On the need for grownups [Updated]

Attention conservation notice: This post should have been broken into about three parts, but it's written now and I don't care. Read it at your risk. Consists of points I've made before to little avail, thinly veiled disdain for people I respect, and cartoons.

i-7ab47438e5b9bb2aab46429192c15a84-TMWdiscourse.jpgAs I've said before, reading anti-accommodationists is bad for the health and bad for the brain. It was a habit I kicked, and getting back to it, even slightly, has not been a cheering experience.

It reminds me of the reason I don't write about Israel/Palestine. One side commits some atrocity, and this leads the other side to commit its own atrocity, justifying it by pointing to the previous evil act. "Oh, no," says the first group, "we did that because of some earlier atrocity." And pretty soon you're arguing about who offered what in a private meeting between two dead people with no witnesses on a balcony in 1948. Sometimes you wind up debating who did what in the desert 5000 years ago. And the atrocities continue apace.

At the end of the day, you decide that all involved are assholes, and start wondering if it would be possible for them all to lose. Then you remember that it's the grownups who are assholes, and not all of them. There are children who need homes, and schools, there are quiet farmers and programmers and engineers who just want to build a society and raise families, and you realize that you can't throw your hands in the air and consign the whole mess to the ash heap. You need to find some way to fix the atrocious situation, and fuck the people standing in the way.

That greatest disanalogy between that and the accommodationism wars is that resolving Israel/Palestine affects people's daily lives in a measurable way. Sure, the atrocities in Israel and Palestine are greater than anything done by either side of the accommodationism wars (or the framing wars, or the various earlier iterations of this leading back through Gould and Ruse and Dawkins in the '80s, and on to Huxley and Darwin and Wilberforce if you like). But that's a matter of magnitude, not of substance. The difference of substance is that resolving the status of the Palestinian territories actually matters to the way real people live their lives every day, while resolving whether scientists should advocate against religion really doesn't.

Nonetheless, we've had our own version of the cycle of rhetoric so elegantly laid out by Tom Tomorrow above.

In the most recent iteration, we've had Chris Mooney winning a grant so he can write a book. In this day and age, any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations. But because Mooney's funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation, a group dedicated to promoting a particular view on the compatibility of science and religion, that praiseworthy achievement has won opprobrium.

i-057f71cca601e57d869d8f3c6da725b3-_comics_comic2-1682.jpgNo, opprobrium is too gentle. It's won Chris yet another outpouring of bile. Apparently now it's "bribery" for a foundation to award grants to journalists. There's really no response possible to Coyne's rant except to post the Dinosaur comic above. People do a job and get paid for it. Coyne is paid in part by The New Republic, where his editor is among Chris's fellow fellows at Templeton. Is Coyne being bribed by getting money from a stooge of Templeton? Has bribery from the NIH silenced his criticism of NIH Director Collins? Might bribery be the wrong word to describe getting a grant?

And apparently now disagreeing with PZ about science and religion means you want to be religious, or perhaps to have an organic brain disorder.

I commented on the latter blog post, agreeing with others that it was a cheap shot and reminding PZ of his own wise words:

Don't fall for their subtle attempts to divide the unbelievers. Religious institutions would love to see atheists continually demonized, even by, especially by, agnostics. It furthers their ends, not ours. There is no meaningful division â we are all abandoning the old superstitions together.

Chris is an atheist. He's stated it publicly, and is now working with a secular humanist organization (producing a smart podcast on science issues for Center for Inquiry). When called on the cheap shot, PZ first replied: "Did you read Mooney's last book, Josh? It's a bit late to tell ME that I'm taking cheap shots." I left another comment, noting that two wrongs don't make a right, but got no reply.

Ophelia Benson picked up not on that post but on [a discussion of Chris's grant spawned in part by] Jerry Coyne's bribery charges. Not, alas, to chide Coyne for his absurd double standard, but to pile on Chris. The question she poses is whether "Chris Mooney is a man more sinned against than sinning."

Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it's wrong to equate getting a grant with taking a bribe. Maybe it's wrong to demonize your critics just because they demonized you.

There's no question that lots of anti-accommodationists (née anti-framers, née New Atheists, née anti-NOMAists, née Huxleyans, etc.) got upset with Mooney and Kirshenbaum's treatment of them in Unscientific America. There were some genuine misstatements, some places where the book's excessive hunt for brevity led to the loss of needed nuance, and some places where Chris and Sheril have a different interpretation of events than the anti-accommodationists. The anger may have been justified (though I tend to think not). And they got their revenge. They panned the book in prominent settings (in reviews that misrepresented the book, FWIW), and mounted a deeply personal campaign against the authors. "The Colgate Twins" and "Mooneytits and Cockenbaum" are among the nicer nicknames they were given â names which add nothing to the discourse but vitriol. Ophelia is right that there were criticisms offered of their ideas as well, but the notion that their critics were focused only on the intellectual merits of the claims advanced in the book and at Chris's blog is laughable in its revisionism. Whoever started it, it's fair to say that Chris and Sheril have gotten their just desserts. Endlessly picking on them because they wrote a book, or criticized a book review before that, is unspeakably petty.

Ophelia argues (as PZ does implicitly as quoted above) that "Chris picked a fight." But the idea that he originated the fight is, again, patent revisionism. It's a fight that's raged for a long time. In my experience with the blogosphere, it got raunchy first with the publication of Dawkins' The God Delusion, in which NCSE and other groups willing to work across religious lines in defense of evolution are called "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists." It turns out, that phrase was itself a reference to an analogy offered 20 years earlier by Michael Ruse, in response to an earlier iteration of this war. I'm sure we can trace it back to the ancient Greeks without breaking a sweat.

But who cares? Who cares, first, who started it? What matters here, and in any similar escalating conflict, is who ends it. It won't stop overnight, but every time someone stands up to their compatriots and demands honorable behavior, it's a step toward a better day. It's good to see that commenters at PZ's blog are pointing out the obvious flaws in the logic and tactics of his declaration of war on Ken Miller (to whit, if a journalist chose not to present PZ's own kind words about Miller, might she also have omitted Miller's kind words about his atheist colleagues?). Thus far, PZ seems uninterested in replying to his internal critics, but it's a start. And likewise, I'll call out anyone on my side of the fence who I see stepping out of bounds.

And maybe, if we all do that, we can get back to a slightly more productive dialog about how best to encourage science literacy.

To start, we might talk about the merits of Daniel Loxton's new children's book about evolution. Loxton is a great guy, the editor of Junior Skeptic. In the course of his book, he suggests that kids with questions about the religious implications of evolution talk to their parents or a community leader. In other words, he acknowledges a common question about evolution, and declines to proselytize or in any way advocate for or against religion. In exchange, he's gotten a lot of grief.

The thing is, he's not wrong in saying that science can't answer kids questions about religion. And he's dead on in saying this:

Are the only two choices confrontation or dishonesty? Does being âa little bit nicer to religious peopleâ necessarily entail a âcompromiseâ¦for the sake of some kind of political expediencyâ?

I respectfully submit that the answer is âno.â It has long struck me as strange that atheists and religious fundamentalists share an assumption that atheism and acceptance of evolution are the same thing. This assumption is, at least in demographic terms, incorrect. Discussions about public attitudes toward evolution typically neglect a remarkable fact:

In North America, most of the people who accept evolution are religious.

And, I donât mean by a small margin, either. Weâre talking about an overwhelming majority. For decades, Americans who think âHuman beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this processâ have consistently outnumbered those who think God had no part in evolution by margin of three to one (or more). Some of these theistic evolutionists subscribe to an Intelligent Design-type belief that is clearly not supported by the evidence, but many mean something altogether more metaphysical (such as the common Catholic idea that god infused immaterial souls into hominids at some point in human evolution, or the notion that all natural processes are divinely ordained).

Given that, I think we can confidently conclude that most people who say evolution is compatible with god say so, not for political expediency, but because this is what they believe.

Now it may be that those people are all wrong, that Francis Collins is wrong, and that Daniel's philosophical position (which I and many other nontheists share) is also wrong. But the solution is not to demand that Collins be fired, to attack Loxton for writing a book that states what he believes to be true, and to mock people who have a view of the world that is different in unfalsifiable ways from that of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers. Having a discussion is fine, but the kneejerk accusations of dishonesty are not. It's not OK to do as PZ did, instantly asserting that it was written that way because:

speaking the truth on this matter â that science says your religion is false â is likely to get the book excluded from school libraries everywhere.

