Neil deGrasse Tyson is the new Carl Sagan

Indeed, the evangelical atheists have all gone crazy.

The following excerpt from the article is revealing, I think:

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of "a den of vipers."

"With a few notable exceptions," he said, "the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. "I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side," he said, "and that you generate more fear and hatred of science."

Dr. Tyson put it more gently. "Persuasion isn't always 'Here are the facts --- you're an idiot or you are not,' " he said. "I worry that your methods" --- he turned toward Dr. Dawkins --- "how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence."

Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, "I gratefully accept the rebuke."

*****

Indeed, you want to create hatred against science? Go on like that. How stupid.

We want that America falls behind in science and loses out to other nations? Evangelical atheism is the best weapon to achieve just that. Talking about shooting yourself in the foot with a nuclear bomb.

Indeed, as you pointed out, Nick, what a delusion some atheists suffer from, when they think they can convert the world to science by stomping on religion.

It's not even necessary. You can be a believer and fully embrace science -- I do.

Create awe for the natural world -- I am all for it. But that's all you need to do. Stick to science, and let all other things go the way they will go, one way or the other. In my case, awe for the natural world turned into more awe for God, for others it may turn out differently. But this is not the business of science.

Oh, I forgot, you cannot embrace science unless you embrace philosophical materialism. Yeah, we've heard that one before. If some atheists in their philosophical ignorance cannot distinguish between methodological materialism and philosophical materialim, they show that they are plain uninformed. Well, if you want to pride yourself to be a "rational" and "clear thinker", you need to be an informed thinker, first and foremost.

Seriously, Nick, you guys at NCSE might need to write a follow-up book on "Not in Our Classrooms": against promotion of atheism in science class, just like religion should not be promoted in science class, and also campaign with other means for that. I know, you guys probably will be very reluctant to do such thing, but if things continue this way, you might simply have no other choice in a few months.

And I can tell you that: big media attention will be guaranteed, and with this is almost guaranteed will be a hot new national debate about the issue, and science will have to rethink what it is and wants to be about: just science or primitive ideology.

Time to go big. Putting a little post on Panda's Thumb like your above one doesn't cut it.

How good is he at not saying "Billions and billions"? ;-)

Seriously, he is very good at what he does.

I realize that of course this post will be inundated with hundreds of replies before I return from work in 12 hours, but maybe I can squeeze one in before the deluge.

What, exactly, is the import of the term "evangelical" in the post supposed to be? Inasmuch as it means anything at all -- and I know for a fact that Nick Matzke is not echoing the "hurr, atheism = just another religion lol" crowd -- it just seems to mean "someone who wants to persuade other people that something is true".

Why should "wanting to believe true things and disbelive false things" be disparaged with such an epithet?

I know that the NCSE does an excellent job, I am just saying that the situation appears to be drastically changing. ID may not be the main enemy anymore, but Dawkins & Company who, in their clumsy materialistic philosophical ignorance and simplemindedness, are on their best way to quickly and swiftly destroy the reputation of science in their efforts to "promote" it. It may turn out to be much worse than ID ever was. The battle lines are clearly hardening, and reaction is needed.

To clarify: with "no atheism in the classroom" I meant not just direct promotion in the classroom, but also indirect, by atheism as the public face (ouch) of science.

I see no need for yet another pointless 400-post religious war, so I won't speak to that.

But I've heard Tyson on NPR a few times, and he is indeed an articulate, interesting and captivating speaker -- a worthy successor to the much-missed Dr Sagan.

Seems like we have some evangelical agnostics as well.

By the way, just in case someone wonders if I pull the idea out of my hat that atheism in the classroom is unwanted by the NCSE:

Eugenie C. Scott wrote in a 1997 article about the Pope speaking out positively about evolution:

"I suggest that one's personal beliefs should be kept out of the classroom whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever. Using the classroom to indoctrinate students to any belief or nonbelief is, first of all, a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution's establishment clause; second, it will be misleading to students who will have difficulty separating science as a way of knowing from personal philosophy; and third, it is bad strategy for anyone concerned about the public understanding of evolution."

The link was:

www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ 1480_creationists_and_the_pope39_12_22_2003.asp

but it is now broken.

(If you doubt that she said that, just type "I suggest that one's personal beliefs should be kept out of the classroom" or other parts of the quote into Google and see which link comes up.)

It's about time someone gave Dawkins the bitch-slap he deserved. I've never heard of Tyson or Konner, but if they can publicly rebuke Dawkins -- and make him like it -- I'm starting to like them already.

Here is what evangelical atheism means to me (and I may very well be one of them):

It's time to *respect* people of faith by arguing with them. Here is an example. Aboriginese have an oral tradition which says they have always lived in Australia. But genetics proves they share the same haplogroups as populations living in India and SE Asia. The Aboriginese' faith in their oral tradition has led them to a factual error.

How should a knowledgable scientist handle this if it came up in a discussion with an Aboriginal? Talk to him a sappy-sweet tone and say, "Our Western science suggests your people may be decended from others who migrated from SE Asia. Of course, science is just one way of knowing and your oral tradition is equally valid."

Bullshit.

That approach is DISRESPECTFUL to the aboriginal in question because it treats him like a child, assuming he can't handle a weighty discussion of one of his core beliefs. He's wrong, period, and scientists should say so. Nobody is served by allowing a plainly wrong belief to go unchallenged.

Creationists are wrong, and scientists should say so when ever the issue comes up. We should not be treating religious beliefs as if they are off-limits for serious challenge in polite company. I'm not advocating an approach in which we call the other person an idiot if they don't agree with us. I'm only saying we should not be shy about having such discussions.

as far as I can tell was an attempt by evangelical atheists to convert other academics to be evangelical atheists, so that eventually everyone in the U.S. will become evangelical atheists.

Seriously, Nick, you guys at NCSE might need to write a follow-up book on "Not in Our Classrooms": against promotion of atheism in science class

Wamba wrote: Strange thing; I read the entire NY Times article, and nowhere did I see mention of promoting atheism in the classroom. In fact the word "classroom" was not used in that article.

Oh, I'm sorry. Seems I've stumbled into the Uncommon Descent forums in error. I'll go back to searching for The Panda's Thumb now. Thank you.

. . . and no doubt, certain science teachers who would already be inclined to connect science to atheism, but did not do so yet, will likely be encouraged by the recent wave of "scientific" (yeah right) anti-religion campaign to actually make that connection.

Use science to teach people how to think and question using a well established mechanism in the scientific method. Evangelical atheists should understand that down the road this can only help their cause, but they seem to lack patience, which is funny because the development of science is all about patiently waiting through experiments.

While I am very sympathetic to the atheist cause (I am an atheist), bashing religion with science will indeed only turn people off of science. It will also dissuade people from looking at scientists as authority figures, which can only hurt in today's political climate.

But, the nature of an evangelical makes it impossible for them to not bash competing religions using whatever tools are at hand.

Use science to teach people how to think and question using a well established mechanism in the scientific method. Evangelical atheists should understand that down the road this can only help their cause, but they seem to lack patience, which is funny because the development of science is all about patiently waiting through experiments.

While I am very sympathetic to the atheist cause (I am an atheist), bashing religion with science will indeed only turn people off of science. It will also dissuade people from looking at scientists as authority figures, which can only hurt in today's political climate.

