The Holy Wars, part MMMCXXVII: a small correction on Scopes

I think there is a lot of personal misunderstanding on both sides. I don't think PZ realizes that a lot of his statements and claims go beyond the scientific and get into all sorts of sneering at religion for its own sake. And I don't think others are fair to the actual arguments people like Miller, Dawkins, and PZ actually make, which aren't so much about getting rid of religion, but rather "it's simply not appropriate for religious claims to be awarded a special merit badge of protection from criticism, or be granted a reverent authority, simply because they are religious in nature."

Nick, your analysis is very good. Scopes lost the case, and the ACLU lost the appeal it wanted (one might argue that the Tennessee Supreme Court saw what it was up against and deflected the case, but the result is the same).

At the same time, I worry that there is something to Myers' complaints, and it is this: Reason should prevail, and the opposition makes an attractive case (to many faithful) that reason isn't good. With enough converts to that philosophy, the institutions we depend on to hold up our freedoms are endangered.

I would quibble with PZ, though, about the harms of religious belief, and my quibble is at the heart of my previous concern. I don't see this as a "Biblical worldview vs. a naturalistic world view" debate. As a Christian, I find that creationists generally do not represent any sort of a Christian world view at all. They endorse yahoo-style attacks on reason and reality, they support and cheer arguments that are based in falsehoods -- that's not a Biblical world view in any way.

I don't think religion is the enemy of science. But non-reason is an enemy of science, and it's an enemy of religious freedom, too. It's an enemy of education, and it's destructive to the foundation of our civilization's institutions. Religious people who defend non-reason as a rational position, or even as an irrational but valid, religiously-acceptable position, need to be challenged, directly, constantly, and seriously.

Rationality may be hard work. But irrationality is the quick path to disaster. I'm not anxious to negotiate with wackoes who argue for the quick path to disaster, and then claim to be doing the opposite.

Religious people who defend non-reason as a rational position, or even as an irrational but valid, religiously-acceptable position, need to be challenged, directly, constantly, and seriously.

There's a big problem with on the one hand recognising that irrationality is a hige problem but not acknowledging that religion, in virtually all its forms, not only endorses irrationality but makes it a virtue -- the most virtuous of virtues in fact. This is Dawkins' main point, I think, in The God Delusion and I agree with it.

3. The public, and the judges they indirectly select, will ultimately come down on our side as long as the issue is our real, religiously-neutral science (which, conveniently, is constitutional), versus the creationists' narrow religious views being disguised as science.

I think the debate is over what constitutes coming down on "our side". If I understand correctly, Myers, Dawkins et al would say that, if the masses just say "OK, so creationism can't be taught in schools" and go back to reading their horoscopes in the local tabloid, that does not constitute an overall victory for "our" side. The battle is over hearts and minds and the scientific method; trials about specific issues such as creationism are merely a means to that end.

On that front, the argument looks a lot less clear-cut. Whilst arguments against creationism are far easier to make stick than a general attack on irrationality, it could be argued that a strong positive stance is better able to gain converts than a disparate coalition aimed at the negative task of stopping creationism. "Reason rocks" is IMO a more attractive message than "creationism sucks", and in practice I usually find I get the best responses to a pro-science rather than an anti-creationism rant.

To be honest, I'm not sure who has the best arguments here. It'll be interesting to see how this thread develops.

Nick is in error if he really thinks that "Eventually evolution got back into the schools" after Scopes. De facto, if not de jure, the traditionalists won the battle to get evolution out of high school curricula. To this day, the cowardice of school boards and the avarice of textbook publishers have ensured that coverage of evolution at the secondary level will be pretty pathetic, which is one of the reasons why so few Americans, even Americans who think they are Darwinists, understand the relevant basic science.

The public debate about evolution, like every battle in a culture war, is and always will be conducted by guys in clown suits bopping each other with pig bladders. That's just the way things are. Serious science and serious philosophy are and will remain the business of a tiny and largely invisible minority. The culture wars are not politically unimportant, however, and it behooves us to don our own clown suits from time to time. Sometimes the appropriate clown suit is a village atheist outfit.

Philosophically speaking, atheism is a very uninteresting position since it amounts to making a big fuss about something obvious, i.e. that traditional religious ideas are fatuous. As Diderot pointed out long ago, "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all." Atheism, at least the sort of atheism one encounters on public access television, also promotes a version of history which is factual dubious since it endlessly recycles the same banal anthology of religious excesses (Crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions) to somehow prove that organized religion is the root of all evil, a proposition that probably gives the churches too much credit. All that admitted, however, loud and obnoxious atheism is still necessary in a country like the United States, if only to assert the right of people to dissent from the totalitarian conformism to which we are so susceptible.

The argument against public assertions of anti-religious ideas is that such language is politically unwise and will only elicit more intolerance from the religious right. In fact, however, the anguish of the believers is good evidence of the effectiveness of such polemics. They wouldn't be so loudly denounced if they didn't resonate. There's more Cotton Mather than Mark Twain in the American character, but there is some Mark Twain.

It makes a huge difference that skeptical thinking is in circulation. After all, ideas have to be publicized in order to persist since the vast majority of mankind will never find an idea in their heads that somebody didn't go to the trouble of putting there.

The argument against public assertions of anti-religious ideas is that such language is politically unwise and will only elicit more intolerance from the religious right.

1. Evolution trials are ultimately about the constitution, not about who has the right or wrong religious views.

It seems a shame to intrude on such a pleasant little exercise in self-congratulation, but let me just point out a couple of unfortunate facts.

First of all, in terms of articulating the place of evolution in biology, science, and human endeavors, I can't think of a single accomodationist who can rival Dawkins or Dennett. Dawkins' oeuvre alone is unmatched. This, I think, is a direct result of the self-consistancy of their positions. unlike, say, Collins, Dawkins does not have to invoke the miraculous, or to misrepresent the current state of evolutionary science, to accomodate religion.

And second of all, while Scopes may have been a failure in narrow, pragmatic, litigious terms, it was an enormous victory in terms of its impact on American culture, presenting the issue as one of science and intellectual freedom against theocracy and superstition. And let's also remember McLean and Dover didn't make it up the chain of Appeals Courts either, so their precedental value is limited.

In terms of Nick's narrow, legalistic struggle, we are no further ahead now than we were 20 years ago; in fact, if a court case similar to Dover were to make its way to the USSC, with its current composition, it's quite probable we would lose. And in terms of the culture, we are on more dangerous ground. In the last quarter century, the 'moderate' churches that do not oppose evolution have gotten far weaker, and overtly anti-evolution denominations, such as the Southern Baptists, have strengthened considerably. Even the Catholic Church, for the last half-century a relatively science-positive denomination, has shown disturbing signs of regression recently. These are dangerous trends, because ultimately the courts follow the ballot box.

Ultimately, the battle has to be fought against those religious denominations that are implacably hostile to an old earth and to evolution. All the accomodationism in the world won't change that; the denominations I'm referring to certainly aren't going to forsake biblical literalism. And ultimately, this is an intellectual struggle. The courts are important, but they're not most important. And the intellectual war is being waged by Dawkins and Dennett, not by the NCSE.

So please, PLEASE stop attacking the strategists on your own side, in the name of short-term tactics.

Now we come to an important question: why, amongst all of the cases we have won, did we lose Scopes? I won't pretend there is one single answer, but here is a major factor: Clarence Darrow.

The judge excluded all of Bryan's testimony, the jury voted to convict, and the Darrow-versus-Bryan spectacle completely obscured the serious constitutional issues that the ACLU had been trying to raise.

When the case reached the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court dodged the constitutional issue (which would have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court) by overturning the conviction on a technicality which might have been caught earlier had not the world been occupied with the Darrow/Bryan circus.

We did not in fact, get to the federal courts. What, then, did we actually accomplish? The defense had hoped to call a number of scientists as witnesses. They were to testify in regard to the erroneous belief that there was an irreconcilable conflict between the theory of evolution and the Genesis account. One scientist made it to the stand, but Judge Raulston shortly ruled that scientific testimony was not admissible. I think that was a defeat for us, but only in the terms of our legal goals. The material sent out from Dayton through the news media included the interviews and the affidavits of the scientific witnesses; these made a tremendous impact on the science education of the country and the world. A second accomplishment was the limiting of the passing of anti-evolution bills in other states. This was achieved through the activities of six groups of people; the defense team and their aids who organized and presented our case; scientists; theologians; educators who worked then and are continuing to work for a better concept of education and the freedom of inquiry; the large numbers of ordinary citizens who thought or were capable of learning to think by the simple process of reasoning from cause to effect; and last, buy by no means least, the news media. The efforts of these groups, I think were responsible for limiting the passing of anti-evolution bills to only two additional states, Mississippi and Arkansas. The trial created a better climate for understanding divergent points of view. The intermingling of a great number of people from all over our country (where did they find accommodations?) and the news gathered and sent out by reporters from the North, East, South, and West lowered to some extent the barriers of misunderstanding that separated the different sections of our country. By no means were these barriers demolished but the top rails were removed or splintered. The trial marked a beginning of the development of a national consciousness of the roles played by religion, science, and education. I think the importance of communicating the thinking of the professionals in these fields to the general public was first generally appreciated during and immediately after the trial. I believe that the Dayton trial marked the beginning of the decline of fundamentalism. Each year---as the result of someone's efforts to better interpret what the defense was trying to do---more and more people are reached. This, in conjunction with the labor of scientists, educators, ministers and with the dissemination of the results of their efforts through books and news media, has retarded the spread of fundamentalism.

On the other side, we have the ideological extremists who simply can't tolerate the very PRESENCE of any theist, of whatever sort, anywhere within smelling distance...

With due respect, Nick, it is terribly unfair to blame the loss of the Scopes trial on Darrow. Scopes was convicted because he broke Tennessee law. It's that simple. There was no other possible outcome. Scopes, in fact, set himself up *in order* to be prosecuted and convicted to show how ludicrous the law was. Given that he was always going to be convicted, the result (being fined a nominal $100) was the judge's way of saying that the law was ridiculous, too. You even point out that the ACLU was hoping to take the case further, until the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the conviction on a technicality. That technicality was that the *judge* set the fine instead of the jury.

Given all this, it is hard to see why Darrow was to blame. The cross-examination of Jennings took place without the jury present and was not admitted into evidence. The conviction was overturned on a technicality. That technical error was made by the judge, not Darrow. And, BTW, the constitutionality of the Butler Act *was* reviewed. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional in the same finding that overturned Scopes's conviction. So the ACLU was stymied by an extremely dubious legal interpretation by the Tennessee Supreme Court that, to me, appears to have been designed to reassert the Butler Act while removing the ACLU's capacity to appeal it.

So how is all this Darrow's fault? It wasn't. The other famous evolution/creation fight that nobody mentioned is the Huxley-Wilberforce debate. This wasn't a legal battle, but it had the same impact in the UK as Scopes did in the US. And the clear winner in that case, both in the debate and in public opinion, was Huxley the aggressive anti-religious advocate, the Richard Dawkins of his day.

There is no historical evidence to support blaming every setback on the vocal atheists and agnostics. Whether you mean to or not, what you are asking them to do is self-censor. Frankly, I think Dawkins, Huxley, and Darrow have done more for the cause of science and and evolution by forcing people to confront the facts than any number of softly-softly appeasers such as Francis Collins and Paul Davies. And I don't think it's right to tell them to shut up because a lot of people don't like what they have to say.

I also fall in the "religion per se is not the enemy" camp (or as Larry Moran would have it, the "wimp camp"). And, while I agree that the prominent push by some atheists to make the issue of science education into an argument between "rationalism" and "superstition" could complicate any future court cases, I don't see much real threat to the constitutionality of teaching evolution in merely having the discussion. The very vehemence of the argument between the various pro-science sides tends to show that evolution is not in service of any one religious view. If ID could mount a real dispute of this sort, we'd have more trouble keeping it out of public schools.

On the other hand, I think Larry is inexcusably over the top in claiming that "people like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller" are "subverting science in order to make it conform to their personal religious beliefs," which I have confronted him about at his blog and mine. Fortunately, PZ does not seem to be supporting that claim. Nor have many others that I have seen.

We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case.

There is no historical evidence to support blaming every setback on the vocal atheists and agnostics. Whether you mean to or not, what you are asking them to do is self-censor. Frankly, I think Dawkins, Huxley, and Darrow have done more for the cause of science and and evolution by forcing people to confront the facts than any number of softly-softly appeasers such as Francis Collins and Paul Davies.

And I don't think it's right to tell them to shut up because a lot of people don't like what they have to say.

Lenny, I invite you to point out such a person anywhere on our side. I'm pretty sure you can't

I wrote something like this over at Ed's blog, but it's relevant here too:

Saying that we won't win the creationist battle because we are accommodating theistic scientists is dead wrong.

Since the 1980s, the religious right has made profound recruitment in the United States. Why?

1) The are well organized.
2) They are well motivated.
3) They are excellent at reaching out to the general public.

Science has been awful at these three points for the past 20 years. Ever since Carl Sagan died, there hasn't been a charismatic voice for science in the public eye. Stephen Hawking approaches this, but his physical disability prevents him from doing much in terms of television interviews. He also can't make a good narrator for science documentaries.

We NEED somebody at the forefront. When we have evolution documentaries on tv, who narrates? Usually famous actors. We need to get OUR faces and voices out there.

While Tyson is good (personally, I like Brian Greene), we need some biologists, paleontologists, and geologists fighting in the public eye. Unless we can win the confidence in the general public that we know what we're doing by explaining things in language they can understand, it doesn't matter that we really do know what we're doing.

Dawkins' rethoric is a major force behind the motivations of the ID movement. Dawkins may have contributed to our scientific understanding but at an incredible and unnecessary cost.

Dude, their message shines through loud and clear. Nobody misses it. Nobody mistakes it.

— Lenny Flank

.Dawkins' rethoric is a major force behind the motivations of the ID movement.

LOL!!! Is that what Sal told you, Pim?

The Klan used MLK Jr.'s rhetoric to frighten their idiot converts, too. How'd that work out for them, Pim?

Dawkins may have contributed to our scientific understanding but at an incredible and unnecessary cost.

An "incredible cost"??? What did Dawkins cost "us" Pim?

And second of all, while Scopes may have been a failure in narrow, pragmatic, litigious terms, it was an enormous victory in terms of its impact on American culture, presenting the issue as one of science and intellectual freedom against theocracy and superstition.

Scopes's defense team expected this decision upholding the locally popular anti-evolution statute -- even welcomed it as a necessary step toward a review by the United States Supreme Court -- but they cried foul when the Tennessee high court then reversed Scopes's conviction for a technical error in sentencing. Without a convinction, Scopes had nothing to appeal. Malone's immediate charge of "a subterfuge on the part of the State of Tennessee to prevent the legality of the law under which Scopes was convincted being tested" appears well founded.

Periodic legislative efforts to repeal the existing [anti-evolution] laws failed miserably. At first, the ACLU eagerly sought new court challenges to all three laws, but lost interest after failing to find either willing litigants or active enforcement of the law. Several months after passage of the Mississippi law in 1926, the ACLU's publicity director reported that we "volunteered to assist the suit of any Mississippi taxpayer to enjoin expenditure of public funds for enforcement. Similar offers were made to Mississippi members of the American Association of University Professors. As yet no Mississippian, professional or lay, has responded. The Union broadened this search to cover Tennessee after the Scopes litigation reached a dead end in 1927, and on to Arkansas after the 1928 initiative passed, but still without success. "Circular letters and public offers of legal services brought interested inquiries, but nobody willing to make the sacrifice," the ACLU reported in 1931. [...] Finally willing to let a sleeping dog lie, the ACLU announced in its 1932 annual report that the Union was dropping the issue. A pair of legal complaints challenging the constitutionality of anti-evolution laws, one filed with the Knoxville federal court in 1925 by a state taxpayer opposed to the Tennessee statute and the other mailed into a Little Rock state court in 1929 by a New Yorker against the Arkansas law, were withdrawn without further litigation. [...] Despite some threats, no other suits were filed until the landmark Epperson case in 1965. [...] George Marsden pointed out that the rural, southern image of the anti-evolution movement popularized by Scopes became self-fulfilling. Thereafter, statewide victories were confined to the South. By 1929, most states of the old Confederacy had imposed restrictions against evolutionary teaching by law, legislative resolution, or administrative ruling. The widespread defeats of 1927 showed little to gain from carrying the battle to enact anti-evolution laws north. This futility was shown when the Rhode Island legislature referred its post-Scopes anti-evolution bill to the Committee on Fish and Game. At the same time, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in Scopes, the unwillingness of other litigants to challenge the laws, and the failure of all repeal measures showed, in the words of a 1932 ACLU report, "stubborn Southern hostility against Northern conceptions of science and faith." With each side occupying its territory as delineated by prevailing popular opinion, an uneasy truce descended until battle conditions changed. During the ensuing three decades, further restrictions against evolutionary teaching were left to local school districts. The terms of the truce decidedly favored anti-evolution forces because existing restrictions and fears of further controversy led commercial publishers to de-emphasize evolution in their high-school textbooks. [...] [...several paragraphs on evolution being deleted from textbooks...] Other textbooks fell into line and stayed in line throughout the thirty-year lull in anti-evolution activity. "Strong pressure has been brought by Fundamentalists on publishers and authors of textbooks," pro-evolution science popularizer Maynard Shipley reported in 1930. "Many publishers have instructed their authors to omit all discussion of evolution or even to omit the word altogether." [...] This trend continued through 1959. About that time, two leading biologists marked the centennary of Origin of Species by giving separate addresses, both entitled "One Hundred Years Without Darwinism Are Enough," [sic -- it should be "Darwin", not "Darwinism"] decrying the inadequate treatment of evolution in high-school biology textbooks. In the earlier of these speeches, Indiana University zoologist Herman J. Muller laid the blame for this treatment on a "vicious circle" of legal restrictions against evolutionary teaching throughout the South and in some local communities elsewhere giving textbook authors and publishers an economic incentive to de-emphisize [sic] the theory. (Quotes from pp. 82-86 of Ed Larson, 2003, Trial and Error, 3rd edition.)