Daniel clearly doesn't think that science says every religion is false. It certainly falsifies particular claims of particular religions, but Daniel clearly does not think that this justifies the inference that science disproves all religion. And neither do I. And it is arrogant, dishonest, and irrational to impute base commercial or political motives whenever people write things you disagree with. Maybe they just disagree.

And if you aren't capable of having a civil conversation with people you disagree with, you have no warrant to present yourself as arbiter of "science in its purest form" (sorry Ophelia). If you want to be treated as defenders of rationality, then engage in rational discourse. Not namecalling (note here that David Heddle is dead-on in writing: "'accommodationists' is kind of like the 'colored people' or 'negro' version of the word faitheists"), not imputation of secret motives, not armchair psychology. Engage the argument, and denounce and marginalize people who can't engage in reasoned discourse. Is that so hard?

Updated to note (3/7, 2:00 am): Ophelia Benson correctly notes that her reply was not to Coyne's post about bribery, but to Sheril Kirshenbaum's post commenting on the response to Chris's grant, a response largely driven by Coyne's criticism and other comment spawned by it. In search of brevity I collapsed that causal chain, and regret having introduced imprecision at minimum or error and confusion at worst. My apologies to my readers and Ms. Benson; I've made some small changes in square brackets which I hope will clarify matters. I hope that this and any other errors or ambiguities present in this post will not be allowed to distract from its central message.

Categories

More like this

Benson: "J J Ramsey's amazing obsessiveness ..."

"Ophelia Benson" is to "obsessive" as "Vizzini" is to "inconceivable." :P Oh, and I'll take "Ad hominems" for $1000, Alex.

Benson: "And don't give me that 'before you say' shit"

Right, I'm not allowed to anticipate possible objections. :rolleyes:

And the lack of any actual attempt to say that you didn't really mean to compare Chris Mooney to the assassin who sparked World War I is noted.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2010 #permalink

"But who cares? Who cares, first, who started it? What matters here, and in any similar escalating conflict, is who ends it."

There are strong disagreements about the question about the compatibility of religions with science. It is unlikely that those disagreements ("conflict") will fade, as long as religions exist. Pretending that there is no disagreement is not an option, either.

I think there is a good chance to keep the discussion civil, if compatibility/noncompatibility is the only issue under argument. This is a purely philosophical question and arguing for any of these views is not uncivil in itself. Among atheists, at least, there is very little reason to turn personal.

The chances for heated discussion rises, of course, when politics is mixed into the discussion. Mr. Mooney has argued that scientists should, for political resons, avoid public non-compatibilist arguments and criticism of religion. And once you pick a political fight, you get a political fight. They often turn ugly.

My advice for maintining a civil atmosphere: more substance, less (political) preaching.

Josh, are you going to hold yourself to this standard of not name calling?
All one has to do is look at your posts about creationists to see the very thing you are arguing against here. Why not maintain a civil tone in all of your posts- even those which discuss creationism, climate change, vaccination, etc. Why restrict yourself to being civil to people who accept evolution only?

I have been in science education for 30 years and can honestly say Chris and Sheril's book is very weak. Many educators have spent their entire careers studying how to improve scientific literacy, but you won't find much (any?) of it discussed in Unscientific America.

Isn't it also just as dishonest to claim that science justifies your religion or your religion justifies science? Do you think that all of the religious scientists who try to justify their beliefs by some type of quantum mechanical argument is wise? If Richard Dawkins can be criticized for writing The God Delusion, why can't Ken Miller be criticized for writing Searching for Darwin's God or Francis Collins for The Language of God?

Isn't it also true that most people who don't accept evolution are religious? And that without religion, most people would either accept evolution or just not care? Would I be wrong in saying that religion is the strongest factor in not accepting evolution?

If the goal is to get individuals to accept evolution, it seems that getting them to give up religion would be one means of accomplishing that goal. It is not the only means, but it is one.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

There's a hell of a lot of misrepresentation in this post, Josh. There's also just some plain weirdness.

we've had Chris Mooney winning a grant so he can write a book. In this day and age, any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations. But because Mooney's funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation, a group dedicated to promoting a particular view on the compatibility of science and religion, that praiseworthy achievement has won opprobrium.

What, any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations no matter what, no qualifications or stipulations, no matter what the source of the funding is? So any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations even if the funding comes from the Tobacco Institute, or the oil industry, or a cabal of climate-change denialists? I really doubt that you mean that - but if you don't mean that, then your claim falls apart. If you do mean that, I disagree with you. I don't think any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations no matter what the source of the funding is. I think that's a ridiculous claim.

Ophelia Benson picked up not on that post but on Jerry Coyne's bribery charges. Not, alas, to chide Coyne for his absurd double standard, but to pile on Chris. The question she poses is whether "Chris Mooney is a man more sinned against than sinning."

That's a falsehood, Josh. I'd like you to withdraw it, please, and an apology would not be out of order. I did not 'pick up on' 'Jerry Coyne's bribery charges'; my post has nothing to do with Jerry Coyne's post; I neither linked to it nor mentioned it; my post was in response to one by Sheril Kirshenbaum, and that's the post I linked to. I wasn't 'piling on' Chris, I was stating my own view.

Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it's wrong to equate getting a grant with taking a bribe. Maybe it's wrong to demonize your critics just because they demonized you.

Maybe. But then again maybe it does matter, maybe it is worth asking who funds particular grants, and criticizing sources that seem to have a particular agenda or bias, maybe doing that does not equate to demonizing your critics.

I would say it's the kind of thing Chris Mooney himself has done, and done well, and done usefully. I would say it's an important and valuable thing to do. I would say your casual dismissal of it is deeply wrong-headed.

Ophelia is right that there were criticisms offered of their ideas as well, but the notion that their critics were focused only on the intellectual merits of the claims advanced in the book and at Chris's blog is laughable in its revisionism.

Maybe so, but I didn't say that. What I said was that Sheril 'should consider the possibility that the personal attacks are actually not baseless - that people accuse Chris of saying things that he really has been saying.' That doesn't imply that there's no personal anger, it states that the personal attacks are not baseless.

Whoever started it, it's fair to say that Chris and Sheril have gotten their just desserts. Endlessly picking on them because they wrote a book, or criticized a book review before that, is unspeakably petty.

But they have gone on making their personal accusations against people, by name, with exaggeration and weak arguments and (to use your word) 'demonization.' Chris, in particular, keeps returning to the issue and his same old claims. We get to reply.

Ophelia argues (as PZ does implicitly as quoted above) that "Chris picked a fight." But the idea that he originated the fight is, again, patent revisionism. It's a fight that's raged for a long time.

You really are sloppy about this stuff. It's very irritating - and irresponsible. I said Chris 'picked a fight'; that is not the same thing as saying he originated the fight. Obviously. Of course I don't think he's the origin of the whole conflict, but he did pick this particular fight, so it is pretty whiny to claim now that he's the one being picked on. You also fail to mention the huge advantage he has in relative access to media - you fail to mention the fact that he's been (to use your language again) 'piling on' the 'New' atheists in mass media while the 'New' atheists have been replying on blogs. The advantage is his, not ours.

And if you aren't capable of having a civil conversation with people you disagree with, you have no warrant to present yourself as arbiter of "science in its purest form" (sorry Ophelia).

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Michael Fugate:

Josh, are you going to hold yourself to this standard of not name calling? All one has to do is look at your posts about creationists to see the very thing you are arguing against here. Why not maintain a civil tone in all of your posts- even those which discuss creationism, climate change, vaccination, etc. Why restrict yourself to being civil to people who accept evolution only?

I can think of a reasonable answer to that. The leading people in the creationist, anti-vax, and AGW-pseudoskeptic movements are basically denialists. They are professional liars, and there is little point in attempting civil discourse with them. (Note that I'm distinguish these leading people from the laypersons who mistakenly put their trust in people like Duane Gish, Jenny McCarthy, and Bjorn Lomborg.) Whatever faults people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins have, they are not professional liars, and they should not be treated with the same level of contempt or discourtesy.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

lol, Josh ... you have NEVER called out the people on your "side of the fence", who started all this (despite your rubbishy argument above) and you know it. All along you've sided with Mooney, despite your sanctimonious claim in this post.

