Foot soldiers who lack vision

We're going forward with a bold new offense against the regressive forces that have kept this country locked in a stalemate — we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition.

Advocacy by PZ and others for atheism is fine; that minority certainly deserves a voice. Can one distinguish this from just trying to stop others from teaching dumb things about biology?

===

The post does not define "compatible" and argues from a tacit
definition. Arguing from definitions excuses one from noticing the reality of compatibility for many people. Definitions of "compatible" that require people to hold views they do not, or that would require the other side to capitulate, are not the usual meaning of that word.

I'm sorry, Richard, but the atheists are your air force. We're going forward with a bold new offense against the regressive forces that have kept this country locked in a stalemate — we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition. We like your slow old boats and your foot soldiers, and think they have an effective, even essential, role to play, too — but we're going to fly with your support or without it.

— PZ Myers

"I was not giving lectures in Kansas because I was not asked."

I'm sorry, PZ, but in this staunchly-Catholic part of Kansas the cracker stunt is your claim to fame. If you and Ken Miller were to give exactly the same presentation to the same group of people out here, do you honestly think those people (voters, who determine the composition of our state school board) would be more likely to accept the facts of science from you than from Ken Miller?

Us lowly foot soldiers likely have a better grasp of the local demographic terrain than the Airedales flying over at 600 mph.

Because, in other words, Miller would give them the latitude to ignore the uncomfortable facts. That's fine; but someday, they have to face reality, and encouraging them to avoid it does us no favors in the long run.

Hey! I didn't get asked either and I haven't pulled any cracker stunts . . .

There is not an attempt to silence atheists going on. Atheist organizations are welcome to do what they do, similar to theist organizations being allowed to do what they do. The annoying part is when atheists claim that atheism is a necessary component of science, and that atheism is the only rational choice, when you can be rational, scientific, and theistic. For proof, I point to the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Bacon, Kant, Newton, and Einstein. Darwin, when formulating the theory of evolution, was himself religious, though he became less so near the end of his life. Really, he's a shining example of why science and religion have very little, philosophically speaking, to do with one another: His opinions on God didn't change his theory, and the theory held up despite him having changing ideas on the nature of God.

I agree that it is important to criticize social institutions when they overstep their bounds: That is why I criticize atheist organizations as I also criticize theistic ones. This isn't a political necessity. It's a call for honesty and self critique. And, honestly, Atheists can not claim science all to themselves. Something that I did not think you were claiming until the end of this essay, where you claim "...we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition". The only reason religion is being commented upon by scientific organizations is because religious organizations have made silly claims with regards to evolution, and claimed that one has a binary choice. So, if we're interested in science education, due to social norms, we're forced to take a stand on the issue -- to ignore large social criticisms such as this only enhances the "Ivory Tower" myth of educational institutions, and steeps a large percentage of the populace in ignorance. Here, you claim that atheists are the sole proprietors of reason, intellect, and truth, and that in order to win this war, one must approach it from both the scientific angle, and the atheist angle. That is simply not true. Rational theism exists. And, if we're really interested in science education, and the promotion of scientific ideas only, then we should promote ideas that help people accept science, rather than fight both a metaphysical war as well as an epistemic one.

I don't have to announce that the Book of Genesis is wrong and silly, but I also don't have to go out of my way to tell them some pretty excuse to allow them to continue to believe in talking snakes. And if I'm asked, I tell them straightforwardly that literal religious accounts are falsified by the evidence.

PZ Myers said: Because, in other words, Miller would give them the latitude to ignore the uncomfortable facts. That's fine; but someday, they have to face reality, and encouraging them to avoid it does us no favors in the long run.

PZ Myers said: Because, in other words, Miller would give them the latitude to ignore the uncomfortable facts. That's fine; but someday, they have to face reality, and encouraging them to avoid it does us no favors in the long run.

In light of this post, I'll revise my initial position and say that Richard's final three paragraphs go too far in devaluing the contributions of PZ, Jerry, et al. to the cause. However, my objection to the initial straw man that the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE are promoting general compatibility between science and religion, as opposed to stating that acceptance of evolution need not conflict with religious belief, stands.

What should the NCSE's position look like? "Stop bringing religion up altogether, and stick to the science" would mean no discussion of creationism, no defense against the anti-science faction's claims. "Let godless voices join the chorus" would mean...I'm not sure, so I'll ask, would it be sufficient to have a section reflecting the views of atheist scientists? More practically, perhaps, what would be the way that the NCSE could improve upon stating the facts about acceptance of evolution without appearing to dismiss the godless voices?

Jerry Coyne said: Hey! I didn't get asked either and I haven't pulled any cracker stunts . . .

Funny thing is, in those situations (as well as in the classroom) I just focus on telling the story of the evidence. That is our strength, right? I don't have to announce that the Book of Genesis is wrong and silly, but I also don't have to go out of my way to tell them some pretty excuse to allow them to continue to believe in talking snakes. And if I'm asked, I tell them straightforwardly that literal religious accounts are falsified by the evidence.

Here's our big problem: we have had no offense at all, and we're never going to make any progress without one. Keeping the other team from scoring is important but doesn't win us any games if we can never carry our arguments forward — we're always being told to stop at the point where we are drawing the logical implications of science and evolution and told to back off…it might alienate the other team.

The unfortunate reality is that most non-fundamentalist religious people don't care much about evolution.
If you tell people like that they have to make a choice between believing in God and accepting evolution, they'll choose what they care about.
Many non-fundamentalists think they are required to make this choice. Maybe they hear anti-evolution statements from fellow church members. They certainly hear anti-God comments from people such as Dawkins.
I grew up in a religious community. I went to college in a religious community. I taught high school biology in a religious community. If you teach people that religion and evolution can be compatible, they may start to accept evolution (as I did). If you tell people in these communities that they must choose between evolution and religion, they will choose religion every time.
If your main goal is to preach atheism, this approach may be a good one.
If your main goal is to get people to accept evolution, this approach sucks.

Jerry Coyne said: Hey! I didn't get asked either and I haven't pulled any cracker stunts . . .

Whew. I'm lucky that he didn't rail against the ethereal heights of Morris, Minnesota, and chose instead to sneer at a great university in a mere working class midwestern city. I might have felt picked upon. I'm also glad he chose not to hurl his contempt using that frequently vilified term, the "elites", or I might have mistaken the Panda's Thumb for World Net Daily for a moment. Isn't it such an American thing, to treat all but the lowest, most local level of action as a liability? To scowl at intellectual expertise as if it were a scarlet letter marking the bearer as worthy of ostracism?

Some atheists are like an air force--one that has this tendency to bomb allies and call it an offensive.

And I strongly think that our side must be much more aggressive about stating the evidence for evolution. Nor do I have any problem with any atheist publicly and forcefully advocating atheism. But I do have a problem with any implication that if one accepts evolutionary biology that one must become an atheist because 1) it is not true and 2) it accommodates the enemy: given that choice the vast majority of people will not choose atheism. Being the single most effective tool of the enemy's recruitment and retention drives is hardly an offensive.

Furthermore it is not the job of the public schools to make atheists, fundamentalists, or anything of a religious or anti-religious nature. The First Amendment stops that cold. Evolution is not some strategy to make people atheists. Indeed if it was, it would become illegal to teach it in public schools just as much as creationism.

P.Z. should really consider that if it is okay to use the public schools to advocate atheism, then it is also okay for them to advocate theism and indeed fundamentalism. Which one is more likely? And lets not forget why we have a First Amendment if the first place: the realization that is neither right nor practical to use government power for the sake of attacking other people's beliefs and it can be outright destructive. If one really believes something is true, then one should believe that it can survive in a First Amendment environment. To me a fundamentalist attacking secularism is inadvertently admitting a lack of faith in his own belief. Fundamentalism is going to be doomed not because some are going to become atheists, but because it is not compatible with an educated populace in a free society. The reason is not because the government is attacking fundamentalism, but because fundamentalism is false.

Likewise if one thinks that one can't reconciling evolution and Christianity is unworkable, then they have nothing to lose from a First Amendment approach.

Finally, if your goal is to attack Christianity there are far more vulnerable spots than evolution. One can always shift one's idea of God to accommodate anything. But nothing can make it "good news" that the vast majority of humans are destined to Hell (well unless one dismisses Hell which admits that Bible is wrong details of the afterlife). Nothing can justify that God somehow forgot to include "Though shalt not own slaves" if He was really interested in teaching us morality or even merely giving us good guideline in how to live. And so on and so forth.

We had a sidebar about this in the comment thread on RBH's last Freshwater post. I think that the best way to get science out there is to stick to the science when presenting the science and find other outlets for atheism. I tend to agree with the view that we, the NCSE, the NAS, etc. ALL need to take a more aggressive approach to combatting fundamentalist misrepresentations of science. I don't feel that NCSE, et al. have necessarily been "too" accomodating to religion, but a clear statement needs to be made that we have an extremely detailed knowledge of biology supported by a giant mountain of evidence and that it negates myths invoking the supernatural.

However, as a graduate of Jerry Coyne's department, an atheist, and now located in a heavily fundamentalist region, I agree with RBH that there is a big difference in the way you approach educating people. At U. of Chicago, as one of Jerry's TAs, I had students with the intellectual ability to understand what the science said and compartmentalize it even if they were brought up with religious views. In my current location, I step out of my research ivory tower one or two quarters a year to teach at the community college and it's very different having to undo all the misinformation the kids have been raised with. Not to mention regular letters to the editor in the local paper, which I've shared here recently.

Keep in mind that people get religion once/week for all their lives. They get biology one semester or maybe one year out of that lifetime. It is awfully hard work to get through that wall of religion, especially if they've spent their whole lives listening to the American Taliban spewing all the usual creationist pseudo-science to them.

Lurker, note that PZ does not suggest using public schools to advocate theism or atheism. In public space he supports atheism as is his perfect right.

a lurker said: P.Z. should really consider that if it is okay to use the public schools to advocate atheism, then it is also okay for them to advocate theism and indeed fundamentalism.

PZ Myers said: Because, in other words, Miller would give them the latitude to ignore the uncomfortable facts. That's fine; but someday, they have to face reality, and encouraging them to avoid it does us no favors in the long run.

Some people seem to be incapable of grasping something both Coyne and I have said.

We are not lobbying for the NCSE to be a militantly atheist organization. I'd even agree that maintaining a careful neutrality is the best and most politically pragmatic approach for them to take.

The problem is that they aren't neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We're saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.

I would just point out that what the creationist fanatics want more than anything is a raw, bleeding, raging full-scale culture war.

They want you to stop playing defense.

An atheistic Shock and Awe campaign will be like manna from heaven for religious fundamentalists. It will be like a sign from God. End times!

These people feed on the ideology of victimization. They want to be attacked by atheists. They want to be the victims of "scientific materialism" and "methodological naturalism". If they are the victims of a full-scale offensive assault at the level of deep culture and heritage, it justifies the entire dopey narrative of their "way of life" being under attack. You will only feed the beast.

Let the enemy come to you. Why? BECAUSE IT'S WORKING. The OP made this very point by acknowledging the NCSE's overwhelming success with legal precedent in critical court cases. If "unreligion" is what you're after, then you must take pause for a moment and consider whether it's really true that "creationists are not in decline". I recall very recent news stories discussing how the trend in America is AWAY from religion, with more people than ever before describing themselves as atheists or agnostics.

This requires patience. You can't flush out all the old fundamentalist blood in one or two generations, but the culture IS changing. Certainly not fast enough for the most stridently anti-religious, sure, but definitely changing. Remember, the WWII baby-boomers are now retiring, and will soon be dying off left and right. It may sound crass, but I believe it's true that this generation of baby-boomers formed the backbone of the muddled religious ultra-nationalist mindset that has been so problematic with the constant attempts to rewrite the founding of America as a Christian enterprise, thereby generating all these ridiculous attempts at subverting church-state separation. Well, these people are gonna start passing on, but that old religious money is still going to float around for a while. Be patient. The culture is evolving.