But, the nature of an evangelical makes it impossible for them to not bash competing religions using whatever tools are at hand.

. . . and no doubt, certain science teachers who would already be inclined to connect science to atheism, but did not do so yet, will likely be encouraged by the recent wave of "scientific" (yeah right) anti-religion campaign to actually make that connection.

That was not the point.

"with "no atheism in the classroom" I meant not just direct promotion in the classroom, but also indirect, by atheism as the public face (ouch) of science." (145852) Thus, the public face of science is (should be) very much the concern of the NCSE.

By the way, this plan gives a whole new spin to the term "delusion"

— Nick

Creationists are wrong, and scientists should say so when ever the issue comes up.

Re: comment 145876. I agree with Deepsix. A thread filled with repeated supercilious declarations by the likes of Moritz who is so fond of instructing readers where the ulimate truth is, hardly makes PT worth reading.

Deepsix and reader: instead of merely calling Moritz's comments "supercililious," and hinting that differing opinions like his have no place on this forum, why don't you try to, you know, refute them or prove them wrong? We've been happy to do that with creationists, so this shouldn't be a problem -- if you can prove him wrong, that is...

Atheists are a small minority, especially in the US. Even more so are strong atheists like Dawkins or Benneth. Atheists are practically all pro-science. While not all religious people are anti-science, almost all anti-science people are religious. Therefore, attacking atheists and labeling them with derogatory epithets like "evangelical" or asserting that they are "crazy," is hardly helpful in the struggle for ensuring science its proper status.

God is the ultimate politician: all things to all people. This Baylor research gives the basic idea of it. God has the important role of validating your opinions on controversial subjects: He agrees with you! People are brought up to associate their deepest feelings, including fears, with God and church. God's continued popularity seems assured.

Nevertheless, the God-is-a-right-winger politicians and the creationists have succeeded in provoking people to argue about God and religion. A number of thoughtful people think religion, including belief in God and the like, has major negative aspects. One certainly can not expect the latter group not to express themselves. The best place to dispute their views is Pharyngula.

How will it all play out? Only time will tell.

Deepsix and reader: instead of merely calling Moritz's comments "supercililious," and hinting that differing opinions like his have no place on this forum, why don't you try to, you know, refute them or prove them wrong?

Re: comment 145891 by Raging Bee. Everybody including Moritz may post a comment on this blog, expressing whichever views he/she adheres to. However, when a commenter repeats his notions time and time again, this is a display of superciliousness and of an inflated ego. BTW, Raging Bee: please use a spellchek. Chiao.

Mark Perakh wrote: Therefore, attacking atheists and labeling them with derogatory epithets like "evangelical" or asserting that they are "crazy," is hardly helpful in the struggle for ensuring science its proper status.

What, exactly, is the import of the term "evangelical" in the post supposed to be?

People commonly say 'evangelical atheist' when they actually mean 'hostile atheist'. I presume that these people don't actually mean to say that atheists, unlike believers of different philosophies, should not promote their beliefs. Criticising someone as being an 'evangelical atheist' gives just this impression though. A little more caution when choosing words is in order.

If the discussions were heated, and Dawkins "rebuked", it hardly looks like a session devoted to making all Americans "evangelical atheists". And although I doubt it was Dawkins' intention, I think he has diverted IDists considerably from their PR about ID being science, toward nakedly religious attacks upon atheism.

ID woke a lot of (generally irreligious) scientists up to the fact that constantly making room for religion has not produced a great deal of respect for science. So they get together and take the gloves off, after a good couple of decades when their opponents had their gloves off and were fighting science to its very core (conservative) epistemology. What is wrong with that?

Many religions have accommodated science, however well or poorly. Many religious people have taken on science as if it were demonic and already militantly atheistic. The idea that somehow science is going to lose out because some few scientists have decided to take the anti-science side at their word---that science is opposed to their idiotic religious assumptions---is more than a little absurd. Religion has been long coddled, and it is time to point out that some religions are simply wrong and dishonest (or that they all are, but I myself have never gunned at those who simply add superfluous concepts without denying solid science and good epistemology).

Basically, promoting any idea, including rabid-bat religions, is okay in America---oh, except for atheism. Get out there and say the obvious, that God has no clothes, body, or mind, and you're the bad guy. What is the rationale for that?

Tyson's fine (I watched a bit of ScienceNow (Nova), he being the moderator), however it's absurd to call him the "next Sagan". Sagan was definitely more nuanced in his atheism than is Dawkins (or PZ), yet he did a good job of showing how much better science was than religion at dealing with the wonders of the universe. Tyson himself appears to do well at revealing the power and strength of science, however he shies away from doing the obvious, demonstrating that science does a much better job than do the old ways, including religion and scholasticism.

What might soften the edges of science's inevitable conflicts with religion would be to show how the ideas of "material" evidence eclipsed superstition, including in the minds of most religious folk. That persecution of witches ended when religious people realized (among other things) that real evidence for witchcraft didn't exist. That no one would wish to be tried according to the "tenets" of ID, indeed, that justice demands the use of science to the exclusion of "the Satan did it at the witch's behest", or "God did it".

Xian people might be put on the side of science if one were adept at tapping into Xian beliefs in reason, as opposed to superstition.

What I'm saying is that the epistemology of science has to be upheld over any other way of looking at "the material world", at least whenever factual claims come into play. I don't see Tyson doing this as he should. Indeed, one ought to appeal to the rational side of Xianity, to put at least some Xians onto our side prior to asking them to use science to answer questions of origins. Yet the superiority of science's methods needs to be made clear.

The atheists let off a little pent-up steam for once? Who cares? They've been attacked as evangelical atheists for a long time, which is what has prompted them (some of them) to for once act like militant atheists. They need some emotion in order to act upon their realization that superstitious sorts still want to repeal the Enlightenment.

Militant atheism will not be what mainly wins the day for science, of course. But it's well past time that the dullards who mistake Darwin and Lewontin for being "militant atheists" finally learn what real religion haters are like.

It is thanks to people like Dawkins that such a solid Xian evolutionist (if cosmological superstitionist) like Collins is actually praised over on UD. A few militant atheists might make Ken Miller look pretty good to religionists, and cause them to realize that science does not automatically destroy religion (though I think it does eat away at it). The mix of some genuinely militant atheists with a spectrum of non-believers and believers has done a fairly good job of gutting ID.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

It's interesting to watch Tyson at this conference. While he's certainly a great speaker and easy to listen to, he actually has more of an evangelical demeanor than anyone else there, especially with his arms movements and speaking style.

However, I do think that those who think that they need to "replace" religion with science show a fervor that can be called nothing but "evangelical", and yes, I do think their efforts are "crazy" - or otherwise entirely delusional. And those efforts are indeed hardly helpful in the struggle for ensuring science its proper status.

However, I do think that those who think that they need to "replace" religion with science show a fervor that can be called nothing but "evangelical", and yes, I do think their efforts are "crazy" - or otherwise entirely delusional. And those efforts are indeed hardly helpful in the struggle for ensuring science its proper status.

The new feature we are seeing in the eternal atheism/theism debate is a pretty systematic campaign attacking (1) moderate religion that knows its scientific limits and (2) moderate science that knows its metaphysical limits.