As of this latest post, you now have no credibility whatsoever. People can see you for what you are. There are words for your behaviour, friend, but civility stays my typing fingers.

Ophelia Benson: "You said inaccurate things about me. You should let me say so."

I'm tempted to snark about how you are suddenly concerned with accuracy, but instead I'll just ask: What the heck are you talking about?

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

People do a job and get paid for it. Coyne is paid in part by The New Republic, where his editor is among Chris's fellow fellows at Templeton. Is Coyne being bribed by getting money from a stooge of Templeton? Has bribery from the NIH silenced his criticism of NIH Director Collins? Might bribery be the wrong word to describe getting a grant?

But, it does matter whether the grant giver's agenda is. If the NIH has an agenda to give money who want to investigate the positive effect of mercury on treating syphilis, wouldn't you agree that accepting the grant compromises your ability to report your findings honestly?

In the story by John Horgan we learnt that TF awards grants to those they believe will promote their agenda. And that is not all right. We want you to show that science and religion can coexist. If you don't plan on writing to that effect, then you should not get this grant. [Greatly paraphrased.]

The NIH and the NSF, for example, do not have such agendas.

And maybe, if we all do that, we can get back to a slightly more productive dialog about how best to encourage science literacy.

That would be great. But on top of that, many of us atheists also care about discouraging religion - and that is what the faitheists won't (must I say 'accommodationist'?).

The thing is, he's not wrong in saying that science can't answer kids questions about religion.

But this is exactly what the main disagreement is about, despite your sweeping it aside. Many atheists do think that some questions in religion can be answered by science. The creation story, for example. One reading of the Bible will tell us something that science can show is wrong. They are incompatible. Thus the emphatic disagreement, also between faitheists and the rest (what's the term for us, again?). The way of knowing in science is at odds with the way religion knows anything. The strong claim is that the religious way of knowing doesn't work. That some people are both scientists and believers doesn't disprove that.

P.S. I do realize that I say nothing that hasn't been said elsewhere in the past in some form or other, but then you, Josh, are also not saying anything new. But, at least we both refrain from namecalling (except for 'faitheist' which I think is an okay term, and I would like to hear of a similar one describing the opposite atheist view (sorry if I'm ignorant of such a term)).

Bjørn Ãstman: "In the story by John Horgan we learnt that TF awards grants to those they believe will promote their agenda."

Yet guess who the main funder of the large scale study that showed prayer was ineffective was, well, the TF. That's not exactly a sign of an institution that puts a tight leash on its researchers to ensure it gets the "right" answers. It's also telling that while Horgan had an idea of the sort of answers the TF would have liked to have from him, nonetheless, he wasn't silenced or otherwise coerced into giving those answers. While it's clear that the TF has an agenda, it hardly seems as dishonest as, say, the Discovery Institute.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

That "bribery" business is particularly wack. Did anyone else get a "Manchurian Candidate" vibe from this passage?

And the best part is this: forever after, those journalists are in your camp. Not only can you use their names in your advertising, but youâve conditioned them, in Pavlovian fashion, to think that great rewards come to those who favor the accommodation of science and faith. Theyâll do your job for you!

Mwahahahah!

There are good moral reasons to refuse money from organizations whose agendas you oppose. Many arts groups will not take donations from any corporate entity, for example, so as not to add to their social capital and legitimacy. But those that do, allowing an Altria or Texaco to underwrite a literary festival or improv class, have not been *bribed* by these organizations in doing so.

Coyne has no actual evidence, of course, that Templeton has induced writers to pursue an agenda they personally oppose. (Horgan didn't). His implication that people like Dawkins and Grayling are being discriminated against (they "don't have a say") for having dissenting views is just bizarre. This is a private foundation that can promote what it likes. If we found out that an official of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation was disappointed that one of its grantees did not actually want to promote "a more just verdant and peaceful world," would we applaud that this dissenter had fairly gotten his say, despite the foundation's attempts to bribe him?

And--if bribery is the problem, if in the end "it doesnât cost much to buy a journalistâs integrity," then why are incompatibalists not being corrupted side by side with the accomodationists? Unless the real point of this is that faitheists are just more inherently corruptible to begin with, which seems to be Coyne's implicit stance.

Yet guess who the main funder of the large scale study that showed prayer was ineffective was, well, the TF. That's not exactly a sign of an institution that puts a tight leash on its researchers to ensure it gets the "right" answers. It's also telling that while Horgan had an idea of the sort of answers the TF would have liked to have from him, nonetheless, he wasn't silenced or otherwise coerced into giving those answers. While it's clear that the TF has an agenda, it hardly seems as dishonest as, say, the Discovery Institute.

And my adviser received a 200k grant once from TF, so no, receiving money from them does not necessarily mean they force their agenda on you, I can attest to. However, as John Horgan's story shows, the Cambridge fellowship that he and Mooney received might be another story. It may be that not all TF grant, fellowship, and awards are equal in that sense. Horgan's story is a particular revealing one, don't you think?

The problem is, that at the end of the day whatever is written about science and religion by the Cambridge fellows is tainted by the TF agenda.

That being said, I don't personally have much of a problem with someone like Mooney, who clearly shares this particular goal with the TF (showing that science and religion aren't in opposition) accepts this grant. My problem is more with having that view in the first place. If (I was a journo, and if) I got a similar fellowship to write about how since and religion are fundamentally at odds, I would accept it, and wouldn't care about faitheist criticism in the least.

Templeton: not quite as dishonest as the Discotute, but not quite as honest as the NSF.

Isn't it also just as dishonest to claim that science justifies your religion or your religion justifies science?

If one believes that science 'justifies one's religion', then saying so is not dishonest. If one believes one's religion 'justifies science', then it is not dishonest to say so. Perhaps Michael Fugate is unclear on the concept of dishonesty or he is simply assuming that nobody is capable of holding a view he doesn't agree with.

By Mike from Ottawa (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

In the story by John Horgan we learnt that TF awards grants to those they believe will promote their agenda. And that is not all right.

I'd point out that Josh is, and I have been, paid full-time by the NCSE in order to promote its agenda. If, after being hired, I'd told Genie or a board member that I thought evolution was a fraud and shouldn't be taught in schools, it would be quite reasonable for them to reply that I shouldn't have taken a job at the NCSE.

Does its organizational agenda taint the reliability of any scholarly or journalistic work a NCSE employee does relating to evolution or science education? I don't think so. It would be dishonest for me not to disclose my NCSE affiliation on any publications, of course, but other than that, people aren't supposed to be judging my work based on my sterling personal reputation for objectivity. They're supposed to be judging it on the quality of its reasoning and of the evidence and sources it cites for support, no matter who I work for.

The same applies, I think, to Templeton. If you get funding from them, you're going to include a very visible thank-you note in the work you publish on that funding; that's standard procedure and I'm sure Templeton demands it. So it's not like your audience won't realize that you probably agree with Templeton's agenda. (Even if, as JJ Ramsey suggests, some Templeton beneficiaries don't agree and have no problem saying so.) And if your readers think that makes you untrustworthy? They can scrutinize your work that much more carefully, which is what they should really be doing anyway.

The NIH and the NSF, for example, do not have such agendas.

Sure, but the NIH and the NSF have some of the broadest mandates of any research funding organizations. There are plenty of smaller organizations--environmental, medical, political and the like--which place more specific obligations on the people they fund.

And even the NSF has an agenda. When I apply for a NSF fellowship, I have to explain how my research will a) significantly advance the state of pure science in some field, and b) have a broader impact on other scientists and laymen, contributing to the public understanding of science and helping to train undergrads in research techniques.

If I were to write that I plan to investigate a question which other scientists will find trivial and uninteresting, or that I don't expect my research to engage the public in the slightest, or that undergrads and other junior researchers have no place in my research plans, they wouldn't give me money. And believe me, while the first of those three viewpoints is pretty rare in science, the other two are quite common. There are tons of researchers who have (to some degree) overstated both their interest in and their expectations for the broader impact of their research, in order to secure NSF funding.

