|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 12:11:26 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
The fact of life is that atheists will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens, especially in "secular" organizations. If NCSE keeps up what it is doing, atheists will not retreat, not surrender, but keep fighting for their rights and ideals within the organization -- or separate from it. NCSE weakens itself by treating its atheists as pariahs. |
I don't think the NCSE is treating atheists as pariahs. You are basing that claim on one area of their site that is set up to convince people of faith that good science will not force them chose between atheism and religion.
Upon taking a closer look, I too find some of the recommended reading problematic even though I understand why it's there. I still don't understand the level of hostility that has been heaped on them by atheists because of that. It's as though the atheists are willfully not understanding who needs reaching out to in this battle.
And look. It could be that some changes need to be made. That's up to Scott. But some of the statements that you have made about the NCSE are so over the top as to be counter productive to a rational debate. You have a gift for hyperbole.
It takes a lot to cause me to lose my temper on a forum after all of these years of doing this. Congratulations.
Right about here I'm going to thank Dave for remaining level headed... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 13:06:46 [Permalink]
|
Off on a very related subject, I don't see religion disappearing anytime soon. I do see the need for atheists, agnostics and people of faith to peacefully coexist. On the other hand, atheists should not allow themselves to be shat on. In a way, I hold conflicting views. I can live with that.
What I find troublesome is that the divide is widening between those who want to frame our position and those who want no part of it. Like many things in life, I have a problem with this either or position, because I believe that it's fallacious in nature. Call me naïve but I believe both camps add to the dialog. Or they would if they weren't so busy calling the other side wrong.
We are eating our own, people, and it's depressingly similar to the way religious groups treat each other where, if you break it down, everyone is going to hell…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2009 : 13:30:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Off on a very related subject, I don't see religion disappearing anytime soon. I do see the need for atheists, agnostics and people of faith to peacefully coexist. On the other hand, atheists should not allow themselves to be shat on. In a way, I hold conflicting views. I can live with that.
What I find troublesome is that the divide is widening between those who want to frame our position and those who want no part of that. Like many things in life, I have a problem with an either or position, because I believe that it's fallacious in nature. Call me naïve but I believe both camps add to the dialog. Or they would if they weren't so busy calling the other side wrong.
We are eating our own, people, and it's depressingly similar to the way religious groups treat each other where, if you break it down, everyone is going to hell…
|
I agree, Kil, which is why I have repeatedly stressed that it's important to keep the NCSE as neutral ground. I want to argue against NOMA on my own time in my own venues. I just don't want the NCSE working against that effort. Most of the arguments brought in opposition to this (in my opinion) very reasonable request has been to argue that the NCSE has no business promoting atheism. I agree! So it's an entirely false charge seemingly only proffered to deliberately confuse the issue. Asking them to stop taking a philosophical position contrary to mine is not the same as asking them to adopt my philosophical position. If more people were willing to be less reactionary and listen to what was actually being said I don't think this would have blown up as big as it has.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 13:54:43 [Permalink]
|
I was pretty unconvinced by Coyne's criticisms. The first cited “accommodation” of the NCSE is this quoted statement (my emphasis in bold): | Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts. As someone who does think this is about fighting Biblical literalists, I'm more on the side of the NCSE on this matter. And I tend to think their neglect of atheist points of view is a political move since people already know that atheists are evolution proponents, but lots of people are ignorant to the huge number of religionists who are evolution proponents. |
Mooner wrote: | But the "anti-accommodationists" aren't demanding that NCSE "attack religion." They are simply demanding that atheists be part of the chorus in support of science education. |
I gotta generally agree with you. Recent politics has shown that we nontheists are slowly coming into our own in American society. (I'm thinking of examples such as Obama mentioning us on numerous occasions as part of American diversity and Elizabeth's Dole's failed attempt to demonize her political opponent by saying she was supported by atheists.) If the NCSE is going to bring different worldview stances into the discussion (which I think is a good and intellectually healthy thing to do) then all major voices should be included.