But, the main point of the post is that there is a clear path away from this, which is Tyson's approach in this talk.

Seriously, Nick, you guys at NCSE might need to write a follow-up book on "Not in Our Classrooms": against promotion of atheism in science class, just like religion should not be promoted in science class, and also campaign with other means for that.

I know, you guys probably will be very reluctant to do such thing,

but if things continue this way, you might simply have no other choice in a few months.

Glen Davidson wrote: Basically, promoting any idea, including rabid-bat religions, is okay in America---oh, except for atheism. Get out there and say the obvious, that God has no clothes, body, or mind, and you're the bad guy. What is the rationale for that?

It is thanks to people like Dawkins that such a solid Xian evolutionist (if cosmological superstitionist) like Collins is actually praised over on UD. A few militant atheists might make Ken Miller look pretty good to religionists, and cause them to realize that science does not automatically destroy religion.

Comment #145903 Posted by jeffw on November 22, 2006 11:14 AM (e) | kill It's interesting to watch Tyson at this conference. While he's certainly a great speaker and easy to listen to, he actually has more of an evangelical demeanor than anyone else there, especially with his arms movements and speaking style.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the new Carl Sagan

Y

A

W

N

I have no problem if someone attacks religion. I can stomach that. However, I do have huge problems if someone does it in the name and under the pretense of science, or claims that religious scientists are less scientists that materialistic scientists

(as if methodological materialism and philosophical materialism were the same - if my hammering on that distinction makes me sound supercilious to some, so be it).

Alas, most atheists cannot disinguish between "outside the realm of science" and "unscientific". Yes, I am angry when those two things are treated as being the same. Not everything is science.

Knowledge that your wife or family loves you is not scientific either, but that does not make it "unscientific" --- it is simply outside science.

Sure, I agree that the notion, held by some religions, that the earth is 6,000 years old, is unscientific. But brushing over all religions as if they were all the same is not helpful --- a lot of mainstream religions agree to evolution and a universe that is 14 billion years old.

However calling Collins a "cosmological superstitionist" (as if all religion can easily be labeled superstition)

makes demands for a more nuanced use of the terms "evangelical" and "militant", when it comes to atheists, ring exceedingly hollow. I guess we all need to be more careful with our words.

It's interesting to watch Tyson at this conference. While he's certainly a great speaker and easy to listen to, he actually has more of an evangelical demeanor than anyone else there, especially with his arms movements and speaking style.

Excellent -- if he talks about science -- and the wonders of the Universe -- at a church-sermon, maybe the flock will listen and understand.

My $.02:

I like the notion that "outside the realm of science" and "unscientific" should not be confused. This is yet another form of what I have long viewed as the source of the religion/science conflict, and that is the failure to distinguish between objective and subjective. This failure is mostly (but not exclusively) found on the religious side, and finds another manifestation in the notion that one of the hallmarks of adulthood is the ability to distinguish between reality (objective) and fantasy (subjective). The Bible says "..when I became a man, I put away childish things," but religion in general and Christianity in particular often insists that religious concepts (e.g. God) are objective rather than subjective. I am in complete agreement with Glen regarding "those who simply add superfluous concepts," as long as those superfluous concepts are recognized as being subjective. (I am having difficulty imagining a superfluous concept of this sort that could be realistically construed as being objective.) The first step towards ridding the world of dangerous fundamentalism is the recognition that religious views are subjective.

And, by the way, Sagan never actually uttered the words "billions and billions," at least not in Cosmos, if ever. He did have a funny way of saying "billions" but I don't believe he ever said it redundantly.

For example, after this quotation he deals effectively, if less than forcefully, with the objection that introducing a supernatural designer violates Occam's razor, too, and notes that "it could be argued, however, that the Big Bang itself seems to point strongly toward a Creator." His appeal to the Big Bang and the fine-tuned cosmos form two of his key design arguments. (The third, discussed below, looks at the moral law found across cultures and the fact of human altruism, features that Darwinism fails to explain but which are explained well by the claim that humans were created in the image of God.)

continuing from above:

I wish Collins would simply believe in a "God beyond science", but unfortunately he tries to argue like David Heddle did in the past on PT, that unknown probabilities are default evidence for God (though with Heddle it was strangely evidence but not "science", in his mind).

I appreciate Collins's efforts to support science related to his specialty, however I wish he would support scientific epistemology where the cosmos is concerned as well. I believe that the term "cosmological superstitionist" (there's that thing about morality, too) is well-earned by Collins.

Fortunately, he probably does much more good for science in promoting its methods in the area of his competence than he does harm in substituting superstition for science in the area of his incompetence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Science began to accelerate when it did one important thing, which was to jettison the medieval philosophies which posited a God "outside of science". This is how and why science is used as a basis for denying religion, that it had to deny the philosophical basis for theology in order to advance.

Excuse me, but the "medieval philosophies" that were jettisoned involved a God (and demons) actively intervening to cause plagues, crop-failures, and everything else that science has since managed to explain. Scientists didn't "jettison" the "God outside of science," they embraced it, either because their discoveries led them to it, or, at least, to "prove" they weren't atheists.

So no, science does not have to "deny the philosophical basis for theology in order to advance."

Science began to accelerate when it did one important thing, which was to jettison the medieval philosophies which posited a God "outside of science". This is how and why science is used as a basis for denying religion, that it had to deny the philosophical basis for theology in order to advance.

Excuse me, but the "medieval philosophies" that were jettisoned were not about "God outside of science," but about a God (and demons) actively intervening in the world to create plagues, crop-failures, bad weather, and all those other things that science has since explained without resort to "goddidit." "God outside of science" was not jettisoned; in fact, it was, and is, the corner into which theists have been painted by science; and, at least, "proof" that science was not denying God altogether.

So no, science does not have to "deny the philosophical basis for theology in order to advance."

...But I don't think that science is as limited as you make it out to be, and a good psychologist ought to be able to make an informed judgment regarding the love of one for another if the subject is willing.

Such informed judgements as I've seen so far involve, not only scientific understanding, but other forms of understanding outside of strict methodological naturalism -- including spirituality. Furthermore, it is this "non-scientific" component of the psychologist's understanding that makes his informed judgements relevant and understandable to the non-scientific patient.

Crap -- I thought my first post didn't make it, so I typed up another, and now they're both here. My god, man, I'm an ARTISTE -- how can I create under such horrid conditions?!

Glen Davidson wrote: By your use of the word "materialistic", is there, can there be, any scientist that is not "materialistic"? Are Miller and Collins any less "atheistic" or more "materialistic" than Dawkins when they're doing science? IOW, what could religion add to their science?

Excuse me, but the "medieval philosophies" that were jettisoned were not about "God outside of science," but about a God (and demons) actively intervening in the world to create plagues, crop-failures, bad weather, and all those other things that science has since explained without resort to "goddidit."

Medieval Philosophy, in keeping with Augustine's decisive move, strove to unite two different stances toward God. He was 1) a being, in fact the highest being; 2) as the successor to the neo-Platonic One, He was "beyond being." The question is thus whether God is immanent to Being or transcendent to it. The link with the DivineNames problematic should be clear. In so far as He is "beyond being," God resists discussion in any mundane language oriented to discussing the properties of beings. Explicating the God of Scripture, the highest being, with the Neoplatonic One/Good will thus always run the risk of 1) removing any personality from God by pushing Him too far "beyond being"; or 2) distorting the transcendence of God by use of mundane metaphors.