If you fight this battle on the foundation of political, historical, and legal precedent...you win. You HAVE been winning! The reason why it makes sense to fight "defensively", from the standpoint of science, is because you happen to be defending things that are true, defensible, falsifiable, reasonable. The more the enemy oversteps and attacks in the political and legal arena, the more ridiculous, unreasonable, and fanatical your enemy appears in the historical and legal record. Witness Don McLeroy down in Texas. No one had to attack McLeroy on his own cultural or religious terms to create a public embarrassment. He did that all by himself, by swimming out of his depth, all on his own. And a permanent public record enshrines his buffoonery for all time.

Defend science, by doing science, and teaching it. Don't try to "transform the culture"! Don't be a Culture Warrior. Leave that to Bill O'Reilly.

The OP wrote this:

"We're going forward with a bold new offense against the regressive forces that have kept this country locked in a stalemate — we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition."

You know what that reminds me of? The Discovery Institute. That quote sounds like it could have been pulled from an atheist revision of the Wedge Document. Sorry. But the polemic of "cultural transformation" is unhelpful.

PZ Meyers -

By the way, I am an apatheist with no interest in any religion whatsoever.

Essentially, as far as I can tell, you implicitly claim to read the minds of those who accept science, yet also have a religious belief, and declare that their beliefs are "incompatible".

It's not convincing. Why should I listen to you about whether Ken Miller's religion is "compatible" with science? I can just ask him.

All I can see is that he subscribes to some religious views that I don't follow but certainly can't disprove, and accepts the same science I do.

Furthermore, it isn't my business, nor yours, either, whether his private religion is or is not compatible with science.

You are protected from creationism in schools because the constitution protects your freedom of conscience - the government can't favor one sect.

You are protected from superstitious bullshit being presented as serious science, not by law, but because science is a defined and cooperative human activity, and all those who do it or support it agree that it is based on testable claims and reproducible testing. You, me, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and Richard Dawkins all agree on this.

You have NO protection whatsoever against somebody else having a different religious idea than you do, and you don't deserve any.

If you really want to go to a place where people are forced to say that they are atheists, which of course you don't, you can go to North Korea.

In free countries, people can hold any religious belief they want, and say for themselves whether or not said belief "conflicts with science".

You do have the right to promote your own views, and to argue against, or even scorn, ridicule, denigrate, and indeed, even, to a large degree, lie about, the religious beliefs of others. That is your right and I strongly support that right. But you only have it because Ken Miller has the exact same right.

That's how it works. If you want to CHOOSE to be an atheist, rather than be one because Kim Jong Il says that you have to, then you have to respect the rights of others to CHOOSE their own path.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Lurker, note that PZ does not suggest using public schools to advocate theism or atheism. In public space he supports atheism as is his perfect right.

PZ Myers said: The problem is that they [NCSE] aren't neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We're saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.

Get used to it. Of course, we'd be even more effective if we coordinated, rather than that you constantly refused to take advantage of our potential.

— PZ Myers

PZ Myers said: We are not lobbying for the NCSE to be a militantly atheist organization. I'd even agree that maintaining a careful neutrality is the best and most politically pragmatic approach for them to take. The problem is that they aren't neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We're saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.

PZ Myers keeps thinking that if he only pushes his narrow and limited view of religious people harder, it will make the world as simple and black-and-white as he wants it to be. There are plenty of religious people out here, and I am one of them, who have applauded and supported his efforts to get scientific truth heard above the lies of the creationists. But Myers would rather kick us in the teeth and call us enemies so that he doesn't have to acknowledge that religious believers can be more than shallow cartoons.

I'm sure that Myers has encountered religious bigots in the past. I'm sure he's encountered Christians, for instance, who said "well, hey, you're feeding the hungry, and you're clothing the poor, and you're tending to the sick, and you're doing exactly what Christ said was the commandment above all others, which is loving your neighbor as yourself -- but because you don't identify yourself as a Christian, you are an enemy."

Myers seems determined to make sure that atheists do no better. "You may think that those religious who understand evolution, who study it and advance its frontiers, who support its teaching in our schools and oppose the attempts of creationists to interfere with that teaching of the best science, you may think they're allies -- but because they don't identify as atheists, they are enemies."

Thank God (and take that phrase in any sense you like) that there are those like Richard Hoppe, who can hold their own beliefs without becoming bigoted against those whose beliefs are different. Give me a "foot soldier" who lacks "vision" any day, if that "vision" is the disgusting old anthem of "If they're different from us, we must destroy them!"

Yes, the NCSE is lying.

They [i]say[/i] they are religiously neutral, but as Jerry Coyne has shown, the only view on religion that is promoted is one of compatibility. I go by what they do more than by what they say they do.

As for "This whole thing is sickening and disgusting", you couldn't be more wrong, and clearly you haven't read what I've written. I have specifically said that the theistic compatibilitist view can be represented, as long as it isn't the only view represented, but that I'd prefer that organizations like the NCSE took NO position on any variant of religion or atheism. Right now, it is effectively endorsing one particular version of religion.

Nowhere have I called non-atheists "enemies". I will call you a moron, however.

I would like to try to clarify some controversial points in the evolution / religion / creationism controversy.
Scientific knowledge is conjectural. The history of science shows that various concepts, laws, models and theories accepted by the scientific community have been replaced by others, or simply disappeared (the phlogiston theory, theory of caloric, the ether concept, atomic models, etc.). So, the idea that a scientific theory is true or closer to the truth than another theory is problematic: it is an unresolved issue in philosophy of science. What can be said, however, is that if a theory has more predictive power than another, it is (in this sense only) better than the other.
Scientific knowledge enables us to predict and, to some extent, control nature phenomena. It won´t help explaining a natural phenomenon like falling bodies, for example, to simply say “Bodies fall because God wants them to”. Such statements, whether true or false, have no predictive power. We must seek naturalistic explanations, which can be tested by experiments or observations. Only by applying scientific laws and theories can we predict the time it takes a stone to fall down when released. The same can be said of statements such as "The bacterial flagellum was designed by an intelligent agent". It’s necessary to enrich that statement with more details of the type “When did that agent do that? How was it done?"
For the time being, there are no alternative theories with the same predictive power as the theory of evolution. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to that theory. It lacks predictive power (and predictive success).
Notwithstanding, the problem is that statements such as "The evolutionary process, the laws of physics and the beginning of the universe are divine creations", as well as the existence of the soul and others like that, are not subject to empirical test and therefore cannot be dealt with science: they are metaphysical statements. That does not mean they are devoid of meaning (for many centuries, the theory that the world consists of atoms was a metaphysical theory). Therefore, in my view some form of theistic evolution cannot be scientifically refuted and I see nothing wrong in saying that evolution and religious claims of this type are not exclusive. The same goes for ethics: science cannot tell us how the world should be: it can only build models to explain (tentatively) how the world is.

PZ Meyers asks: Is it any wonder that we are making no progress in changing American culture?

I have specifically said that the theistic compatibilitist view can be represented, as long as it isn’t the only view represented,

but that I’d prefer that organizations like the NCSE took NO position on any variant of religion or atheism.

Right now, it is effectively endorsing one particular version of religion.

Nowhere have I called non-atheists “enemies”. I will call you a moron, however.

In case you haven't noticed, American culture is largely hostile to the idea that you should be allowed to explore nature. At least, that is, if you should happen to discover anything that contradicts the Bible.

The NCSE's response to critics who say that they are an anti-religious organization is usually along the lines of "No. We do not take a position on religion; in fact a number of prominent and respected scientists are outspokenly religious so clearly there is no scientific consensus on religion, and many people do not believe they are incompatible." Hoppe makes this point quite well I think and I don't see where PZ addresses it.

Now, evolution is clearly incompatible with a completely literal reading of Genesis or most other religious creation stories (in fact Genesis isn't even internally consistent), but this point seems so obvious as to be barely worth stating and is only relevant to Biblical literalists, which the majority of Christians are not. When the literalists do try to impose their views, there is never any ambiguity where NCSE stands.

PZ clearly wishes that the Biblical literalist claim that acceptance of evolution is inextricably linked to religious deconversion were true. It does not constitute an endorsement of religion when people like Hoppe point out that this wish is contradicted by the facts on the ground.

PZ may think he's a general, but he isn't fighting the same war.

PZ Myers said: In case you haven't noticed, American culture is largely hostile to the idea that you should be allowed to explore nature. At least, that is, if you should happen to discover anything that contradicts the Bible.

In case you haven’t noticed, American culture is largely hostile to the idea that you should be allowed to explore nature. At least, that is, if you should happen to discover anything that contradicts the Bible.

harold said: It's highly possible that what's going on, is that the NCSE prefers spokespeople who are effective in communicating with a general audience, and stick to the topic at hand... ...Why should they fight on several fronts? Their goal is not to advocate tolerance for atheism. That's a goal I support, but the NCSE is the National Center for Science Education. Their primary goal is to effectively promote science education.

(I)f one does not want to use education policy for atheism then why attack the NCSE, etc. in the context public education policy for pointing out that people can and do accept evolution and religion? The NCSE is 100% right to do do. And yet P.Z. and Dawkins attack on that very point. And indeed more than imply dishonesty on the part of the NCSE for that stance.

I suppose I am most curious about who and what the war is about and between? Who started it? How will it end? What is the plan for victory? Have the costs and benefits of this war been carefully assayed? Have all the sides been defined?

I would propose-emotionally gratifying as it can be at times-to first drop the war metaphor. Let's instead put in the realm of an Habermasian discourse based on argumentation, with an effort made at least by some to see if we can come to some sort of reasonable conclusion.

This process of argumentation could be seen as "atheists-vs. anyone who has any kind of religious faith at all"-which is how this post and the previous post come across.

Or, it could be seen as a contest between two (or really multiple points of view). On the one hand are those who think that the ultimate test of truth is the method of reason and experience broadly applied, in the context of a community of inquirers, genuinely committed to finding truth through the method of reason and experience who recognize that all claims to knowledge are fallible. On the other, are multiple people who rely on a priorism, authority, revelation, convention or some combination of those four and who propose that one of those four should limit the application of the method of reason and experience.

If some people, through their own good faith application of the method of reason and experience reach the conclusion that some belief other than atheism is justifiable, why is it necessary to see these people as lesser lights? Speaking for myself, I count myself-depending on the day-as an agnostic, a rational Deist or a vaguely pantheistic evolutionist.

As far as any particular or specific battles we are fighting I see it as follows. There are some people in our society who wish to impose some form of limit on the valid claims to knowledge we have gained over the centuries through the method of reason and experience. These people include religious fundamentalists and even ardent secular humanities professors. Beyond opposing efforts to block the path of inquiry or undermining scientific literacy in public schools, why should I consider myself to be "at war" with these people per se?

IMO-the views expressed in this post-as well a the previous one-simply play into the hands of the religious fundamentalists.

On the other hand, I do at times find the stance of some of the organizations discussed to be a little patronizing. Some views (for example, that the earth is 10,000 yo, that HIV is not a significant causal factor in AIDS, that human activity does not cause global warming) simply cannot be justified-and when-which appears to be often-these views are ultimately justified by appeals to revelation, they should be combatted. So in fact, the scientific method-broadly conceived-is dangerous for at least some kinds of religious faith. Saying that it is compatible with liberal Christian theology, rational Deism, etc. does not mollify fundamentalists. At some point, people do sometimes have to choose.

I remain unconvinced however that atheism per se has been fully and completely validated by the application of the method of reason and experience. I don't disrespect those who come to this conclusion. But I don't feel a need to be at war with those who don't.

Accomodationalist here. I'm a "Milquetoast Atheist", according to PZ Myers, and I've made that the label on my blog, as a subscript to my scarlet "A". (Thanks, PZ.)

Here's the thing. I like PZ Myers, and I have an almost daily "right on!", or "wow" moment as I read Pharyngula. I do disagree with some of the more strident comment on religion from time to time, but I despise the insinuations by some of my fellow accomodationalists that he should shut up for tactical reasons.

There's a huge irony in so-called accomodationalists trying to get people to stop saying things they find inconvenient.

There is a legitimate debate about the tactics of the NCSE.

Personally, I think they've got a sensible and pragmatic approach. I think it is neutral in the sense that they are not trying to persuade people in general to adopt a religion that can accommodate science; but it is not neutral in the sense of being silent or suggesting that all religion is the same. Religion is obviously a part of this issue, and the NCSE has taken a tactical decision to talk explicitly about religion and note that there is some religion that rejects science, and some that doesn't... and that the latter makes better sense. That can be debated, of course, but there's no hint anywhere that everyone should adopt such a religion. There is a clear and explicit claim that one can be religious and also take full account of what we know through science.