By Anton Mates (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

#5: "Whatever faults people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins have, they are not professional liars, and they should not be treated with the same level of contempt or discourtesy."

Do I understand correctly: contempt and discourtesy are OK if one is convinced that the opponent is not honest?

It seems to me that many people "picking" on Mr. Mooney feel very strongly that he is not entirely honest. Then, why should they not show some "contempt or discourtesy"?

Moreover, I think that Miller and Francis have been treated quite fairly by the non-compatibilist camp. I don't think it is realistic to expect these gentlemen to escape criticism alltogether just because they are acting bona fide.

I can even understand Coyne's call for Collins to leave NIH. After all, if Collins would promote the compatibility of any other superstition (like astrology) with science, even Mr. Rosenau would be signing a petition asking Collins to leave. However, all superstitions are not (politically) equal, therefore politically correct bloggers also have different standards regarding different superstitions.

Matti K.:

Do I understand correctly: contempt and discourtesy are OK if one is convinced that the opponent is not honest?

I was talking about denialists, people who persistently traffic in bad faith arguments and show no sign of being willing to change what they profess to believe. If there were good evidence that Mooney and Kirshenbaum were akin to, say, William Dembski, then yes, one should let them have it. However, if you don't have a clear case for someone being persistently dishonest, then giving someone the same treatment as a professional liar is uncalled for. I don't see such a case being made for Mooney and Kirshenbaum.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 06 Mar 2010 #permalink

#16 "However, if you don't have a clear case for someone being persistently dishonest, then giving someone the same treatment as a professional liar is uncalled for."

But if someone seems to be _somewhat_ (or only sometimes) dishonest, is it proper to treat with _some_ level of contempt and discourtesy?

Even the utterings of true "loons" (I'm _not_ referring to M&K) may not be deliberate, "cold-blooded" lies, but rather the product of cognitive dissonance. Still, even accommodationists tend to treat them with sarcasm and ridicule. If accommodationists do not recognize inconsistencies in their own output, why should they be treated differently?

Matti K.: "But if someone seems to be _somewhat_ (or only sometimes) dishonest, is it proper to treat with _some_ level of contempt and discourtesy?"

I'd say that depends. If someone is apparently honest most of the time but then slips and does something nasty like, say, accuse someone of pedophilia without evidence and makes up a story about why the evidence is missing, then calling said person a slimeball would be appropriate. On the other hand, if someone looks like he or she didn't mean to shade the truth and is just letting normal human biases cloud his or her judgment, then incivility is probably a bad idea in practice, since that will likely encourage said someone to harden his or her position instead of coming around.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

I withdraw what I said in comment # 6, since my first comment is now out of moderation - it was probably automatically held because of the links, and Josh probably just wasn't around to let it out (until later). I apologize for # 6.

Sorry, but I should have added this:

Matti K.: "Even the utterings of true "loons" (I'm _not_ referring to M&K) may not be deliberate, "cold-blooded" lies, but rather the product of cognitive dissonance. Still, even accommodationists tend to treat them with sarcasm and ridicule."

However, there is a difference between the "true loons" and normal people who are led astray by them and the professional liars, and I haven't seen accommodationists say about the latter group (that is, the normal people) anything like wanting them to be hit in the head with a tire iron.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

And thanks for the update, Josh.

Have you addressed at least the funding question? My guess is that that one, at any rate, has room for some agreement. Surely you don't think that a grant from, say, the Discovery Institute deserves praise and congratulations. If I'm right about that, do you see that it's not a slam-dunk that Templeton is in a different category?

#18 "However, there is a difference between the "true loons" and normal people who are led astray by them and the professional liars, and I haven't seen accommodationists say about the latter group (that is, the normal people) anything like wanting them to be hit in the head with a tire iron."

Personally, I think (cherry)picking a comment from an unmoderated comment section is dishonest argumentation. I know, Mr. Mooney has used the same tactics, but really, what is your point?

I think the line between "professional liers" and "normal people who are led astray" is not clear cut. The commenter must decide if the writer should know better and treat him accordingly.

I understand, though, that it hurts when one's own darling gets spanked.

I can (paradoxically, or perversely, or for the sake of completeness, or to disconcert people who think that 'New' atheists can't admit to nuance or shades of grey) corroborate that Templeton doesn't always push its agenda on people. I did a piece on Templeton for the next Philosophers' Magazine, for which I talked to a lot of philosophers. Owen Flanagan, for instance, told me that they funded him to attend a conference and their only expectation was that he publish his paper, which he did. He's a thoroughgoing naturalist.

Part of the problem with the Templeton journalism fellowships is not so much influence on content as borrowed legitimacy. Templeton is really really good at making itself appear legitimate by borrowing names like 'Cambridge' and 'Institute' and 'Faraday.' It's good at mirroring academic or scientific institutions in such a way that the unwary are fooled. The more Name people accept Templeton journalism fellowships, the more unwary people will be fooled. This is a subtle effect, but it's no joke.

Consider, for instance, the National Institute for Healthcare Research, set up with Templeton funds in 1991 in Rockville, Maryland. Is it just a coincidence that Rockville is home to several institutes of the NIH?

Well what do you think.

If I'm right about that, do you see that it's not a slam-dunk that Templeton is in a different category?

Just how big are your categories? I think it would qualify as bizarre to think them both as fraudulent. Full stop.

The Templeton Foundation may be misguided sometimes, but they've also supported some serious people and some serious work. And they are pretty up-front with what motivates them. Available here: http://www.templeton.org/what_we_fund/core_funding_areas/science_and_th…

While I do not agree with some aspects of the Templeton agenda, I don't think they are on a mission to mislead, which is the one big important thing about Discovery Institute, if you asked me.

So what important category do Templeton & Discovery share? Why would we not put Ophelia Benson into the category of people willing to say anything to besmirch their chosen intellectual enemies?

The bottom line is that Templeton seems to have a conclusion that they really would like to reach. That's the same category as Disco (though TF may be smarter and much less assertive about it than Disco), and NSF does not share it (that the research should be interesting is in a different category).

As I've noted above, if you're already a supporter, like Mooney, of that conclusion/view, than I don't see a problem with him "selling out". It may just mark an end of being taken seriously by those who disagree (and that may have been a while ago anyway). Joining Disco does also make sense if you are already an IDer. The problem is being of that view in the first place.

Matti K.: "what is your point?"

The point is accommodationists have legitimate reasons for using incivility toward some people and not others, and that this isn't an arbitrary double standard.

Ophelia Benson: "I can (paradoxically, or perversely, or for the sake of completeness, or to disconcert people who think that 'New' atheists can't admit to nuance or shades of grey) corroborate that Templeton doesn't always push its agenda on people."

And by admitting that, you've admitted that it pretty much is a slam dunk that Templeton is in a different category from the Discovery Institute.

"I said Chris 'picked a fight'; that is not the same thing as saying he originated the fight."

But you also said, "[Sheril Kirshenbaum] complains of a 'culture war' - but then she should ask herself why she and Chris elected to set one off," indicating that he did start the fight.

"maybe it is worth asking who funds particular grants, and criticizing sources that seem to have a particular agenda or bias, maybe doing that does not equate to demonizing your critics."

Going off and calling a grant a "bribe," as Coyne did, is demonization.

Also think about the double standard where it is okay for your side to use "war" or other words used to describe physical conflict (such as "assault," "bash," etc.) as an idiomatic reference to non-violent conflict, e.g. a "culture war," while when Mooney and Kirshenbaum do likewise, it is a horribly objectionable use of "metaphors of violence." That involves a form of demonization as well, where you distort and exaggerate the effect of M&K's language as if they are really implying that the "New Atheists" are violent.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Bjørn Ãstman" "The bottom line is that Templeton seems to have a conclusion that they really would like to reach. That's the same category as Disco"

By that logic, then, the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org, American Atheists, and the NCSE are in the same category as Disco. Those organizations all promote certain conclusions that they want to reach. Your category isn't very helpful.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Just how big are your categories? I think it would qualify as bizarre to think them both as fraudulent. Full stop.

It's not so much how big are your categories, as what categories are we talking about. The category I had in mind was 'funding source with an agenda' - not 'fraudulent.' With or without 'full stop.'