Dawkins' rethoric is a major force behind the motivations of the ID movement. Dawkins may have contributed to our scientific understanding but at an incredible and unnecessary cost.

the Kitzmiller decision and subsequent defeats of the creationists, every single one of them achieved by hard working members of the "religion per se is not the enemy" camp.

Without any help from anyone who thinks religious beliefs are stupid divisive baloney? You really think that, Nick?

Of course, when the anti-religion people do this they're just sowing the seeds of the very thing they most fear --- the next creationist wave.

Booga-booga!!!!! I know that's supposed to be scary but has it occured to you, Nick, that what you are you witnessing in 2006 is a backlash against the religious diptwits who have screwed up our country royally over the course of the last 20 years with plenty o' lip-quivering help from the "religion is not the enemy per se" crowd?

If religious people want respect they have to earn it. They can earn it by shutting up about their religious beliefs, whatever they are, because guess what: if those beliefs can't be justified without reference to an "eternal reward," they are a waste of time. If they can be justified without reference to an "eternal reward" then let's hear it. And I'm not talking about what songs to sing at Christmas. I'm talking about creating public policy.

the Kitzmiller decision and subsequent defeats of the creationists, every single one of them achieved by hard working members of the "religion per se is not the enemy" camp. RU:Without any help from anyone who thinks religious beliefs are stupid divisive baloney? You really think that, Nick?

Of course, when the anti-religion people do this they're just sowing the seeds of the very thing they most fear --- the next creationist wave. RU: Booga-booga!!!!! I know that's supposed to be scary but has it occured to you, Nick, that what you are you witnessing in 2006 is a backlash against the religious diptwits who have screwed up our country royally over the course of the last 20 years with plenty o' lip-quivering help from the "religion is not the enemy per se" crowd?

RU: If religious people want respect they have to earn it. They can earn it by shutting up about their religious beliefs, whatever they are, because guess what: if those beliefs can't be justified without reference to an "eternal reward," they are a waste of time. If they can be justified without reference to an "eternal reward" then let's hear it. And I'm not talking about what songs to sing at Christmas. I'm talking about creating public policy.

When William Jennings Bryan offered to join the prosecution team -- despite having not practiced law in over thirty years -- Clarence Darrow, approaching seventy, jumped to join the battle in Dayton. Darrow was not the first choice of the ACLU, who was concerned that Darrow's zealous agnosticism might turn the trial into a broadside attack on religion. The ACLU first preferred former presidential candidates John W. Davies and Charles Evans Hughes, but neither was willing to serve alongside Darrow. Instead, it dispatched Arthur Garfield Hays, a prominent free speech advocate, to join the defense team. The final member of the defense team was Dudley Field Malone, an international divorce attorney (and another volunteer who the ACLU might have preferred to stay at home).

If religious people want respect they have to earn it. They can earn it by shutting up about their religious beliefs

I'm afraid that what offends certain people is the very existence of atheists; at the very least, we should shut up and disappear.

This is nonsense. His book has been selling well for some time now, up there with the diet and get rich books. And there are more atheist books coming out. Somebody must be reading them. They are having a substantial impact. Atheist books have never been this popular, and that can only be healthy for evolution.

Quantity: or Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering. More Buying Choices 48 used & new from $14.49 Have one to sell? Sell yours here Tell a Friend The God Delusion See larger image See all 2 customer images Share your own customer images Publisher: learn how customers can search inside this book. Are you the publisher or author? Learn how Amazon can help you make this book an eBook. The God Delusion (Hardcover) by Richard Dawkins (224 customer reviews) List Price: $27.00 Price: $14.85 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details You Save: $12.15 (45%) Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. Want it delivered Tuesday, November 28? Order it in the next 23 hours and 38 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 48 used & new available from $14.49 Also Available in: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Audio Download $61.80 $32.45 Best Value Buy The God Delusion and get Oneness Conquest For Goddom: The First Ever Neurolinguistic Program for Enlightenment at an additional 5% off Amazon.com's everyday low price. The God Delusion Oneness Conquest For Goddom: The First Ever Neurolinguistic Program for Enlightenment Buy Together Today: $25.18 Customers who bought this item also bought * Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris * Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett * The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris * The God Who Wasn't There DVD ~ God Who Wasn't There * State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III by Bob Woodward Explore similar items : Books (48) DVD (2) Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions---fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium---that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it. (Oct. 18) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

sorry for the poor cut and paste job

Dawkins' rethoric is a major force behind the motivations of the ID movement. Dawkins may have contributed to our scientific understanding but at an incredible and unnecessary cost.

Ultimately, the battle has to be fought against those religious denominations that are implacably hostile to an old earth and to evolution. All the accomodationism in the world won't change that; the denominations I'm referring to certainly aren't going to forsake biblical literalism. And ultimately, this is an intellectual struggle. The courts are important, but they're not most important. And the intellectual war is being waged by Dawkins and Dennett, not by the NCSE.

somehow you seem to be trying to distract from the very good points Nick made. Uncomfortable perhaps but good points nevertheless.

Huh? Nothing that Nick said made me "uncomfortable". Are you uncomfortable Pim? You should be. You've gone from merely inarticulate to positively ridiculous in the past year or two.

Nick's "good points" are just the same old same old: atheists scare those rubes in the suburbs so they better stop criticizing those popular magic stories or the creationist will "rise up" and deliver a "backlash".

Is that a possibility? Sure. Can it happen? Sure. If we let it happen.

Would the Panda's Thumb let it happen? I've no doubt that some of its contributors would let it happen. Heck, some of the contributors to PT recite creationist scripts pretty much verbatim. They are that careless. They care that little.

If this blog were truly focused on achieving a long-term goal, it wouldn't glance twice at what Dawkins or PZ Myers or any other atheist was saying about religious beliefs. Instead, it would focus unblinkingly on the task of smashing the head of the snake with a heavy rock, repeatedly.

There was little that could be done in the South in 1925. The era of Scopes was the era of the second Klan, segregationist defiance, and reinforcement of jim Crow laws. They didn't know or care about HL Mencken. Antievolution laws would have been passed with or without Scopes, and the non-interventionist, pre New Deal Supreme Court did not interfere in 'states rights'.

The real impact came with 'Inherit the Wind' in the late 50s and 60s, when the old Southern order was ripe for overthrow and the USSC was willing to start intervening in state laws. Scopes served to tie in anti-evolutionism with all the other evils of the South.

That's what I mean by thinking strategically rather than merely tactically.

Why? Is atheism healthy for evolution or irrelevant to evolution? So Dawkins contributes to polarizing rather than to teaching about evolution, is that not what I asserted?

Let me compliment the post by Anton Mates, especially in the quoting of John Scopes on what Scopes saw as the trial's accomplishments. Education is a key goal of any of these events -- a goal that the Kitzmiller case advanced nicely, and a goal that I wish the 1981 Arkansas trial had been able to advance more, and more like Kitzmiller.

Mates' post rather focused my thinking on the serious problem with the current intramural sniping. We have a huge education task at hand, and regardless Collins' or Dawkins' views on religion, when these guys talk biology the lights go on in brains across America. We need all of these people to be talking biology, not metaphysics.

Jonathan Weiner has a chapter in The Beak of the Finch that discusses the scientists who track the evolution of crop pests across America, in order to refine pesticides almost literally in real time to fight the pests. One of the scientists profiled told about describing his work to an enthralled airplane seatmate, who took it all in right up to the last when the scientist noted that what he does is work in evolutionary biology.

The stakes are real on the ground. Evolution is the basis for much of our medical care, especially the development of modern pharmaceuticals. We need people out in public talking about this every day. A diabetic is much less likely to have a religious conviction that evolution is wrong if she understands that her Humulin was developed with evolution theory (as indeed every advance in the treatment of diabetes is based in evolution theory). This stuff is personal, and people need to know the stakes.

Here is a post I made on PT some months ago, on exactly these issues, that may provide you with more clarity on my concerns: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/one_reason_evol.html#comment-42256

Understanding of evolution isn't advanced in any significant way when we learn about Francis Collins' conversion to Christianity (and these stories almost never mention that his mainline sect has no doctrine supporting creationism over evolution, either). But get Collins talking about the benefits we get from the Human Genome project and how those benefits are grounded in evolution -- no fundamentalist parent of a kid with cystic fibrosis will stand up and demand that evolution not be taught.

This is a campaign of persuasion. We need to win it one person at a time. There is no great persuasive value in debating whether religion is, overall, a benefit or liability to society; such a debate takes away time that might be used to persuade, and it steals away the people we need to have talking about evolution.

Would the Panda's Thumb let it happen? I've no doubt that some of its contributors would let it happen. Heck, some of the contributors to PT recite creationist scripts pretty much verbatim. They are that careless. They care that little.

it always boggles my mind that some people--- like Registered User, perhaps--- fail to see the fact that, when evolution gets linked with atheism in the public eye, it does vast P.R. work for creationism.

Except that I don't fail to see the fact.

Linking evolution with atheism (or better yet: Satanism) is the modus operandi of creationists and they will do WHATEVER THEY CAN to create that link in the public eye. Even if every atheist on earth agreed to shut up for ten years, the creationists would just dig up some old quotes to get those rubes in the heartland all afeared o' dem ol' godless heathens.

Fortunately for atheists, we aren't going away and we're not going to shut up merely because somebody raises the spectre of a "creationist backlash".

I'd advise the "religion is not the problem per se" folks to reconsider their (literally) holier-than-thou stance on the matter. Let's look at the George Bush presidency. Let's look at some of his appointees, e.g., George Deutsch. Is it true that "religion is not the problem per se" with the direction this country is headed? Oh, maybe it's not "the" problem. But is it one of the problems? Is it, perhaps, more of a problem for America than, say, atheists?

somehow you seem to be trying to distract from the very good points Nick made. Uncomfortable perhaps but good points nevertheless. Huh? Nothing that Nick said made me "uncomfortable". Are you uncomfortable Pim? You should be. You've gone from merely inarticulate to positively ridiculous in the past year or two.

Nick's "good points" are just the same old same old: atheists scare those rubes in the suburbs so they better stop criticizing those popular magic stories or the creationist will "rise up" and deliver a "backlash".

Is that a possibility? Sure. Can it happen? Sure. If we let it happen. Would the Panda's Thumb let it happen? I've no doubt that some of its contributors would let it happen. Heck, some of the contributors to PT recite creationist scripts pretty much verbatim. They are that careless. They care that little.

If this blog were truly focused on achieving a long-term goal, it wouldn't glance twice at what Dawkins or PZ Myers or any other atheist was saying about religious beliefs. Instead, it would focus unblinkingly on the task of smashing the head of the snake with a heavy rock, repeatedly.

I think PvM is perhaps overstating the case, but it always boggles my mind that some people--- like Registered User, perhaps--- fail to see the fact that, when evolution gets linked with atheism in the public eye, it does vast P.R. work for creationism.

— B. Spitzer

My impression is that many atheists don't realize how offensive a lot of Dawkins' work comes across to Christians. My impression is that many atheists underestimate how much Dawkins tends to push Christian listeners away from science.

somehow you seem to be trying to distract from the very good points Nick made. Uncomfortable perhaps but good points nevertheless. Huh? Nothing that Nick said made me "uncomfortable". Are you uncomfortable Pim? You should be. You've gone from merely inarticulate to positively ridiculous in the past year or two.

Nick's "good points" are just the same old same old: atheists scare those rubes in the suburbs so they better stop criticizing those popular magic stories or the creationist will "rise up" and deliver a "backlash".

Is that a possibility? Sure. Can it happen? Sure. If we let it happen. Would the Panda's Thumb let it happen? I've no doubt that some of its contributors would let it happen. Heck, some of the contributors to PT recite creationist scripts pretty much verbatim. They are that careless. They care that little.

If this blog were truly focused on achieving a long-term goal, it wouldn't glance twice at what Dawkins or PZ Myers or any other atheist was saying about religious beliefs. Instead, it would focus unblinkingly on the task of smashing the head of the snake with a heavy rock, repeatedly.

Nick said: Hmm, "theologians" and "ministers" made Scopes's own list of allies. Another one to add to the Neville Chamberlain list.

It's been fun guys, and informative on matters biological, but you've lost your collective minds. If I want blinkered bile born of religious blind spots pretendng to be reasoned science, I'll go read UD and get the real thing. This ID-lite thing you've suddenly got going here is neither fun nor informative. It borders on pathetic.

— MarkP

OK, now the Panda's Thumb is a creationist blog!

Nice strawman, Nick! I never said that.

The Panda's Thumb is a de facto anti-creationist blog which too often wastes its bandwidth and stature promoting garbage and over-analyzing worse garbage.

Could it be worse? Yes. Could it be better? Hell, yes.

Then why go after people from with religious views that are not hostile to the old earth and evolution? It's fine to disagree with their religious views, but why accuse them of being creationists?

OK, now the Panda's Thumb is a creationist blog! Nice strawman, Nick! I never said that. The Panda's Thumb is a de facto anti-creationist blog which too often wastes its bandwidth and stature promoting garbage and over-analyzing worse garbage. Could it be worse? Yes. Could it be better? Hell, yes.

It's hard to deny that Dawkins has been instrumental in generating much concern amongst Christians and other religious groups, motivating them to get involved in shaping public policy to defend Christianity against Atheism.

Why should people at PT not speak out against the Dawkins and the Myers and Morans?

Why would you speak out against Dawkins or Myers? They are two of the most widely read, articulate and passionate supporters of science and anti-creationism. Why would you "speak out against" them, unless they are repeatedly telling lies?

Oh yeah: because they're all atheists and therefore in the minority. By bashing them you might believe that you don't lose any significant support but you stand to gain support from the rubes who would otherwise fear that Panda's Thumb is promoting evolution as a proxy for atheism. By bashing them, you can "prove" to those rubes: "See, we don't like those loudmouth atheists either!"

How convenient.

Pim, while you're learning to cut-and-paste, learn to use the html quote function a little more precisely too, please.

Hmm, doesn't quote accurately, goes way overboard on the cut-and-paste, and doesn't understand ad hominem. Could Pim actually be Dr. MM?

Nah...

Fortunately for atheists, we aren't going away and we're not going to shut up

If religious people want respect they have to earn it. They can earn it by shutting up about their religious beliefs

We have a huge education task at hand, and regardless Collins' or Dawkins' views on religion, when these guys talk biology the lights go on in brains across America. We need all of these people to be talking biology, not metaphysics.

By bashing them, you can "prove" to those rubes: "See, we don't like those loudmouth atheists either!"

Is there any chance that we could talk about something else soon? Just curious.

PvM: It's hard to deny that Dawkins has been instrumental in generating much concern amongst Christians and other religious groups, motivating them to get involved in shaping public policy to defend Christianity against Atheism.

Hard-core YECs, OECs, IDists, and other anti-evolution fundies are going to be against evolution regardless of whether "evangelical" atheist-scientist A, B, or C is doing a great job of educating the public about evolution (and Pim, here's a made-up fact, but one which I'm convinced you would be hard put to deny---one whole heck of a lot more people in this country have bought and read The Ancestors' Tale than have ever heard of the NCSE).

The claim that evolution somehow leads to the evil of atheism is a pretext that the anti-science forces have seized upon. Having good guys like Nick and confused people like Pim buy into this hoax isn't going to boost science.

Why should people at PT not speak out against the Dawkins and the Myers and Morans? Why would you speak out against Dawkins or Myers? They are two of the most widely read, articulate and passionate supporters of science and anti-creationism. Why would you "speak out against" them, unless they are repeatedly telling lies?

Oh yeah: because they're all atheists and therefore in the minority. By bashing them you might believe that you don't lose any significant support but you stand to gain support from the rubes who would otherwise fear that Panda's Thumb is promoting evolution as a proxy for atheism. By bashing them, you can "prove" to those rubes: "See, we don't like those loudmouth atheists either!" How convenient.

Why should PT people not point out the effect of Dawkins on the ID movement?

For the same reason that PT people should not point out the "effect" of rigorous high school biology classes on the ID movement: it's irrelevant and non-productive.

Look, if Dawkins and the other Bad Old Atheists were out there telling legions of bald-faced *lies* about religion and "deeply religious" people and lies about how legislators are on the verge of banning religious expresssion in public, I'd be all for condemning them.

But Dawkins and the atheists aren't doing that. In fact, it's the creationist-promoting fundies who tell the LIES about religion and "deeply-religious people" and what legislators are going to do.