That is, effectively, a religious claim, or a claim about religion. I don't want to debate it here, but it is a claim and not everyone agrees with it.

Mainly, I want to say, if anyone has a criticism of that particular approach, or the tactics of the NCSE, then the rest of us have no business whatsoever telling them to shut up about it! And most certainly, insinuations that only the accomodationalists are actually working on the ground with these issues are insulting and absurd.

PZ Myers said: In case you haven't noticed, American culture is largely hostile to the idea that you should be allowed to explore nature. At least, that is, if you should happen to discover anything that contradicts the Bible.

Pete writes:

"Advocacy by PZ and others for atheism is fine; that minority certainly deserves a voice. Can one distinguish this from just trying to stop others from teaching dumb things about biology?"

Thats exactly right, Pete. If PZ and others want to promote atheism and stamp out religion, fine.

Decouple it from promoting good science education.

With all due respect, as a student of biology it is breathtaking that scientists must choose to ignore the conflict between the astronomical complexity and precision engineering of the human DNA and entropy. Without a doubt evolutionary science requires the same amount of faith as creation science does.

Alan Sabroski said: With all due respect, as a student of biology it is breathtaking that scientists must choose to ignore the conflict between the astronomical complexity and precision engineering of the human DNA and entropy. Without a doubt evolutionary science requires the same amount of faith as creation science does.

Alan Sabroski said: With all due respect, as a student of biology it is breathtaking that scientists must choose to ignore the conflict between the astronomical complexity and precision engineering of the human DNA and entropy. Without a doubt evolutionary science requires the same amount of faith as creation science does.

Sabroski - you're not really understanding science if you're trotting out that old 2nd law chestnut. No living being is an isolated system, therefore arguments about entropy are not operative.

Alan Sabroski said: With all due respect, as a student of biology it is breathtaking that scientists must choose to ignore the conflict between the astronomical complexity and precision engineering of the human DNA and entropy. Without a doubt evolutionary science requires the same amount of faith as creation science does.

Well, Alan, you just got a big red F on your Biology 101 final. Guess it's summer school for you!

Speaking of that, when the hell is the U.S. going to start having K-12 students go to school 200-plus days a year? I think the 180-day school year is Problem No. 1 vis-a-vis our lagging other developed nations on K-12 education.

Alan Sabroski said: With all due respect, as a student of biology it is breathtaking that scientists must choose to ignore the conflict between the astronomical complexity and precision engineering of the human DNA and entropy. Without a doubt evolutionary science requires the same amount of faith as creation science does.

I'll note that PZ has put in plenty of time and effort as a foot soldier in dealing with religious antievolution in Minnesota, especially back around the time of the science standards revision of 2003.

I disagree with various and sundry of his assumptions and conclusions here, but I can't fault PZ's readiness to work in the trenches.

Those "rebutting" PZ won't accept my take on their efforts - they see themselves as far too reasonable in their moderation, whatever words they actually use - but the underlying message rings very clear (as Mr. Hoppe's did, so much so it angered me): sit in the back and be quiet!

CryingofLot49 said: Those "rebutting" PZ won't accept my take on their efforts - they see themselves as far too reasonable in their moderation, whatever words they actually use - but the underlying message rings very clear (as Mr. Hoppe's did, so much so it angered me): sit in the back and be quiet!

With all of the metaphors of atheism as a modern weapon, I am confused about what sort of damage this badass motherfucker is supposed to do to the enemies of reason... Seriously. We shine the light of PZ Myers onto the fundies, and they'll do what. Melt? Turn into dust?

LOL. Get over yourselves.

CryingofLot49 said: Those "rebutting" PZ won't accept my take on their efforts - they see themselves as far too reasonable in their moderation, whatever words they actually use - but the underlying message rings very clear (as Mr. Hoppe's did, so much so it angered me): sit in the back and be quiet!

In case you haven’t noticed, American culture is largely hostile to the idea that you should be allowed to explore nature. At least, that is, if you should happen to discover anything that contradicts the Bible.

— PZ Myers

I'm sorry, Richard, but the atheists are your air force.

...I despise the insinuations by some of my fellow accomodationalists that he should shut up for tactical reasons.

No one is saying anyone should "shut up;" many of us are merely saying that people like PZ should exercise tact when they speak; and understand that there are more effective and less effective ways of saying the same thing; and which way is most effective depends in large measure on who your audience is.

People who stage interventions with drug-addicts understand that they don't just have to tell the truth; they have to tell it in the manner most likely to get the needed response from the subject. Social workers and psychologists face the same constraint whenever they have to encourage a client to change his/her behavior for his/her own benefit. So if we're trying to change people's behavior, it's only fair to understand that we, too, are constrained by the rules of tact and effective truth-telling. We're not just telling the truth here; we're trying to change social and political behavior. We don't just have to know where we're going; we have to know where we're starting from.

What about evolution is integral to critiquing the Christian God?

There's a maxim you learn in Law School:

Frame the question, win the arguement.

1.) If the question is strong evidence vs. no evidence, we win.

2.) If the question is science vs. religion, we lose.

Biblical literalists want question 2.

Therefore, you cannot let biblical literalists posture as the defenders of all that is religious.

The more you conflate evolution with atheistic argument, the more you concede the question...and the less you are able to deny them the posture they seek.

Frame the question, win the arguement.

- K.

PZ Myers said: And if I'm asked, I tell them straightforwardly that literal religious accounts are falsified by the evidence.

Evangelical atheism of the PZ/Dawkins/Bennet/Coyne kind is only forcing people into extreme positions because it presents itself as a dichotomy. PZ/etc. try to paint it as the only logical choice you can make, hence that it is not a dichotomy, but so do the fundies at the other side of the debate. Most of those people that feel forced to make a choice are most familiar with religion, and many will choose that what they know best over what they know less. In the end, the PZ/etc crowd is a god-given gift for fundamentalist xtians as it actually makes their life easier.

Man, there are a lot of illiterate morons here.

No, I am not saying that everyone must proclaim from the rooftops that science and religion are incompatible, and if you'd actually read what I wrote instead of jumping in with your inane prejudices you'd know that. I'm saying that science organizations should not be trying to make pronouncements about religion. It is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming.

I am curious ... the outspoken atheist crowd insists that science and religion are incompatible.
From their point of view, however, would they not equally say that simple common sense and religion
are incompatible? Do they think that someone needs to be a scientist to realize that religion is bogus?

Lest I be too arch, what I am getting at is that I do have problems with the flat declaration that science is incompatible with religion ... but I don't have any problem with the declaration that no reasonable person can buy off on religion.
I don't agree with that -- I know perfectly reasonable people who buy off on religion, and being an apatheist I just shrug as to WHY and
say "OK!" -- but at least it establishes
the prejudice in a clear light.

And, if unreasonable beliefs are incompatible with science, then ... is it not just as true that being a Republican is incompatible with science? Or, if you're on the other side of the
fence, being a Democrat is incompatible with science? Or for both of them, that being a Libertarian is incompatible with science? After
all, political partisans generally regard the
beliefs of their adversaries as absurd and wrongheaded.

Sigh, ultimately this whole dispute boils down to a joke anyway -- a laughable contrast between
the mountain of grand principles ("we're going to change society!") to the molehill of petty fraternal squabbling over trivial differences of opinion.

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Kenneth Baggaley said: Frame the question, win the arguement. - K.

CryingofLot49 said: Those "rebutting" PZ won't accept my take on their efforts - they see themselves as far too reasonable in their moderation, whatever words they actually use - but the underlying message rings very clear (as Mr. Hoppe's did, so much so it angered me): sit in the back and be quiet!

PZ Myers said: Man, there are a lot of illiterate morons here. No, I am not saying that everyone must proclaim from the rooftops that science and religion are incompatible, and if you'd actually read what I wrote instead of jumping in with your inane prejudices you'd know that. I'm saying that science organizations should not be trying to make pronouncements about religion. It is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming.

NO. Fundamentalism thrives on acquiescence. It withers in the face of criticism.

Mike: "burning up alot of valuable bandwidth"? I repeat: there are a great many morons posting here. Stop wasting our precious bandwidth.

PZ Myers said: I repeat: there are a great many morons posting here. Stop wasting our precious bandwidth.

Too many to name. But they're easy to recognize: if they are complaining that Coyne and Myers want to turn the NCSE into a militant atheist organization, then they are among the morons.

And if they're posting comments while complaining that others are wasting the precious, rare, valuable bandwidth...they are morons on general terms.

Who is Bennet? Is this meant to be Dennett? And yes, PZ is right - what's so hard to understand about the fact that we're not asking any organisation to promote the idea of an incompatibility between science and religion? For the umpteenth time, we are asking for neutrality on that point from certain organisations that you'd quite reasonably expect to be neutral on such matters. If you actually read what we're saying, it's Not That Difficult.

As I said on the other thread, some serious attempt to consult with the people who are making this rather mild criticism couldn't hurt (for a start). I can't believe, for example, that not one word on the NCSE website could be changed for the better in a way that helped allay our worries. But that appears to be the attitude coming from some of the people posting here. There seem to be some amazing double standards of reasonableness being applied.

I’m saying that science organizations should not be trying to make pronouncements about religion.

And the NCSE are saying that science does not make pronouncements about religion; and they further say, directly or not, that honest science education should not be taken as a pronouncement about religion. None of which would be true if science conflicted with religion; therefore the NCSE have no choice but to say that science and religion need not be in conflict. Any contrary assertion would put science into the realm of religion, and vice versa.

And how do you respond to this common-sense assertion? By falling back on TWO count 'em TWO creationist talking-points: first saying that "science is not a pronouncement about religion" is a pronouncement about religion; and then adopting a depressingly familiar "teach the controversy" approach. Do you even CARE how hypocritical and counterproductive this is?

Here are the simple observable facts: plenty of people have demonstrated the ability and willingness to have religious beliefs and still understand, and even DO, honest science; and the knowledge that science has brought us has directly contradicted some fact-claims made by religious doctrines, but not others. These are facts, and there's no need to pretend that contrary assertions should be given equal weight in any forum.

Fundamentalism thrives on acquiescence. It withers in the face of criticism.

Therefore...what? We can never admit that a "fundamentalist" might not be wrong in a given instance?

Fundamentalism withers in the face of SENSIBLE criticism. Gross over-generalizations about religion are not sensible, won't be taken seriously, and only diminish the "critic's" credibility.

Raging Bee is a proud member of the ranks of morons.

Do we have to use littler words or something? We are most definitely not saying "teach the controversy", since there is no controversy, and because we're actually saying the opposite: NCSE and NAS should stay out of the religion vs. atheism argument completely.

In case your dictionary is deficient, "opposite" does not mean "same thing". It means very, very different.

Dan Styer said:

PZ Myers said: I repeat: there are a great many morons posting here. Stop wasting our precious bandwidth.

Please name the morons rather than just broadcasting.

NCSE and NAS should stay out of the religion vs. atheism argument completely.

Are they taking a position in the "religion vs. atheism argument?" If not, then you're engaging in some extremely dishonest (and counterrproductive) reframing here. Remember, "religion vs. atheism" is NOT the same as "religion vs. science."

PZ Myers said: Some people seem to be incapable of grasping something both Coyne and I have said. We are not lobbying for the NCSE to be a militantly atheist organization. I'd even agree that maintaining a careful neutrality is the best and most politically pragmatic approach for them to take. The problem is that they aren't neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We're saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.

PZ Myers said: NO. Fundamentalism thrives on acquiescence. It withers in the face of criticism.