And by admitting that, you've admitted that it pretty much is a slam dunk that Templeton is in a different category from the Discovery Institute.

I didn't "admit"; I said. And no I haven't admitted that it pretty much is a slam dunk that Templeton is in a different category from the Discovery Institute, given the category I had in mind - funding source with an agenda.

Also think about the double standard where it is okay for your side to use "war" or other words used to describe physical conflict

Excuse me? Where have I said that's okay? Where is it written that I'm somehow responsible for everything "my side" chooses to say?

I'll make it explicit for you. I hereby assert that I don't necessarily endorse every single word written by...well, by anyone.

Okay? Will that do?

When NIH funds AIDS research, do you believe they do so without an agenda? Or would you put them in the same category as the Discovery Institute?

Benson: "And no I haven't admitted that it pretty much is a slam dunk that Templeton is in a different category from the Discovery Institute, given the category I had in mind - funding source with an agenda."

Trouble is, you didn't say "funding source with an agenda," which an cover all sorts of groups, including benign ones, such as the American Atheists, who have offered scholarships. Instead, you made a comparison with an organization that is known--especially on ScienceBlogs--primarily for being a religious organization with a shameless disregard for facts and logic, not merely for being a funding source with an agenda.

Benson: "Excuse me? Where have I said that's okay?"

Are you kidding me? Have you read what you have been writing? As I had already pointed out, you yourself used embrace Kirshenbaum's use of the phrase "culture war" and likened M&K to the one who shot Archduke Ferdinand and started World War I:

She complains of a 'culture war' - but then she should ask herself why she and Chris elected to set one off. The 'new' atheists are not the Gavrilo Princip here - we didn't shoot no Archduke.

And before you try to object that you merely said that the "new atheists" didn't shoot the Archduke, bear in mind that you explicitly said that M&K started a war and then referred to someone who started a war. The thrust of the analogy is obvious. Indeed, not too long ago, you yourself went as far as to liken Mooney and Kirshenbaum's ideas to Gleichschaltung a policy of the Nazis, a group infamous for its violence, and a policy that itself was enforced by violence and intimidation. You've shown us by your own word choices that you think it's okay for you to use metaphors of violence, and you've only objected when M&K have used them.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Ugh. Badly edited post is badly edited:
s/an cover/can cover/
s/used embrace/embraced/

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Ramsey: "The point is accommodationists have legitimate reasons for using incivility toward some people and not others, and that this isn't an arbitrary double standard"

Ok. Let's all be incivil in a legitimate way. Maybe we should develop a code of incivility?

Matti K.: "Ok. Let's all be incivil in a legitimate way. Maybe we should develop a code of incivility?"

I'm not entirely sure if you meant that as a joke, but it isn't really a bad idea, at least if you mean establishing a set of guidelines about when it is better to be civil than uncivil and vice versa, what sort of incivilities to use under what circumstances, and so on. For starters, I'd suggest a variant on the whole "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?":

If what you are thinking of saying isn't kind, make damn sure that it is both true and necessary.

I'm sure that more things than just that could be added to this incivility code.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Ramsay: "If what you are thinking of saying isn't kind, make damn sure that it is both true and necessary."

Sure. I think we both already use this algorithm when posting.

However, my views of what is necessary often differ very much from what you think is necessary, even if we agree about truth values. Therefore I don't think there is a chance of reaching a consensus on the guidelines of incivility.

"Not too long ago" - I love that - it goes so nicely with J J Ramsey's amazing obsessiveness about one particular comment in one particular post at one particular time in the past. Do you keep a file of them, J J Ramsey, or what?

And don't give me that "before you say" shit - you don't get to be the arbiter of what I meant and what I get to say in response when you do yet another "You don't mean what you say you mean, you mean what I say you mean."

Matti K.: "my views of what is necessary often differ very much from what you think is necessary, even if we agree about truth values."

Actually, I'd say that it's the "truth" part that's the big issue, not necessarily with you per se, but more in general with the persons involved in the whole conflict over accommodation. Here are some issues I have with the facts and logic involved:

* The justifications I've seen for science-religion incompatibility look nonsensical. Usually in such justifications, "science" gets used as a label for some kind of hazily defined world view, when in practice, "science" describes a discipline where the fallibility of human beings--which may even include religious biases--is taken as a given and various practices are implemented, such as experimental controls, peer review, and so on, in order to make that fallibility as irrelevant as possible. There is also usually a hazy idea of religion as well.

* I'd also say that some accommodationists miss the boat on how they handle science-religion compatibility. John Wilkins and John Pieret handle it the best, IMHO, pointing out the sort of haziness that I mentioned above. Attempts to liken religion to literary interpretation, as I've seen our blog host do, only really make sense for the most liberal forms of religion, describing the James F. McGraths and perhaps the Slacktivists of this world rather than the Ken Millers. I also wish that the term of art "ways of knowing" would be either clarified or not used at all. The term of art may be clear to other anthropologists, but the way the word "knowing" is used is non-standard and confusing to laypersons.

* There is also an idea that accommodationism equals spinelessness, an idea that came from Dawkins' Chamberlain analogy. Thanks to a certain blogger who is apparently a fan of Blake's 7, the anti-accomodationists have been shamed out of using the analogy and the label that went with it, "appeaser," but the concept lingers. Mooney's main weakness in his brand of accommodationism is that he has (IMHO) let the anti-accommodationists ideas of what accommodationism is supposed to be seep into him, so we get him talking about building bridges to the leaders of the anti-vax movement. Contrast this with far more conditional accommodation of the NCSE, which accommodates the religious who in turn accommodate the science, but will robustly attack those who don't, as can be seen from the "Upchucky" awards.

* Some (much?) of the rhetoric seems motivated by a desire to discredit the other side and is crafted without any real checks for accuracy or logical consistency. Coyne's nonsense about the grant being a "bribe" comes to mind. Benson's complaints about "metaphors of violence" are particularly thoughtless and dependent on a double standard. Or take how Benson complained that it was Mooney who was responsible for the journalistic portrayal of Dawkins as "Mr. Big Atheist," never mind that he already had that reputation well before Mooney started getting involved with accommodationism. (Note, for example, that a big part of the success of the book The God Delusion was due to that reputation.)

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Josh posts a condescending post full of tendentious arguments using cartoon comparisons to Tom Tomorrow's spot-on caricature of the Rush Limbaugh et al. noise machine to communicate the need for responsible adult conversation.

Way to get that adult conversation going Josh! I'm sure he'll get a substantive conversation going that way! And comparing reading the arguments of those he disagrees with to an addictive "habit" that he had formerly kicked? Terribly effective at communicating how seriously he is taking this conversation.

Seriously, does the irony of the metanarrative of this conversation not give Josh the least pause?

J.J. Ramsey (my emphasis):

The justifications I've seen for science-religion incompatibility look nonsensical. Usually in such justifications, "science" gets used as a label for some kind of hazily defined world view, when in practice, "science" describes a discipline where the fallibility of human beings--which may even include religious biases--is taken as a given and various practices are implemented, such as experimental controls, peer review, and so on, in order to make that fallibility as irrelevant as possible. There is also usually a hazy idea of religion as well.

THANK YOU! The bold part is probably the first time I've seen someone explain incompatibilities who wasn't an "anti-accommodationist". Religions that represent a huge proportion of people in the U.S. maintain doctrines and standards of "evidence" and "knowledge" that must be explicitly filtered out. This is why Miller and Collins are always talking about what they *don't* think is acceptable in teaching evolution. They know how tightly associated their faiths are with doctrines contradictory to science as evidenced by their adversaries among the literalists. And sometimes even those filters fail, like when Miller and Collins allow themselves the small luxury of quantum indeterminacy to act on god's behalf.

From J.J. Ramsey's post, I am convinced that we share concepts, but we employ them differently. The acceptance of dogma, the appreciation of scriptural authority, the unwillingness to explore all options if those options challenge the god du jour, confirmation bias, etc. all make up an essential part of an overwhelming proportion of religions. I'm willing to grant the deism (for one example) and perhaps Unitarianism (for another) doesn't really fit into this category cleanly (although the aversion to using Occam's razor is very much present in those two examples, but I'll leave that aside for now).