Those liars are the targets that Panda's Thumb should be focused on.

There is simply no point in smearing vocal atheists who criticize or "attack" theological mumbo jumbo when they hear it. That's what vocal atheists DO and these vocal atheists are not going away. Quite the opposite, in fact. And if you take a close look at what a "deeply religious" Jesus-lovin' President just did to Iraq you'd understand: THIS IS A GOOD THING.

We need MORE passionate and articulate people to publicly point out the miserable failure of granting undue respect towards "deeply religious" beliefs, not less. Anyone who thinks they need to argue to the contrary in 2006 is simply a coward or an apologist robot.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: ...we have the ideological extremists who simply can't tolerate the very PRESENCE of any theist...

We also seem to have an increasing number of ideological extremists who simply can't tolerate the very presence of any atheist.

But Dawkins and the atheists aren't doing that. In fact, it's the creationist-promoting fundies who tell the LIES about religion and "deeply-religious people" and what legislators are going to do. Those liars are the targets that Panda's Thumb should be focused on.

We need MORE passionate and articulate people to publicly point out the miserable failure of granting undue respect towards "deeply religious" beliefs, not less. Anyone who thinks they need to argue to the contrary in 2006 is simply a coward or an apologist robot.

please point your weapon at the enemy.

although the "Separation of Church and PT" camp, also known as the "shut the heck up about religion/anti-religion and talk about science" camp, may be largest

Funny how Registered User's comments seem to be very similar to what one would expect from christian 'extremists' as well. And while people have objected to what they believe is linking atheism with evils, it seems that RU has no problem linking religious people with evil deeds.
Somehow consistency seems to be lacking.

One can speak out against people for other reasons than them telling lies. Indeed, when it comes to science Myers certainly is a passionate supporter of science. I am not sure about Dawkins. I have found his books to be often far more shallow that Myers' contributions.

LOL! yet another opinion you share with Hannah Maxson, Sal Cordova and the great Allen McNeill.

So why not answer my question, Pim (instead of spouting off with your "logical fallacy" horse hockey, in which you misrepresent what you were actually asked): why WOULD you "speak out against" Myers and Dawkins, unless they were lying?

Not why "can" you? That's a trivial question that nobody is interested in (and you knew that).

But why would you? Why would you want to "speak out against" them, when they are two of the most widely read and popular writers on the subject of creationist garbage?

Are you going to stick with the "quelling the creationist backlash" excuse? I don't find it compelling, for the reasons that I and others have explained to Nick, but if that's the excuse then let's put it out there for future reference.

And while people have objected to what they believe is linking atheism with evils, it seems that RU has no problem linking religious people with evil deeds.

It seems that Pim doesn't understand the difference between an atheist doing something evil with a religious person doing something evil and justifying it by invoking God.

It seems that Pim does not understand, and is likely incapable of understanding, why this is an important distinction.

One can speak out against people for other reasons than them telling lies. Indeed, when it comes to science Myers certainly is a passionate supporter of science. I am not sure about Dawkins. I have found his books to be often far more shallow that Myers' contributions. LOL! yet another opinion you share with Hannah Maxson, Sal Cordova and the great Allen McNeill.

So why not answer my question, Pim (instead of spouting off with your "logical fallacy" horse hockey, in which you misrepresent what you were actually asked): why WOULD you "speak out against" Myers and Dawkins, unless they were lying?

But why would you? Why would you want to "speak out against" them, when they are two of the most widely read and popular writers on the subject of creationist garbage?

Are you going to stick with the "quelling the creationist backlash" excuse? I don't find it compelling, for the reasons that I and others have explained to Nick, but if that's the excuse then let's put it out there for future reference.

So far you have yet to explain why PT should not focus on Dawkins et al?

It seems that Pim lacks the ability to read comments above in this very thread. Pity.

And while people have objected to what they believe is linking atheism with evils, it seems that RU has no problem linking religious people with evil deeds. It seems that Pim doesn't understand the difference between an atheist doing something evil with a religious person doing something evil and justifying it by invoking God. It seems that Pim does not understand, and is likely incapable of understanding, why this is an important distinction.

Perhaps you can also explain why you seem to refer to these people in this thread?

Because when they post on blogs, those people enjoy pretending they are in a freshman debate class. Just like you Pim.

Nick (Matzke): Disagreement is not the same thing as telling someone to shut up, but for some reason the "religion per se is the problem" people often don't get that.

Perhaps you can also explain why you seem to refer to these people in this thread? Because when they post on blogs, those people enjoy pretending they are in a freshman debate class. Just like you Pim.

So in other words, you have no answer to your contradictions

I didn't contradict myself, Pim.

suggest that I would be incapable of understanding.

Well, prove me wrong, Pim. Is there any distinction between an atheist doing something evil and a religious person doing something evil and justifying it by reference to God?

Can you think of any important distinctions, Pim? And, assuming for the sake of argument that you are capable of thinking of some distinctions, are you willing to articulate all of them for us?

I'm guessing that you won't articulate any such distinctions, but go ahead and surprise me, Pim. As a helpful hint, you could explore the distinctions as they relate to the behavior of a religious God-invoking President versus the behavior of Jason Connell, an atheist who raped his cousin because she was hot.

Have at it, Pim.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: I do not assert, and I do not accept, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of any sort whatsoever, in any way, shape or form.

Deeply religious beliefs deserve as much of our respect as atheistic beliefs. But we agree, granting undue respect towards either extreme will be a failure.

Pim, you're still abusing your quotes from Ru and others. When you're quoting, you're not only failing to credit the speaker, you're also stripping the html, which has the effect of failing to distinguish between two different speakers.

I'm confident you aren't purposely seeking to confuse, but that's the effect your lack of care with quotes is having.

Slow down, take a breath, quote correctly.

Again RU responds with a strawman which ignores the topic at hand which is using religious beliefs of people as relevant while on the one hand objecting to people referring to atheism as leading to moral excesses and on the other hand pointing out that our religious president invaded Iraq (with all its consequences).

Dawkins' rethoric is a major force behind the motivations of the ID movement. Dawkins may have contributed to our scientific understanding but at an incredible and unnecessary cost.

I have been a practicing lawyer for 27 years, an avid reader of history and science since I was 5 or 6, and a freethinker / agnostic non-theist (or atheist naturalist if you prefer) since I was 8 or 9.

I have studied First Amendment / Establishment Clause jurisprudence extensively during my professional practice, and Nick's formulation of distinctions 1 and 2 is basically accurate and consistent with case law. However, it doesn't follow that a public school teacher is either (a) establishing a religion or (b) infringing her students' free exercise of religion if the teacher tells her class that she is an atheist because there is no physical, natural-world evidence for god, life after death, and immaterial, immortal souls, etc.

"Atheism" or "naturalism" isn't a religion. However, as scientific and historical knowledge has been expanded, corrrected, and steadiliy improved, there is progessively less and less for the supreme being(s) of ancient superstition to do.

I don't begrudge anyone his or her religious feelings, inclinations, or opinions that are held or adopted to provide personal comfort or a subjective sense of fitness (i.e., the "fideism" of Mr. Gardner).

What I am especially wary of (and, since 9/11, what I regard as a serious threat to the survival of human civilization) is when religious folks take their religion beyond a simple (but untestable and unverifiable) belief in gods or an afterlife and do either of the following:

(1) make dogmatic, equally unsupportable statements about how a god wants or intends human beings to live their lives, or about the details of the natural world, or

(2) seek to impose their dogmatism and superstition on the rest of by enacting their beliefs into public policy.

Whenever "people of faith" stray beyond simple fideism, they make their religion anti-rational and therefore dangerous to life and to civilized society.

I will mind my own business and keep my godless atheist secular humanist thoughts to myself so long as the religious zealots don't try to impose their pious fantasies on the rest of us. Life is too short to waste on debates with individuals who don't understand reason and evidence.

Indeed, when it comes to science Myers certainly is a passionate supporter of science. I am not sure about Dawkins. I have found his books to be often far more shallow that Myers' contributions.

What is the connection between Darrow's questioning of Bryan and our loss at the Scope's trial? His standard list of "posers" might or might not have been useful PR, but I fail to see what the stricken testimony had to do with actually losing Scopes. Then again, Nick more or less abandons that line for claiming that the whole circus prevented later tests of bans on the teaching of evolution, something that I also doubt he succeeds in demonstrating.

Nick leaves out an important fact, which is that the judge had instructed the court to ignore the "policy or wisdom of this legislation." Darrow, whether a good or poor choice for the Scopes trial, did not have leave to discuss the scientific merits of the legislation, so he did the next best thing, he attacked literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Does Nick think that absurdly wrong literalism ought not to be attacked by our side? I doubt it, but one might get that impression from his complaints about Darrow's tactics.

One could perhaps argue that "what Darrow was" did not help the case. But that's all I recognize as a live possibility in Nick's thesis. Whether or not he had attacked fundamentalism, Darrow would have been portrayed as a big-city Northern lawyer come to attack poor southerners, their democratic rights, and their religion, simply because of what he was, an agnostic (not an atheist, undermining Nick's claim that Darrow equated evolution with atheism). Darrow almost certainly did better to at least show how ridiculous Bryan's defense of literalism was, rather than to simply go down south and say that Bryan and the fundies were wrong merely because Darwin and Darrow say so.

We lost Scopes because the Tennessee courts wanted us to lose Scopes. There isn't much else to say, except that the Tennessee Supreme Court also managed to derail the appeal to the US Supreme Court because they wanted us to lose. On the PR side, those who were reachable tended to agree with Darrow on Biblical literalism, though presumably most of these already agreed with Darrow. But at least he made the only case he could make, against the absurdities of Biblical literalism which animate all of the ID and creationist opposition to evolution.

We won later cases because of a changed judicial climate and increased activism by secular groups like the ACLU.

Of course later defenders of science in the court rooms have presented better cases than did Darrow, mainly because the courts allowed them to do so. Faulting poor Darrow for being forbidden to argue for evolution in the first place is hardly fair. Darrow did the best he could given the circumstances, by revealing how pathetic a literalistic religious view of the world is in the age of science.

Nick makes other easily debatable claims, such as the one that the public will come down on our side when religiously-neutral science is contrasted with narrow sectrarian views. Has there ever been a poll in which the majority of the public didn't prefer teaching "both views" in the schools when people were asked? I haven't seen it. Unquestionably such polls require interpretation, since most people are likely only trying to take the "even-handed approach" when the false dichotomy is presented to them. However, these polls appear to be the only evidence we really have to go on (other than that few non-fundies bother to demand the so-called even-handed approach once the courts decide against it).

One might also ask if the judges are "indirectly selected" by the public in the proper sense of that term (depends on definition, sure). Clearly there is an establishment that provides selective pressures beyond the simple choices of the voters, pressures involving knowledge and skill levels of the judges selected. So far we seem to be relying more for our wins upon the intelligence and learning of the various agencies which validate our judges, than upon a public which, at least in polls, generally default to the apparently "even-handed" (false) dichotomy.

As I said, I will only accept that Darrow may have been wrong for the Scopes job simply because he was an agnostic, and not for any other reasons. On the PR side, he did a reasonable job of demonstrating that Biblical literalism is absurd compared with the enlightenment approach, while he was barred from arguing the merits of the legislation itself. On the legal side, the Scopes trial did what the ACLU wanted, with only the TN Supremes preventing the case from reaching the US Supremes.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

So why all the atheist-bashing?

What, specifically, would it take to satisfy the critics of "evangelical atheism" in this forum?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: Those who support ID, are our enemy. Those who don't, aren't.

If there isn't one already, a corollary to Godwin's Law concerning mention of the Bush gang will surely be needed soon.

Woo hoo! Aren't holy wars fun?

Random comments I direct to the "religion per se is the problem" camp (in general, not just this thread):

* I am mystified by the victimization complex that seems to be driving much of the emotion from the anti-religion crowd. Atheists' rights to their views on religion are protected by the Constitution, just like everyone else's views on religion. If you want to complain about something, complain about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Someone explaining that science and evolution are not atheistic is not anti-atheism discrimination, it is simply clarifying the limits of science.

* If you think that evolutionary science really is atheistic, well then, bully for you, but please explain why you don't regularly hitch modern meteorology, chemistry, etc. to atheism.

* It is far from clear that "religion" is responsible for most of the killing in the world. The 20th century seems to have proven that both religious and anti-religious regimes can kill massive numbers of people, and that the key features are totalitarianism, control of the media and dissemination of propaganda, and us-versus-them rhetoric. The latter includes protestants versus catholics and Christians versus Muslims versus Jews, of course, but it also includes ethnic conflicts like Hutus vs. Tutsis, and innumerable killing sprees carried out in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. for some communism-related excuse.

* No one objects to mere criticism of the theological claims put forward by theistic evolutionists. Ken Miller and Francis Collins have been doing their thing for years and have been taking criticism the whole way through. Some agree with their theologies, some disagree. This is all fine. What is highly disturbing is the claim that these kinds of folks are no better than creationists, deserve the same opprobrium that the creationists deserve, and are undermining science -- even though they explicitly note the difference between science and religion and would never advocate teaching the latter in public school science classes.

* Things get even more ridiculous when the opprobrium is extended to anyone who defends the good name of theistic evolutionists -- at this point, the list includes Stephen Jay Gould, Eugenie Scott, and various PT posters, ScienceBloggers, and evolution activists, including basically all of the people most active in the on-the-ground victories over creationists in the last year or two.

* Last but not least, don't whine about namecalling and being discriminated against when you call us "appeasers" and "wimps" and "Neville Chamberlins." Seriously, what kind of reaction do you think you will get to this sort of rhetoric? Descriptions like "intolerant" "fundamentalist", "angry", and "evangelical" are the completely appropriate response to these sorts of ludicrous insults.

Haven't you yourself noted that "Intelligent Design" is likely soon to be replaced by another label, such as "Critical Analysis"? Even in this minor sector of the larger culture war, the enemy is not "ID", but creationism in all its facets. Now: just where does (unacceptable) creationism leave off and (acceptable) belief in the supernatural begin?

By the way, if one really wants to equate atheism with evolution, all one has to do is to keep on blogging about it, faulting the radicals for doing essentially what many theists do (notably, some theistic evolutionists at PT do reflexively support religion---then why are the reflexive atheists to be faulted for supporting their own beliefs?), and suggest that one middle of the road approach should be adopted by all.

Do that, and you aid and abet the claim that some atheist conspiracy keeps evolution afloat (sure it's stupid, but not too stupid for a large fraction of the US public to believe it), and that this atheism must remain hidden in order to inflict itself upon the innocent children. What is so bad about demonstrating that anyone can adopt science, whether these be militant atheists, or theists who believe truth wherever it appears?

The very few militant atheists who are prominent on our side aren't about to take over the fight against creationism. If they were, then I'd say it's time to oppose them. Until then, they merely punctuate the fact that evolution is not a "wedge" to get atheism into the schools, quite unlike the wedge of ID which blatantly sought to put magical explanations into the schools by actually changing what is considered to be science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

future creationists will come from the ranks of the supernaturalists

The very few militant atheists who are prominent on our side aren't about to take over the fight against creationism.

What is so bad about demonstrating that anyone can adopt science, whether these be militant atheists, or theists who believe truth wherever it appears?

The very few militant atheists who are prominent on our side aren't about to take over the fight against creationism. If they were, then I'd say it's time to oppose them.

Nick,

You're enjoying this so-called holy war as much if not more than anyone. By the way, when you and "your ilk" continually suggest that us "evangelical atheists" are hurting science's public image when we speak our minds, you're telling us to shut up, plain and simple. It's a little disingenuous at this stage in the game for you to start distancing yourself from your own disparaging remarks.

Future priests who molest choir boys will come from the ranks of gay men, too.

Last but not least, don't whine about namecalling and being discriminated against when you call us "appeasers" and "wimps" and "Neville Chamberlins." Seriously, what kind of reaction do you think you will get to this sort of rhetoric?

Defensiveness at first, then a quiet change for the better.

IMHO, the writing by contributors to this blog has mostly improved since its inception. It could be a coincidence or it could be that certain criticisms were taken to heart.

Someone explaining that science and evolution are not atheistic is not anti-atheism discrimination, it is simply clarifying the limits of science.

Sounds more "comforting" than clarifying. Baseball isn't "atheistic" either but it doesn't "clarify the limits of baseball" to say so.

The problem with slogans like "science is not atheistic" is that it satisfies only those who need slogans to recite. I suppose that's a lot of people -- a lot of religious people, in particular -- but it's exactly the sort of thing that irritates a lot of scientists (a group which includes a disproportionate member of scientists). It's hardly evidence of a "persecution complex" or "victimization" to express one's dissatisfaction with such slogans.

Religious people need to get used to the idea that everything which humans can objectively describe and study is "atheistic." That fact doesn't objectively diminish their personal religious beliefs (those beliefs exist entirely in their own brains), and given that it doesn't objectively diminish their personal religious beliefs, then there is only one logical reason that religious people might object to this fact being widely asserted: the diminishment of the widespread respectability of their personal religious beliefs. I can't see why a non-believer would give two hoots about such a diminishment, except to cheer on its progress. How could it be otherwise? Should I have shed a tear for disco fans when the Bee Gees broke up?