FUG said: There is not an attempt to silence atheists going on. Atheist organizations are welcome to do what they do, similar to theist organizations being allowed to do what they do. The annoying part is when atheists claim that atheism is a necessary component of science, and that atheism is the only rational choice, when you can be rational, scientific, and theistic. For proof, I point to the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Bacon, Kant, Newton, and Einstein. Darwin, when formulating the theory of evolution, was himself religious, though he became less so near the end of his life. Really, he's a shining example of why science and religion have very little, philosophically speaking, to do with one another: His opinions on God didn't change his theory, and the theory held up despite him having changing ideas on the nature of God. I agree that it is important to criticize social institutions when they overstep their bounds: That is why I criticize atheist organizations as I also criticize theistic ones. This isn't a political necessity. It's a call for honesty and self critique. And, honestly, Atheists can not claim science all to themselves. Something that I did not think you were claiming until the end of this essay, where you claim "...we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition". The only reason religion is being commented upon by scientific organizations is because religious organizations have made silly claims with regards to evolution, and claimed that one has a binary choice. So, if we're interested in science education, due to social norms, we're forced to take a stand on the issue -- to ignore large social criticisms such as this only enhances the "Ivory Tower" myth of educational institutions, and steeps a large percentage of the populace in ignorance. Here, you claim that atheists are the sole proprietors of reason, intellect, and truth, and that in order to win this war, one must approach it from both the scientific angle, and the atheist angle. That is simply not true. Rational theism exists. And, if we're really interested in science education, and the promotion of scientific ideas only, then we should promote ideas that help people accept science, rather than fight both a metaphysical war as well as an epistemic one.

pz's air force campaign is just as effective as Bush's bombardment of the Taliban... It keeps missing the fucking target. Fundies don't wither. They hide and morph. They evolve. Meanwhile the jingoist attitude pisses off the people in the neighborhood who actually have influence and whose opinion matters to the locals.

We didn't tell Bush to shut up. We told him to get a brain.

Commenting from a safe distance, I think PZ's issue here is that the NCSE has a section about "Are religion and science compatible?" which promotes a very one-sided view of the question by emphasising only those subsets of scientists and of religious viewpoints which claim that they are, and by taking a very soft-focus view of what compatibility implies.

A more even-handed presentation might be to also comment equally clearly that science is completely _incompatible_ with a literal or face-value reading of any major religious texts, e.g. issues of timescale, lack of global flood etc.; does the NCSE do this?

Or better still, which I think is PZ's preferred option, to stop at the admirably secular statement from the NCSE which several people have quoted here already, that the organisation does not take any religious viewpoint, and remove the discussion of compatibility entirely _because whether or not your religion is compatible with science is entirely a question about your religion, not about science at all_.

At present it's rather as if the NCSE had a section which reprints "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" (http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/) as if it were the last word on the matter, while not mentioning that there is not, as far as we can tell, any Santa Claus. If the result is a generation of people who are convinced that a supersonic sleigh-riding fat man with a megaton of presents is completely compatible with aerodynamics, _that_ is a failure of science education.

They promote a moderate religion

A more even-handed presentation might be to also comment equally clearly that science is completely _incompatible_ with a literal or face-value reading of any major religious texts, e.g. issues of timescale, lack of global flood etc.; does the NCSE do this?

PZ Myers said: Fundamentalism thrives on acquiescence. It withers in the face of criticism.

Peter Henderson said: Stephen Wells said:

A more even-handed presentation might be to also comment equally clearly that science is completely _incompatible_ with a literal or face-value reading of any major religious texts, e.g. issues of timescale, lack of global flood etc.; does the NCSE do this?

Most definitely yes Stephen. I think the NCSE do do this. Christians (such as myself) who accept mainstream would also agree with this approach. That should read mainstream science.

SLC said: Mr. FUG is seriously in error in characterizing Einstein as a theist. Einstein made it clear in a letter that he did not believe in a god who intervenes in human affairs and answers prayers. At best, Einstein was a Deist.

Mike said: The only thing that needs "withering" is that unfounded fear.

Here’s the thing. I like PZ Myers, and I have an almost daily “right on!”, or “wow” moment as I read Pharyngula. I do disagree with some of the more strident comment on religion from time to time, but I despise the insinuations by some of my fellow accomodationalists that he should shut up for tactical reasons.

Those “rebutting” PZ won’t accept my take on their efforts - they see themselves as far too reasonable in their moderation, whatever words they actually use - but the underlying message rings very clear (as Mr. Hoppe’s did, so much so it angered me): sit in the back and be quiet!

You’re exactly right. Fortunately, these so-called moderates are a little overmatched. Dawkins, Harris, et.al., don’t take kindly to being told to sit down, shut up, and let the experts handle things.

PZ--

This is an interesting and important debate, and so I think it's important to be clear about who's speaking for whom. Your comments repeatedly refer to 'we' and talk about what 'we' should and shouldn't do. Who's 'we'?

It's not a trick question, and it's enormously important.

Stephen Wells said: Or better still, which I think is PZ's preferred option, to stop at the admirably secular statement from the NCSE which several people have quoted here already, that the organisation does not take any religious viewpoint, and remove the discussion of compatibility entirely _because whether or not your religion is compatible with science is entirely a question about your religion, not about science at all_.

Man, there are a lot of illiterate morons here.

No, I am not saying that everyone must proclaim from the rooftops that science and religion are incompatible, and if you’d actually read what I wrote instead of jumping in with your inane prejudices you’d know that. I’m saying that science organizations should not be trying to make pronouncements about religion.

It is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming.

We do need to take the initiative. i have long been advocating a first, clearly preliminary step. the major private universities and colleges and the public universities in all states where this is politically possible should insist that applicants prove that they have taken a biology course in high school and that this course includes a strong evolution element. Students who do not meet this standard would be compelled to take a remedial biology course that naturally would emphasize evolution. Of course, this is only a beginning, but it is a step tat could be easily implemented.

I use the word "moron" a lot when there are a lot of morons. It is a cause and effect relationship.

The objection is obviously not to the fact that NCSE will mention that many scientists are also believers. I point out the same thing, myself. I recommend you actually try reading Jerry Coyne's original post on this subject, where he shows a pattern of misleading by omission on the part of these national science organizations -- it gives an entirely false impression that there is no debate on the conflict between science and religion.

I think my science organizations should emphasize accuracy in their discussions.

I am also not saying that the NCSE should not be allowed to do anything, nor am I making legal demands. They can do whatever they want. Coyne and I are pointing out that if they continue on this path of one-sidedly pandering to religious sensibilities, they risk losing the support of some part of the scientific community...and it happens to be a part that, as many here resent, is particularly LOUD. That would also diminish the effectiveness of the NCSE, something even us atheists do not want. But we also will not support a religious group masquerading as science.

But of course, only a moron would read what I've written and think that I'm making legal demands.

Everyone posting here is using the word "compatible" as though we all agreed on how it is being used in comparing science and religion. What everyone who would like to extricate biology from the culture wars instead of stoking the fires means by "compatible" is that the two are very different, but they needn't conflict with each other in public school science education. Call it compartmentalization, social tolerance, framing, or just common sense, but, while there might be minor interaction between the two, science ultimately has nothing to say about religion, and religion has nothing to say about science. They are only compatible in that the two exist in our society at the same time. We want them to be compatible in so far as we want fundamentalists to accept that what the scientific and education communities want taught actually is the best current science. Perhaps "compatible" isn't the right word. We want them to be able to coexist in the public school and the larger society.

Now, if Ken Miller were claiming that science proves or favors Catholicism, that would be an outrage.

PZ Myers said: I recommend you actually try reading Jerry Coyne's original post on this subject, where he shows a pattern of misleading by omission on the part of these national science organizations -- it gives an entirely false impression that there is no debate on the conflict between science and religion.

The way I see it, there doesn't have to be a conflict between science and religion - but only if religion always yields to science. I wouldn't exactly call that "compatible" though.

The NCSE is right to point out that many people have been willing to adjust their religious views to the scientific evidence, without losing their faith. However, that's where I think they should stop, they shouldn't comment at all on the compatibility of science and religion. If they do comment on it, though, they should be a bit more frank about the fact that adjustment of religious views may in fact be necessary, because science absolutely won't adjust to the religious views instead. This might alienate some people from the NCSE, I'm sure, but leaving this little detail out is dishonest and isn't doing anyone a favor.

So I agree with PZ and Coyne and others that the NCSE should better stay out of this issue of compatibility altogether.

I use the word “moron” a lot when there are a lot of morons. It is a cause and effect relationship.

The objection is obviously not to the fact that NCSE will mention that many scientists are also believers.

I point out the same thing, myself. I recommend you actually try reading Jerry Coyne’s original post on this subject, where he shows a pattern of misleading by omission on the part of these national science organizations – it gives an entirely false impression that there is no debate on the conflict between science and religion.

We are asking that this pretense that religion and science are compatible, and that the only way to get political support is for the majority of scientists to sit back and shut up about their rational views while the scientists who endorse superstition are propped up as our façade, has got to end. If the national science organizations want to be pragmatic, then stop speaking only favorably of religion. Stop bringing religion up altogether, and stick to the science. Or let godless voices join the chorus.

I think my science organizations should emphasize accuracy in their discussions.

I am also not saying that the NCSE should not be allowed to do anything,

nor am I making legal demands.

They can do whatever they want. Coyne and I are pointing out that if they continue on this path of one-sidedly pandering to religious sensibilities,

they risk losing the support of some part of the scientific community…and it happens to be a part that, as many here resent, is particularly LOUD.

That would also diminish the effectiveness of the NCSE, something even us atheists do not want.

But we also will not support a religious group masquerading as science.

But of course, only a moron would read what I’ve written and think that I’m making legal demands.

A more even-handed presentation might be to also comment equally clearly that science is completely _incompatible_ with a literal or face-value reading of any major religious texts, e.g. issues of timescale, lack of global flood etc.; does the NCSE do this?

Why should they? Their job is to make positive statements about science and science education, not make negative statements about this or that specific religious doctrine. They might want to say something like "Science teaches us how to learn about the material Universe through disciplined observation of material events," and then talk a little about CSI and how a religious detective can figure out whodunit without resorting to his religious doctrine; but any further explicit reference to religion or religious disputes would be a potentially deadly distraction.

They promote a moderate religion.

No, they promote acceptance of scientific methods as a means of understanding the material world. Are you really trying to go back to the 1980s by reviving that old "science is a religion too" BS?

Another thing that needs to be recognized here, is that different people "reconcile" science with personal belief in different ways; and we can't predict or control HOW each person in our audience will do this when presented with the facts. Some will become atheists; some will change religions; some will be less strong in their beliefs; some will reinterpret their doctrine to accomodate the new information; some will just choose not to think about any conflict; some will reject science de jure, but accept it de facto... We don't need to tell people how to respond to what we say, and trying to tell them how to respond will only cause more trouble. All that matters is that people accept honest science education, and stop opposing it.

P Z Meyers wrote: I think my science organizations should emphasize accuracy in their discussions.

P Z Meyers also wrote: ... and that the only way to get political support is for the majority of scientists to sit back and shut up about their rational views while the scientists who endorse superstition are propped up as our façade, ...

Based on some of the incendiary rhetoric from Myers exhibited in this thread, NCSE would be foolish to put this man on the front lines, under their banner, in any sort of delicate public or legal environment where the future of science curriculum requires careful, deliberate articulation.

And, after being called liars, and having their stance mischaracterized as religious advocacy, I would hope NCSE has the good sense not to bow.

PZ Myers may not realize this, but in his current incarnation, he is actually much more useful to NCSE and the "moderates" as a LOUD, prominent, individual example of how rhetorical extremism can potentially hijack a careful, methodical, national message. NCSE would do well to not only keep Myers at arm's length, but to use the example of that relationship to neutralize the attacks in perpetuity from creationists who mischaracterize NCSE as an atheistic or anti-religious front.

PZ, I think, as you often do, that you've forgotten what side you are on. It is not the atheists, it is the scientists. "Our side" is the side of those who are trying to help people understand and accept evolution- which you do a great job of. But at times you choose your side to be those denouncing religion instead. At times, those two goals are compatible. At times they are not. Panda's Thumb may at times have anti-religion articles, like yours here, but the main goal is not to denounce religion; it is to promote evolution and biology (and denounce ID just for the fun of it). When you say there is a problem with identifying with the opposition in this case, I submit there is exactly not- the opposition is not those who believe in some religion, but those in that building in Seattle, and all those who follow them. And as all the studies show, the *majority* of those on "our team"- scientists- actually have a faith of some sort.