Basically, the scientific enterprise has many controls which are built into it in order to combat biases that are in many cases prerequisites for accepting particular religions which represent enormous proportions of people. Science is incompatible with those biases.

J.J. Ramsey has said what I'd like to get anyone who isn't a an anti-accommodationist to at least admit. That doesn't mean you have to go pissing in the Cheerios of the religious, but at least admit that a huge part of science is built upon filtering out the very biases that are integral parts of religion, like faith and scriptural authority.

And finally, I take it as obvious (so obvious that it need only bear mention as a postscript) that these problems aren't unique to religion nor are the problems universally a property of religion. They are however characteristic of most religion, even the wishy-washy milquetoast Christianity of Miller and Collins which stuffs god into Heisenberg's blindspots.

J.J.E.: "And comparing reading the arguments of those he disagrees with to an addictive "habit" that he had formerly kicked? Terribly effective at communicating how seriously he is taking this conversation."

Actually it is effective. It is effective at communicating that he thinks the anti-accommodationists aren't engaging in adult-level argument. Well, when the arguments from the anti-accommodationists amount to name-calling, bad philosophy, misrepresentation, and double standards, yeah, that isn't adult-level argument unless the adults in question are Republican party hacks.

J.J.E. "THANK YOU! The bold part is probably the first time I've seen someone explain incompatibilities who wasn't an 'anti-accommodationist'."

Uh, you missed the point entirely. The argument against compatibility tends to go like this: Science is described as if it were the same as the philosophical view known as skepticism or rationalism. Religion is described as a worldview where people believe things without evidence. Rationalism is obviously incompatible with belief without evidence, so science is incompatible with religion. Q.E.D.

The problem is that the argument depends on false ideas about both science and religion. Science isn't a worldview, but rather a discipline and the body of knowledge that comes from the discipline. Religion is a set of often variable beliefs and practices, and the extent to which a particular religion involves belief without evidence, and especially what gets believed without evidence, varies widely. Science as a practice doesn't really have an epistemology, and religion is too varied to speak of religion in general as having an epistemology. That reduces talk of "epistemological incompatibility of science and religion" to babble.

One can argue that flexible religions are compatible with science as a discipline. Scientists with flexible religious beliefs can more easily accommodate their beliefs to any scientific findings that they encounter that contradict previously held beliefs, and peer review and other bias-reducing practices help keep them honest. One can also argue that flexible religions are compatible with science as a body of knowledge because they can accommodate themselves to that body of knowledge. Compatibility of science with religion is then quite possible, depending on how much believers are willing to accommodate (by reinterpretation, by treating holy books as fallible, or whatnot) their beliefs to science, and this is the sort of compatibility that accommodationists have insisted upon all along.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

In observing the whole "New Atheism" movement at arm's length, and having been occasionally on the receiving end of their "superior morality" which seems to comprise large doses of hate-filled vitriol, entirely baseless assertions of intellectual superiority, an uncomprehending philosophical ineptitude, misotheistic ranting, etc, etc, I've come up with the following reflection, which the worst of the practitioners ought to consider:

There are two possiblilities:

1) Most of the people in the world (i.e. the 'religious') are, indeed, deluded, raving a**holes.

2) The person who thinks that option(1) obtains (and vehemently shouts it from the rooftops) is, in fact, the deluded, raving a**hole.

Now, if we employ Occam's Razor, that is, the principle of parsimony, which of these two possibilities is most likely correct?

Moreover, if we consider the brute fact of the evidently superior evolutionary fitness of the 'religious' who are far, far more numerous than the vitriol-spewing New Atheist, and reproducing at a far higher rate, what is the appropriate conclusion?

Occam's Razor, and the "precisely the opposite of random" result of Natural Selection provide a crystal clear answer.

Matteo: "if we consider the brute fact of the evidently superior evolutionary fitness of the 'religious' who are far, far more numerous than the vitriol-spewing New Atheist, and reproducing at a far higher rate, what is the appropriate conclusion?"

This XKCD strip is somewhat relevant: http://xkcd.com/603/

Also, remember that atheists "reproduce" not only by having atheist children but by deconverting the religious. Atheism isn't a genetic trait, so arguments about the reproductive difference between the religious and non-religious are not helpful. Also, you haven't said where the religious are reproducing more. Suppose that we have the following trend:

* Developed, first-world countries have a lower birth rate, and these are the places where atheism is growing.

* Third-world countries have a higher birth rate, and in these countries, religion still thrives.

If the increased birth rate of the religious relative to atheists is largely due to a difference in the birth rates of first and third-world countries, that means that that the religious won't necessarily outreproduce atheists, since the death rates are higher in third-world countries, and that will offset the numbers added to the religious through birth.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

J.J. Ramsey:

Actually it is effective.

Only if you think that arguments from the "I know you are but what am I?" variety are effective. Josh's argumentation is rather puerile and doesn't even address the foundation of the latest iteration of the debate that began when Jerry Coyne alternately praised and criticized Giberson's and Miller's books in his review Seeing and Believing in The New Republic. He lays out a very measured, temperate, but also very critical dissection of the idea of compatibility. And when the compatibility debates actually bother to cite that article at all, they do violence to it, ignoring nearly every argument in there except for some bastardized non-extant version of his argument. They even have the nerve to contest his thesis of incompatibility by pointing out that "There are plenty of people that are good scientists and religious, so they MUST be compatible" (they being at least Mooney and I think Josh if I remember correctly). This despite the fact that Jerry explicitly chose to draw the battle lines such that he conceded that that type of "compatibility" is trivially easy to prove and he did not dispute it. And annoyingly, the quotes from it tend to gloss over the praise Jerry had for the authors and instead quote mine only the juiciest bits of criticism.

So, what do you do when you've written a 9,700+ word article where you lay out your thesis in great detail with caveats and examples and nuance balanced by heaping helpings of praise for the subjects of criticism and everyone ignores it and proceeds by arguing as if it hadn't been written? Well, you can either just concede the debate and not bother to answer the people that failed basic reading comprehension (i.e. anyone who responds by saying "I know religious scientists" instead of saying instead, "I prefer to call that conflict something other than incompatibility"). Or perhaps you can continue the slog with post after measured post reiterating the same points over and over again, showing the patience of Job. Or you can just give up expecting to treat your interlocutors like adults.

For me the worst option is #1 followed closely by #3. However, #2 requires an enormous investment and a tolerance for repetition. Jerry may not have eventually not taken the high road, but it wasn't for lack of initial effort. He started off on track #2 with his TNR article, was subjected to a stream irrelevant arguments that were already preemptively addressed in his essay, and eventually more or less just said "f*ck it" and was dragged down to track #3. Regrettable, but our esteemed host here exhibits the same behavior with regard to creationists and with Coyne as well. So, this is a mud filled pit where a call of "Children! Behave yourselves!" is rank hypocrisy of the most blatant kind. Especially when it comes with an attached comparison of one's interlocutors to Rush Limbaugh.

J.J. Ramsey:

Uh, you missed the point entirely.

Uh, no I didn't. Just because I highlight facts that were tangential to the point you were making doesn't invalidate the facts. Nor does it necessarily mean I disagree or disagree with the point. That's irrelevant. I was using your acknowledgment in one context as a jumping off point for the discussion of incompatibility. You highlight very nicely that certain types of common, very human weaknesses are special targets of the scientific method's quality control apparatus, and that the targets of this apparatus can be (among many other targets) religious in nature. I trust that you don't disagree with me so far?

It is just one more step to say "And furthermore, a certain class of those biases are present in an overwhelming majority of religious faiths in the U.S. Ergo, the scientific method as practiced by scientists explicitly attempts to filter out dogmatic/faith/authority-based arguments characteristic of virtually all religions". Again, the very fact that Collins and Miller explicate the nature of their partitioning by saying that their personal beliefs don't impinge on their scientific practices is the exception that proves the rule. They are admitting that, were they to allow those beliefs to impinge on their scientific world, it WOULD be in direct and irreconcilable conflict. However, their personal decision to filter is ad hoc. For example, they choose to allow quantum god in but not the divinity of Christ or the "fact" of the resurrection (not to mention YEC tenets with which they vehemently disagree). Good for them! I much prefer that to many alternatives. However, quantum god is no less a real physical claim about the world than any other god. I know many liberal Christians that aren't even willing to even give quantum god any leeway. So what about that conflict?