If you think that evolutionary science really is atheistic, well then, bully for you, but please explain why you don't regularly hitch modern meteorology, chemistry, etc. to atheism.

— Nick Matzke

Does Richard Dawkins getting "God vs. Science" on the cover of Time Magazine cross your threshold for response? Actually, us Neville Chamberlins swallowed even that without public complaining.

Dawkins didn't call his book "God vs. Science." That was Time magazine's call and I doubt that Dawkins had veto power.

As I recall, Dawkins thinks that God is a creation of the human imagination. Thus, science or scientists can't "battle" God because God doesn't exist except as an idea in people's brains.

So other than the usual incompetence of the media, what were going to complain about?

By the way, why not complain about Chris Mooney's book about Republicans and the war on science? Surely his withering analysis must have alienated 50% of the potential "converts" to "our side." Or is it only religious people that behave irrationally when their choice of allegiances is questioned?

Wow.

Is there really so little going on in the anti-evolution movement that PT contributors are reduced to talking about themselves? Gotta nuke somethin', I guess.

Nick (Matzke): But the Dawkins acolytes promoting "religion is evil and so is anyone who doesn't vehemently agree" on the blogs have been picking fights with the "appeasers" for months. Eventually we're going to get annoyed enough to defend ourselves.

Fight IDers. Not people who are fighting IDers.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

* If you think that evolutionary science really is atheistic, well then, bully for you, but please explain why you don't regularly hitch modern meteorology, chemistry, etc. to atheism.

— Nick (Matzke)

The 20th century seems to have proven that both religious and anti-religious regimes can kill massive numbers of people, and that the key features are totalitarianism, control of the media and dissemination of propaganda, and us-versus-them rhetoric. The latter includes protestants versus catholics and Christians versus Muslims versus Jews, of course, but it also includes ethnic conflicts like Hutus vs. Tutsis, and innumerable killing sprees carried out in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. for some communism-related excuse.

* No one objects to mere criticism of the theological claims put forward by theistic evolutionists. Ken Miller and Francis Collins have been doing their thing for years and have been taking criticism the whole way through. Some agree with their theologies, some disagree. This is all fine.

* Things get even more ridiculous when the opprobrium is extended to anyone who defends the good name of theistic evolutionists --- at this point, the list includes Stephen Jay Gould

that nature is often (by our standards) cruel and that all previous attempts to find a lurking goodness behind everything represent just so much special pleading

Nature betrays no statistical preference for being either warm and fuzzy, or ugly and disgusting. Nature just is - in all her complexity and diversity, in all her sublime indifference to our desires. Therefore we cannot use nature for our moral instruction, or for answering any question within the magisterium of religion."

It seems the height of antiquated hubris to claim that the universe carried on as it did for billions of years in order to form a comfortable abode for us. Chance and historical contingency give the world of life most of its glory and fascination. I sit here happy to be alive and sure that some reason must exist for 'why me?' Or the earth might have been totally covered with water, and an octopus might now be telling its children why the eight-legged God of all things had made such a perfect world for cephalopods. Sure we fit. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. But the world wasn't made for us and it will endure without us.

* Last but not least, don't whine about namecalling and being discriminated against when you call us "appeasers" and "wimps" and "Neville Chamberlins." Seriously, what kind of reaction do you think you will get to this sort of rhetoric?

Nick, You're enjoying this so-called holy war as much if not more than anyone. By the way, when you and "your ilk" continually suggest that us "evangelical atheists" are hurting science's public image when we speak our minds, you're telling us to shut up, plain and simple. It's a little disingenuous at this stage in the game for you to start distancing yourself from your own disparaging remarks.

By the way, when you and "your ilk" continually suggest that us "evangelical atheists" are hurting science's public image when we speak our minds, you're telling us to shut up, plain and simple.

It's a little disingenuous at this stage in the game for you to start distancing yourself from your own disparaging remarks.

If you think that evolutionary science really is atheistic, well then, bully for you, but please explain why you don't regularly hitch modern meteorology, chemistry, etc. to atheism.

— Nick Matzke

What kind of reaction do you think you will get when you spin "Flunk the IDiots" as "Stamp out religion by any means necessary, evangelical atheists say?"

Here is a deal I'll make with anyone: If you state that it is inappropriate to label pro-evolution theists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris as "creationists", and inappropriate to label Ed Brayton, Stephen Jay Gould, Eugenie Scott, and others who are not hardline anti-religion activists as "Neville Chamberlains", "appeasers", etc., then I will happily concede that "fundamentalist atheists" and similar labels do not apply to you.

But the Dawkins acolytes promoting "religion is evil and so is anyone who doesn't vehemently agree" on the blogs have been picking fights with the "appeasers" for months. Eventually we're going to get annoyed enough to defend ourselves.

— Nick (Matzke)

In response to PZ: Now that we have a couple of years where the standards aren't our main concern, we plan to work on informing and educated the public about issues in a way that might make the creationists have less appeal at the polls. This will involve helping people understand science and evolution better; it will involve helping people understand things about public policy,public accountability and public education; and it will involve helping people understand some things about religion. Of course we know that we can't overturn the culture, but we can, I think, shift the views of enough people in the middle to help us keep from yo-yoing back to having the creationists in control - at least we can try. Also, this will be have to be a joint venture with contributions from many constituencies: moderate Republicans and Democrats working together, people of many faiths including those with no religious faith at all, people with different core agendas (defending the teaching of good science, supporting the separation of church and state, supporting public education, etc.) As we have found before, sometimes frictions arise when these various groups are working partially for the same cause and partially for different causes. We can live with this overlap because we have to if we want to be politically effective and because it's the right thing to do if we truly believe in the value of a diverse and secular society.

But exaggerating arguments you don't like into strawmen, then declaring that they're just too nasty and their makers can't be on your team anymore, isn't much of a defense.

What kind of reaction do you think you will get when you spin "Flunk the IDiots" as "Stamp out religion by any means necessary, evangelical atheists say?"

— Nick (Matzke)

I never said this, you have me confused with someone else.

Posted by Ebonmuse on November 26, 2006 10:17 PM (e) Nick Matzke wrote: If you think that evolutionary science really is atheistic, well then, bully for you, but please explain why you don't regularly hitch modern meteorology, chemistry, etc. to atheism.

Because of its pagan, atheistic origins, atomism had always been viewed with suspicion, but now, its troubles were compounded. Thomas Hobbes was also accused of being an atheist. Gassendi and Descartes, although mechanical philosophers, were exempt from this criticism. In their mechanical universe, Gassendi and Descartes had made room for an immaterial, non-corporeal Divine Being. Both of these philosophers, moreover, admitted that man's soul, as well, is immaterial and spiritual. Hobbes, however, was more consistent. He insisted that man's soul, in a material, mechanical universe, must be material. Later, he admitted to Bishop Bramhall that even God is material and corporeal. To all Englishmen, High Church Anglican and Puritan alike, this was heresy; this was atheism. In addition to its own intrinsic difficulties, therefore, atomism had to bear the burden of having notorious friends. Because of Hobbes, the atomists, most of whom were actually pious Christians, were laid open to charges of impiety and heresy. These more orthodox atomists were greatly disturbed about the situation, and set about to purify atomism and to dissociate it from atheism and impiety. Online Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Atomism

Nick (Matzke): ... the evangelical atheists mistakenly think that religion and evolution unavoidably conflict...

FWIW, as a member of the "religion per se is not the enemy" camp, here's what I wrote in response to PZ on the KCFS Discussion forum:

— Jack Krebs

Posted by buridan on November 26, 2006 10:36 PM (e) Here is a deal I'll make with anyone: If you state that it is inappropriate to label pro-evolution theists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris as "creationists", and inappropriate to label Ed Brayton, Stephen Jay Gould, Eugenie Scott, and others who are not hardline anti-religion activists as "Neville Chamberlains", "appeasers", etc., then I will happily concede that "fundamentalist atheists" and similar labels do not apply to you.

But it would be nice if you would also admit that our differences with regard to religion and science are legitimate domestic disputes and not the titanic disaster that I hear you saying. I mean what really was your point with this post?

Nick (Matzke): ... these days, we have neither meteorologists nor religious people running around telling Time magazine that lightning rods are anti-God....

Bryan was also not a great poster-child for Fundamentalism- at least, not the modern kind. He was most famous for his progressive stance and fighting to help the poor and disadvantaged groups, until this little trial came up near the end of his life.

Ed- I'm reminded that Christian apologists like Lewis often use arguments in the form of, "Any argument requires reason to form, therefore one can not say reason does not exist through argument." Seems like the same approach could be used with Literal Creationists- Any argument against the validity of reason is apriori a false argument, as it relies on reason to form it.

Is there really so little going on in the anti-evolution movement that PT contributors are reduced to talking about themselves? Gotta nuke somethin', I guess.

To summarize the long post I wrote which I really should have previewed, since the computer boiled it down to "Syntax Error": This debate is futile since noone can control what Richard Dawkins says, but thats ok, because the Discovery Institute can't control what their creationist clients sitting on school boards say, either, which pretty much ensures that the ACLU will always have plenty of evidence of those people's religious motivations, which contrasts nicely with the complete vacuity of whatever anti-evolutionary pseudoscience the DI is trying to sell them. Sure, the ID creationists will use juicy quotes from Dawkins, but even if he started making nice with Ken Miller, the fundies will not stop promoting the notion that evolution=atheism.

"Registered user" is obviously Great White Wonder. (Note the fixation with Sal Cordova, Hannah Maxson and Allen MacNeill).

...you're telling us to shut up, plain and simple.

I, for one, do not want you all to put a clamp on your yammering skullcaves; without the lot of you pretentious ultracrepidarians I would not have nearly as many heads to knock.

"The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

It is still not clear to me what an atheist is not allowed to voice about theism, if he wants to be considered part of the PT team. Is there even agreement amongst the PT leaders as to what can and cannot be said?

I see that Lenny is on the team and openly non theist, so I guess we can admit that much about ourselves. Also it seems clear we can attack anyone who is anti-evolution, be they theist or not.

As best I can tell any theistic stance someone, somewhere might hold while tentatively supporting evolution is off limits from criticism because we may need their vote. Those who are so confirmed in their understanding of evolution that nothing could sway them would seem not to be of concern.

Are we allowed to say anything we want about the theology of 'Father' Moon and his disciple Wells, please?

I await your specific instructions for my future conformance.

I get pretty amused by the whole "atheists are repressed boo hoo hoo !!!!" thingie.

Dudes, I've been tear-gassed, arrested, beaten up, talked to by the FBI, and threatened more times by more people than I can remember. So I find it amusing that so many of the intolerant evangelical atheists whine from their ivory academic towers about their "repression". Particularly when most of them have never organized so much as a tea party.

But if the evangelical atheists here feel that they are being unfairly picked on, that their contributions (whatever they might be) are ignored, that no one pays any attention to their repression ----- then here is my Modest Proposal:

Leave.

Go form your own organization with your own leadership and your own goals, where you'll never have to collaborate with the theist-accomodators, and can maintain as much ideological purity as you feel is necessary.

You can call your new organization something like "The National Association for the Advancement of Atheist People", or "The National Organization for Atheists", or perhaps "The Atheist Coalition To Unleash Power".

Never again will you have to take guff from us theist-collaborators in your midst. Never again will you have to compromise with peopole whose religious opinions you don't like. Never again will you have to listen to those Chaimberlains.

Of course, you'd have to, ya know, actually ORGANIZE something, rather than just bloviating and bitching about everyone ELSE's organizing. But I'm sure you can handle it.

Have at it, and enjoy yourselves.

We'll go on fighting IDers without you. Heck, other than the precipitious drop in pointless religious wars with our allies, we'll probably never even notice that you left. (shrug)

Want to whine about your repression? There. Now you have something to whine about.

Is there really so little going on in the anti-evolution movement that PT contributors are reduced to talking about themselves?

The only easy way to mess this up --- which fundamentally is a great situation for us --- is to have Darrow-types take over and redefine science and evolution to be equal to atheism.

ID is dead?

Can anyone name anyone who read Judge Jones decisive conclusion and said "oh, well, then...I guess I'll accept evolution because the courts say so"? Anyone?

All that has happened is that one foray into the classroom has been stopped. This is when the hard work is supposed to start -- we need to educate people now. We have to wake up teachers and get them to start teaching good science in the high schools. We have to stop the backwards slide of the culture into ignorance. And yes, part of that is having wide-open free-for-alls over the role of religion in our society, and trying to change the culture.

Nick claims that the anti-religion people are starting the next creationist wave. What nonsense: the wave is building, nothing has been done to stop it, you could take out all us atheists and shoot us and the next creationist wave will still come. What we have here is a do-nothing, know-nothing willingness to blind ourselves to the problem, and pretend that if we ignore religious fundamentalism, it can't hurt us.

The current state of mental vacuity so prevalent amongst American evangelical Christians (who are the social power behind ID) is an exception rather than the rule in historical Christianity. It has interesting and very specifically American roots. That isn't to say that there aren't ignorant Christians elsewhere, but I think much insight can be gained by understanding why it is that AECs would so blindly endorse a theory they don't really understand against another theory they don't really understand.

I highly recommend the book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," written by a Wheaton professor Mark Noll. It traces the development of the anti-intellectualism so characteristic of AECs today, mourns the lack of a 'life of the mind' in evangelical Christianity, and suggests ways for fixing it.

PZ gives Christianity both not enough and too much credit, assuming that it has always been as it is now and that it can never change. It can and will. But the impetus for change won't be court rulings or the cries of anti-religious zealots.

My position is that pushing anyone away from science is going to harm the cause of science education.

Let's just gloss over the fact that the scientific evidence is strongly against the Christian mythology.

Let's just gloss over the fact that the scientific evidence is strongly against a literal Christian mythology.

What do you figure is the big difference between the US and Europe in these matters? Is it creationism per se, irrationality per se, perhaps an undue respect (as in shutting up about it) towards religion or something completely different?

Do any of you who live in the US really think you'll get rid of this ID bug before the American population starts to think differently about religion and/or rationality?

Dead god rises again to save the world from its sins by not being dead is only part of the literal Christian mythology?

Hmmm. Learn something new every day. It's good to hear that non-literalists reject that bit of illogical nonsense.

There are people who are primarily interested in science education, and there are people who are primarily interested in bashing religion in all it's forms.

Tying together what Pieter and PZ are saying:

I hate to point it out to our appeasing-evolutionists, but you guys are losing the war. You keep talking about American schools, the American Constitution, the NCSE etc etc, and don't feel the need when using the term "national" to specify that the nation involed is the US, so I am going to make the big assumption that the vast majority of you are Americans, and apparently the typical, insular sort that forget that there's a world outside the US's borders.

Here's a thought. You think that appeasing the Christian majority is a tactic that is bearing results, and offer up the recent wins in court cases as evidence. Let me tell you how it appears from the outside. To us (well, at least to me, but apparently I'm not alone, to judge from other comments from Europeans on this blog), it seems that you are getting your collective arses kicked. The fact that public schools could even get to the point of wanting to try to introduce a form of creationism into science classrooms, and have enough popular support to make it happen, is a sure fire sign that you are losing the war. PZ gets it. I think the vast majority of the non-Americans on this blog get it.

It is only a matter of time before the popular support becomes enough to replace the judges that have so far defended our cause with those more willing to put religion ahead of reason. What are you going to do then? PZ (and Dawkins) are trying to head this off at the pass. They are trying to attack the irrationality at the very heart of religion, because without doing that, one day you will lose in court.

From the perspective of an atheist, theistic evolutionists are untrustworthy allies. We can not predict on what issue they are suddenly going to drop the ball, because they decide that "God" has so instructed them. We can't predict it, because their belief is irrational. To give a personal example, I went to school with two very bright, very devote Christians. We used to role-play a lot, Dungeons and Dragons, that sort of stuff. Then one day, one of these two went to a church meeting where it was declared that role-playing is bad, and is the pathway to the devil. Said Christian spoke about this with the other Christian of our group of 4, and both decide to no longer play, leaving the remaining two of us with no group.

OK, no big deal, it was only a game, but the point is, we could not predict that response. We could not anticipate that these two would buy into that particular argument after they had been role-playing for years, and pertinently knew that it was false from firsthand personal experience!

If firsthand experience can trump religious irrationality, then no amount of polite debate about complex science can. The only other option is to go after religion itself... Not to ban it, but to make sure that children growing up have at least the opportunity to hear how ridiculous religion is, before tey get brainwashed. (heading off criticism at the pass - I am not proposing that we therefore brainwash children into atheism, but as we can't stop children being taught such nonsense by their parents, they do need to at least hear the other side before it's too late).

As I've said before, I for one appreciate the vocal atheists for helping me clear the clutter in my brain, which I created during futile attempts to combine theism with science. If evolution is correctly defined, there really is no room left for theology. PT bloggers have made a very good case for this, which I need not repeat here (and probably wouldn't do justice to).

The only small quibble I have is that my intelligence and personal integrity were attacked repeatedly when I commented about theistic possibilities, which was not necessary. Others who put out theistic perspectives, or anyone who came to my defence, was similarly attacked. I made an honest attempt to look at the arguments presented to me and put aside the insults, and the result was enlightening. I don't know what other theist bloggers did. But the obstacles, in forms of insults, put downs, and attacks on personal integrity, were totally unnecessary. Those of you who read PT often enough, and follow the religious wars here, know exactly what I am talking about.