"God outside of science" was not jettisoned; in fact, it was, and is, the corner into which theists have been painted by science; and, at least, "proof" that science was not denying God altogether.

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: "The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency" (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)."

So no, science does not have to "deny the philosophical basis for theology in order to advance."

...But I don't think that science is as limited as you make it out to be, and a good psychologist ought to be able to make an informed judgment regarding the love of one for another if the subject is willing.

Furthermore, it is this "non-scientific" component of the psychologist's understanding that makes his informed judgements relevant and understandable to the non-scientific patient.

Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest.

[NYTimes:] His[Konners'] response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. "I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side," he said, "and that you generate more fear and hatred of science."Dr. Tyson put it more gently. "Persuasion isn't always 'Here are the facts --- you're an idiot or you are not,' " he said. "I worry that your methods" --- he turned toward Dr. Dawkins --- "how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence." Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, "I gratefully accept the rebuke." [#145852] ID may not be the main enemy anymore, but Dawkins & Company who, in their clumsy materialistic philosophical ignorance and simplemindedness, are on their best way to quickly and swiftly destroy the reputation of science in their efforts to "promote" it. [#145870] It's about time someone gave Dawkins the bitch-slap he deserved. I've never heard of Tyson or Konner, but if they can publicly rebuke Dawkins --- and make him like it --- I'm starting to like them already.

What Russell said.

Your comment would not have been necessary, had you not broken up my sentence. Anyway, you ask: Are Miller and Collins any less "atheistic" [ ... ] than Dawkins when they're doing science?

This suggests that also you do not sufficiently distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. That things work according to natural law does not in itself imply atheism, not even "atheism while doing science".

If Miller and Collins use methodogical naturalism in their science they are not "atheistic", but simply trust that the laws of nature work like they do --- with scientific precision --- because they are created by God this way.

Methodological naturalism in their case, just like in the case of an atheist doing science, simply appreciates the regularity and the self-sufficiency of the natural laws without expecting extraordinary divine intervention (i.e. intervention that suspends the laws of nature) in the unfolding of the material world now and then (unlike ID does).

Naturalism can then become a method, because nature works according to law --- only fixed laws, not whimsical ones, allow methodological exploration.

However, since Miller and Collins believe that these natural laws were created by God in their regularity and self-sufficiency, their methodogical naturalism does not translate into philosophical naturalism: they believe in a God that transcends nature, but makes nature what it is.

For an atheist, on the other hand, there is nothing beyond nature. For him/her the laws of nature work like they do, simply because they are what they are, and there is nothing beyond them that made them what they are: philosophical naturalism.

I thought I would not have had to spell it out as explicitly as I did, but your remark made me doubt that this was unnecessary.

So I tell you that I don't even accept "naturalism", and you blithely repeat the charge that following the "laws of nature" is philosophical naturalism.

But, the main point of the post is that there is a clear path away from this, which is Tyson's approach in this talk.

It took Tyson two minutes into his talk before he said the word "cosmos", he's going to have to cut that time in half if he wants to be a proper Sagan.

Russell: I've described my problems with Dawkins in my own blog, in two entries that are now WAY down the list. In short, he over-generalizes about "religion" and "supernaturalism," as if all such beliefs could be treated as one and the same; and trashes religious moderates with the lamest guilt-by-association tactic I've ever heard.

AS I've repeatedly admitted on Ed Brayton's blog, my opinions of him are based entirely on what he said in an interview with Salon, and on similar comments in a Wired article on atheism.

I have not read any of his books, because based on his interview comments, his opinions on religion are ignorant, bigoted, and not worth my time. If I've misunderstood Dawkins' thoughts based on his words, it's Dawkins' fault, not mine.

I have not read any of his books, because based on his interview comments, his opinions on religion are ignorant, bigoted, and not worth my time. If I've misunderstood Dawkins' thoughts based on his words, it's Dawkins' fault, not mine.

Glen Davidson wrote: No, there is no assumption of "self-sufficiency" of the "laws" in the thoroughly scientific scientist. You're sneaking in theological concepts into this discussion, even as you claim to accept science on its own terms.

And again you show your misconceptions of what science is. "Laws of nature" is a human construct, meaning that no one can say that there is nothing beyond them. Which is why science has indeed gone beyond so-called "laws of nature", looking for particles that give rise to mass ("material", more or less) and thus to "laws" of motion, etc. The second "law" of thermodynamics is another area where the "law" has been largely explained, and exists today as more of a high probability of increasing entropy rather than as a "law".

I have not read any of his books, because based on his interview comments, his opinions on religion are ignorant, bigoted, and not worth my time. If I've misunderstood Dawkins' thoughts based on his words, it's Dawkins' fault, not mine.

Of course the laws of nature (or the principles of nature, or whatever) are self-sufficient if they work on their own. What are you talking about?

And again you show your misconceptions of what science is. "Laws of nature" is a human construct, meaning that no one can say that there is nothing beyond them. Which is why science has indeed gone beyond so-called "laws of nature", looking for particles that give rise to mass ("material", more or less) and thus to "laws" of motion, etc. The second "law" of thermodynamics is another area where the "law" has been largely explained, and exists today as more of a high probability of increasing entropy rather than as a "law".

As for the rest of your post, good grief, I won't even reply.

Of course it is easy to claim that "my entire view of science is flawed": if you want to run the discussion that easily, I will gladly have you the last word, be my guest.

I am confident that the few moderate people who read it will find my post entirely reasonable.

"Why do people not actually read what is written?" Indeed.

People commonly say 'evangelical atheist' when they actually mean 'hostile atheist'. I presume that these people don't actually mean to say that atheists, unlike believers of different philosophies, should not promote their beliefs. Criticising someone as being an 'evangelical atheist' gives just this impression though. A little more caution when choosing words is in order.

...But I don't think that science is as limited as you make it out to be, and a good psychologist ought to be able to make an informed judgment regarding the love of one for another if the subject is willing.

Glen,

whatever. Not worth my time. And no, Dembski is not a moderate.

Al

So...I base my opinion on Dawkins on what he actually said, and freely admit the limits of my knowledge of Dawkins' work, and honestly explain the reasons for my limited reading...and that makes me wrong...how?

I don't read Dawkins' books for the same reasons I don't read Ann Coulter's: what I've heard of those two inspires (to put it charitably) no trust in what either of them have written. So far, I've heard no evidence that I'm missing anything important in either case.

And even if Dawkins' books about religion were smarter than his comments in the interviews, I'd still be asking why he misstated his thoughts so badly in the interviews.

(Also, according to another post here on PT, Dawkins did not dispute the rebuke he received for his outspoken opinions, nor did he claim his thoughts had been misunderstood.)

If someone here were to quote a statement of Dawkins' about religion that did not square with what he said in the interviews, then that would merit another look. So far, however, that has not happened.

Maybe some friendly tech wizard could stop by, extract the Tyson lecture, put it on YouTube, and link to it in the comments.