Yes, those like you who are militant atheists have every right to speak out for science from your own viewpoint- and indeed, as you've evidenced from your years of work, we really need your voice in this fight, and would be far the poorer for it. But it is not as if your viewpoint is being squeezed out. Indeed, far the contrary. The average Joe in the public sees your viewpoint only. As many others have pointed out, you and Dawkins are the reverse side of the coin of the ID/evolution battle- the Discovery Institute being the other side. (And I apologize, for I am truly not trying to insult you in this comparison.) Both are so loudly claiming and even demanding that religion and science are incompatible, that you both are truly winning your argument. The public is becoming more and more convinced that they are. And the conclusion of that is that the public (in America) sticks with the idea they hold most dear. If they have to choose between the faith of their fathers and the empirical evidence of the modern age, between the age of rocks and the rock of ages (as Gould said), they will overwhelmingly choose their faith. You can ascribe whatever reasons you want to that, but it is what they do. Because they have been taught by the Literal Creationists and ID folks and those like you that you can't have evolution and religion, they reject evolution. (And admittedly, the Literal Creationists have been making this Modernist claim for many decades before you came on the scene.)

Every general, or major, or captain, has to make choices in a war. There may be a great opportunity to win the battle with the Taliban in Pakistan, if we pour all of our military resources there. If we put every single military resource of the United States into that area, we could probably win that. Of course, we'd leave ourselves vulnerable on the rest of the planet. Sometimes, it's just not a wise move to win the battle. And, though I know you disagree, I still say you are doing an excellent job of winning the religion battle, and the expense of the far more important evolution war.

And I think we should be called the Allied Atheist Allegiance!

PZ demands that we base our criticisms on what he actually said; and thanks to harold, we have quick access to this bit of what he said:

We are asking that this pretense that religion and science are compatible, and that the only way to get political support is for the majority of scientists to sit back and shut up about their rational views while the scientists who endorse superstition are propped up as our façade, has got to end.

First, it's not a "pretense;" it's an observable fact: there are huge numbers of people, both scientists and non-scientists, who do indeed reconcile their religious beliefs with honest, nonsectarian science. Most of my family and friends are in this group, so don't tell me it can't be done. Second, PZ is once again throwing a tantrum over the imaginary demand that scientists and/or atheists "shut up" about their opinions. This is just plain infantile -- grownups understand the difference between "being tactful" and "shutting up" (that's how we manage to question our bosses without getting fired), and people like PZ sould less grownup every time they publicly deny the difference. This sort of nonsense only reinforces the Christian stereotype of atheists as stuck-up immature pricks with no social skills and no understanding of ordinary people.

If the national science organizations want to be pragmatic, then stop speaking only favorably of religion.

News flash: it's not the NCSE's job to speak favorably or unfavorably of religion; only to encourage people to understand and support honest science education. And encouraging people requires one to sound, you know, encouraging. Again PZ seems unable to understand the difference between tact and dishonesty. It's perfectly possible to state a position while being polite to those who may not agree with it.

When I was in drug rehab, it was often said that you can't tell an addict "you can't do drugs," because it's perfectly obvious that he can; so they tell them "you don't have to" instead. This is the attitude we should be taking toward religion: "you don't have to see religion and science as being in conflict."

Stop bringing religion up altogether, and stick to the science. Or let godless voices join the chorus.

In case PZ hasn't noticed, the NCSE ARE sticking to the science. And they're telling ordinary people that they, too, can stick to the science without having to renounce their personal beliefs in their entirety. And he has a problem with that...why?

Salo said: And I think we should be called the Allied Atheist Allegiance!

Salo said: And I think we should be called the Allied Atheist Allegiance!

To be fair, I did bring Dawkins into the discussion as an example of someone known to handle the context of his audience in a commendable way.

How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: "Doesn't evolution lead to atheism?" ?

a) Many people who accept evolution are religious.

b) Many people who accept evolution are religious, but some have become atheists because of evolution.

c) Evolution and religion are compatible.

d) Many believe that evolution and religion are compatible, but many don't.

e) Many scientists who accept evolution are Christians.

f) It's not the job of the [insert organisation] to comment on religion.

g) It's not the job of the [insert organisation] to comment on religion, but you should ask your Pastor about it.

h) It doesn't matter, you should go where the evidence takes you.

i) Read this book by Ken Miller.

j) That's what the atheists would like you to believe.

k) That's what the fundies would like you to believe.

l) Something else.

Ok, maybe a few too many options there.

These two threads have certainly been interesting. But as I alluded to near the beginning of the thread, the choice of weapon is going to be determined by the target.

As long as we are using the military metaphor here, I think any army or other military organization would be stupid to go into battle with only a single weapon.

The ID/creationists apparently don’t view this as a friendly little sparing match; for them it is an all-out, no-holds-barred war. And they would like nothing better than to have us carpet bomb their rubes instead of their propaganda factories.

Pick weapons and targets carefully and patiently. In any war, we don’t always get to choose the terrain, so we need flexibility. Don’t treat civilians as combatants. But we need to be sure we have choices of weapons and tactics as well.

Using up our weapons against each other is dysfunctional. But having healthy discussions, even heated arguments, over strategies, tactics and weaponry is always important for planning and reassessment. So I see these discussions as healthy.

How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: “Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?”

Honestly, first of all.

I would say that yes, it often does. It removes one of the major arguments, the argument from design, from the apologists for religion, and also reveals that many religious beliefs are false...and therefore can lead to an abandonment of faith. Even where it doesn't lead to atheism, it often leads to a more moderate and much less literal religious belief as the only way to maintain faith in the face of evidence. And of course, some individuals manage to pull together rationalizations that allow them to keep their religious beliefs while still accepting the science.

None of this is a problem. Scientists do not discriminate against their colleagues who attend church, and really, there's nothing wrong about not believing in a religion -- the atheists are still good people.

And if they do not want to plunge into that bit of uncomfortable (for some) reality, they should just say...it's not our business. We're only here to talk about the science. Your religion or lack thereof is a matter of private conscience, and not something to be imposed on anyone else's kids.

Raging Bee, have you seen the references in Coyne's article that show that the NCSE do actually have articles that discuss theology on their site?

PZ the scientist answers affirmatively that "often" evolution leads to atheism. He says he does so "honestly." That means that he actually has scientific data to back this claim up. Data that undeniably demonstrates that evolution has "often" caused the abandonment of faith.

Aren't you all curious to see what kind of data PZ has? Or is he simply peddling some psychobabble to justify his own actions? Where's the science.

I would say that yes, it often does. It removes one of the major arguments, the argument from design, from the apologists for religion, and also reveals that many religious beliefs are false...

Actually, that's not the case for a good many theists, whose beliefs are based on personal feelings and priorities, not on any "argument from design." And I strongly suspect that no matter how many apologists' arguments you debunk, that alone won't shake many people's faith, since their faith is based on purely subjective "proofs," and the apologetics are nothing but after-the-fact rationalizations anyway. Debunking such lame and dishonest rationalizations is a good thing, of course, but don't expect that to lead to actual abandonment of belief.

PZ Myers said: How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: “Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?” Honestly, first of all.

PZ Myers said: I would say that yes, it often does. It removes one of the major arguments, the argument from design, from the apologists for religion, and also reveals that many religious beliefs are false...and therefore can lead to an abandonment of faith. Even where it doesn't lead to atheism, it often leads to a more moderate and much less literal religious belief as the only way to maintain faith in the face of evidence. And of course, some individuals manage to pull together rationalizations that allow them to keep their religious beliefs while still accepting the science.

Jeez, people here seem to lack reading comprehension. PZ is not arguing that others do not have the "right to believe" that evolution is consistent with certain (or all) religious beliefs. He personally argues that they are not, and notes that (and this was basically Coyne's original argument)to say that they are is to willfully overlook (or hide) the fact that there is indeed a controversy on this question and not every scientist agrees with everyone else on this question. And to present the matter as settled in the favor of one side (as the NCSE seems to be saying) is to be deceitful. You morons, the question is not whether PZ is right or wrong about the incompatibility of science and religion (he seems to believe he is; but obviously others disagree), but whether saying that he is definitely wrong and hence suppressing dissent on this question (as NCSE seems to be doing by presenting one side as the 'official' position) is right and/or honest.

In the end, if there is a direct causal effect of education promoting nonbelief, I think it is likely to be small. I certainly don't expect it to have more than marginal significance. After all, look at even the bare poll numbers. 60% of Americans with graduate degrees are reporting belief in the Virgin Birth, with similar numbers for traditional Christian supernatural beliefs. These numbers are huge, even if slightly smaller than the numbers for those without college. You take a belief like the Virgin Birth, which by the standards of modern knowledge is as crazy as belief in witchcraft, add an extra ten years of highly sophisticated training, and all you get is a drop from 77% acceptance to 60%? This would suggest that secular education is remarkably ineffective in promoting a more secular overall view of the world.

@John Kwok: I'm not conceding anything. I deny that atheism is a necessary outcome of acceptance of evolution, as is evident by the existence of Christians who accept evolution. However, this position is completely consistent with still admitting that atheism is a possible outcome. This is evident by the existence of atheists who claim that understanding evolution lead them to lose their faith. This might not even be an unlikely outcome. I don't see the point of pretending anything else.

Like I said, when science and religion contradict each other, religion will need to yield, because science won't. Science can only be changed by doing more science. This is a major asymmetry in the relation between science and religion that has to be acknowledged. Pretending it doesn't exist, just because you're afraid people won't be able to handle it, is rather condescending. Besides, people who aren't willing to re-examine their beliefs at all won't be swayed anyway, even if you would carefully tip-toe around this issue. I am in favor of being upfront about this. I'm sure there's a way to explain this in a gentle, reasonable tone that most people will understand.

Mike said: Wasn't there a study recently that looked at how exposure to science education effects religious belief?

PZ Myers said: How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: “Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?” Honestly, first of all. I would say that yes, it often does. [snip]

However, unlike wad of id I would not take major issue with PZ’s contention that education in the physical sciences leads people away from religious belief. There may be no hard evidence for causation, but at a minimum that seems like a reasonable explanation for an observed correlation.

PZ Myers said: ...And of course, some individuals manage to pull together rationalizations that allow them to keep their religious beliefs while still accepting the science. None of this is a problem. Scientists do not discriminate against their colleagues who attend church, and really, there's nothing wrong about not believing in a religion -- the atheists are still good people. And if they do not want to plunge into that bit of uncomfortable (for some) reality, they should just say...it's not our business. We're only here to talk about the science. Your religion or lack thereof is a matter of private conscience, and not something to be imposed on anyone else's kids.

Even if only 1% of new evolution acceptors turn away from their religion, and personally make the causal connection, that’s enough to make the PZ’s affirmative statement true a true one.

wad of id said: Is that so? Substitute "often" for "rarely," and your assertion above makes just as much sense. So how would one differentiate on a scientific basis the difference between "often" and "rarely"?

“Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?” Honestly, first of all.

I would say that yes, it often does.

Raging Bee, have you seen the references in Coyne’s article that show that the NCSE do actually have articles that discuss theology on their site?

Deen said:

wad of id said: Is that so? Substitute "often" for "rarely," and your assertion above makes just as much sense. So how would one differentiate on a scientific basis the difference between "often" and "rarely"?

You're just mincing words. PZ's remark has a very simple everyday interpretation: there are more than a handful of cases where people lost their faith due to learning more about evolution and science. Want evidence? Go to any evolution or atheist blog and you'll find scores of them. Your desire to read anything more into the use of the word "often" is only because you seem to enjoy being difficult.

The cries and crying being raised against PZ still sound, almost w/o exception, as "I support science and reason until my own comforting fantasies (or prejudices) are being questioned." And that doesn't mean "attacked" - unless you know fecking well you've built upon sand.
The attempts at belittling and reversed logic by a few are starting to resemble creationist techniques, by the way.

Allow the debate - PZ is certainly not pushing his personal beliefs as anything other, and there are too many voices here that are being disingenuous about that.

Deen -

The creationist claim that NCSE and other reasonable people bother to refute is not that exposure to science "could", "might", or "often" leads to atheism.

The creationist claim is that understanding and acceptance of biological evolution inevitably leads to atheism; that it is inherently atheist to "believe" in evolution.

Thus, while I agree with you that some atheists do claim to have been "converted" to atheism by science, including the theory of evolution, and I have no reason not to believe them...

I am also keenly aware of many scientists, science supporters, and scientifically literate people who are NOT atheists, and who in some cases are religious authorities. Any one of these disproves the creationist claim and validates the actual claims that the NCSE makes about religion and science.

