for that matter, of anyone else.

Evolution has long been a political issue as well as a fact of science, and politics attracts people with strong views. People who participate in heavily politicized issues are not representative of the whole body politic, including the vast, vast majority of natural scientists who long ago accepted that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

If Dawkins and others like him err in tagging support for evolution with atheism, the IDers and other creationists err in assuming a vast conspiracy in the work-a-day world of science wherein there is purported plotting to foist "materialism" on the world. Its just not that sexy. These guys/gals are just about their science.

Alas, according to people like SEF, ts, and Aureola Nominee, the theistic evolutionists are clearly defective thinkers for failing to acknowledge an evidence of absence of their deity. Of what value are defective thinkers? More importantly, of what value are defective thinkers to the Darwinist Establishment? They are place holders to respond to people like you Salvador T. Cordova.

Sal, let's talk about bamboo...

And I'm quite sure that Lenny still has some questions for you, that you haven't come anywhere close to answering.

Oh, and Sal, great timing, I've gotta say. Here you had the "evil"utionists all ripping into each other. A smart young IDiot might've just sat back on his hands and enjoyed himself. But now they're all gonna take a breather, just for the sheer pleasure of ganging up on YOU!!

Bye Sal.

I'll ask this again, because he didn't respond the first time: Sancho P. Cordova said: Comment #42729 I mean the author of Origin of Species was really versant in...information theory (NOT), Well, speaking of that, can you direct me to papers in legitimate Information Theory journals which dispute evolution? Or perhaps an Information Theory conference Dembski was invited to present at? As far as I know, the only recognized Information Theorist who has commented on Dembski's claims is David Wolpert, who said Dembski's stuff was junk. Any recognized IT scientists say otherwise, Sal?

Dan S. quoting Mark B.: "They're perfectly happy to write off as figurative any scriptural passages that look like contradicting science, that's not intellectually respectable either"

Dan S.: Why on earth not?

Mark B.: I thought I'd already explained, but to repeat: if incompatibility with modern science (or some other problem with "purity of life or soundness of doctrine") is the _only_ reason advanced for thinking a passage is figurative, then it's a retreat into unfalsifiablity, which is anti-scientific. There needs to be one or more independent lines of evidence such as textual markers of figurativeness or a compelling suggestion as to what the passage is figurative for.

In particular it can be evidence of figurativeness when a passage is incongruous or physical impossible when literally construed, but only when the incongruity would have been obvious to the author and the originally intended readers. "I am the Bread of Life" is an obvious metaphor. A talking snake is arguable - snakes don't normally talk, but the circumstances in which the snake supposedly talked were represented as rather unique and not necessarily comparable to everyday experience. Moreover, the significance of the snake is explicitly given and it's a Just So story, not a metaphor or an allegory. A six-day creation would have been utterly unremarkable as a literal claim. The possibility that the authors of Genesis thought they were in part giving a science lesson and were just plain wrong can't be lightly dismissed.

Algorithmic information theory; channel coding; coded modulation; complexity, information and entropy; complexity measures; convolutional coding; error-correcting codes; information theory and statistics; iterative decoding; LDPC codes; quantum information theory; quantum-theoretical aspects of coding; randomness and pseudo-randomness; relationships between codes and complexity; rate distortion theory; soft-decision decoding; source coding; source-channel coding; spreading sequences and CDMA; turbo codes.

Alas, according to people like SEF, ts, and Aureola Nominee, the theistic evolutionists are clearly defective thinkers for failing to acknowledge an evidence of absence of their deity. Of what value are defective thinkers?

— lurker

Oops: not acknowledging lack of evidence has nothing to do with the complaint against theists

This person, whoever he may be, corroborates ts's viewpoint: "the Darwinist establishment despises (yes I say despises) theistic evolution. They view theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant, who desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist, but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists (Richard Dawkins is a case in point)."

ts would rather use the descriptor "defective thinker", or someone who does not know how intellectual inquiry works. Oh, I understand that ts is not arguing that the theist is actually a defective person. He excuses this accusation by asserting that everyone is a defective thinker, and thus being in the norm somehow mitigates the deficiency. But, according to those like ts, given the topic at hand, theistic evolutionists just cannot think straight. After all, the complaint amongst atheists like ts is that TEists persist to believe even after acknowledging the evidence of evolution (which as Sandefur explains is synonymous for evidence of absence of evidence). How can the Darwinian Establishment value a defective thinker? Especially, if there is any truth to data cited in the recent posts, that atheists constitute a majority in evolutionary biology? It seems that TEists have an uphill battle all the way being the 2nd class citizen in Atheist country. After all, when one is told he thinks defectively about his own religion, why would he screw up the courage to debate someone like ts, much less think he has any credible voice against Creationists?

It is a good question: how do proponents of evolution science value defectively thinking Christian evolutionists?

A while ago, I noted that the whole present Creation/Evolution controversy is best thought as a solely a religious problem, a Christian problem. I thought Christians should be sorting the message out amongst themselves. I honestly failed to factor in the atheist noise making on the side. No, I am not talking about atheists who are simply defending his belief system -- presumably, a defense of atheism does not entail believing Christians are ignorant and defective thinkers. The unfortunate trend, it seems to me, is that those Christians who believe in evolution have simply been reluctant to defend their reconciliation of science and religion to others, be it rabid Creationists or atheists. Maybe they do not feel they have to, but clearly a lack of message control is sending precisely the message that the above cited anonymous poster perceives.

Looking across the recent threads sparked by Sanchez's post, I have to say that a lot of regular kibitzers on this subject are atheists. I have no hard data. But my initial perception is that the volume of atheist complaints and philosophical viewpoints simply drowns out the Christians. There is a real echo chamber effect here. Does anybody else have evidence I am wrong?

I reiterate my stance I put earlier in this thread that silencing atheists is not the solution, nor is accusing atheists of being the culprit. I was implicitly arguing for an active dialogue such that no one side of the ideological spectrum overwhelms the dialogue. Can we only rely on agnostics like Matzke to do the work of airing dirty laundry?

"It just doesn't work that way, except occasionally in overheated rhetoric when someone says "he's an idiot" instead of "he said a number of things that are clearly confused or false"."

Yes, ts. I am quite positive that you know just how that works.