There you go, kid:

Part 1
Part 2

Now beat it, kid.

If someone here were to quote a statement of Dawkins' about religion that did not square with what he said in the interviews...

"Will faith and dogma trump rational inquiry, or will it be possible to reconcile religious and scientific worldviews?"

A meeting discussing science and religion is only a threat to personal religion if one feel it is. Attacking the organizers using such demeaning epithet as "evangelical" or accusing them of an imaginary "plan" is no help for either science or religion.

I don't read Dawkins' books for the same reasons I don't read Ann Coulter's: what I've heard of those two inspires (to put it charitably) no trust in what either of them have written.

Dawkins seems capable of distinguishing between sets of beliefs in the excerpt quoted here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/chopra_again.php#comments.
You may still not agree with him, of course, but it does seem a trifle unfair to attack his views based on a few bits here and there cherry-picked by others to advance their own agendas.
More generally, commentators in this and other threads where the subject of "evangelical atheism" has come up seem to me to have offered very little evidence that those explicating their views, in print or on the internet, have in doing so approached anything like the behaviors of the obnoxious door-to-door "proseletyzers," or of missionaries seeking to "convert" the heathen, or of radical fundamentalists--of whatever sect or religion--who attempt to legally or physically impose their views on others, or of those who preach hellfire and eternal damnation as the price of failing to submit to this or that version of The Truth, or of those who foment violence of terror to spread the The Faith.

Attempts at verbal persuasion, which you are free to attend or not, are none of these other things. Conflating verbal persuasion with in-your-face proseletyzation, missionization, and the other, more extreme means of imposing one's views upon others is not only incorrect, and imprecise, but the silliest sort of resort to a strawman.

One may certainly argue whether scientists who unapologetically "flaunt" their atheism are--from a strategic point of view--helping or hindering acceptance of evolution and other legitimate science.

But to go beyond that is to go beyond any reasonable construction of the words or behavior of these atheist scientists.

I have not read any of his books, because based on his interview comments, his opinions on religion are ignorant, bigoted, and not worth my time.

Then what you've heard has done you a great disservice. You should certainly read The Selfish Gene. The Ancestor's Tale is a pretty good review of the modern phylogenetic tree of life; and I've heard some excellent things about The Blind Watchmaker and River out of Eden (though I haven't read the latter two.)

"the problem isn't that these people are hostile, the problem is that they proselytize."

Being hostile and arguing that another cause is better is proselytizing. No more or less than when scientists argue the qualities of science over lack of knowledge. It is their right.

I agree that it would be beneficial if one could separate science and philosophy. However, there is no clear demarcation possible. Many arxiv papers with speculations based on physics could as well be marked philosophy when they can't provide detailed testable predictions.

What one can do is state what is known, what is possible, and what is unknown. I think Dawkins makes an excellent job of that, while for example Collins don't ("A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief").

So...I base my opinion on Dawkins on what he actually said, and freely admit the limits of my knowledge of Dawkins' work, and honestly explain the reasons for my limited reading...and that makes me wrong...how?

(By the way, this plan gives a whole new spin to the term "delusion", as the skeptical anthropologist Melvin Konner pointed out in his rambling, disorganized, but ultimately wise critique of the get-rid-of-religion folks.)

I don't read Dawkins' books for the same reasons I don't read Ann Coulter's: what I've heard of those two inspires (to put it charitably) no trust in what either of them have written. So far, I've heard no evidence that I'm missing anything important in either case.

or people who are actually familiar with both will write you off.

Let's say I'm actually kind of interested in reading Dawkins' SCIENCE books. What's the difference between "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype"? From looking at their descriptions, the two books kind of sound like variations on the same idea. Is one of these books kind of a sequel to the other? Does one of them replace or update the other? If I were going to read just one which would it be, or do you need to read both to get the full picture? It kind of sounds like "The Selfish Gene" is the one that's gotten more widespread attention.

the Selfish Gene is the original work where Dawkins popularizes the generally accepted premise of selection acting on the individual, rather than the group, and by extension, makes a theoretical argument based on an analysis of various cases in the literature that phenotypes are merely expressions for increasing the ratio of a specific genotype within a given population.

It's the one to start with to understand the arguments that go into selection theory in general, as he does a great job of eloquently explaining what goes into it.

Blind Watchmaker is a bit more philosophical outlook, premised on the accptance of how evolution produces complex traits from simple processes.

I'd read this AFTER the selfish gene.

both books are excellent bits of logic applied to examples, and contain decent overviews of general theory explained so most can understand the concepts readily enough.

his prose is excellent, as well, and you will rarely find yourself skipping pages.

More generally, commentators in this and other threads where the subject of "evangelical atheism" has come up seem to me to have offered very little evidence that those explicating their views, in print or on the internet, have in doing so approached anything like the behaviors of the obnoxious door-to-door "proseletyzers," or of missionaries seeking to "convert" the heathen, or of radical fundamentalists---of whatever sect or religion---who attempt to legally or physically impose their views on others, or of those who preach hellfire and eternal damnation as the price of failing to submit to this or that version of The Truth, or of those who foment violence of terror to spread the The Faith.

Dawkins promotes rational thinking. Religious thinking is irrational.... The other point Dawkins makes, that seldom seems to be mentioned, is that forcing irrational thinking on children is child abuse.

What I do actually see as a real-world problem is people like Richard Dawkins or Francis Collins who try to use the trappings of science to promote some external religious agenda. These philosophical entanglements jeapordize the neutrality of science, and I think it's important to make it publicly clear that when people do this they're not speaking "on behalf of" science or rationality, they're just expressing their own philosophy.

tomh gave you a piece of his mind, on an internet thread.

A bit different from knocking on your door and being very difficult to send on his way.

A bit different from kicking your door in with jackboots.

Were I your kid, I'd prefer you saw to it that I learned to think for myself, examined the panoply of religious and non-religious thought, and allowed me to make up my own mind. Beyond expressing myself, however, I don't plan to interfere in your child-raising in any way. Nor, as I'm sure you realize, does tomh, whatever form of words he uses.

But even if I were tipping-tapping away on these little keys in order to send off words to your screen to label you abusive---which I am not, by the way---you'd still have the right to ignore me, scroll past me, turn to another site, all without having to eject some obnoxious person from your premises.

Likewise, it's up to you whether you want to invite Dawkins---in the form of video or words in a book---into your home. Or not.

Science allows atheism. It doesn't require it, and Dawkins doesn't claim that it does, and the Creationists' claims that he does remain lies which should be rejected by all of us.

Words aren't jackboots, or boorish doorbelling ignoramuses. Nor are they lawsuits, legislation, or theocracies backed by governmental, national, or military force.

Falling into the Creationists' invitation to conflate those things by buying into the bogus "evangelical atheists" meme should be just as revolting to you as allowing tomh to affix the child abuse label to you. Only you can allow him to do that, however, if he confines himself to words.

The scientific atheists may be verbally ardent and you are certainly within your rights to disagree with them vodiferously, but they have shown no sign that they intend to deploy anything other than words to promote their message. Theocratic fundamentalists won't be confining themselves to words. They've said so themselves, many times. That's where the danger lies, not in a confected "evangelical atheist" boogy-man.