And that kind of treatment is legitimate to object to, just as it is legitimate to object to treating atheists as a-moral, valueless, or silly/dogmatic. Nick Matzke is willing to make compromises... let's see what others do.

Another point, which justifies attacking theistic evolution. If we accept theistic evolution (and a reminder for the appeasers, you claim that such acceptance is necessary if one is not to offend the Christian majority), then we can no longer argue God of the Gaps. Francis Collin's approach for example is clasic God of the Gaps, placing God in the sub-quantum world, where we can never hope to be able to measure him. Good grief, if you can accept that, why not just come straight out and say that the guy created the world 5 minutes ago? Both claims are based on the idea that God can act on our world without our being able to detect it.

May as well believe in the FSM.

I hereby claim (and expect all appeasers to respect my religious point of view) that His Noodiliness, the FSM created the universe about 1 minute ago. Hence it was he, and not I that actually wrote all of these words. If you have any issues, please take them up with Him.

You see where appeasing can take you?

What is so bad about demonstrating that anyone can adopt science, whether these be militant atheists, or theists who believe truth wherever it appears?

"Among those in Germany for example who nowadays live without religion, I find people whose 'free-thinking' is of differing kinds and origins but above all a majority of those in whom industriousness has from generation to generation has extinguished the religious instincts: so that they no longer have any idea what religions are supposed to be for and as it were merely register their existence in the world with a kind of dumb amazement. "

— Nietzsche

The very few militant atheists who are prominent on our side aren't about to take over the fight against creationism. If they were, then I'd say it's time to oppose them.

Odd Digit: I've yet to be convinced that insulting people (calling them 'child abusers' etc) will have the same effect.

This rather begs the question of whether they're being called that as a rhetorical gambit, or whether what they're doing is accurately described as child abuse. Is "Jesus Camp"-level brainwashing extreme enough to deserve the label? How about implanting visions of eternal hellfire as punishment for touching yourself Down There? Teaching kids only one model of the universe, in which a brooding and arbitrary ultimate father figure has placed a curse on all humanity, redeemable only in blood and groveling? Conditioning them to internalize social roles rigidly defined by gender & sect (often class & race also) as part of the cosmic order? Programming their minds to be haunted by an inescapable superego called Jesus who judges each act and thought according to arbitrary rules, painfully at odds with actual human psychology? Possibly there is some degree below which religious indoctrination is not child abuse, but so far those protesting against that categorization have yet to address the merits of the claim. Nobody has yet established a widely-agreed-upon model for The Best Ways of raising human children, but can you seriously claim that such approaches would have reason to include a basis in Bronze Age mythology filtered through neurotic obsessives from the Dark Ages and televangelists with polished teeth?

Odd Digit: I've yet to be convinced that insulting people (calling them 'child abusers' etc) will have the same effect.

Now let's look at the PT "mission statement" (or at least the text most closely resembling such on the PT homepage):

— ah_mini

There is a nice chunk of vagueness there in the phrase "critique the claims of the anti-evolution movement". Presumably those in camp 1 think that means "criticise Intelligent Design/creationism" and those in camp 2 take a wider view and can go for any religious claims the anti-evolution camp make (even if they don't strictly pertain to evolution).

How about, "There are people who are primarily interested in science education, and there are people who are primarily interested in apologizing for religion in all it's forms." Got any more of these? It's easy to rephrase these dichotomies into statements that support my position, and it really doesn't matter if they're accurate or not, apparently.

This rather begs the question of whether they're being called that as a rhetorical gambit, or whether what they're doing is accurately described as child abuse. Is "Jesus Camp"-level brainwashing extreme enough to deserve the label? How about implanting visions of eternal hellfire as punishment for touching yourself Down There?

— Pierce R. Butler

Let's just gloss over the fact that the scientific evidence is strongly against a literal Christian mythology.

I always liked the part where Jesus and the devil jumped up on top of the mountain. And then there's that one part where Jesus floated up into the sky on a cloud. And then there's the story about the walls of Jericho. I had no idea that after the walls fell they went in and slaughtered every living thing in sight until I read one of Carl Sagan's books. I always thought that the Jericho thing was a happy go lucky Sunday school story! It was quite a shock, and somewhere around that time I realized that people were willing to ignore whatever it takes in order to keep their precious myths seeming like they're real. Well hey, if they're willing to ignore the bad stuff and keep the good stuff, then more power to them. (I guess.)

Well, just to add to the general noise level:

If there is any cure to creationism, that cure is effective reality-based education. This is probably analogous in some way to a beneficial trait: some carriers will pass it along to their offspring, who in turn will be less resistant to continued effective education.

The main problem I think we face right now isn't the rabid creationists themselves, but the omission of any mention of evolution in public education classes, in the interests of administrative tranquility. Most school principals probably aren't enemies of evolution itself, but they ARE enemies of riling up a bunch of creationist zealots, who can make trouble all out of proportion to their numbers.

Which suggests that our goal shouldn't be bellowing at one another about whether religion is a curse on humanity or only a wart. Instead, we should focus on finding some way to support public school administrators who permit teachers to present the ToE, and maybe some way to make it more difficult for the most demented parents to cause so much trouble.

I notice that the AiG essay contest winners are nearly all homeschooled. Maybe this is the way to go: send home the children of the most demented parents to be preached at, teach actual scientific knowledge in science class, elect school boards who have some backbone (and brainpower). Creationists need to be neutralized; lobotomy is unlikely to be legalized anytime soon...

Hi Anton,

Well I mostly go by posts and comments, which maybe I should have clarified. Despite being a theist myself, I'd rather not too much was made out of evolution "supporting" Christianity. Rather, it's an irrelevance to my particular interpretation, which I fully realise is an irrational and unfalsifiable argument. ;)

Andrew

This rather begs the question of whether they're being called that as a rhetorical gambit, or whether what they're doing is accurately described as child abuse. Is "Jesus Camp"-level brainwashing extreme enough to deserve the label? How about implanting visions of eternal hellfire as punishment for touching yourself Down There? Teaching kids only one model of the universe, in which a brooding and arbitrary ultimate father figure has placed a curse on all humanity, redeemable only in blood and groveling? Conditioning them to internalize social roles rigidly defined by gender & sect (often class & race also) as part of the cosmic order? Programming their minds to be haunted by an inescapable superego called Jesus who judges each act and thought according to arbitrary rules, painfully at odds with actual human psychology? Possibly there is some degree below which religious indoctrination is not child abuse, but so far those protesting against that categorization have omitted to address the merits of the claim. Nobody has yet established a widely-agreed-upon model for The Best Ways of raising human children, but can you seriously claim that such approaches would have reason to include a basis in Bronze Age mythology filtered through neurotic obsessives from the Dark Ages and televangelists with polished teeth?

Believe it or not, I was actually attempting to establish some common ground. A starting point for reasonable discussion perhaps. Excuse me for trying, please carry on flaming away pointlessly at everyone who doesn't agree with you 100%...

Religious people who defend non-reason as a rational position, or even as an irrational but valid, religiously-acceptable position, need to be challenged, directly, constantly, and seriously.

Wrong -- it's dangerous and destructive ACTIONS that need to be challenged (and, of course, the specific people and groups doing them), not just people who don't think the "right" way. (And you atheists wonder why Christians don't trust you?)

There's a big problem with on the one hand recognising that irrationality is a hige problem but not acknowledging that religion, in virtually all its forms, not only endorses irrationality but makes it a virtue --- the most virtuous of virtues in fact. This is Dawkins' main point, I think, in The God Delusion and I agree with it.

If that's Dawkins' "main point," then he's observably wrong. Not all "irrationality" is the same; not all religions are "irrational" to the same degree or in the same ways; and lumping them all under one label, such as "irrational," does not make them the same, nor does it justify treating them the same. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Dover trial were religious; so were Martin Luther King and Pat Robertson. Any label that lumps all of them together for policy purposes, is -- to put it mildly -- not a useful label.

The Klan used MLK Jr.'s rhetoric to frighten their idiot converts, too. How'd that work out for them, Pim?

In King's case, it failed, but that was because King's rhetoric was actually moderate and sensible: he attacked racism and racial discrimination, but he did not treat all white people as enemies. This is why so many of the white majority were able to support, and still support, his agenda. Other black activists were more radical in their statements, and thus made themselves less relevant or useful in the overall policy debate.

Well I mostly go by posts and comments, which maybe I should have clarified.

— ah_mini

Despite being a theist myself, I'd rather not too much was made out of evolution "supporting" Christianity. Rather, it's an irrelevance to my particular interpretation, which I fully realise is an irrational and unfalsifiable argument. ;)

Programming their minds to be haunted by an inescapable superego called Jesus who judges each act and thought according to arbitrary rules, painfully at odds with actual human psychology?

— Butler

Spirit of Stephen J. Gould: "I told you! NOMA, bitch!"

Dawkins seems to believe that most theists really do rely on the biological design argument above all else,

It is my understanding that there are several countries, the European ones for example, where education is under no threat from creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else it's calling itself this week.

I was wondering if it were really true that they reached this stage because their scientists HAD decided to attack religion vigorously, the way Dawkins and Myers are doing now.( perhaps sometime in the 1920s when nobody was looking ). I just don't know.

Perhaps someone could give me a link, because their examples might be worth studying. Particulary if they also once had entrenched religious majorities, like a certain large country has now- and a failure for science education was a real possibility.

It is my understanding that there are several countries, the European ones for example, where education is under no threat from creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else it's calling itself this week.

I was wondering if it were really true that they reached this stage because their scientists HAD decided to attack religion vigorously, the way Dawkins and Myers are doing now...

I suspect that part of the reason lies in their history, and the lessons they draw from same: simplistically put, Europe is a more densely-populated, more religiously-diverse continent than America (which is why so many religious zealots left that continent to colonize this one); with a longer history of bloody sectarian strife over Bible-interpretation issues. This could be why Europeans -- whatever their personal beliefs -- are less eager to try to enshrine any religious belief in law. Also, they're neither as powerful nor as isolated as America, which means they HAVE to face reality and give their kids a decent education.

Of course, this could change: I've been hearing for years that right-wing evangelical churches of the US mold are on the rise in Europe -- not to mention radical Islam and leftist spinelessness in the face of same.

If evolution is correctly defined, there really is no room left for theology

It is my understanding that there are several countries, the European ones for example, where education is under no threat from creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else it's calling itself this week. I was wondering if it were really true that they reached this stage because their scientists HAD decided to attack religion vigorously, the way Dawkins and Myers are doing now.( perhaps sometime in the 1920s when nobody was looking ). I just don't know.

demallien wrote: The fact that public schools could even get to the point of wanting to try to introduce a form of creationism into science classrooms, and have enough popular support to make it happen, is a sure fire sign that you are losing the war.

What you may have missed over there in Europe is that the creationists haven't just been getting their butts kicked in court; they have been losing at the ballot box on election day, too. You see, lots of people in the US don't bother to vote, and many don't have a clue who is on the ballot, especially in what are normally minor offices like school board member. This allows creationists to conduct stealth campaigns in churches, where they garner enough votes to swing the election. The average voter doesn't know their school board has been taken over by creationists until they read in the paper about how the real estate broker, home schooler and pastor on the local school board just decided to redefine science. Once educated, however, US voters have given the boot to creationists on school boards in Dover, Pa., Kansas and Ohio in the last year, and defeated a creationist running for superintendent of public instruction in South Carolina (the only Republican who lost a statewide election there this Fall)and I can assure you that a majority of those voters were not atheists.
US voters have gotten tired of non-reality based policy making, and the GOP (where almost all creationist candidates reside) got a serious reality check earlier this month. Senator Rick Santorum started running from ID as hard as he could last year, but still couldn't save himself from electoral defeat. IDism is not a big vote getter in the US, and the ultimate check on pseudoscience here is not the courts, but ordinary voters.
Now the fact is that most of those voters are christians, and they aren't going to be converted to atheism by Dawkins or anyone else, so I don't think a campaign to tell them that christianity is incompatible with science is going to help. I also know that in a free society every spectrum of opinion is going to be expressed anyway, so I'm not going to get my shorts in a bunch over whatever Dawkins or PZ Myers wants to say about the subject. What is important is making sure public school students get good science instruction.

I don't think so. I think the decline of religion in Europe basically is the result of (1) for several hundred years they sent all of the religious radicals over here to the colonies, (2) what was left in Europe was state-established churches, which (3) have been slowly declining through apathy and competition with "football" (soccer).

Odd Digit wrote ... a lot of people attacking science education also happen to be religious.

Europeans have historically been subjected to much more religious imposition through the government than Americans have.

Yes, here in America, we leave such imposition to the Private Sector, which does things much more efficiently than any damn bureaucracy.

There are two problems with the above-quoted statement: first, "historically" does not necessarily mean "still happening in the present." And second, less imposition of religion "through the government," does not necessarily mean less such imposition overall. It certainly does not mean that a Pagan is freer to come out anywhere in the US than he is anywhere in Europe.

We Americans don't need government to make life hard for religious minorities.

You can't do this by saying something like, "it's OK to teach kids this junk because you believe it," whether in school or at home. This is the main reason home schooling should not be allowed, by law.

PvM wrote: I can understand why some may have this opinion of Jesus and the Scriptures but to create an overly simplistic view of Christianity ...

Ah me... This, that or the other is either 'good for science' or 'supports science' or...

But what is this 'science' that is being defended or promoted? Of course analytical philosophers love to argue, but it does seem that Jeffrey L. Kasser (NC State U), for example, has a point that nobody has (yet) properly defined science...

So are you sure you are all defending, one way or the other, the same thing?

Nick (Matzke) wrote: ... if you gave the government the kind of power you are talking about to regulate the religious instruction that parents give their children, the odds are the atheists would be among the first victims.

tomh: I know that you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting PvM's opinions. Go back and try again.

It's not just money-grubbing "shamans"* who claim that Chrtistian beliefs are more complex than the Dawkins camp seem to think they are. It's a huge number of actual Christians, not to mention Jews, Muslims, Pagans and atheists who actually care enough to listen to people of other faiths before judging them.

*(As if you even got the bit about "shamans" right...)

I think the decline of religion in Europe basically is the result of (1) for several hundred years they sent all of the religious radicals over here to the colonies, (2) what was left in Europe was state-established churches, which (3) have been slowly declining through apathy and competition with "football" (soccer).

Change in allele frequencies over time; yeah, that really crowds out God

FYI:

Dennett reviews Dawkins' The God Delusion (PDF)

Change in allele frequencies over time; yeah, that really crowds out God

Great! Nick Matzke endorses 1) deporting the fundamentalists (as if emigration would or did deplete them), 2) the establishment of a state church, and 3) more football.

— PZ

Do you really believe the US has a sports-nut deficiency?

Another logical disconnect, since atheists are not giving their children religious instruction.

The only way atheists would be among the "victims" would be if the government required religious instruction. Also, banning homeschooling would not regulate parents' opportunity to give religious instruction, it would only prevent them from giving children the parents' invented version of science. Or at least it would have to compete with the school's version.

Posted by Katarina on November 27, 2006 2:33 PM That is only part of the definition, convenient for the point you seem to be making, and convenient for most creationists, who have no quibble with this general definition. What makes evolution such a revolutionary idea is that it is directionless. There is no target. And yet it is the only good explanation for how simple parts can form immensely complex systems. So if God had people, or any of their specific characteristics, in mind when he started the whole process, whether he guided it or not, that is clearly contrary to a targetless process.

Theistic evolutionists haven't so far made an airtight case for God's involvement in evolution without compromising either the science or the theism. The best Miller has done is a God who is mostly hands-off, and who needs a God like that?

If you know of a good case for TE, please refer me to it. I looked around quite a bit but had no luck.

Great! Nick Matzke endorses 1) deporting the fundamentalists (as if emigration would or did deplete them), 2) the establishment of a state church, and 3) more football.

Theistic evolutionists haven't so far made an airtight case for God's involvement in evolution without compromising either the science or the theism.

Theistic evolutionists -- as opposed to creationists in their various (transparent) guises -- don't HAVE to make a case for God's involvement in evolution: we admit that such involvement, if any, is not provable by science. So how is either our theism or our science "compromised?"

The best Miller has done is a God who is mostly hands-off, and who needs a God like that?

A "hands-off" God, or an "unprovable" God whose intervention cannot be assumed or counted on in a given instance? There's a difference.

Theistic evolutionists haven't so far made an airtight case for God's involvement in evolution without compromising either the science or the theism. The best Miller has done is a God who is mostly hands-off, and who needs a God like that? If you know of a good case for TE, please refer me to it. I looked around quite a bit but had no luck.

You obviously don't even know what theists are saying. Your typical theistic evolutionist would say that God is creating the universe at every instance of its existence.

Your typical theistic evolutionist would say that God is creating the universe at every instance of its existence.

It is not trying to establish common ground when your approach is to strongly mischaracterize my position. If it's a starting point for reasonable discussion, then you're just going to have to accept my reasonable statement that you are wrong.

How about, "There are people who are primarily interested in science education, and there are people who are primarily interested in apologizing for religion in all it's forms." Got any more of these? It's easy to rephrase these dichotomies into statements that support my position, and it really doesn't matter if they're accurate or not, apparently.