Mooner also wrote: | Why shouldn't atheist scientists be presented equally with theistic ones? Not doing so is deliberate discrimination, and yeah, that gripes me. |
Yes, I totally agree! While atheism/agnosticism aren't religions, many of us do ascribe to a complete naturalistic worldview, and our worldviews should be given as much respect and acknowledgement as religious worldviews, especially since we apparently comprise about 15% of American citizens! If religious points of view on an issue are going to be so emphasized by the NCSE, then ours should be included alongside the religionists'. That only promotes pluralism and peace between people of differing worldviews by showing what we do agree on.
That said, there is good reason to especially showcase the pro-science theists if only because they are less known in mainstream society and doing so debunks the silly idea that faithful Christians don't believe in evolution.
Dave wrote: | I think we've had decades, if not centuries, of scientists and their spokespeople trying to be gentle, dancing with and even kissing up to the faithful (of all stripes) largely in the name of political expediency, and the result (at least in this country) is an astonishing 51% belief that I.D. is worth teaching, a multi-billion-dollar "alternative" medicine racket (which is almost a complete disaster of free-marketeering), unvarnished woo-based hit TV "reality" shows on almost every network (even the alleged 'science' channels) and more-frequenct lawsuits and idiotic school-board decisions over what should be t |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/05/2009 13:56:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 15:53:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I tend to think this is not so much the failure of educated, pro-science theists and their promoters, and more the success of anti-intellectual trends in the marketplace of religious ideas. |
When it comes to the science education marketplace of ideas, it's a zero-sum game. Every win for the anti-intellectuals is a loss for the pro-science side, theists and atheists alike (which is why I don't lay the blame for the failures on pro-science theists). Trying to play nice with the anti-intellectuals doesn't work, because when they lose, they claim persecution to win sympathy points that have nothing to do with whether their ideas about science are correct, and thus win "converts" by painting scientists as evil thugs.
For the worst of the offenders, truth doesn't matter at all, despite their claims to the contrary. But for many of even the more-moderate anti-intellectuals, "personal truth" trumps reality, and the pro-science side loses in the classic death by a thousand cuts, yes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 18:16:38 [Permalink]
|
But; how is this playing nice to anti-intellectual than admitting that some questions are beyond the realm of reason?
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 18:34:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But; how is this playing nice to anti-intellectual than admitting that some questions are beyond the realm of reason? |
If that were all they were doing. But they're not. They're saying that epistemologies that are antithetical to methodological empiricism are instead compatible with methodological empiricism.
Some questions are beyond the capabilities of science to answer. But that doesn't make unscientific answers to those questions compatible with what science can answer.
Remember, also, that Genie Scott is an atheist. She's saying (if she's personally saying it at all) that religion and science are compatible only for political expediency, and not out of any belief that the unscientific answers to those questions have any actual merit so far as reality is concerned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:58:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
The fact of life is that atheists will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens, especially in "secular" organizations. If NCSE keeps up what it is doing, atheists will not retreat, not surrender, but keep fighting for their rights and ideals within the organization -- or separate from it. NCSE weakens itself by treating its atheists as pariahs. |
I don't think the NCSE is treating atheists as pariahs. You are basing that claim on one area of their site that is set up to convince people of faith that good science will not force them chose between atheism and religion.
Upon taking a closer look, I too find some of the recommended reading problematic even though I understand why it's there. I still don't understand the level of hostility that has been heaped on them by atheists because of that. It's as though the atheists are willfully not understanding who needs reaching out to in this battle.
And look. It could be that some changes need to be made. That's up to Scott. But some of the statements that you have made about the NCSE are so over the top as to be counter productive to a rational debate. You have a gift for hyperbole.
It takes a lot to cause me to lose my temper on a forum after all of these years of doing this. Congratulations.
Right about here I'm going to thank Dave for remaining level headed...
|
I honestly am not trying to upset anyone. I do use what I think are pithy analogies, however. If they misfire, or upset you, I'm sorry they do. I'm simply struggling to express myself here. Including expressing my genuine upset with an organization that I believe is not putting on the neutral face that its basic principles require.