This 'I don't like evangelists of any stripe' bit is just bizarre to me. Why on earth would someone declare a subset of philosophical beliefs unfit for promotion? I prefer to live in a bubbling cauldron of ideas, and I hold it against no one that he finds his ideas to be exemplary and worth transmitting.

The scientific atheists may be verbally ardent and you are certainly within your rights to disagree with them vodiferously, but they have shown no sign that they intend to deploy anything other than words to promote their message. Theocratic fundamentalists won't be confining themselves to words. They've said so themselves, many times. That's where the danger lies, not in a confected "evangelical atheist" boogy-man.

As I continue to be frustrated by the continued misrepresentation of "religion can be child abuse" position, I offer this link . If you want to rail, fine. Point to the specific statements that are offensive. The way I read it, "bringing your child up in your own religious tradition" isn't "child abuse" just because it's a religious tradition. But at the same time, just because it is a "religious tradition" doesn't mean it's not child abuse. Look at "Jesus Camp", for christ's sake! ;)

I think it's this sort of pronouncement--- that if I bring my children up in my own religious tradition, I am a child abuser--- that falls under the heading of "evangelical atheism". ... Certainly such pronouncements sound as obnoxious to religious ears as the Jehovah's Witnesses sound to yours.

I think it's this sort of pronouncement--- that if I bring my children up in my own religious tradition, I am a child abuser--- that falls under the heading of "evangelical atheism".

— B. Spitzer

How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican?

What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

Woo, the usual bunfight.

Rather than second guessing people, I will simply retell an experience of mine then people can "interpret" it as they see fit.

About 3 years ago I lived in a shared house of 5 people. Next door to the house was a church. For a year at least I ignored it (mainly due to laziness), then the death of my grandmother (a committed Christian) prompted me to get off my behind and attend.

The reaction amongst my housemates was intruiging. All of them were atheists/agnostics of varying degree. A couple didn't care and didn't really comment. However, the other two housemates had a very strange reaction. Without me ever bringing the subject up, they'd suddenly start conversations bashing Christianity and/or religion in general (9/11, Hitler was a Christian, all that lot). Comments that stick in the mind were as follows:

1) Christians are always ramming their beliefs down people's throats (ironic given said atheist started the religious discussion in the first place)
2) You just use your "sky pixie" as a crutch, atheists are intellectually stronger (whatever "intellectual strength" is)
3) So when are you abandoning science and becoming a creationist?

And so on...

So, I am intruiged as to why people should behave in this way without any prompting? Clearly some housemates had no issue and others had a big problem. I don't like loaded terms like "evangelical atheist", so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

No really, it's an honest question! :P

Andrew

3 years ago? I mean 6 years ago. My memory is fading in my old age *sob*

so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

This isn't evangelical atheism, or evangelical anything; it's blanket anti-evangelism.

— Anton Mates

I don't like loaded terms like "evangelical atheist", so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

— ah_mini

I've still seen no coherent refutation of the charge that religious brainwashing of children is child abuse.

so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

So, I am intruiged as to why people should behave in this way without any prompting? Clearly some housemates had no issue and others had a big problem. I don't like loaded terms like "evangelical atheist", so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

— ah_mini

So, I am intruiged as to why people should behave in this way without any prompting? Clearly some housemates had no issue and others had a big problem. I don't like loaded terms like "evangelical atheist", so what sort of atheist does the latter group fall into?

— ah_mini

The following excerpt from the article is revealing, I think: "By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of "a den of vipers." "With a few notable exceptions," he said, "the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?" His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. "I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side," he said, "and that you generate more fear and hatred of science."

— Al Moritz

However calling Collins a "cosmological superstitionist" (as if all religion can easily be labeled superstition) makes demands for a more nuanced use of the terms "evangelical" and "militant", when it comes to atheists, ring exceedingly hollow.

The phrase ultracrepidarians is more properly descriptive than evangelical atheists.

They didn't say you were wrong. They said you were dumb. You're not good enough to be wrong. And don't claim that calling you dumb is calling Christians dumb when we know you're not a Christian, you hellbound pagan. After all there may exist non-dumb Christians, or perhaps non-dumb theists, just like their may exist fairies and leprechauns, since we can't prove a negative. I would suggest the term "angry atheist," or "revolted atheist." Someone who is angry at and revolted by religion because of what they think it is doing to the world they have to live in. The statements made are not really arguments, their [sic] expressions of anger.

two one-liners in a row.

more redundant and useless than usual, RO.

This is exactly parallel to the creationist argument. Falsely claim that science is totally unable to explain a certain phenomenon; support that claim with false or unprovable assertions about the phenomenon in question; then say "Therefore, God." We're fortunate, of course, that Collins doesn't make such an argument about common descent, and in fact openly opposes any attempt to do so; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call him on it when he takes the creationist line in another area of science.

Wingless, once again making it obvious as to why he can't fly.

we had a bit of an interesting discussion on this topic a while back in the ATBC area:

Wing|ess opined... Science is anti-religious in a sense because it's a kind of journey of disillusionment

I think it's foolish to assume that we will know everything before we actually do. Breeding a group of authoritarian know-it-alls who can hardly explain why they have free will and are yet able to claim that they know the truth of the world is a worrying trend in the scientific establishment.

He probably thinks it's likely - and to him morality is proof enough for the existance of a Christian God. Now, whether morality can be explain by evolutionary theory with a convincing not the normal "co-relation exists thus the cause is proven" story remains to be seen. I do not think it's wise to assume that such an explanation will definately be found in future.

— Wing|esS

Should the tolerant be tolerant of intolerance?

I think Myers put it best in the title for the trackback below:

"That guy, Larry Moran...he seems to have been the final straw to tip a whole lot of people into twitterpated consternation"

yeah, that's how it seems from my end too, a lot of "twitterpated consternation", that is mostly reactionary and not terribly helpful to furthering discussion from any angle.

claims that Dawkins is an "evangelical atheist" are patently and logically absurd, and appear only to be reactionary to thinking that what Dawkins is doing is "preaching his own religion" which of course, he is doing nothing of the kind.

a lot of the cricism of PZ follows similar ill-logic.

Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, "The First Three Minutes," that "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless," went a step further: "Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization."

This quote, which I have heard before comes from the NYT. Regarding the universe as pointless. Time as we commonly understand it is not at all what it seems. Consciousness and autonomy are in all likelihood somewhere between non-existent and a mere shadow of how we perceive them. Freedom of will, causation, and the reality of our perceptions are likewise somewhat of a wisp-o-the-will. Despite beings a believer I generally concur that the pointlessness of it all has a very strong case.

Question therefore: It it is all (mostly pointless) what is the necessity of accepting faith or truth or beauty or virtue as anything but some sort of biological/evolutionary imperative? I myself am quite welling to consider anyone's construction of meaning. And if that construction includes a search for truth, fairplay, compassion for others I generally find their construct admirable. So why attack this religion or that, atheism, agnosticism, or another sort of system that produces nice people and nice children? (is that last item my genes slipping a little evolution in there?)

claims that Dawkins is an "evangelical atheist" are patently and logically absurd, and appear only to be reactionary to thinking that what Dawkins is doing is "preaching his own religion" which of course, he is doing nothing of the kind.