According to Miller, if he acts in quantum events, which happen all the time, and through other seemingly random events, he would be undetectable by science but also able to mold creation in the most profound ways.,/quote>

Miller is a biologist handwaving in a field outside his own.

The Schrödinger equation is deterministic. It gives rise to indeterminism when we segregate system from observer and force a superposition state into one of a number of eigenstates. But the indeterminism is of our making; it's not a property of the universe.

So if God had people, or any of their specific characteristics, in mind when he started the whole process, whether he guided it or not, that is clearly contrary to a targetless process.

Theistic evolutionists haven't so far made an airtight case for God's involvement in evolution without compromising either the science or the theism.

According to Miller, if he acts in quantum events, which happen all the time, and through other seemingly random events, he would be undetectable by science but also able to mold creation in the most profound ways.

But the indeterminism is of our making; it's not a property of the universe.

Posted by Katarina on November 27, 2006 2:33 PM That is only part of the definition, convenient for the point you seem to be making, and convenient for most creationists, who have no quibble with this general definition. What makes evolution such a revolutionary idea is that it is directionless. There is no target. And yet it is the only good explanation for how simple parts can form immensely complex systems. So if God had people, or any of their specific characteristics, in mind when he started the whole process, whether he guided it or not, that is clearly contrary to a targetless process.

E.g., if God is omniscient and omnipotent, which is rather the point of being God, then he could easily employ a statistically random process to bring humans about.

Theistic evolutionists haven't so far made an airtight case for God's involvement in evolution without compromising either the science or the theism. The best Miller has done is a God who is mostly hands-off, and who needs a God like that?

the interpretation that this means that evolution and the Universe is are purposeless/directionless, are theological claims

Katerina, you haven't correctly interpreted their words

So, events have a cause. Is that the point? I don't see how that is an argument for anythig.

Like I said in a previous comment, those who have endorsed calling us the "Neville Chamberlains" of the evolution/creationism battle have no basis to complain about the evangelical atheist label. Here is a deal I'll make with anyone: If you state that it is inappropriate to label pro-evolution theists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris as "creationists", and inappropriate to label Ed Brayton, Stephen Jay Gould, Eugenie Scott, and others who are not hardline anti-religion activists as "Neville Chamberlains", "appeasers", etc., then I will happily concede that "fundamentalist atheists" and similar labels do not apply to you.

According to Miller, if he acts in quantum events, which happen all the time, and through other seemingly random events, he would be undetectable by science but also able to mold creation in the most profound ways.

If he acts outside of seemingly quantum events and through other seemingly non-random events, he could also be undetectable by science too, since he can do whatever he wants and he apparently wants to be undetectable by science for some odd reason. Sounds to me like Mr. Miller wants to hide god inside the gaps for some reason. Well, it's okay Mr. Miller, god can hide outside of the gaps too if he wants. Lol, sometimes you can be really kooky, there Mr. Miller.

Let's just gloss over the fact that the scientific evidence is strongly against the Christian mythology. Let's pretend that the only way you can make science compatible with religion is to do a little bait-and-switch, and swap in a vague and fuzzy deism in our public discussions of "religion" --- a religion which most Americans do not endorse.

If the evolution of the universe is deterministic, it means that a supernatural entity cannot alter that evolution without violating physical laws. The apparent 'window' that Miller and others see, whereby a deity might affect events by choosing one of two apparently random, similarly probable quantum outcomes, isn't a window at all.

Most religions are therefore creationist, from interventionist deism to theism. Theistic evolution is such a theory because it supposes intervention on some level.

That's not how we've been using the term "creationist." As I've heard it used just about everywhere (including the text of the Dover ruling), believing we were created by some sort of supreme being does not make you a "creationist;" believing that such creation is scientifically provable, and that your creation-doctrine should therefore be treated as legitimate science, makes you a "creationist."

There are millions of people, of many faiths, who firmly believe we were created by this or that God(s), but just as firmly believe that their creation-stories should not be treated as "science" in any way. They would reject the "creationist" label just as firmly, and just as rightly, as would Dawkins.

Nick (Matzke) wrote: This is the biggest canard in the fundamentalist atheist box. Saying there is no God is equivalent to a religious statement.

It is equally protected in personal speech by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, and it is barred from governmental promotion by the Establishment Clause.

On this logic, the government can ban private religious schools also.

You are employing an extremist and dangerous argument.

Dawkins seems to believe that most theists really do rely on the biological design argument above all else,

I can't agree. According to his book, they use many arguments, all of which he addresses.

There are two problems with the above-quoted statement: first, "historically" does not necessarily mean "still happening in the present." And second, less imposition of religion "through the government," does not necessarily mean less such imposition overall. It certainly does not mean that a Pagan is freer to come out anywhere in the US than he is anywhere in Europe.

Seriously, if you gave the government the kind of power you are talking about to regulate the religious instruction that parents give their children, the odds are the atheists would be among the first victims.

Another logical disconnect, since atheists are not giving their children religious instruction.

— Nick

This is the biggest canard in the fundamentalist atheist box. Saying there is no God is equivalent to a religious statement.

What are you guys proposing, anyway --- that more ignorant, hysterical, and ahistorical screaming about the evils of religion will eventually get rid of religion?

— Nick

I find it interesting - and revealing - that you see the situation as a dichotomy, and misread my interpretation as the same. Apparently either everyone agrees with you... or they're doing religious apologetics (even if they are scientists and even if they are atheists!).

— Odd Digit

But, frankly, I don't think science can be brought to bear on almost any of what most believers would consider core Christian beliefs. Certainly, science can establish that resurrections don't happen every day--- but then again, I think the whole point of Christian doctrine is that the Incarnation wasn't an everyday event.

if God is omniscient and omnipotent, which is rather the point of being God, then he could easily employ a statistically random process to bring humans about.

Many ideas are protected speech that have nothing to do with religion, non-belief among them.

You're being dishonest again, tomh. "Science provides no evidence for or against the existence of a God" is a statement of fact; but "There is no God" is an opinion, just like "Jesus is Lord." For ConLaw purposes, at least, it's a "religious doctrine;" and taxpayer-funded institutions have no business promoting either of the latter opinions. If a Christian can't deny the existence of other Gods in a public school, then neither can an atheist.

As Dawkins points out, watch how fast theists would trash NOMA if a few "miracles" could be proven scientifically true. It's used to protect theists, not atheists.

— jeffw

Dawkins seems to believe that most theists really do rely on the biological design argument above all else,

Ehrm! I made a cognitive jump. Of course, even without MW, the birds eye superposition view is still deterministic. I was going directly into the assured way in our means of detecting foul play with classical measurements - for the insecure doubters of the former view.

It is my understanding that there are several countries, the European ones for example, where education is under no threat from creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else it's calling itself this week. I was wondering if it were really true that they reached this stage because their scientists HAD decided to attack religion vigorously, the way Dawkins and Myers are doing now.( perhaps sometime in the 1920s when nobody was looking ). I just don't know.

— Cowardly Disembodied Voice

Theistic evolutionists --- as opposed to creationists in their various (transparent) guises --- don't HAVE to make a case for God's involvement in evolution: we admit that such involvement, if any, is not provable by science. So how is either our theism or our science "compromised?"

— Raging Bee

Theistic evolutionists do not typically invoke gaps to support their views. Francis Collins's argument about altruism being unexplainable by evolution and therefore physical evidence of divine intervention is an exception. (If it really is even true that he makes an argument as crude as that.)

Odd Digit:... The problem is that the above is an example of the worst kind of religious upbringing.

PvM:... to create an overly simplistic view of Christianity ...

From today's TNYT opinion page, by Richard A. Shweder, professor of comparative human development at the U. of Chicago --- "Instead of waging intellectual battles over the existence of god(s), those of us who live in secular society might profit by being slower to judge others and by trying very hard to understand how it is possible for John Locke and our many atheist friends to continue to gaze at each other in such a state of mutual misunderstanding."

Scientific evidence is certainly against a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. But, frankly, I don't think science can be brought to bear on almost any of what most believers would consider core Christian beliefs. Certainly, science can establish that resurrections don't happen every day--- but then again, I think the whole point of Christian doctrine is that the Incarnation wasn't an everyday event.

— B. Spitzer

"Science provides no evidence for or against the existence of a God" is a statement of fact

"Science provides no evidence for or against the existence of a God" is a statement of fact; but "There is no God" is an opinion, just like "Jesus is Lord." For ConLaw purposes, at least, it's a "religious doctrine;" and taxpayer-funded institutions have no business promoting either of the latter opinions. If a Christian can't deny the existence of other Gods in a public school, then neither can an atheist.

— Raging Bee

Odd Digit:...Butler wrote: Programming their minds to be haunted by an inescapable superego called Jesus

Francis Collins's argument about altruism being unexplainable by evolution and therefore physical evidence of divine intervention is an exception. (If it really is even true that he makes an argument as crude as that.)

— Nick Matzke

I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree -- I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree -- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual. If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs

Blah blah blah God. Blah blah blah No God. Blah blah blah God. Blah blah blah No God.

(yawn)

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.............

Raging Bee wrote: You're being dishonest again, tomh. "Science provides no evidence for or against the existence of a God" is a statement of fact; but "There is no God" is an opinion, just like "Jesus is Lord." For ConLaw purposes, at least, it's a "religious doctrine;" and taxpayer-funded institutions have no business promoting either of the latter opinions. If a Christian can't deny the existence of other Gods in a public school, then neither can an atheist.

I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree --- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual.

Sure, but inasmuch as educated theists live in a world where miracles haven't been proven, many of them accept NOMA, and it would be help Dawkins to recognize that.

"There are also positive evidence, bayesian or inductive reasoning on observations is supportive and many qualities of nature speaks against it."

And of course I should note that even if these types of reasoning are used elsewhere, they are not applied for these purposes in currently accepted science.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: Blah blah ... (yawn) ...ZZzzz........

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 27, 2006 6:18 PM Nick Matzke wrote: Francis Collins's argument about altruism being unexplainable by evolution and therefore physical evidence of divine intervention is an exception. (If it really is even true that he makes an argument as crude as that.)

I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree --- I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree --- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual. If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs

But, frankly, I don't think science can be brought to bear on almost any of what most believers would consider core Christian beliefs. Certainly, science can establish that resurrections don't happen every day--- but then again, I think the whole point of Christian doctrine is that the Incarnation wasn't an everyday event.

Science does an equally poor job disproving Last Thursdayism, or invisible pink unicorns. If you're going to fall back on the impossibility of disproving solipsism, you have made a very weak case indeed for your preferred alternative.

And even if we can't expect to find direct testimony from the relatively few people who are said to have met Jesus after his resurrection, we can certainly say on grounds of parsimony that they're as likely to have been mistaken or lying as all the other people who have claimed to meet with the dead.

"Science provides no evidence for or against the existence of a God" is a statement of fact

I am prepared to repeat these questions until I get clear answers.

Please don't forget the context of my point: the claim was made by PZ Myers that "the scientific evidence is strongly against the Christian mythology." My point was that this is falsely claiming scientific authority for an extrascientific position. I'm not trying to make a case for the alternative, I'm pointing out the boundaries of scientific authority.

As such I would have to agree with PZ, that science declares against the Xian mythology.

Because meteorology and chemistry have not historically been offered as proof of the existence of a deity, whereas the existence of intelligent life has.

— Nick Matzke

This is simply wrong as a matter of history. Atomism was opposed on religious grounds for centuries for being materialistic/atheistic...

He hopes there can be a respectful exchange of ideas somewhere between the militant extremes of religious violence and militant atheism.

And now for something completely different from YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG2xVF4wjfs

Ted

My sense of the ID controversy is that we declare ID not to be science precisely because the miracles they claim to be "science" have not been properly shown. We demand documented evidence for such design work (perhaps only the usual marks of design: novelty, rationality, and relatively unfettered "borrowing" of ideas) if their assertions are to prevail against the finite repertoire of possibilities so far demonstrated.

In my opinion, the need for documentation that any and every extraordinary (miraculous) claim is actually contrary to science, is too narrow a view of the science enterprise. It seems to put the "burden of proof" upon the well-evidenced claims of science, rather than upon those who claim that science fails at some point or another. They may indeed question scientific generalization if they have some solid evidence that it doesn't hold in the vicinity of, say, Jesus Christ. However, if they do not have the requisite evidence, we, for instance, consider Newton's laws (some of which hold in a limited regime, some apparently in general (like momentum)) and the various phenomena which militate against the astonishing increase in order necessary for one to rise from the dead, to hold.

In other words, it is the exception to the known and expected scientific generalizations which has the "burden of proof", so that we feel free to deny claims as implausible as Jesus' resurrection, in the absence of strong supporting evidence. This, too, is science, though many are surprised to find that it is.

Hume made a number of pokes at the generalizations of science, for nothing in the repetition of the same aspects of physical processes is able to necessitate that the next attempted repetition of the same aspect (say, momentum) will also prevail. The problem was that Hume was criticising science with the scholastic philosopher's sense that necessity of some sort is needed in science (though he held to science in despite of this lack of necessity in physical processes), while in science we have learned to trust solidly demonstrated repeats, never minding the fact that necessity does not attend scientifically-investigable phenomena.

The convergences of discovered "regularities" are too strong to be doubted, and indeed, interventions from the outside might be expected to skew the historical sciences vis-a-vis the present. We do not see evidence for the noticeable singularities which might (or, to be sure, might not---who knows?) accompany miracles.

Anyway, that is my answer to B. Spitzer, and I shall not belabor this further (my intention, not a promise), as I have presented my position, and he has presented his in a reasonable and amicable manner. I respect what he has said, and have written how and why I differ from it. So be it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by Ebonmuse on November 27, 2006 10:24 PM I'm afraid I don't see what this has to do with my argument. My point was that evolution undermines one of the classic and still most popular arguments for belief in God, the argument from design, in a way that atomic physics and meteorology do not. While these branches of science were attacked for being materialistic, no one that I've ever heard of has ever offered "the non-existence of atoms" as a reason to believe that God exists.

Let me make it clear, for the record, that I don't think theistic evolutionists are equivalent to creationists, and I'm happy to work together with them to fight creationism. (I am not, however, insulted by being called an "evangelical" atheist; that is exactly what I am.) However, I think we occasionally get the impression - not necessarily from you, Nick - that there are people who would prefer we keep quiet and not criticize religion or otherwise take part in political issues at all.

For example (and note, unlike Lenny Flank, that when I make claims like this I offer evidence for them), take Os Guinness: He hopes there can be a respectful exchange of ideas somewhere between the militant extremes of religious violence and militant atheism.

Aw, c'mon, 'Rev Dr' - can't you come up with a better lame evasion than a caricature of a lame evasion?

You've got a nice tidy six-pack of questions there - take your choice, pop one open, try it!

Glen Davidson wrote: I'm guessing that most theistic evolutionists don't really know whether to credit God for setting up conditions in the beginning, or if God is constantly working within the universe under cover of statistical randomness.

Glen I enjoy your rational and civil posts. I just wanted to point out that the distinction between those two options is only meaningful if time is real, and not illusory, as physics seems to indicate. Thus a theist could believe an eternal God conceived an eternal universe which was complete at the moment of conception, thus God does not either wind a clockwork mechanism and watch it run or constantly tinker with a work in progress. He, and it, simply are.

And now for something completely different from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG2xVF4wjfs Ted

I tell Dawkins what he already knows: He is making life harder for his friends. He barely shrugs. "Well, it's a cogent point, and I have to face that. My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism. The sensible" - and here he pauses to indicate that sensible should be in quotes - "the 'sensible' religious people are really on the side of the fundamentalists, because they believe in supernaturalism. That puts me on the other side." Wired

In other words, focusing only on preventing creationism from entering schools is missing the forest for the trees. We have managed to win a bunch of court cases, the latest one in Dover. But we have not won in the court of public opinion. (Coturnix at Scienceblogs) I don't know why this is so hard to understand. We are not winning. We are clinging to tactics that rely on legal fiat to keep nonsense out of the science classroom, while a rising tide of uninformed, idiotic anti-science opinion, tugged upwards by fundamentalist religious fervor, cripples science education. Treading water is not a winning strategy. I'm glad we're not sinking, and I applaud the deserving legal efforts that have kept us afloat, but come on, people, this isn't winning. (PZ Myers)

Posted by PZ Myers on November 27, 2006 7:43 AM The only easy way to mess this up --- which fundamentally is a great situation for us --- is to have Darrow-types take over and redefine science and evolution to be equal to atheism.

Your strategy is exactly the opposite of what you claim, and I wish you guys would be honest enough to admit it.

It is most definitely NOT a strategy of making a clear case that science is independent of religion: it is to constantly, monotonously harp on the compatibility of evolution with Christianity. You are making a pro-Christianity case every step of the way.

Now I can quite agree that that is a politically pragmatic tactic in the short term, and yes, it will make it easier for you to win court cases.

I'm sure it really encourages the Christian majority in this country when you can spit on Richard Dawkins now and then.

Let's just gloss over the fact that the scientific evidence is strongly against the Christian mythology.

Let's pretend that the only way you can make science compatible with religion is to do a little bait-and-switch, and swap in a vague and fuzzy deism in our public discussions of "religion" --- a religion which most Americans do not endorse.