When I entered this debate, I actually thought my position was dead-center on this issue. (I suppose everyone tends to see their own viewpoints as "moderate.") I saw, and still see, NCSE as a successful organization with a string of victories under its belt. The nation is much better off with NCSE than without it. Yet, clearly, there are one or more areas (as proponents of both sides attest) where theist scientists are given advantages in their exposure compared to atheists. And there's that creeping Neo-NOMA thing going on.
You agree, I believe, that the theistic book promotion thing is wrong for NCSE. I think that this alone is a principled matter that needs fixing.
Do you agree that NCSE promotes a NOMA approach, on their Web site, if not in their sterling arguments before school boards?
Hypothetically, if NCSE demonstrates a strong preference for selecting theists to address school boards (I'm trying to research this), would you consider that a bad idea, as I would?
If we agree on these matters, we have no real dispute. Regardless, we're not that far apart.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/05/2009 22:28:33 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 22:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
That said, there is good reason to especially showcase the pro-science theists if only because they are less known in mainstream society and doing so debunks the silly idea that faithful Christians don't believe in evolution. |
I think theistic evolutionary biologists are probably vastly in the minority, but I would support NCSE presenting them as if they were about 50%, while not stating anything about their actual numbers. NCSE should state something like, "Much like society in general, scientists supporting the fact of evolution are made up of religious people, non-believers, and people who consider their beliefs to be nobody else's business."
What gripes me the most is that I think the New Atheists are being reasonable. They "get" that NCSE needs to prominently include theists. They applaud NCSE's past work. They agree with NCSE's professed religious neutrality, and simply want that neutrality to be real, across the board. They want a place at the table. They aren't threatening to throw out all the other dinner guests.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 22:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Trying to play nice with the anti-intellectuals doesn't work, because when they lose, they claim persecution to win sympathy points that have nothing to do with whether their ideas about science are correct, and thus win "converts" by painting scientists as evil thugs. |
I don't see how the NCSE is trying to play nice with any anti-intellectuals. I see that they have pitted themselves quite in opposition to anti-intellectuals.
| They're saying that epistemologies that are antithetical to methodological empiricism are instead compatible with methodological empiricism. |
From what I've seen, I disagree. But I don't want to get into generalizations. I'd rather deal with specific examples. Can you show me an example of this?
| Some questions are beyond the capabilities of science to answer. But that doesn't make unscientific answers to those questions compatible with what science can answer. |
Yes it does if what people mean by "compatible" is that they are not in conflict. And they are not. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 05:40:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't see how the NCSE is trying to play nice with any anti-intellectuals. I see that they have pitted themselves quite in opposition to anti-intellectuals. |
One can be opposed to something yet still treat the who hold that opposite position with respect and decency above and beyond what they deserve.| From what I've seen, I disagree. But I don't want to get into generalizations. I'd rather deal with specific examples. Can you show me an example of this? |
Sure:Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism.
- Peter Hess He makes an even worse mistake in that piece, calling the shape and color of a fruit "complementary" aspects. They're neither compatible nor complementary, shape and color (when examined aside from biology) are independent variables. "Creation" and "evolution" are also not complementary, as Hess declares. And the common idea that science answers the "how" questions while religion answers the "why" questions is an assertion of complementariness (in fact, it's an assertion that to get all the answers about the world, both science and religion are necessary).| Yes it does if what people mean by "compatible" is that they are not in conflict. And they are not. |
After two hours of pondering, I have yet to be able to come up with a real-life scenario in which two things are declared "compatible" simply because they are not in conflict. That's not what people mean by the term, nor is that meaning found in a check of a dictionary. Per my earlier example, a dog and a cat are not "compatible" because you keep them in separate cages.
Theistic methods of answering questions are not just "in conflict" with scientific ones, they stand diametrically opposed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 07:46:32 [Permalink]
|
I disagree Half; I'd think that theistic evolutionary biologist are actually the majority. Considering that atheists only constitute a tiny proportion of the population (not even 20%). Sure they are more numerous among scientists, and maybe more among evolutionary scientists, but I'd still consider them a small number...