GuyeFaux said: Even if only 1% of new evolution acceptors turn away from their religion, and personally make the causal connection, that's enough to make the PZ's affirmative statement a true one. Importantly, religiously concerned parents have a right to know this fact.

My greatest disappointment in PZ is to see him fall from a man of science to becoming a cheap demagogue. Atheism is too large an umbrella term to be soiled by the intolerances of a few. As a scientist, he is a capable public servant. As a political activist, he is incompetent.

GuyeFaux said: This seems to be at the heart of the matter. Does anybody seriously doubt this:

PZ Myers said: How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: “Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?” Honestly, first of all. I would say that yes, it often does. [snip]

Recall, "often" does not mean "all the time" or even "the majority of the time". Even if only 1% of new evolution acceptors turn away from their religion, and personally make the causal connection, that's enough to make the PZ's affirmative statement true a true one. Importantly, religiously concerned parents have a right to know this fact.

Mike Elzinga said: Pick weapons and targets carefully and patiently. In any war, we don’t always get to choose the terrain, so we need flexibility. Don’t treat civilians as combatants. But we need to be sure we have choices of weapons and tactics as well. Using up our weapons against each other is dysfunctional. But having healthy discussions, even heated arguments, over strategies, tactics and weaponry is always important for planning and reassessment. So I see these discussions as healthy.

harold said: For example, I know that Reform Judaism is not at odds with science. How do I know that? Reform rabbinical groups told me so. I'm not Jewish, so unless they tell me, I have no way of knowing. Recognizing this fact is NOT REMOTELY the same thing as "pandering to", "praising", "favoring", "groveling to", or indeed doing or saying anything positive with regard to Reform Judaism. It's just recognizing a fact.

wad of id said: Nonsense. Your willingness to be less than objective shows that you pay only lip service to your devotion to science. A handful of cases? That's all? You can only point to a handful of cases out of the billions of people out there in the world? And that frequency is what you want to call "often?" Let's look at a dictionary definition frequently; much of the time. Just frequently is "often"? Where's your science.

The cries and crying being raised against PZ still sound, almost w/o exception, as “I support science and reason until my own comforting fantasies (or prejudices) are being questioned.”

Deen said:

wad of id said: Nonsense. Your willingness to be less than objective shows that you pay only lip service to your devotion to science. A handful of cases? That's all? You can only point to a handful of cases out of the billions of people out there in the world? And that frequency is what you want to call "often?" Let's look at a dictionary definition frequently; much of the time. Just frequently is "often"? Where's your science.

See, you're mincing words. Argument by dictionary. Why do you ignore the very first definition on the page you link to? It clearly reads "Many times; frequently." In the sense of "many times", PZ is absolutely right to claim that learning science and evolution often leads to loss of faith. Oh, and on the topic of dictionaries, if you'd look it up, you might find that "scores" is a little bit more than "a handful".

You're purposefully being obtuse. I'm not hiding anything. The number of people who become atheists after gaining an understanding is not even relevant to the discussion at hand, let alone a precise number. "Often" is precise enough, and I'll even spell out why.

The point was, if creationists ask whether people may become atheists after accepting evolution, the answer should not be "no, they won't", but should be "Yes they might, but not necessarily". A single case of a person deconverting because of evolution is all it takes to make the former statement a lie, and the latter statement the truth. It doesn't matter if there is only one, a handful, or scores of people becoming atheists because of evolution.

jfx said: Problem is, there's more reliable data on how many dudes pop an extended woodrow on Cialis than there is for how many "evolution acceptors" become atheists. It's an extremely murky supposition.

“Yes they might, but not necessarily”.

Deen said: The point was, if creationists ask whether people may become atheists after accepting evolution, the answer should not be "no, they won't", but should be "Yes they might, but not necessarily".

Deen said: The point was, if creationists ask whether people may become atheists after accepting evolution, the answer should not be "no, they won't", but should be "Yes they might, but not necessarily". A single case of a person deconverting because of evolution is all it takes to make the former statement a lie, and the latter statement the truth. It doesn't matter if there is only one, a handful, or scores of people becoming atheists because of evolution.

wad of id said:

“Yes they might, but not necessarily”.

Well, that's not what pz wrote, and definitely not what you were defending. You were defending the notion that 1% of people converting on account of evolution was a frequent occurrence (i.e. an event which occurs "often"). Now you switch your defense. As you should, because the original statement has yet to be supported by evidence.

I've never defended your interpretation of PZ's statement, because that interpretation only exists in your head. You chose to take it entirely out of context. Do you like building strawmen?

KP said: So without any data on the table, what do you suppose is the "accurate" conversion rate whether it be 1) on account of evolution/science or 2) on account of being raised in a fundamentalist environment?

OK, so I'll rephrase the question a little stronger: when creationists ask if evolution will lead to atheism, what should the answer be? "No it won't", or "it might, or it might not"? The first answer is at most a half truth, and at worst a bald-faced lie. I would accept "Probably not" as an answer too, but I don't think that's what creationists want to hear either.

And about creationists calling evolution a godless philosophy, they are technically correct about that. Science does not deal with gods, doesn't assume gods, doesn't need gods. No point denying it either.

It's important, though, that we distinguish this from the claim that science actively denies the existence of a god, or that it is anti-religious in nature. This claim we must object against loudly. But we also shouldn't be shy to admit that scientific evidence does in fact make the existence of certain specific of gods highly unlikely. If someone happens to believe in one of those gods, then I'm not going to lie and tell them that their religion isn't in conflict with science. In practice, I won't hit them over the head with it either, of course, but from there it's just a matter of tactics rather than principle.

KP said: Christian fundamentalism and the American Taliban have probably been most influential in driving me to atheism.

I don't even know how one would measure such a rate. You can ask someone: "what is the most important reason for your rejection of your faith". But how do you then validate the truth of the claim? Perhaps people who are weak of faith begin to seek reasons to question it way after having experiences that cast doubt on it. How do you detect the first instance of this doubt?

It is way too simplistic to say evolution leads to atheism. Most people when faced with irreconcilable differences do not simply crumble under the weight of evidence. Denial is the easiest defense mechanism to put up. I would be extremely surprised to hear of someone who made an overnight deconversion after studying evolution. It would make more sense to me that these people have already become susceptible to faith rejection for many other subjective experiences. Really, this evolution-atheism link is a creationist meme that I am extremely disappointed to see the most militant of us adopt.

Deen said: I've never defended your interpretation of PZ's statement, because that interpretation only exists in your head. You chose to take it entirely out of context. Do you like building strawmen?

jfx said: Right. And a single case of a person becoming RELIGIOUS because of evolution....even only one...will require an acknowledgement of that, also.

And also, if even one person becomes gay (or straight) because of evolution, this will require an acknowledgement. And also, if even one person turns Democrat (or Republican, or Libertarian, or Green) because of evolution, this will require an acknowledgment.

Deen said: OK, so I'll rephrase the question a little stronger: when creationists ask if evolution will lead to atheism, what should the answer be?

wad of id said: No it is quite clear you have no fucking clue what your defending.

Deen said: And about creationists calling evolution a godless philosophy, they are technically correct about that.

Deen said: Heh, that was actually somewhat amusing, but totally besides the point. We weren't really discussing how evolution affects political affiliation, now, were we? And let's not even get started on LGBT issues.

MrG, what is your point exactly? That we should say "No, no, don't you worry, you're beliefs will be fine"? Even when we know they'll at least will have to change some of them, and might even lose them all? Or are you trying to make a different point that I just seem to be missing?

Deen said: MrG, what is your point exactly? That we should say "No, no, don't you worry, you're beliefs will be fine"? Even when we know they'll at least will have to change some of them, and might even lose them all? Or are you trying to make a different point that I just seem to be missing?

jfx said: Well, technically...no, that's not correct. Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's in the scientific domain. If you concede evolution to the creationists as a "philosophy," you've badly goofed.

They tread as far as reasonable compatibility, and there they stop.

mrg said: C'mon, admit it. You're really a creationist just trying to muddy the waters.

Is there anybody out there who really thinks this guy's on the level?

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Is there anybody out there who really thinks this guy's on the level?

Deen said: Seriously, what made you think I was a creationist? I'm truly curious.

mrg said: Is there anybody out there who really thinks this guy's on the level?

mrg said: Charity. I assumed that nobody could be that obtuse, so the only possibility left was fakery.

tomh said: What is it you have such a problem with?

Deen said: Pretend there's a language barrier, and please explain what you thought was wrong with my comments.

tomh said: Are you on the level? Deen's comments seem pretty reasonable to me. What is it you have such a problem with? Just that he agrees with Myers?

Deen said: I should have been more precise. Evolution is godless, because science is essentially a godless discipline, as it only relies on naturalistic explanations.

Deen said: Unfortunately, this assertion of a reasonable compatibility is not necessarily a consensus opinion in the scientific community. This is exactly what PZ is arguing about.

How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: "Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?" Honestly, first of all. I would say that yes, it often does.

The NCSE says that when creationists ask whether evolution and religion are compatible, the answer should be “yes”.

jfx said: I think that's still clunky. It would be more accurate to say that evolution is compatible with godlessness AND godliness, in that it is completely decoupled from any philosophical pronouncement about God whatsoever. Evolution relies on naturalistic explanations, but it is completely neutral with respect to the philosophical possibility that God might work through naturalistic means.

Evolution can't address that at all. It's crude to say it is therefore "godless". It simply has no ability to make a philosophical contribution on the issue, being utterly constrained to the empirical domain. Evolution is godless in the same way that corn dogs are godless.

Well, he's actually gone beyond that and asserted that NCSE is advocating religion, and pretending not to. That's rather insidious, and I'd bet there's a strong consensus AGAINST those aspersions.

harold said: When I see people like you going at it, I know exactly what it must have been like to be at some fourth century church council, with rigid fanatics hurling accusations of heresy at one another, until the issue is finally decided by subjecting one of them to a horrific death and arbitrarily declaring the other to be a saint.

And that’s because it is.

Here's the funny thing - it's the scientific method that tells me that it is. Hypothesis - Religion, as normally defined, is not compatible with the theory of evolution. Observation - The pope, the Dahli Lama, and numerous organizations of clergy all say that their religion is compatible with evolution. Some prominent biologists are religious. Conclusion - The hypothesis can be rejected.

Because you will spin, obfuscate, dissemble, blather, evade, distort, and generally do anything other than acknowledge reality, all night long.

Deen said: If you claim to be neutral, stay neutral, and say as little about religion as possible. And if you are going to enter a philosophical debate about science and religion, intellectual honesty requires that you show all important aspects of the debate, which includes the atheist perspective. If you're afraid that that would alienate (certain) believers from your scientific message, then that should tell you you should have stayed out of that debate in the first place.

Deen said: Just like the library has no disclaimers either.

The existence of a God that interferes with evolution, for instance, is a redundant assumption, and science should reject it (following the principle of Occam’s razor).

wad of id said: Then they whine incessantly that their "nuanced" positions are not being understood.

jfx said:

Deen said: And about creationists calling evolution a godless philosophy, they are technically correct about that.

Well, technically...no, that's not correct. Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's in the scientific domain. If you concede evolution to the creationists as a "philosophy," you've badly goofed.

As I understand it, P Z Myers is not exactly demanding that the NCSE and similar science advocacy groups remove language that appears to him to accept the possibility of a God, or to permit the tenure of a religious faith. He does, however, strongly disapprove of any such language, and he explicitly threatens withdrawal of his support and that of whatever group he is referring to when he uses the first person plural, if the science advocacy organisations do not eliminate it.

He has, of course, every right to lobby for, and to negotiate, whatever changes he sees fit. Nobody would deny that he is a legitimate stakeholder, and a formidable authority, as is Jerry Coyne, as is Russell Blackford. For my part, (not that I have any right to a say) I would now hold that language that implies that science says nothing contrary to religion should be modified, because that simply isn't true. Science clearly does say things contrary to some religious beliefs - biblical literalism and absolute Scriptural inerrancy, for example. Well, I always knew that.

But is it true to say that science contradicts, or invalidates, or is incompatible with all religious faith, or belief in a Creator God? Is it even true to say that science provides an incontrovertible argument against the Abrahamic, or even Christian, concept of God?