Again, it's short term expediency. It's not an honest attempt to show that science is religion-neutral.

My point is that you are doing long-term harm with that strategy. You are basically lying to people to win court cases, and are actively encouraging cultural beliefs that are antagonistic to science. Religious people and even creationist people are not stupid, yet your favored policies all treat them as if they are, and are doomed to defeat for that reason.

What we're seeing in the popularity of Dawkins is that people are interested in seeing different views, even if they disagree with them and even if they don't instantly convert to atheism --- and quite the contrary to the common bias, Dawkins is at least treating religion with sufficient respect to say what he honestly thinks of it. Miller, I think, is similarly honest (just wrong). Nick Matzke...you're being political.

I'll be more convinced that you are following a religion-neutral strategy when the next court case (and oh, yes, you know there will be more, with no end in sight) doesn't just bring up Famous Christian Scientist who says X. You'll also bring in Famous Atheist Scientist who says X, and you'll frankly state that Famous Christian Scientist's weird ideas about Jesus are contrary to good science. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day.

Thus a theist could believe an eternal God conceived an eternal universe which was complete at the moment of conception, thus God does not either wind a clockwork mechanism and watch it run or constantly tinker with a work in progress. He, and it, simply are.

Ludicrous. Basically all of the fundamentalist atheists are doing exactly this. You guys all say that science disproves God. Occasional lipservice is paid to the philosophical point that disproving God is impossible, but then you will say something like "Darwin destroyed the only decent argument for God that there ever was, the Argument From Design."

— Nick Matzke

You can of course prove me wrong. How about, as an exercise, that you start each of your posts on these topics with a statement along the lines of "Although science is unable to completely eliminate the possibility of a God, it does seem to indicate that such a God is extremely improbable, as improbable as the existance of The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

You show the numbers, and hey maybe they will consider that exercise just out of respect for your being the greatest scientist who has ever walked the face of this planet.

We find the refusal of people such as yourself to state this fact loudly and clearly, as a betrayal of the cause of science. You constantly spout the tired refrain of "Science can't disprove God", to appease the religiosly delusion masses, but if you are true to science you know that the existance of a God is extremely unlikely, and has exactly zero supporting evidence (well, maybe the Big Bang, but afterwards, zippo).

Andrwe

With respect to the feasibility of a state church in reducing religious impact on society and legislation, I think Nick Matzke is way too optimistic. Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi-Arabia do not have a better track record than the US regarding evolution/ID. Of course, in these countries its /even/ less accepted to publicly criticize the dominant religion. IMHO, the major difference between pro-science Europe and anti-science USA is the religious fervor of the American public and constituency. Many Americans view atheists as bigger threats than most anything else, which just goes to show the degree of ignorance on these matters in the American public.

Another issue is the terms "fundamentalist atheist," "evangelical atheist," or atheism = religion. Atheism doesn't make religious claims, because debunking Bronze age mythical claims about the real world is not a religious act. The way I see it, the steady progress of science makes it easier and easier to be an atheist, because science makes gods utterly unnecessary. It's not the same thing as being a religion anymore than debunking Santa or astrology is a religious point of view. If you need a god lurking in these small crevices left over when science is done, fine. But don't pretend that science is neutral about religion. Every positive claim in the Bible has more or less been disproved by science, and unless you think it's all about interpretation and metaphors and whatnot, the Christian position /is/ severely dented because of this fact. But don't blame us or science, because if Christianity hadn't made those claims or tried to impose them unto others, there would've been no reason for science to even deal with these matters.

With respect to the feasibility of a state church in reducing religious impact on society and legislation, I think Nick Matzke is way too optimistic. Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi-Arabia do not have a better track record than the US regarding evolution/ID. Of course, in these countries its even less accepted to publicly criticize the dominant religion. IMHO, the major difference between pro-science Europe and anti-science USA is the religious fervor of the American public and constituency. Many Americans view atheists as bigger threats than most anything else, which just goes to show the degree of ignorance on these matters in the American public.

Another issue is the terms "fundamentalist atheist," "evangelical atheist," or atheism = religion. Atheism doesn't make religious claims, because debunking Bronze age mythical claims about the real world is not a religious act. The way I see it, the steady progress of science makes it easier and easier to be an atheist, because science makes gods utterly unnecessary. It's not the same thing as being a religion anymore than debunking Santa or astrology is a religious point of view. If you need a god lurking in these small crevices left over when science is done, fine. But don't pretend that science is neutral about religion. Every positive claim in the Bible has more or less been disproved by science, and unless you think it's all about interpretation and metaphors and whatnot, the Christian position is severely dented because of this fact. But don't blame us or science, because if Christianity hadn't made those claims or tried to impose them unto others, there would've been no reason for science to even deal with these matters.

Ouch! All that rhetoric and then in the last sentence of that paragraph you make a hideous concession to the deluded "God of the Gaps" deists! You're an appeaser just like the rest of us. Welcome to the world of irrationality ;)

— ah_mini

You show the numbers, and hey maybe they will consider that exercise just out of respect for your being the greatest scientist who has ever walked the face of this planet.

— 386sx

I am pretty much arguing the opposite of God of the Gaps.

...you know that the existance of a God is extremely unlikely, and has exactly zero supporting evidence (well, maybe the Big Bang, but afterwards, zippo).

Hmmm, let me see - thousands of observed phenomena in our universe. 99.9% explained by empirical science. 0.1% not yet explained (not surprising, as all are recently discovered phenomena). I don't know about you 386sx, but when I do the sums, that says that the probability of there being a God is really low...

...you know that the existance of a God is extremely unlikely, and has exactly zero supporting evidence (well, maybe the Big Bang, but afterwards, zippo).

Hmmm, let me see - thousands of observed phenomena in our universe. 99.9% explained by empirical science. 0.1% not yet explained (not surprising, as all are recently discovered phenomena). I don't know about you 386sx, but when I do the sums, that says that the probability of there being a God is really low...

So, according to Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, even Sir Ronald Fisher himself --- are on the same side as the fundamentalists.

So you say there is zero supporting evidence ("exactly" no less), but then immediately retract that and make the concession that maybe there is. I found that rather ironic in a post that rails against the simple statement that science does not disprove supernatural deities as a "betrayal of the cause of science".

— ah_mini

Imagine this. Australia is in the middle of it's worst drought in history (by most measures) at the moment. The weather guy announces on the news that "...and good news! There's a chance of some heavy showers in all drought-affected areas tomorrow afternoon". A reasonable person hearing that would expect that this means that best estimates have lead meteorologists to assign a relatively high probability of rain for tomorrow (say greater than 10%), and that it may be a good idea to pack an umbrella. That is effectively the claim being made by appeasers when they trot out "science has nothing to say on the existence or not of a God". Most people hear that, and think "Hah! It's completely reasonable to believe in the Supreme Being. Even the scientists say so!". Better pack that metaphorical umbrella.

That is rubbish. Science is quite clear - everywhere that we have looked, and we have looked in an awful lot of places, God has been found to be absent. Same-same for Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Thor, Jupiter, Father Christmas, pink unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't just ignore the results of hundreds of years of experiments giving negative results for the existence of a supreme being. Any scientist communicating openly and honestly with the general public on this topic is obliged to say, loud and clear "The odds of there being a God are really, really small", before adding, as a disclaimer, that the probability is nevertheless not 0.

That is what science is telling us.

The Big Bang is the one phenomenon for which we have absolutely no good theory at the moment, not even really a starting point. If you push most atheists, and say "There was a God, he created the universe with a Big Bang, and then sodded off never to be heard from again", they are going to shrug, and say "sure, why not". Of course, as has already been discussed here, such a God is completely irrelevant in today's world, seeing as he's "sodded off", leaving the playground for pure science to rule the roost.

Odd, isn't it, that since the death of ID, UD has been reduced to arguing with each other over religious opinions.

And so has PT.

By your standards, your admission that the big bang could be evidence for God (whether it is or not is again irrelevant) should also be interpreted as a "betrayal to the cause of science". Both statements can be interpreted as "supporting" religion in some way. Or you can admit that slapping endless disclaimers about the improbable existence of God(s) on anything that could possibly be construed as "pro religion" is an utter waste of time and effort.

— ah_mini

I am becoming convinced that the war you guys have declared on religious moderates is simply one big case of displaced rage. The conservative evangelicals are unresponsive to your tirades, so you direct them at thestic evolutionists instead, because, while you don't even know what they think, you brazenly assume it must be something similar to what the conservative evangelicals think.

It's not just displaced rage -- it's a (correct) sense of their own irrelevance that's making the militant atheists scream their heads off. They've contributed nothing to the recent defeats of the religious right, so they compensate by attacking those whose accomplishments overshadow their tantrums, and thus try to pretend they're the ones making victory possible. I've heard this sort of nonsense before: it's really no diffeent from spoiled leftist "students" belittling the accomplishments of mushy wussy moderates like Franklin Roosevelt.

What's really hilarious is when they pretend that their lack of social skills is a virtue:

What we're seeing in the popularity of Dawkins is that people are interested in seeing different views, even if they disagree with them and even if they don't instantly convert to atheism --- and quite the contrary to the common bias, Dawkins is at least treating religion with sufficient respect to say what he honestly thinks of it.

I could just as easily say the same thing about Ann Coulter:

What we're seeing in the popularity of Coulter's books and speaking-tours is that people are interested in seeing different views, even if they disagree with them and even if they don't instantly convert to Coulter's brand of Republicanism --- and quite the contrary to the common bias, Coulter is at least treating liberals with sufficient respect to say what she honestly thinks of them.

Since when is name-calling accusations unconstrained by reality a gesture of respect? We certainly aren't praising "al Qaeda Pat" for showing "respect" for people who don't think exactly like him. Nor do we praise him for adding to the diversity of different views. Is there no limit to militant atheist hypocricy? And you wonder why Christians think atheists are amoral?

These word-games are every bit as dishonest, disrespectful, divisive and destructive as those of the religious right. And every bit as useless to ordinary people; and every bit as contrary to the core values of a functioning republic.

demallien: The evidence is there. The odds of there being a God are low. This needs to be said, loud and clear.

Until science has a falsifiable theory which explains why anything exists at all, you can't honestly say that, because you have no way of making that calculation. All you can honestly say is that there is no good reason to believe in a God who performs ostentatious miracles on a regular basis. Creationists create strawman versions of evolutionary theory, then trumpet that the strawman they constructed is false; that is all you are doing.

I don't really care about your probability argument (other than you pulled the imaginary numbers out of your ass, but I digress). Many theists will quite happily admit their belief is irrational, so there's no argument to pursue.

What I do care about is your silly rhetoric concerning the "betrayal" of "pure" science and accusations of people lying. Science assumes that God doesn't piss around with experiments. It's one of the few assumptions that it makes. It also doesn't justify said assumption beyond the necessary practicality that all scientific investigation would be impossible if we had to account for supernatural alteration. How does one prove that some deity hasn't fiddled your experiment? I certainly wouldn't like to try!

The above means that the statement "science does not disprove supernatural deities" is correct. No "betrayal" or "lies" involved. It also does not prove God(s) exist either, something else I am quite happy to admit. Maybe that's why many atheists tend to concern themselves with the more fruitful tactic of disputing testable claims about the natural world stemming from particular religions? Hell, even theists get in on this act from time to time :)

Andrew

I could just as easily say the same thing about Ann Coulter:

— Raging Bee

Pierce: here's some answers to at least some of your questions...

Do you know of atheists fracturing, say, state alliances for better science education?

One of the far right's most effective talking-points is the "amoral atheistic science" stereotype, which militant atheists now seem intent on reinforcing. Recent political gains for the pro-science camp are based on appeals to pro-science Christians, which are aimed at repairing the damage done by the stereotype.

Can you cite any individual incidents of theists being harassed?

If uninformed and insulting overgeneralizations about "religion" and religious people count, then there's plenty to be found right here on this blog, and, in fact, on this very thread. If you actually want proof, you can read it yourself before you make your next post -- I won't make it harder for you by pasting repeat paragraphs. I don't consider these serious threats, of course, since most of the people making them are probably just idiots acting tough on the Web and would never have the guts to act out in the real world; but those are the incidents I can think of.

Are you saying that, if those damned scoffers would just shut up, the unchained power of positive theism will rout the hyperchristians?

Read a newpsper lately? "The unchained power of positive theism" is already starting to win the fight, with no help from ignorant scoffers, thankyouverymuch.

Where does creationism leave off and harmless belief in the supernatural begin?

When believers refrain from pretending their belief counts as science and should be treated as such.

Does pointing out the errors of slow (or culturally handicapped) learners constitute "treating them as the enemy"?

That depends on who, specifically, you count as "slow (or culturally handicapped)." If you count everyone who believes in any sort of god as "slow (or culturally handicapped)" based on that belief alone, then the short answer to this question is "Yes."

What, specifically, would it take to satisfy the critics of "evangelical atheism" in this forum?

For starters, stop making uninformed over-generalizations about beliefs you clearly don't understand; stop making statements that any ordinary person can see are false; stop making accusations that are based solely on the fact that the accused has a "supernatural" belief and therefore must be one of "them;" stop pretending that all religious beliefs, all over the world, can be spoken of or treated as if they were all the same; stop aping the fundamentalist mindset; and stop pretending you can't tell the difference between being tactful and shutting up entirely.

Well you couldn't, exactly, because one is attacking the ideology, while the other makes personal attacks upon the people who espouse it.

And Dawkins and Harris have made personal attacks on religious moderates like myself, my friends, and nearly all of my family -- not because we've done anything wrong, but merely because we have a religious belief, which makes us, in their eyes, "enablers" of religious extremists like Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden -- forget the fact that our beliefs don't aquare with those of the extremists. Guilt-by-association is every bit as wrong as a personal attack by name. That's why I lump Dawkins and Harris with Coulter, and I make no apology for it.

Read a newpsper lately? "The unchained power of positive theism" is already starting to win the fight, with no help from ignorant scoffers, thankyouverymuch.

20. The Bible claims that we are made "in the image and likeness of God." Doesn't evolution contradict this idea?

As far as we know... we are the only species on earth endowed with freedom, responsibility, and the capacity to love selflessly. (We may observe a kind of "altruism" in other species, but their apparent selflessness flows from instinctual endowment rather than freedom.) Our biblical ancestors' intuition of a uniquely human set of characteristics, therefore, clearly justifies a religious anthropology that attributes a great nobility to our species. It is especially in our capacity for making and keeping promises, and for compassionate love, that we can say that we are made in the image and likeness of God.

but I digress..

because you have no way of making that calculation

— Aagcobb

You guys all say that science disproves God. Occasional lipservice is paid to the philosophical point that disproving God is impossible, but then you will say something like "Darwin destroyed the only decent argument for God that there ever was, the Argument From Design."

— Nick

On what conceivable grounds, in a trial about the constitutionality of introducing creationism in public schools, could it possibly be relevant to have an expert witness give a sermon on how science disproves Christianity? (Ken Miller didn't make any attempt to prove Christianity in court, after all.)

— Nick

minimalist: my point is that we religious moderates are getting more and better results than the militant atheists could ever get, or have ever got in the past. (I don't see atheists stemming the growth of those megachurches you speak of.)

Sheesh. One could point out that the most useful default presumption is that what isn't attested by any known evidence, doesn't exist until any such evidence surfaces. And nearly everyone here would yawn and wonder where the issue is. OF COURSE science doesn't make stuff up out of whole cloth. In the immortal words of Isaac Asimov, the most important words in science aren't "Eureka, I found it!" but rather "...that's funny..." In other words, science is in the business of trying to explain observations, which means there must BE observations to be explained. Nobody is trying to explain what is not observed, so this entire argument appears pointless.

But wait! What if what's unevidenced and unobserved happens to be God? Suddenly the above otherwise-trivially-obvious observation becomes "militant atheism"! People like Nick Matzke and Raging Bee rise up to blast anyone with the temerity to point out that gods are simply one of an infinite number of imaginary conceits unsupported by any evidence, for which the most useful default is to assume nonexistence. When we plug "God" in instead of "bloogle", suddenly lack of any evidence becomes a matter of pressing concern and a SIN, rather than a triviality.

And I'm sorry, but whatever is unattested by any evidence whatsoever is properly presumed not to exist, tentatively and conditionally depending on what evidence may be found someday in the future. Doesn't matter WHAT is unevidenced. Let's call this rational attitude "militant indifference."

Theists, whatever their qualifications outside this special blind spot, are Making Stuff Up. There isn't any evidence for any deities. It must be made up. Fiction is dandy. Positioning fiction as science is wrong.

So each time that an experiment successfully confirms this hypothesis, the probability of there being a God gets reduced.

Sodding HTML. Let's try again:

P(D|G) < P(D|~G)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: Odd, isn't it, that since the death of ID, UD has been reduced to arguing with each other over religious opinions. And so has PT.

Please don't forget the context of my point: the claim was made by PZ Myers that "the scientific evidence is strongly against the Christian mythology." My point was that this is falsely claiming scientific authority for an extrascientific position. I'm not trying to make a case for the alternative, I'm pointing out the boundaries of scientific authority.

— B. Spitzer

As for parsimony, Anton, while it's certainly a useful principle, I feel that it falls well short of being "scientific evidence". This is especially true since ideas of what is and isn't parsimonious depend a great deal on prior beliefs.