And, as far as I am concerned, theistic evolution is linked to the fine tuning argument. The idea that God hide behind the Big Bang and set everything in motion, fine tuning physical constants and laws knowing that ultimately it would lead to our emergence.
It's not a concept I find any convincing evidence of, but it is also a unfalsifiable concept. One that can not be disproved by science and, as such, one that land beyond the realm of scientific investigation and into the NOMA.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 08:30:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I disagree Half; I'd think that theistic evolutionary biologist are actually the majority. Considering that atheists only constitute a tiny proportion of the population (not even 20%). Sure they are more numerous among scientists, and maybe more among evolutionary scientists, but I'd still consider them a small number...
And, as far as I am concerned, theistic evolution is linked to the fine tuning argument. The idea that God hide behind the Big Bang and set everything in motion, fine tuning physical constants and laws knowing that ultimately it would lead to our emergence.
It's not a concept I find any convincing evidence of, but it is also a unfalsifiable concept. One that can not be disproved by science and, as such, one that land beyond the realm of scientific investigation and into the NOMA.
|
20% of the "general population" not 20% of scientists and CERTAINLY not 20% of evolutionary biologists!
93% of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a personal god and nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline.
http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 09:59:38 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
You agree, I believe, that the theistic book promotion thing is wrong for NCSE. I think that this alone is a principled matter that needs fixing. |
If you click on their Science and Religion page, there are two books recommended that I have no problem with. Some of the Science and Religion Links could be problematic, but those links are headed with this disqualifier:
| The organizations listed below engage in discussion of issues at the interface between science and religion, and/or religion and evolution. NCSE offers no endorsement of the views or perspectives included on these websites, but provides the links as a service to those interested in these subjects. |
Here is a link to the NCSE Book Store. I have no problem with most of the recommended books.
There is a Resource for Clergy section. But why not?
There is a page on the site that links to podcasts by Kenneth Miller. For some reason, I just can't find it today. I also can't find the various books by theists who promote evolution and faith. I saw something like that but I just can't find it. That is a big part of the criticism and I wish I could provide a link. Did they remove it in response to the criticism? I can't say. I'll keep trying to track it down. If it's still there, we should be able to locate it.
Mooner:
Do you agree that NCSE promotes a NOMA approach, on their Web site, if not in their sterling arguments before school boards? |
No I do not. And if you can finds support for that, by linking to some section of their site that supports that view and would cause me to change my mind, I would be grateful. What I see is their use of the same argument I make often. And that is, the idea that if you believe in God, you cannot accept evolution, and the other way around, creates a false dichotomy. Understanding and accepting science as a purely naturalistic endeavor, regardless of what some creationists think, does not equal atheism. There are clearly people of faith who do good science.
Mooner:
I honestly am not trying to upset anyone. I do use what I think are pithy analogies, however. If they misfire, or upset you, I'm sorry they do. I'm simply struggling to express myself here. Including expressing my genuine upset with an organization that I believe is not putting on the neutral face that its basic principles require. |
Well, I probably shouldn't have lost my temper when you compared the NCSE to the tactics of the Discovery Institute and the associated lies of that origination. It was late and I was tired and really shouldn't have responded at all until the next day, after I cooled off. I over reacted, which has caused me some embarrassment. Oh well… My reply should have been a thoughtful rebuttal. It wasn't.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:05:08 [Permalink]
|
To reply to a few people at once about one thing:
With the real anti-science troublemakers, pointing to Ken Miller's faith is a non-starter.
He's a Catholic, and therefore he's not a Christian, and may as well be an atheist.
From the point of view of the (perhaps) 1% of the world's population who are truly whackaloon fundamentalist Protestants, they're surrounded by the other 99% of the population who are antiChristian heathens.
But, it's that 1% (maybe) who are the ones hollering that evolution requires atheism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