J.J. Ramsey:

Religion is a set of often variable beliefs and practices, and the extent to which a particular religion involves belief without evidence, and especially what gets believed without evidence, varies widely.

Religion is variable. But by the very virtue that the term "religion" is used in an inclusionary rather than an exclusionary way (as a noun, it represents a concept that has a shared constellation of attributes), "religions" have a lot in common. The most common attribute is belief in some notion of superhuman power. In any event, the problematic point isn't what gets believed without evidence. It is that belief without evidence is by definition an integral principle of any religion that is willing to proclaim that "faith" is integral to their religion. Belief of arbitrary propositions about the world without evidence is anathema to science. What is accepted and what isn't requires a filtering mechanism as you ably point out. As it turns out, that filtering mechanism keeps out one of the attributes that is key for defining religion. Religion is a multifarious thing, but in total, the scientific method is either indifferent to religion is or hostile to it.

The problem is that the argument depends on false ideas about both science and religion. Science is described as if it were the same as the philosophical view known as skepticism or rationalism.

That's an inaccurate characterization of my view and indeed I submit that I have yet to meet that characterization in any prominent proponent of incompatibility.

However I will concede that science is well described as employing the tools of skepticism and rationalism, though it is clearly not synonymous with them. Obviously it also employs observation, falsification, replication, induction, deduction, consensus, etc. A lot of these terms overlap each other, but you get my point I hope.

J.J. Ramsey:

One can argue that flexible religions are compatible with science as a discipline.

As indeed I did above and <Jerry Coyne has done so in print.

This is the frustrating perversity or taunting or lack of reading comprehension I'm talking about. I don't know how else to classify reiteration of a point that was conceded long ago. You are exhibiting a basic refusal to allow the proponent of incompatibility to preemptively concede a point he sees coming a mile away from his potential interlocutors. For a tension release, I'm about to curse a blue-streak, just to illustrate how frustrating this type of argument is when phrased in the way you phrase it. We f*cking get it godd@mmit! We know some people don't care about changing the definition of their religion to accommodate science on a post hoc basis! Sh!t! Stop saying this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over a-f*cking-gain. For f*ck's sake, Jerry godd@mn said it in his very first f*cking TNR piece.

As you might deduce, Jerry has addressed this already (emphasis original):

True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. ) It is also true that some of the tensions disappear when the literal reading of the Bible is renounced, as it is by all but the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities. But tension remains. The real question is whether there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic? The incessant stream of books dealing with this question suggests that the answer is not straightforward.

The easiest way to harmonize science and religion is simply to re-define one so that it includes the other. We may claim, for example, that "God" is simply the name we give to the order and harmony of the universe, the laws of physics and chemistry, the beauty of nature, and so on. This is the naturalistic pantheism of Spinoza. Its most famous advocate was Einstein, often (and wrongly) described as believing in a personal God:

The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.

But the big problem with this "reconciliation," in which science does not marry religion so much as digest it, is that it leaves out God completely--or at least the God of the monotheistic faiths, who has an interest in the universe. And this is unacceptable to most religious people. Look at the numbers: 90 percent of Americans believe in a personal God who interacts with the world, 79 percent believe in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, and 72 percent in the divinity of Jesus. In his first popular book, Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth Miller attacked pantheism because it "dilutes religion to the point of meaninglessness." He was right.

Now, in sum, I start with a very simple contention that is supported by you and I agree with. The scientific method filters out a lot of things, including personal biases, claims from authority, etc. And we both agree that at least some of these biases stem from religious sources. (Indeed, the ID and YEC ones form the raison d'etre of the NCSE.) Further, I would submit that these "filtered out" aspects represent aspects that are incompatible with science. Finally I would say (and this is where we are likely to disagree) that a subset of these points is characteristic of religion to the point of being diagnostic for it, or at least for the religion as practiced by at least 80% (if not more) of religious believers in the U.S. ca 2005. Ergo, incompatibility with religion is widespread. QED.

By that logic, then, the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org, American Atheists, and the NCSE are in the same category as Disco. Those organizations all promote certain conclusions that they want to reach. Your category isn't very helpful.

But I think the category is helpful. If you're in that category, then any attempt whatsoever at objectivity on the matter at hand is out the window. And that is always useful to know.

Do we expect the NCSE to be impartial on whether evolution should be taught in schools, as opposed to creationism? I think no one would expect that. Should we expect them to be impartial on wether science and religion is compatible? May be we should. I'd certainly like them (you) to.

In the most recent iteration, we've had Chris Mooney winning a grant so he can write a book. In this day and age, any science writer or journalist of any stripe who can stay employed and be funded to do research deserves praise and congratulations. But because Mooney's funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation, a group dedicated to promoting a particular view on the compatibility of science and religion, that praiseworthy achievement has won opprobrium.

That, is a startlingly stupid thing to say.

The common counter to this that you leave yourself very open to is that your praise works on tobacco industry scientists - but not just the scientists who worked on the publicity campaign here.

Any scientists who worked on making the cigarettes extra-addictive get your praise too - after all, they got jobs and got to do research.

Without that point the rest of your post falls apart. If we consider that the Templeton Foundation has a specific agenda it has never been shy to expose, and that his latest book not only supports that agenda but also does so in a poorly researched manner, the source of his funding and its effect on his work must be considered.

Or do you think that organisations employed by ExxonMobil are 100% reliable sources on climate change?

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

By that logic, then, the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org, American Atheists, and the NCSE are in the same category as Disco.

Aside from the NCSE, yeah, they kind of are.

The NCSE argues basic issues of fact - the point to why it doesn't support creationism in schools is because creationism isn't scientifically supported. Their "agenda" basically sums up to the question of "Is this true?"

If for example, creationism was supported by the evidence and evolution wasn't, then the NCSE would support creationism.

Which lends it greater credibility than the three others on that list.

The Democratic Party's agenda is to win elections, while moveon.org and American Atheists are advocacy groups.

Articles and books funded by all three should be treated with suspicion - or at least not as being "neutral".

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

When NIH funds AIDS research, do you believe they do so without an agenda? Or would you put them in the same category as the Discovery Institute?

Posted by: Oran Kelley | March 7, 2010 10:54 AM

They do have an agenda - but the agenda is to learn more about AIDS and possibly treat or cure it in the most efficient manner possible.

Thus the "agenda" in question isn't to arrive at a pre-determined outcome, like "Science and religion don't conflict with each other" but rather to arrive at the right answer.

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

Bruce Gorton: "Articles and books funded by all three should be treated with suspicion - or at least not as being 'neutral'."

But not necessarily dismissed out of hand the way one would dismiss content from outright professional liars. Nor would we be too quick to bash people who got funding from those organizations.

I'm seeing a tap dance here. The Templeton Foundation gets described as being in the same category as an obviously corrupt denialist organization, with the obvious implication that it is itself one. When that obvious implication is challenged, the people who made it say, "Oh no, we didn't mean that." Trouble is, if you don't mean that, then all the talk of bribery, pieces of silver, selling out, etc. goes flying out the window.

Me: "The problem is that the argument depends on false ideas about both science and religion. Science is described as if it were the same as the philosophical view known as skepticism or rationalism."

J.J.E.: "That's an inaccurate characterization of my view and indeed I submit that I have yet to meet that characterization in any prominent proponent of incompatibility."

Ahem, Coyne writes:

While science and theism (i.e., the view that God acts to change things in the material world) are compatible in the trivial sense that some people adhere to both, they are incompatible in the philosophical sense of being harmonious world views.

So yes, Coyne is describing science as a philosophical view.

J.J.E.: "You are exhibiting a basic refusal to allow the proponent of incompatibility to preemptively concede a point he sees coming a mile away from his potential interlocutors."

No, I am arguing that once one denies that science is a world view, all the arguments about "epistemological incompatibility" become meaningless, and by "meaningless" I mean noise, static, words without a referent in the real world. In short, I mean "nonsense."

J.J.E.: "We know some people don't care about changing the definition of their religion to accommodate science on a post hoc basis!"