Even if you were correct, that hardly means that there are no evangelical atheists.

— PvM

And I am not sure that Dawkins is an "evangelical atheist". PZ Myers' 'response' to Ed Brayton seems to avoid the excellent points Brayton raises.

I think it is entirely reasonable for a university to say, for instance, that you need to be able to read with a certain level of competency, or know the basics of algebra, before you will be admitted to the university. In fact, I think we should enforce higher standards across the board, because what happens all the time is that unqualified students come in, fork over tuition money for a year or two, and slowly discover that they are paying a lot of money to be handed a lot of work that they are incapable of doing, and they fail. Expecting incoming students to have some minimal understanding, of the kind that is mandated by most state high school science standards, is not onerous. Expecting biology majors at UCSD to know the basics of evolution, or flunking them out, is no more dogmatic or vile than expecting math majors to know what the binomial theorem is, and kicking them out of the program if they can't do algebra.

— PZ

There are two problems with Pat's claim. First, I want better science teaching in the schools, and that is the mechanism I propose to defeat religion. Educated people tend to shed religious beliefs more readily, or adopt religious beliefs that do not conflict with reality. I really do not understand how someone can suggest that I would advocate letting people become more ignorant about the real world as part of my strategy for winning my "war on religion". Second, I'd really like to know how I'm supposed to be fighting this "war on religion". Are there guns involved? Because I don't like violence. Am I supposed to be pushing to legislate what people are allowed to believe? Because I don't think that's possible, and if it were, I'd oppose it even more strongly than violence. As near as I can tell, the way I've been fighting this "war" is to express my opinions as loudly and clearly as possible, and encourage other like-minded people to openly state their positions as well. I also insist that beliefs about religion should not be a litmus test used to discriminate against people (there is, of course, a great deal of self-interest there, since non-Christian beliefs are the ones discriminated against most).

— PZ also

(Oh, and in case you're worried: that doesn't mean we start preaching atheism in the classroom, either. I don't, and would also point and scream at someone trying to do so.)

Yes. Teach people to think, and let 'em make up their own minds. I'm confident that more, if we strip away the lies and propaganda of religion, will make a sensible decision. And if they don't, well, there isn't anything more I can do. We'll just have to chalk it up to people's inherent irrationality.

Even if you were correct,

Great. Now Collins is getting creationist endorsements. Yep, he's a great asset for the cause of science education. Sigh...

Norm, and even he doesn't espouse anything more extreme than pointing and catcalling whenever religious people make assertions of faith in the public square.

"anyone's construction of meaning"

Exactly. Purpose, meaning and free will are folk psychology, without any meaningful measurable definitions as you point out. But it is also obvious (not least from an evolutionary perspective) that such constructions aren't only convenient but often necessary. Otherwise we would not be able to act effectively or in a timely manner in real life.

The problem is when such constructs are meaningless or hurtful. Which constructs are slightly hurtful or fully meaningless is often a matter of debate...

"doing far more harm than good in following Brayton's lead"
Over on the Pharyngula thread the post-analysis is starting to converge onto the problems of Brayton's action. It is clear something must be done with education.

"educational efforts on a much larger and more fundamental scale over a much longer time period rather than Dover-type court battles- including the very efforts the "moderates" are so eager to denounce- are the only route to bringing about real change. To put it bluntly, Ed Brayton is part of the problem and Richard Dawkins is part is the solution." (Steve LaBonne)

It seems clear this case does harm. A case where Brayton's selfprofessed group keep blurring the borders between religion and science (by projecting an attack on beliefs instead of an insistence on not rejecting knowledge). It is a double failure since they are confirming what they attack - that science must be a secular practice.

A case where Brayton's selfprofessed group keep blurring the borders between religion and science (by projecting an attack on beliefs instead of an insistence on not rejecting knowledge). It is a double failure since they are confirming what they attack - that science must be a secular practice.

sceintists without God scare me......nuclear weapons, WMD's, human cloning, species mixing, euthanasia, gender/human trait selection, a little learning is a dangerous thing, science without God will destroy us faster than religious squabbles ever will, Western Civikization has done pretty well for itself with Christianity, it it aint broke dont fix it......be careful when throwing things out that have worked so well in diffcult times......some of the North Korean and Nazi scientists were very smart....too smart by half!!!!!

Great. Now Collins is getting creationist endorsements. Yep, he's a great asset for the cause of science education. Sigh...

— Robert O'Brien

"Bad company" pseudo-argumentation.

I like the idea of getting to the point where publicly being religious is as bad as publicly being a racist. They're two of many irrational beliefs that have bad consequences when they infect the group think of a culture.

— normdoering

some of the North Korean and Nazi scientists were very smart....too smart by half!!!!!

— todds cat

But I take it you don't think either should be legally punished in and of itself?

Faith healers of the type James Randi exposed are committing fraud and they should be arrested on those grounds...

"Fundamentalist atheist", "evangelical atheist". It's always fun to make up terms to demonize those whose views don't coincide with your own, and they will certainly appeal to someone who is terrified of "scientists without God" as the recent poster 'todds cat' claims to be, but these two phrases are truly ludicrous. One might as well speak seriously of "biblical science" or "christian charity". They are oxymorons, one and all.

Anyone interested in what an actual thinker has to say about atheism and evolution should read the little essay, "Atheism and Evolution," by Daniel Dennett found here, under 2006.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incpages/publctns.shtml

sceintists without God scare me

There must be some legally savvy people following this discussion. Have there been such cases? I suppose it raises some of the same issues as "Christian Science" parents refusing medical treatment for their kids. As long as the "faith healer" conceals any venal motives under a plausible piety, I bet a conviction would be hard to obtain.

— Russell

Actually, what scares me is scientists without morality. How, in a post-9/11 world, anyone can consider God or religion to be the wellspring of morality is beyond me.

Things like in that "Jesus Camp" movie do seem to qualify, to me, as something we can legally define as child abuse.

— normdoering

scientists without God scare me......nuclear weapons, WMD's,

It strikes me that if you're talking about controlling WMD's and the like, religious fervor might not be such a good thing.

Timothy McVeigh blew up a building full of kids because it was a good, godly thing to do.

McVeigh was an atheist.

There was a special on the history of McVeigh on the History channel just a couple of weeks back.

McVeigh was closely tied to a number of psuedo-militia groups that were very pissed off at what the FBI pulled at Ruby Ridge.

McVeighs stated reasons, and what the evidence pointed to, was that the Oklahoma bombing was mostly motivated as a "revenge" for Ruby Ridge, and to send a message to the Feds that they stepped over the line. I don't recall nay mention of religious motives involved in that specific case. However, you could still be right that there were religious motifs associated with the militias he was invovled with.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Um, McVeigh was an atheist.

He blew up a building full of kids because he was at war with the "Zionist Occupation Government".

Um, McVeigh was an atheist.

Um, McVeigh was an atheist. He blew up a building full of kids because he was at war with the "Zionist Occupation Government".

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Well, anyone who thinks McVeigh was a fundie can correct their misunderstanding with ten minutes of Google.

It's nice to know, though, that fundies aren't the only ones who want to re-write history.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Well, anyone who thinks McVeigh was a fundie can correct their misunderstanding with ten minutes of Google. It's nice to know, though, that fundies aren't the only ones who want to re-write history.