My impression is that those who bring theistic assumptions into arguments like this can't help but wind up with theistic conclusions at the end; and those who bring atheistic assumptions into these arguments can't help but wind up with atheistic conclusions.

That's true if and only if P(D|G) P(D|~G), for whatever data D is observed. Can you support that?

— MartinM

Of course we jolly well do! Welcome to the wonderful world of Bayesian inference. Maybe a few hundred years ago, at the beginning of the modern scientific era, one may have been justified in making a statement such as "I believe that there is a 99% probability that there is a God". But, every time we do a scientific experiment, we have, as a meta-hypothesis, that the phenomenom [sic] that we are investigating has a natural cause, not a supernatural one. So each time that an experiment successfully confirms this hypothesis, the probability of there being a God gets reduced. We have now conducted so many experiments (literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions) without ever uncovering a supernatural cause. Any which way that you care to look at it, the Bayesian inference to be made is that there is only a very low probability of the existence of God. You can't escape the mathematics. There is just no justification for assigning anything other than an extremely low probability to the existence of a God. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's the facts... [sic] Take up your griefs [sic] with the universe. I'm sure it doesn't care either.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'p'

Well, seeing as you didn't bother defining what your symbols are, I'd have to say no

Let's start of with a neutral hypothesis, that there is a 50% probability that a God exists, and that he may be the cause of the phenomenom that wa are observing. With each investigation, we find that it wasn't God doing the magic, it was natural causes. With each discovery, the God hypothesis gets weaker

One of the far right's most effective talking-points is the "amoral atheistic science" stereotype...

...insulting overgeneralizations about "religion" and religious people ... to be found right here on this blog...

"The unchained power of positive theism" is already starting to win the fight...

When believers refrain from pretending their belief counts as science and should be treated as such.

... the short answer to this question is "Yes."

... stop making uninformed over-generalizations about beliefs you clearly don't understand...

... stop making statements that any ordinary person can see are false...

... accusations that are based solely on the fact that the accused has a "supernatural" belief and therefore must be one of "them;" stop pretending that all religious beliefs, all over the world, can be spoken of or treated as if they were all the same...

... stop aping the fundamentalist mindset...

... and stop pretending you can't tell the difference between being tactful and shutting up entirely.

Odd, isn't it, that since the death of ID, UD has been reduced to arguing with each other over religious opinions. And so has PT.

Effective or not, such stereotypes will be used without regard to any basis in fact.

Such stereotypes become MORE effective when fumble-mouthed atheists reinforce them with their own words. Historically, the most effective lies and stereotypes have been the ones with at least a tiny kernel of actual truth from which to generalize. Why do so many conservative Americans equate liberalism with Communism? Because at one time, enough liberals really were close enough to the Communists to serve as "proof" of this equation. How have blacks fought racism? By, among other things, tailoring their daily actions to avoid reinforcing the racists' negative srereotypes; the last thing they needed was to make their enemies' lies true.

Large-scale "coming out" has been an effective strategy for lesbians & gays...

"Large-scale coming out" does not mean acting stupid in public, or unjustly trashing others. It's possible to say "I'm gay" without insulting straight people who have done them no wrong, so it should be possible to say "I'm an atheist" without insulting theists in general. We Pagans -- another unjustly persecuted religious minority -- have some experience with this: we're quite able to say what we believe without stooping to the fundy level of adding "...and everyone else is EVIL!!!"

Are you saying that advocates of supernaturalism do not have in common the significant trait of, well, supporting claims that something not to be detected in nature by any reliable means must nevertheless somehow be taken seriously?

I'm saying they should be taken seriously, or not, based on an informed judgement of their respective words and actions, rather than anyone's vague, uninformed and unverifiable opinion of what they may (or may not) think. If a theist (or atheist) says something false or stupid, call him on that specific statement; if he behaves decently and sensibly, respect him and don't waste ahnyone's time hectoring him over his beliefs. "Thought-policing" is wrong, whether by theists or by atheists. Is this really a hard concept to grasp?

If you're saying that such assertions should instead be utterly ignored, I agree entirely on epistemological grounds, but must demur for political reasons. This sort of unsanity has consequences, y'know.

Again, judge people by those consequences you speak of. Yes, there are consequences, but not all of them are uniformly bad.

So nobody can criticize astrology without learning how to cast a horoscope?

I'm saying nobody can criticize astrology without learning the basic principles of what astrology actually is, what astrologers actually say or believe, and how it is "used." If you (like me) don't care enough about astrology to learn the basics, then chances are you (like me) don't care enough to spend time criticizing it.

When True Believers complain that present Middle East policies are not doing enough to bring about the Second Coming, the only allowable rebuttal is a different exegesis of "Revelations"? Gee, that rule would certainly reduce the volume of debate.

WHICH "True Believers" are you talking about? If you have a specific group in mind, name them and attack their specific statements or actions. In any case, try not to confuse the guilty with the innocent -- we have enough religious bigots doing that already.

Btw, when will you make a similar demand on those abusing the science they clearly don't understand - and what compliance will you expect?

I already have, both on PT and in a few posts on my own blog. And the "compliance" I expect of that lot is roughly the same.

R O'B wrote Nonsense. Leave probability and statistics to those of us who are properly educated in those subjects.

One of the far right's most effective talking-points is the "amoral atheistic science" stereotype, which militant atheists now seem intent on reinforcing. Recent political gains for the pro-science camp are based on appeals to pro-science Christians, which are aimed at repairing the damage done by the stereotype.

— Raging Bee

stevaroni: what you're missing is that for many, if not most, theists, the evidence for the existence (or rather, the relevance) of this or that God(s) is subjective: if an individual "feels" the presence of a "higher power" acting in his/her own life, then that's the "proof." Loudly chanting "There's no evidence!" at him/her won't change his/her feeling, especially since many theists nowadays don't claim their Gods are objectively provable anyway. Heck, there are some theists who don't even claim their God(s) are real outside of their own heads and hearts.

You are not going to be heard, unless you shout above the din, and what a din it is, coming from the church.

Secondly, please do explain where we're reinforcing that "amoral" stereotype. I think you're stooping to a little bigotry of your own with that.

The stereotype I mentioned was that of the "amoral atheist scientist;" and it's reinforced by atheists who: repeatedly insist that science reinforces their beliefs (after telling the creationists that science does NOT reinforce any religious belief); attack religious beliefs without knowing, or even trying to find out, what those beliefs are; and engage in exactly the same dishonesty and logical fallacies for which we rightly condemn the fundies. You want evidence? It's on this very thread, and probably any other thread with more than 200 replies.

They've contributed nothing to the recent defeats of the religious right,

if an individual "feels" the presence of a "higher power" acting in his/her own life, then that's the "proof.

... it should be possible to say "I'm an atheist" without insulting theists in general.

We Pagans...'re quite able to say what we believe without stooping to the fundy level of adding "...and everyone else is EVIL!!!"

...they should be taken seriously, or not, based on an informed judgement of their respective words and actions...

... judge people by ... consequences ... not all of them are uniformly bad.

what you're missing is that for many, if not most, theists, the evidence for the existence (or rather, the relevance) of this or that God(s) is subjective

If you (like me) don't care enough about astrology to learn the basics, then chances are you (like me) don't care enough to spend time criticizing it.

WHICH "True Believers" are you talking about?

... the "compliance" I expect of that lot is roughly the same.

I think PvM is perhaps overstating the case, but it always boggles my mind that some people--- like Registered User, perhaps--- fail to see the fact that, when evolution gets linked with atheism in the public eye, it does vast P.R. work for creationism.

There is a categorical difference between gays and atheists in this regard, though those who oppose both may not be able to see it.

Does this "categorical difference" mean that atheists and gays have to follow different rules of etiquette when talking to other people?

This is more than declaring membership in a given group, however: is it possible, or reasonable to expect, that somebody might say "I don't accept X" without giving any arguments against X?

Teh same is true for gays: they have given arguments against certain beliefs about gays, without saying that all straights are wrong, irrational and untrustworthy. So maybe there's something you could learn from the gays about stating your views honestly without causing needless offense. ("Queer Eye for the Unsocialized Atheist?" At least it would be more watchable than "Desperate Housewives"...)

It may be done with varying degrees of diplomacy, but ultimately, it's not possible to say "Y & Z are mutually exclusive propositions; Y is true" without at least implying that Z is not true.

Is IS possible, however, to state that we don't fully support Z, without calling everyone in the Z camp stupid or evil.

That is what pagans are doing to christians - at least those who accept the mutually exclusive aspects of their religion & yours, which seems to be most of them - so they correctly perceive that they are being told they're wrong, and react in their ineffably loving christian way.

This over-generalization proves you have no clue how Pagans interact with Christians. Our experience tells us that different Christians react differently. We simply talk to those who listen and show interest; and debunk the most odious statements of those who don't. By debunking their most ridiculous assertions, we manage to increase their isolation and decrease their credibility in the eyes of the non-ideological majority. We're not free from all danger yet, but we are making visible progress.

(And no, we don't actually assert that Christianity is wrong in its entirety, mainly because very few Pagans actually believe that. We talk of common ground, such as similar moral beliefs and respect for the rule of law, show others the respect we want them to show us, and merely assert our right to practice our beliefs as the Christians practice theirs.)

So when someone says that a teenager was made pregnant by a ghost; or the universe is governed by an emotionally insecure Power which can be appeased only by human sacrifice & frequent groveling; or that eternal extreme sadism is guaranteed for any woman who exposes her face/chest/groin; or that the alleged preferences of some putative indiscernible being(s) are to be preferred to fact-based evaluation of consequences in questions of ethical behavior; or that blurry photos of the Loch Ness Monster confirm the first two chapters of "Genesis"... just what basis are we to use in deciding any of these can be taken seriously? What standard of "decency" must be violated before it's acceptable to question such utterances?

I just laid out the standard in plain English: judge them by what they say or do, and by the benefit or harm that results therefrom. I really don't see why you find this so hard to comprehend. (If you want to criticize their beliefs, go right ahead; just remember that you -- and your beliefs -- will be judged by how honestly and intelligently you behave. If you assert, in the first minute, that their beliefs are wrong in their entirety, without even proving to them that you know what they believe, then don't expect them to listen to you much longer.)

...when evolution gets linked with atheism in the public eye, it does vast P.R. work for creationism.

To which PZ replied:

Think about that, though. Why should it? Why should people regard that as harming the cause?

Well, given that the "cause" is the teaching of good and honest science, separate from religious doctrine, and given that the belief in an evolution-atheism link is contrary to this cause, I'd say that a belief contrary to what we're trying to uphold is, well, harming the cause. There's no "why" about it -- it's just a fact.

Well, moving right along, I'm curious if the Roman number (equivalent to arabic 3,127) used in the heading for Nick's post has any correlate in reality?

That is, did Nick count up using some set of defensible criteria and determine that we have really had that many "religious war" threads here?

Or was MMMCXXVII just picked out of thin air, as an amusingly-high official-sounding type of number?

I know Lenny isn't responding to specific questions this weak ("I don't have to stoop to your ridiculous level of detail"), but maybe Nick is...

Or, y'know, Nora.

Or Asta...

Pinheads ain't picky--whoever's home can pick up the phone.

Raging Bee: ...atheists who: repeatedly insist that science reinforces their beliefs...

...after telling the creationists that science does NOT reinforce any religious belief;

...attack religious beliefs without knowing, or even trying to find out, what those beliefs are;

...and engage in exactly the same dishonesty and logical fallacies for which we rightly condemn the fundies.

Well, given that the "cause" is the teaching of good and honest science, separate from religious doctrine, and given that the belief in an evolution-atheism link is contrary to this cause, I'd say that a belief contrary to what we're trying to uphold is, well, harming the cause. There's no "why" about it --- it's just a fact.

Read a newpsper lately? "The unchained power of positive theism" is already starting to win the fight, with no help from ignorant scoffers, thankyouverymuch.

— Raging Bee

PZ: your assumption about my assumptions is just plain false -- I'm not "assuming" anything of the sort. Go back and try again.

Nope, we have found out what those beliefs are. We may not have established their global position within millimeters, nor confirmed the pedigree of the bull which emitted them; but we have, at least, tentatively identified the feed from which those emissions were formed.

Let me guess...you won't deal with facts, specifics, cause-and-effect relationships or supporting evidence because you don't want to descend to that "pathetic level of detail?" Sorry, that dodge didn't work for the creationists, and it won't work for you either.

I have repeatedly asked you to back up your reasoning with specific wrong actions resulting from specific beliefs of specific groups (of which there are plenty); and you have refused. Without such specifics, your "case" against religion and religious people is no better than "evolution led to the Holocaust."

Think about that, though. Why should it? Why should people regard that as harming the cause? This is more of that thoughtless bigotry --- seriously, if evolution were linked with, say, philosophy in the public eye, would you be complaining that it does P.R. work for creationism? Would people be damning those philosophers for muddying the waters?

— PZ Myers

They seemed to appreciate the help of Babara Forrest...

I was wondering about the more mathematical comments this morning , that somehow the apparent lack of evidence for the intervention of God anywhere in human history didn't (mathematically) diminish the probablility of His existence. It struck me as a highly suspect statement, but since I slept soundly through most of my statistics classes, I wanted more information.

— stevaroni

Ah, yes, the ignoramus who claimed evolutionary theory "is at the center of...much physical science (as in geology)..." Are you claiming her as an asset?

Gee, you haven't answered my request for concrete instances of this sort of stuff either.

I explicitly told you where you could find it. What do you want me to do, paste huge blocks of text already up on this very thread in one more huge post to make it easier for you to read? You sound like a creationist denying the existence of evidence after being shown multiple links to it.

They seemed to appreciate the help of Babara Forrest...

— Robert O'Brien

Ah, yes, the ignoramus who claimed evolutionary theory "is at the center of...much physical science (as in geology)..." Are you claiming her as an asset?

Raging Bee: Does this "categorical difference" mean that atheists and gays have to follow different rules of etiquette when talking to other people?

... gays... have given arguments against certain beliefs about gays, without saying that all straights are wrong, irrational and untrustworthy.

...[It] IS possible, however, to state that we don't fully support Z, without calling everyone in the Z camp stupid or evil.

...you have no clue how Pagans interact with Christians.

... we ... merely assert our right to practice our beliefs as the Christians practice theirs.

... I really don't see why you find this so hard to comprehend.

... If you assert, in the first minute, that their beliefs are wrong in their entirety, without even proving to them that you know what they believe, then don't expect them to listen to you much longer.

I don't know if it's really true, though, that Forrest has no problem with criticizing religion, especially in her current role. Has she done so recently?

— Glen Davidson

Do you have anything new to contribute on the validity of supernaturalism in any form? Spit it out!

When you've demonstrated that you comprehend what's already out there, all over the world, new and not so new, then maybe I'll add something new of my own -- if I have anything new. Right now I'm still taking it all in myself, and expect to be doing so for a long time to come.

I am pleased to note that you're now confining your criticism to "the believers currently in power," rather than all believers (many of whom are completely powerless). That's a major improvement.

...it seems quite possible that you might be able to find common ground. At least, that is, until you become visible enough that some pulpit-pounder decides it would be advantageous to add you to the latest witch-hunt...

And what better support will militant atheists provide us should that happen?

As a matter of fact, such things have already happened, and it is our pre-established common ground with moderates that has reduced, stopped, and/or prevented any resulting injustices.

The harm here is this bigoted opinion that atheists are bad. Simply bad. Gotta get 'em away. After all, if the cause is teaching good science, and there are these bad people, they would be bad and would harm the cause. That's just a fact, too.

... Let me guess...you won't deal with facts, specifics, cause-and-effect relationships or supporting evidence because you don't want to descend to that "pathetic level of detail?"

... I have repeatedly asked you to back up your reasoning with specific wrong actions resulting from specific beliefs of specific groups (of which there are plenty); and you have refused.

...I explicitly told you where you could find it.

stevaroni wrote: I was wondering about the more mathematical comments this morning , that somehow the apparent lack of evidence for the intervention of God anywhere in human history didn't (mathematically) diminish the probablility of His existence. It struck me as a highly suspect statement, but since I slept soundly through most of my statistics classes, I wanted more information.

PZ Myers wrote: ... however, we have way too many people on the side of evolution who still react to the heinous word "atheist" with the same kneejerk horror as some hillbilly hick snake dancer.

there are some questions you left unanswered since your last appearance here.

When you've demonstrated that you comprehend what's already out there, all over the world, new and not so new, then maybe I'll add something new of my own...

...you're now confining your criticism to "the believers currently in power,"...

...what better support will militant atheists provide us...

She wrote a nice article arguing for philosophical naturalism in 2000, and NOSHA's position seems to be (unsurprisingly) that religion's unnecessary at best. The ID side tried to attack her on the NOSHA and American Atheists connection at Dover, but the judge wasn't buying it.

— Anton Mates

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank: Allow me to take this time to say "goodbye, farewell and amen" to everyone.

Some people have all the luck!

Of course, I will still be seeing "the boss" every evening, rain or shine, tip or no tip.

And, with his kind permission, I may still stop by this watering hole from time to time as well.

(The same may well be true of Pizza Woman--she doesn't wait on permission from anybody to say her piece!)