Russell Blackford is persuaded that the Abrahamic God is too difficult to reconcile with the findings of science - that it leads to intellectual contortions that he finds unacceptable. This is an opinion that must be respected for the product of learning and reason that it is - but even so, he has not so far been willing to state plainly that the arguments that convinced him are conclusive and irrefutable. This may be no more than scholarly caution, but who shall say that this caution is not reasonable?

Is it possible, then, to accept the findings of science, specifically the Theory of Evolution, and still retain a religious faith, even an Abrahamic religious faith, even a Christian faith? Is it possible rationally to defend such an accommodation? Fish or cut bait, here, as our transpacific cousins say. Can it rationally be done?

Even P Z Myers appears to agree that yes, it is possible. No matter how little he cares for it, and no matter how much he abhors and abjures such a faith in itself, no matter how much he thinks it more reasonable to abandon such a faith, he still thinks it is possible. He is a scientist, and he observes verifiable fact. It is a verifiable fact that such an accommodation is possible. Not for him, no. But it is manifestly so for others.

So I may take it that an accommodation is possible. If it is possible, why not say so? Well, one might hold that it is unnecessary to say so. One might also hold that it is improper: that advocacy groups tasked with defending and advancing science and science education have no business dabbling in theology.

In my view, that leads to a tactical error. Advocacy for science includes, and must include, refuting objections to it. The objection that science implies atheism is, to many honest minds, a serious one. Refuting that objection, if it can be done, should be done, and it is well within the remit of science advocacy to do it. Not to do so allows fundamentalists the luxury of an uncontested field. P Z Myers is all for taking the battle to the enemy. By all means, let us do so. Let us, in fact, fight on their ground as well. Leaving theology to them is only to give them ground to regroup. We should deny them that ground.

I know that P Z Myers cares nothing for theology. Indeed, why should he? Nevertheless, I believe that this has led him to underestimate it, and its importance. If we are to continue the generals-and-soldiers analogy, the situation reminds me of the First World War generals who discounted the regrettable influence of mud. It's difficult to be other than contemptible of mud. It is ancient, inchoate and regressive. It degrades technology, confounds reason and impedes vision. Regrettably, account must be taken of it, or else the offensive fails. And here's the thing - unleashing a withering bombardment on it doesn't remove it, however powerful the artillery. In fact, that only makes it worse.

A correction. In my first paragraph, I used the word "accept" and the expression "permit the tenure of". For the verbs in those expression, please substitute the verb "promote". I have no wish to put words into the mouth of P Z Myers, but I have to state what I understand to be his position in order to address it, and it seems to me that this is a more accurate statement.

I speak, of course, under correction, as I hope that the tone of the post made clear.

Too many to name. But they’re easy to recognize: if they are complaining that Coyne and Myers want to turn the NCSE into a militant atheist organization, then they are among the morons.

And if they’re posting comments while complaining that others are wasting the precious, rare, valuable bandwidth…they are morons on general terms.

This is what happens when you try to argue with Minnesota Nice. He turns into a sneering, petulant troll. Also, not a chance he'll address your actual arguments - just furious battling against this ridiculous straw man that you're trying to censor him or something.

Intellectual honesty requires the admission that evolutionary science is based upon assumptions from the evidence observed. When you leap to evolution is equivalent to atomic theory you're departing from objectivity and quite admittedly demonstrating belief.

My greatest disappointment in PZ is to see him fall from a man of science to becoming a cheap demagogue. Atheism is too large an umbrella term to be soiled by the intolerances of a few. As a scientist, he is a capable public servant. As a political activist, he is incompetent.

Too true. Pharyngula used to be one of the best blogs around. Now it's nothing but troll-baiting.

harold said: Observation - The pope, the Dahli Lama, and numerous organizations of clergy all say that their religion is compatible with evolution.

The cries and crying being raised against PZ still sound, almost w/o exception, as “I support science and reason until my own comforting fantasies (or prejudices) are being questioned.” And that doesn’t mean “attacked” - unless you know fecking well you’ve built upon sand. The attempts at belittling and reversed logic by a few are starting to resemble creationist techniques, by the way.

Allow the debate - PZ is certainly not pushing his personal beliefs as anything other, and there are too many voices here that are being disingenuous about that.

OK, Pynchon fan, I'm not sure of the the technical (scientific) term for what you've got but perhaps it might be called a persecution complex with narcissistic tendencies. Many of us arguing with PZ here are atheists, but some aren't. We're not upset because you brave souls disrupted our "comfort zone."

Maybe it's personal experience. I was raised as a Christian, in a mainstream American denomination, and I didn't come by my atheism because "OMG evolution is obviously right, and it contradicts Genesis!" That might be because I was never taught that Genesis was literally true. Ultimately, for me Christianity foundered simply on John 3:16, which I think is probably the minimum standard for considering yourself a believing Christian - I still maintain that it's one of the most beautiful things ever written in, or translated into English, but, I just don't buy it. Any just God who wanted us to believe such a fantastical idea would have given us way more evidence. As far as I'm concerned, I chose reason over poetry.

I think a lot of you have bought into Fundie propaganda, and conflate Biblical literalists with religious believers.

Of course, that view doesn’t seem to filter down to the rank and file as polls consistently show, for example,this one, that shows over 40% of Catholics say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. That sound compatible with evolution to you?

OK, maybe you don't understand how percentages work, see, basically they represent a total population normalized to 100. That means, for every 40 out of 100 Catholics who believe humans were created in the last 10,000 years, there are 60 who don't believe that. Same with non-Evangelical Protestants. So a large majority of non-fundie Americans at least accept that Genesis is not literally true.

The overall percentage is skewed upward by Evangelicals, of course, but interestingly, even in that group, 25% don't believe humans were created 10,000 years ago. Maybe they didn't understand the question.

Oh, for...

Here's 40% of Catholics rejecting evolution because they think it's against their faith. Here's the Pope telling them it isn't against their faith, and they should accept it. Here's tomh, who is for evolution, dissing the Pope by calling him and others a "meaningless authority".

Cripes, I don't mind firing the cannons, but can we please improve the aim a bit?

EJ said: Pharyngula used to be one of the best blogs around. Now it's nothing but troll-baiting.

jfx said: Being neutral doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, talk about something. Talking about religion is not the same as advocating it, or practicing it.

Can you give me an example of a situation where NCSE should have fielded a strident atheist but flubbed by calling up an expert who happened to be religious?

In these situations, wantonly unleashing the PZ Myers polemical scorched-earth variant of the "atheist perspective" is perhaps not the method most conducive to a positive result.

wad of id said: Science does not reject redundant assumptions. Science simply has no utility for them. They may nevertheless still be unrejectable truths. Occam's razor as a scientific principle has no ontological prescriptions. Again, consistency matters. You cannot reject that which you can say nothing about.

The issue remains, why does the NCSE even _have_ this lengthy section proclaiming that of course you can keep believing in your religion of choice, look at all these people who do; it rather ignores the fact that whether your religion is incompatible with science _depends entirely on the claims your religion makes_. If the NCSE is giving the blanket impression that science and religion are always OK with each other- and that is the impression that their one-sided coverage gives- that's misleading.

Come to think of it, isn't the NCSE giving the impression that "compatibility with religion" is a desirable and advantageous feature in science? That's a rather dangerous wedge in the door! I still think that PZ's position and the NCSE's mission would be fully served by the NCSE sticking to its short secular statement, stripping out the compatibilist pablum, and meeting all enquiries such as "doesn't evolution lead to atheism" with the statement that science only concerns itself with evidence and reason, not religion, and how your religious beliefs sit with evidence and reason is your own affair.

I find the above comment that "I know religion X is compatible with science because religion X says so" unintentionally hilarious. Unless you actually address the content, all you know is that adherents of religion X are capable of claiming that their beliefs are compatible with science. Flat-earthers will insist their beliefs are compatible with geography; it might be worth checking with some geographers before taking their word for it.

Deen said: Theistic evolution isn't science, and science can easily do without it, that's my only point here.

Of course, that view doesn’t seem to filter down to the rank and file as polls consistently show, for example,this one, that shows over 40% of Catholics say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. That sound compatible with evolution to you?

— tomh

mrg said: Sigh, maybe I got too frustrated (sorry Deen) but, as w.o.d. points out, the nuances just do not matter in battle over evolutionary science.

Dave Luckett said: Is it possible, then, to accept the findings of science, specifically the Theory of Evolution, and still retain a religious faith, even an Abrahamic religious faith, even a Christian faith? Is it possible rationally to defend such an accommodation? Fish or cut bait, here, as our transpacific cousins say. Can it rationally be done? Even P Z Myers appears to agree that yes, it is possible.

Dave Luckett said: But I thought we were not discussing what science can do, or do without. Rather, I thought that we were discussing how bodies devoted to science education could best improve the level of acceptance and support of science among an admittedly theistic majority, for whom religious faith is an issue. It goes without saying that the educational bodies must not compromise science itself, of course. With that stipulation, what would be the best way to manage that issue?

Stephen Wells said: I still think that PZ’s position and the NCSE’s mission would be fully served by the NCSE sticking to its short secular statement, stripping out the compatibilist pablum, and meeting all enquiries such as “doesn’t evolution lead to atheism” with the statement that science only concerns itself with evidence and reason, not religion, and how your religious beliefs sit with evidence and reason is your own affair.

FUG said:

SLC said: Mr. FUG is seriously in error in characterizing Einstein as a theist. Einstein made it clear in a letter that he did not believe in a god who intervenes in human affairs and answers prayers. At best, Einstein was a Deist.

And how is that at odds with theism, in general? Theism does not equate to fundamentalist Christian God. Theism only means that, in response to the question "Does God Exist?", you say "Yes". The particular definition of God used has a lot of variation. From the OED, definition 1a: "a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism" Also, looking at the host of individuals who consider themselves theists, I don't think they would consider themselves "Fundamentalist Christians". Deism is a part of the larger set "Theism".

MrG, what is your point exactly? That we should say “No, no, don’t you worry, you’re beliefs will be fine”? Even when we know they’ll at least will have to change some of them, and might even lose them all?

You don't "know" any such thing. And who the Hell are you to tell others what private beliefs they'll "have to" give up? I never took that shit from Christian evangelists, so why should anyone have to take it from an atheist?

Raging Bee said: You don't "know" any such thing. And who the Hell are you to tell others what private beliefs they'll "have to" give up? I never took that shit from Christian evangelists, so why should anyone have to take it from an atheist?

If you fellows are all done inventing strange arguments that I never made, you might want to take a look at Richard Hoppe's latest post where he concedes that the NCSE has gone a little too far in catering to religion.

Dave, can I just ask whether you've read the material that we're objecting to? I'd like to know whether you've read it and genuinely think it's adequately neutral or whether you just think it's okay for it to stray into less neutral territory. Without wanting to put too many words into Jerry's mouth or PZ's - and they can correct me if I am doing so - it looks to us as if the material goes beyond just reporting on options available by which various people have reconciled their religious faith with science to their own subjective satisfaction (whether or not even reporting that would be a good idea). Instead, it cumulatively pushes a viewpoint that NOMA/the Catholic position/some generally "moderate" religious position is not only available as a sociological fact but is somehow plausible and attractive.

Every time I make this point, someone challenges it, pointing out that the material always says "many theologians say" or "some scientists think" or "certain religious positions believe", or whatever. We're then asked, where does it say outright, "We at the NCSE believe that the theory of non-overlapping magisteria or the theory of theistic evolution is true"? Of course it never says anything that blatant.

It's a matter of wording, selection of material, balance, tone, cumulative impact, and so on, I'm afraid. It may turn out that every single sentence, taken in isolation, could be defended by relying on the presence of weasel words: "some people think this", "many theologians say that", "lots of religious traditions believe X". And yet NOMA and related ideas are introduced sympathetically and tendentiously, and there is NO suggestion that many scientists, philosophers, and even theologians reject these ideas. An overwhelming impression is given that some kind of moderate but theologically orthodox religion is fully consistent, in every sense, with science.