Nick: You've done a lot more to defend science education than this high school biology teacher probably ever will do, so I hope you know that the following criticism is not personal and comes from the heart.

Since Dover, there's been an increasing tendency for PT and similar-minded on-line communities to splinter on questions of tactics, usually triggered by a radical atheist response to some perceived apostate to science. It's sad and counter-productive, and it worries me when an NCSE associate feels they have to defend themselves from unjust criticism. That shouldn't happen.

It makes me crazy that people who agree on the importance of evolution education would start flaming each other over ideology, as some folk have done. I hope this doesn't sound impertinent, but I hope NCSE staff members will think twice before posting any item that could devolve into more schism.

We have to remember that our friends who are atheists typically have one salient virtue that many creationists lack: namely, despite how fiercely they might oppose some of our tactical choices, the vast majority would never attempt to compel us to push their viewpoint exclusively.

Respectfully submitted...SH

McVeigh was closely tied to a number of psuedo-militia groups that were very pissed off at what the FBI pulled at Ruby Ridge. McVeighs stated reasons, and what the evidence pointed to, was that the Oklahoma bombing was mostly motivated as a "revenge" for Ruby Ridge, and to send a message to the Feds that they stepped over the line. I don't recall nay mention of religious motives involved in that specific case. However, you could still be right that there were religious motifs associated with the militias he was invovled with.

Nick: You've done a lot more to defend science education than this high school biology teacher probably ever will do, so I hope you know that the following criticism is not personal and comes from the heart. Since Dover, there's been an increasing tendency for PT and similar-minded on-line communities to splinter on questions of tactics, usually triggered by a radical atheist response to some perceived apostate to science. It's sad and counter-productive, and it worries me when an NCSE associate feels they have to defend themselves from unjust criticism. That shouldn't happen. It makes me crazy that people who agree on the importance of evolution education would start flaming each other over ideology, as some folk have done. I hope this doesn't sound impertinent, but I hope NCSE staff members will think twice before posting any item that could devolve into more schism. We have to remember that our friends who are atheists typically have one salient virtue that many creationists lack: namely, despite how fiercely they might oppose some of our tactical choices, the vast majority would never attempt to compel us to push their viewpoint exclusively. Respectfully submitted...SH

OK guys! Enough with McVeigh! I admit I got that wone wrong, I though he was associated with fundie militias. I was wrong.

But my point, even if I phrased it inarticulately, was that religion isn't an automatic barometer for morality, as Todds Cat implied.

There are plenty of agnostics who do good in the world. Bill Gates describes himself as "not very religious", nonetheless, he's spent billions of his own dollars to fight disease in the third world. Regardless of what you think of his business practices, that's a pretty decent thing to do.

On the other hand, Eric Rudolph, a devout Christian, spent much of his adult life bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors.

TC's assertion was that somehow religion automatically makes you more trustworthy. My reply was meant to point out that it does no such thing. Yes, there are plenty of Mother Theresa's out there, but there's also a whole lot of Ted Haggards.

If you had your choice, who do you prefer develop the worlds next nuclear bomb, devoutly religious Iran, or virtually agnostic Sweden?

Nick: You asked what folk in your 'camp' should do when the 'camp' itself is directly attacked?

I would say three things: 1) ignore any criticism which is personal / ad hominem as unworthy of response

2) share selected bits of relevant criticism with 'on-the-fence' theists; it gives us 'street cred'

3) remind those who are caviling about tactics that we are practicing outreach, not accomodation, and challenge them to engage in outreach of their own; since most of them are not actually interested in doing the hard work of 'evolution evangelism', but just want to complain, that will pretty much neuter their complaints.

Respectfully submitted...SH

stevaroni wrote: I was wrong.

It makes me crazy that people who agree on the importance of evolution education would start flaming each other over ideology, as some folk have done.

OK guys! Enough with McVeigh! I admit I got that wone wrong, I though he was associated with fundie militias. I was wrong.

But what are we supposed to do when this position itself is being attacked by the in-your-face atheists as being craven compromise with the enemy? If we make no effort to distinguish our position, then theirs will dominate.

Ironic, since your post is attacking that scientists are freely discussing science and religion in a meeting, and calling some of them evangelical atheists. That is the most in-your-face theist oppression attitude as I've seen in a long while. Those scientists were discussing a larger context, and this post is confirming why they did so.

— Torbjörn Larsson

During Tyson's "Incompetent Design" talk:

"That's the universe. Then Earth! Volcanoes, tsunamis...floods, tornadoes...none of this is any sign that there's a benevolent anything out there."

This is because he is not familiar enough with the philosophical basis for theology. If he were more up to speed on the theological arguments then he wouldn't be talking like such a Mr. smartypants. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that anyone would pay any attention to him on anything he has to say regarding religious matters. Obviously he knows as little of theological philosophy thingies as Mr. Dawkins does. Shocked I tell you. Stop denying the philosophical basis for theology Mr. Tyson!

Anton:
Thank you for your report - I didn't take the time to listen so it is appreciated.

"And so it's a plausibility argument; I wouldn't call it a scientific experiment. But in science you always have to make a judgment as to what is sensible, given the information, and what is not."

Hmm. And I just claimed that such judgment calls on gods were considered outside science of today on another PT thread. Apparently not everyone would agree.

Hmm. And I just claimed that such judgment calls on gods were considered outside science of today on another PT thread. Apparently not everyone would agree.

— Torbjörn Larsson

DEFINITELY OFF TOPIC BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS AND GALS WOULD BE INTERESTED

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/opinion/28tue1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials

The Bush administration has been on a six-year campaign to expand its powers, often beyond what the Constitution allows. So it is odd to hear it claim that it lacks the power to slow global warming by limiting the emission of harmful gases. But that is just what it will argue to the Supreme Court tomorrow, in what may be the most important environmental case in many years.

A group of 12 states, including New York and Massachusetts, is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to properly do its job. These states, backed by environmental groups and scientists, say that the Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by new cars. These gases are a major contributor to the "greenhouse effect" that is dangerously heating up the planet.

The Bush administration insists that the E.P.A. does not have the power to limit these gases. It argues that they are not "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.

If anyone still reads this thread, there's some new Neil deGrasse Tyson comments on UnDe:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1847

Quite a bit of irony there. Tyson seems to believe (incorrectly, to judge by Krauss' response) that Krauss is an "evangelical atheist" who wants a 100% conversion rate, he makes an argument on the implausibility of that, and as a result Dembski decides that Tyson wants a 100% conversion rate. Discuss this topic long enough and someone'll call you a fundie, no matter what you actually say...

Interestingly, it does look like Tyson, unlike most of the other attendees, views religious feelings as often harmful to good scientific practice. He spent a while talking about various scientists whose religion eventually became an obstacle to their research. By contrast, at least when I've heard Dawkins talk about that issue, he tends to trust scientists to compartmentalize or diminish their beliefs enough so that they don't become a problem.

What people hate about Richard Dawkins is that he show that irrational belief makes no sense. If people want to believe in something for which there is absolutely not one shread of evidence, then they can do so. But don't try to tie it in with science or rational thinking.

Is is just as rational to think Krishna or a fairy did it as Jesus of the generic gawd.