There's also language throughout that is hostile to rationalist positions, e.g. the claim that some scientists believe in "scientism" - that is like waving a red rag, since many people find the word quite offensive. It would have been more accurate to say some scientists adopt a naturalistic perspective, rejecting the existing of supernatural beings or forces, but that is not said. An article that suggests that scientists are disproportionately religious is attacked in the material in a spinning/debunking style (though I believe not very successfully; whatever its aims, the NCSE could probably do better without that material). The bibliography is massively designed to lead the reader to be sympathetic to what are often called "moderate" religious views, and not to fear that a scientific understanding of the world will challenge her faith. Where, for example, is Philip Kitcher's excellent recent book on the exact topic of evolution and religion, which is quite sympathetic to religion as a social enterprise while advocating a naturalistic worldview? If the excuse is that the book was too recent to include, then how about updating the bibliography and including tomorrow?

The whole tenor and purpose of the materials seems to be to give a (false) reassurance that evolutionary theory is not dangerous to faith.

Alas, it's notoriously difficult to prove things to other people's satisfaction once issues of tone, wording, selection, balance, and overall effect are involved. If you read the material with an open-mind and still disagree with my description of its tenor, fine. We can agree to disagree. Right now, though, I think that some of the defences of the material from people who have apparently read it are narrow, legalistic, and possibly disingenuous. I also think that the people who created the material deliberately sailed close to the wind: strongly suggesting a certain philosophical view (including something NOMA-like) but always inserting appropriate weasel words so it could never be said that they have explicitly endorsed that view.

But if you can't accept this, after honestly and open-mindedly reading the material, as I'd naturally expect of you, there's nothing more to say about that aspect. We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't rely just on my personal incredulity, if that's what it comes down to ... although I can ask others to look at the material and judge for themselves. Obviously some have already done so and have, to varying degrees, the same misgivings as Jerry, PZ, and I have.

After reading the material and forming these various impressions, I checked and discovered that the author of the material appears to be a Catholic and an apologist for the Catholic position on science. He has even co-authored a book on the subject. That doesn't prove anything, of course, but it does give me even more confidence that my judgments about tone, wording, balance, overall tendency, and so on are not just my own idiosyncratic reaction. The author really does appear to have the sorts of views or biases that I was picking up.

Does all this matter? You may agree with all the above (or you may not). Even if you do, you may think that the material is justified in the scheme of things. Again, you can make that judgment. To me, it's worthwhile challenging the authority of religion for various reasons that go beyond the negative influence of fundamentalist Christianity on science education in the US. If you don't share that with me, you can agree with everything in this comment and still say it's all no big deal. (Indeed, it's been blown up into a bigger deal by being dragged over to Panda's Thumb than when I made a comment on my own not-terribly-popular blog.) Maybe I shouldn't lose too much sleep because the audiences that NCSE and I are aiming at are so different that nothing we do can ever really cut across each other's goals.

I'm sure all that's true, and I'll sleep soundly. Really, if I hadn't been mentioned over here I'd have moved on to other issues by now. But I still think I have a point in saying that the material looks a certain way to me, and evidently to many others ... and that it does, despite all the weasel words, appear to go beyond the sort of neutrality we'd expect of such an organisation. I'm not planning to denounce the NCSE or the other organisations in the streets; I'm not threatening them with anything. I strongly support and admire the good work that they do, and wish them continued success. But I don't think they are above receiving constructive criticism, any more than I am.

I am hoping that they'll be more enthusiastic about consulting with Jerry and PZ after this whole episode, but I can't insist that they do that, let alone anything more than that.

Richard Hoppe has said what? lol

Science may not reject theism as a truth, but it definitely rejects theism as a useful (scientific) concept. You even admit so yourself. Theistic evolution isn’t science, and science can easily do without it, that’s my only point here.

pz: How are we succeeding if the only way we can promote our ideas is by hiding the implications of those ideas, and pretending that the antithesis of scientific thought is fully compatible with science? Collaborating with our opponents is not the same as making allies.

PZ Myers said: How should organisations like the NCSE respond to questions like: “Doesn’t evolution lead to atheism?” Honestly, first of all. I would say that yes, it often does.

wad of id said: But once again, Deen, words matter. Science cannot reject what it has no understanding of. Theism is not even a methodology for natural inquiry as science is. As such science cannot "reject" a completely different epistemology. That makes as much sense as saying that Libertarians reject Buddhism as a useful concept.

No, you keep responding to me because you know you're being schooled on the art of communication. Precision is everything. Sloppy words demonstrates sloppy thoughts. As a science devotee, you ought to appreciate that.

You have my permission not to respond to this comment.

First Deen says:

...Even when we know they’ll at least will have to change some of them, and might even lose them all?

Then, when he finds himself unable to stand by his words, he "clarifies" thusly:

I’m not advocating at all that people “have to” give up any private belief...

And, in "defense" of his incompetent and dishonest choice of words, he adds:

Don’t know why I’m even bothering responding to you anymore. You’ll probably just come back with more silly complaints about semantics, rather than with any substantial criticism.

News flash: words are how we communicate our ideas. Use the wrong words, and you end up communicating the wrong ideas. And no, you can't just brush off the inevitable criticism as "silly complaints about semantics." Words still matter, and your words were ignorant and poorly chosen. The "silly complaints about semantics" are your fault here, not ours.

And now PZ is doing a similar dance:

If you fellows are all done inventing strange arguments that I never made...

Sorry, dude, but anyone who actually reads our responses to you will see that we're responding to your actual words. Your complaints of "I didn't really say that" and "that's not what I meant" are starting to sound like Salvador "Wormtongue" Cordova.

Regardless of the merits of NCSE's tactics, this sort of dishonest dodgery does no good to the atheists' cause.

Deen -

You have behaved as I predicted.

Your criticism of my logic was invalid.

You erected a straw man -

1) Hypothesis - religion and science are not compatible

2) Observation - some atheist authorities say this

3) Conclusion - religion and science are not compatible

As you pointed out, your straw man represents, among other things, a pure argument from authority (from biased authority at that).

My expressed logic is as follows -

1) Hypothesis - religion and evolution are not compatible. This blog is about evolutionary biology, PZ Meyers is a biologist, and evolution is the part of science we are dealing with here.

2) Observation - many religious positions accept evolution.

3) Conclusion - the hypothesis can be rejected.

My logic is pristine and undeniably correct. It is not an "argument from authority" but the introduction of a counter-example that disproves the over-generalized hypothesis.

Essentially, your straw man says "Being Greek is incompatible with having red hair, some brown-haired Greeks agree with this, therefore being Greek is incompatible with red hair". Clearly

My pristine, crystalline, devastating, and I should add, rather obvious argument says "Being Greek is incompatible with having red hair, no - actually some Greeks have red hair, therefore being Greek is NOT incompatible with having red hair".

End of story.

I bother with one last post because I don't like having my words twisted. I represent my actual logic, lest anyone be taken in by your straw man representation.

For the record, we are "on the same side" in many ways - I'm not religious, I obviously agree that theistic evolution is not "necessary", etc.

A big difference between me and you is that when someone correctly points out a flaw in my reasoning, I eventually acknowledge it. I may do so grouchily at first, but I don't persist in obvious errors.

I suggest that you adopt this habit. Because if you don't back down when you are definitively wrong, you will join the ranks of crackpots, creationists, etc. You can get away with that if you do it AFTER you win the Nobel prize, but if you get into that habit before you have a Nobel prize, the DI and the Bible Colleges are about the only games in town.

wad of id said: You have my permission not to respond to this comment.

Raging Bee said: Then, when he finds himself unable to stand by his words, he "clarifies" thusly...

harold said: Deen - You have behaved as I predicted.

Your criticism of my logic was invalid.

A big difference between me and you is that when someone correctly points out a flaw in my reasoning, I eventually acknowledge it. I may do so grouchily at first, but I don't persist in obvious errors. I suggest that you adopt this habit. Because if you don't back down when you are definitively wrong, you will join the ranks of crackpots, creationists, etc. You can get away with that if you do it AFTER you win the Nobel prize, but if you get into that habit before you have a Nobel prize, the DI and the Bible Colleges are about the only games in town.

Dale Husband said: Look at how many people, including John Kwok, have been banned from that blog merely for disagreeing with Myers about certain issues not even relating to evolution or science:

PZ wrote: Yes, the NCSE is lying

Russ, I have no objection whatsoever to changing what the NCSE says about religion. You may be right, although I do think you are being a little hard on them. Consider - they're up to their arse in alligators, (crocodiles to us) while being told that they have to drain the swamp. Nevertheless, I agree, they should not make the argument from NOMA, and P Z Myers' objection that they only mention (non-literalist, mainstream) religion in a positive way is sound enough.

But I think his first position, that they say nothing about religion at all, is mistaken. The matter has to be addressed. Religion is the elephant in the room. There is simply no way to ignore it, not when NCSE's main work is countering creationism, which is invariably religious in nature. So where does that leave us?

I can't blame them for saying that the mainstream Christian denominations, at least, plus most Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Pagans, don't have any problem with evolution. But leave it at that - simple, short and punchy, no essays, and no theology. Link to the Clergy letter, but off-site, and the Talk Origins archive, especially the Index of Creationist claims. Add to that, (to accommodate P Z Myers' demand that godless voices join the chorus) a statement that science does not and cannot endorse any religious belief, and the reader must make up their own mind. Now here is the evidence.

I don't know. I want the truth told, and I know that telling only part of it is another way of lying. So I'd say that much, let the science speak for itself for the rest, and let the chips fall as they may.

But I sympathise with the NCSE, and the other organisations slogging it out with the whackaloons, and I have no confidence in P Z Myers' metaphor of the atheists being the airforce. Or maybe I have, at that. Firepower they got, but sometimes they hit the wrong target.

Hello again, Sal. Now that you're back here trying to put the Wedge Document into practice, are you going to apologize for trying to equate my arguments with the (alleged) surgical mutilation of innocent children? And while you're at it, why don't you tell us why we should consider your word credible, after you've been so flatly and repeatedly proven to be a liar, both here and on Ed Brayton's forum?

BTW, just to give credit where credit is due, I'd like to thank Sal "Wormtongue" Cordova for proving a longstanding point of mine, which is that in any polarized political debate, the most extreme factions, who pretend to be each other's most deadly enemies, almost always end up making common cause against the sensible and responsible moderate majority. The German Communists and Nazis ganged up on the Social Democrats, the Taliban and Christian Right are ganging up on freedom-loving people everywhere, and now Sal Cordova and PZ Meyers are following in that hallowed tradition of cynical shortsighted destructiveness.

tomh said:

Dale Husband said: Look at how many people, including John Kwok, have been banned from that blog merely for disagreeing with Myers about certain issues not even relating to evolution or science:

How adorable, a Kwok defender. And, just like Kwok, a blatant liar.

What you lied about was your claim that Kwok was banned for disagreeing with me. Considering the number of disagreeable people who remain on the site, that is patently false. He was banned for being flaming insane.

Dale Husband wrote: What did I lie about?

there is a world of difference between John Kwok and some of the anti-evolutionist looneys that should be (or have been) banned from both PZ’s blog and the Panda’s Thumb.

Dave, this has actually had a fairly happy ending, even though some people are still getting upset. You and I are not too far apart, I think. If you're going to be in Adelaide in early June, as I'll be, we can reminisce about this episode over a glass of beer.

PZ Myers said: What you lied about was your claim that Kwok was banned for disagreeing with me. Considering the number of disagreeable people who remain on the site, that is patently false. He was banned for being flaming insane.

Are you going to start dunning me with demands for a new camera, too?

PZ Myers said: Are you going to start dunning me with demands for a new camera, too?

PZ Myers said: Are you going to start dunning me with demands for a new camera, too?

You said Kwok never came across as insane. You do realize what Kwok was doing before he was banned, don't you? He was sending me all kinds of lunatic demands, including threats of legal action if I didn't buy him an expensive camera.

Maybe you shouldn't be making assertions about why he was banned if you don't know anything about the situation.

Oh, I see. Kwok never mentioned the camera issue to me, P Z. He did slam you quite a bit in Facebook, and I had the impression it was all about politics. And getting a new camera has nothing do with being banned from a blog. My apologies for getting the wrong impression.

Dale Husband said: Oh, I see. Kwok never mentioned the camera issue to me, P Z. He did slam you quite a bit in Facebook, and I had the impression it was all about politics. And getting a new camera has nothing do with being banned from a blog. My apologies for getting the wrong impression.