Yes, you do know that, and no one is arguing that you don't. What I am arguing is that attempts to argue for incompatibility on a deeper level fail miserably because they depend on a definition of "science" that doesn't match what the word "science" is used to mean outside of accommodationism debates.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

The problem is that the argument depends on false ideas about both science and religion. Science is described as if it were the same as the philosophical view known as skepticism or rationalism.

vs

So yes, Coyne is describing science as a philosophical view.

Watch them goalposts shift. Nobody made the first equivalence, and your bait-and-switch in the second case is partly true, but not wrong. (And word to the wise/sophistic: if you actually are aiming for a bait and switch, the order is usually to connect an earlier innocuous/safe statement to a rhetorically disadvantageous/wrong analog of your own device later. You introduced the strawman first then tied it to a true but undamaging statement. It doesn't work well in that order.)

This weird juxtaposition above indicates that the bookeeping in your arguments is pretty sloppy. And in any event, you simply declare your point to flow without supporting it. If I were feeling generous (I'm not) and granted you your false premise (I won't), you still haven't shown how you get to the conclusion you're aiming at using the concepts you've introduced.

No, I am arguing that once one denies that science is a world view, all the arguments about "epistemological incompatibility" become meaningless, and by "meaningless" I mean noise, static, words without a referent in the real world. In short, I mean "nonsense."

Because a "world view" couldn't possibly have a referent! I forgot that⦠Again, if I grant you that science IS merely a "world view" (I won't) you are making the claim that religion can't be contradictory with science because it is a world view. In other words, simply because you declare that science is a world view, you feel justified in saying that it is compatible with religion. That's just rubbish. You again fail to draw the logical connections and declare this little gem by fiat. I can think of many hypothetical world views that are incompatible with religion. Let R = religion. At the very least, I can simply define S such that it contradicts with arbitrary tenets in R. Go back to the drawing board and at least tailor it for the "scientific method" vs. "religious faith" context.

What I am arguing is that attempts to argue for incompatibility on a deeper level fail miserably because they depend on a definition of "science" that doesn't match what the word "science" is used to mean outside of accommodationism debates.

Sorry bud. You're basically S.O.L., at least in a formal debate setting. There very well may be a good killer argument against mine. But clearly you either don't know it or are terrible at communicating it.

Again, I submit that the scientific method as commonly understood is incompatible with any practice that makes statements about the observable world that are based on dogma or authority instead of evidence. Furthermore, the scientific method is incompatible with any practice that refuses to at least attempt to hold its statements about the world to any standard of evidence.

You haven't challenged this other than to make your non sequitur "world view" argument without an attempt to link that inchoate idea to the positive argument I'm making. Your hand waving (depending mainly on the gravitas you imagine declaring something to be a "world view" has) is, to put it kindly, unsatisfying.

J.J.E.: "Watch them goalposts shift. Nobody made the first equivalence"

The goalposts haven't shifted at all. Coyne did say that science was a world view, and if you look at his posts and see how he describes said world view, it is pretty clear that this view goes by such names as "skepticism" or "rationalism."

J.J.E.: "Again, if I grant you that science IS merely a 'world view'"

Did you read what I wrote at all? I said science is not a world view but rather a discipline. Furthermore, because I deny that science is a world view, the arguments for incompatibility that depend on it being a world view fall apart.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

But not necessarily dismissed out of hand the way one would dismiss content from outright professional liars. Nor would we be too quick to bash people who got funding from those organizations.

A journalist being paid by a political party would (at least in RSA) - it would be considered a basic conflict of interest. That is, so far as I understand it, the issue with the TF.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/the-templeton-bribe/

Heck the newspaper I work for has as a rule (In our contracts) that says we can't keep gifts - they are instead auctioned off once a year with the procedes going to charity - precisely because of that vital need to avoid a conflict of interest.

In all three cases they will cease to be treated as journalists and in fact be treated as PR people. Their words would be seen as being intimately linked to the credibility of the organisations they represent.

One of the important things that needs to be pointed out here is that Mooney was already being slammed for shoddy research, proposing pipe-dream solutions and letting his personal grudge with specific anti-accomodationists carry over into his book.

This was in complete contradiction to his prior book "The Republican War on Science."

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 07 Mar 2010 #permalink

No, I am arguing that once one denies that science is a world view, all the arguments about "epistemological incompatibility" become meaningless, and by "meaningless" I mean noise, static, words without a referent in the real world. In short, I mean "nonsense."

Could you clarify this point? It kind of looks like "One idea can't contradict another" at the moment.

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

Bruce Gordon: "Could you clarify this point? It kind of looks like 'One idea can't contradict another' at the moment."

I'm saying that those who are claiming that there is something called "epistemological incompatibility" (a phrase used by Benson and others) between science and religion are relying on the idea that science is some sort of world view.

I am not saying that science is a world view, but quite the opposite, that it is a discipline, an activity (well, a whole host of activities, actually) that people do. Activities don't have epistemologies. The people who engage in them might, and certain activities may encourage such people to have particular kinds of epistemologies, but the activities themselves don't. Therefore, when someone claims that the epistemology of religion is incompatible with the epistemology of science, one is talking nonsense at the very least because science doesn't have an epistemology, much the same way that bicycle riding or stamp collecting don't have epistemologies, either.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

Relative to Mr. Mooneys' Templeton Fellowshlip, it turns out that the Templeton Director of Communications, Ron Dreher and the Foundation itself are lying about his credentials. A little sleuthing by Jerry Coyne has turned up this information (link attached). There's an old saying, one who gets down into the pen with the pigs may expect to emerge with a coating of mud. Mr. Mooney is getting into the pen with some rather filthy pigs.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/rod-dreher-and-the-t…

J. J. Ramsey | March 8, 2010 6:43 AM

Well I disagree with you one that because of the nature of how I see epistemology.

Epistemology, to me, is a theory of knowledge, essentially asking "how do we know that?" which is kind of the question I see to be the root of science. It is our means of saying "Is this reliable?"

Now science, so far as I see it, is how we try to answer that when it comes to matters of fact. I could be mistaken in how I judge what is and isn't epistemology of course, I am no philosopher, but I see definite examples of it in science and the scientific method.

By Bruce Gorton (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

Bruce Gorton:

Epistemology, to me, is a theory of knowledge, essentially asking "how do we know that?"

You don't need to add the "to me" there. AFAIK, that is the bog-standard definition of epistemology.

which is kind of the question I see to be the root of science.

No, this part is wrong, very wrong. Scientists, acting as scientists, do not probe that deeply into the question of how we know what we know. Rather, for various reasons, they take for granted that doing experiments, testing, etc. will lead to reasonably reliable knowledge. Now in practice, this works out pretty well, but it doesn't have much to do with epistemology. Epistemology has more to do with why all these practices seem to work, dealing with issues such as the problem of induction, and it is a matter of philosophy, not science.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

#45 "The NCSE argues basic issues of fact - the point to why it doesn't support creationism in schools is because creationism isn't scientifically supported. Their "agenda" basically sums up to the question of "Is this true?""

Well, on the question of compatibility of science and religion NCSE is not as open-minded. They have long since concluded that certain (popular) religions are basically compatible with science and thus publish only arguments that back this point of view.

The need to maintain minimally basic standards of civility and sticking to the point rather than indulging in emo is getting to be a very important debate within the whole atheist movement, not only driven by the antics of Myers and Coyne, but also by the public debate over the manner of the closure of the Richard Dawkin Forum.

There is much to say on all of this, as also with commenting on Ophelia Benson's style, and on the comments made yesterday and today by Russell Blackford, Jerry Coyne and Ophelia Benson, but the most important aspect is that this does not just involve the Science Blogs wars, but indeed much of the entire atheist movement as well.

J.J. Ramsey: "Scientists, acting as scientists, do not probe that deeply into the question of how we know what we know."

You mean besides cognitive scientists and psychologists, and maybe even some anthropologists, right?

gillt: "You mean besides cognitive scientists and psychologists, and maybe even some anthropologists, right?"

Actually, if we are talking about epistemology, then I am not necessarily excepting those people, since generally they too, as I put it before, "take for granted that doing experiments, testing, etc. will lead to reasonably reliable knowledge." It's a parody of epistemology to say that it gets into the territory of "Have you looked at your hand ... I mean really looked," but from this layman's perspective, it looks like a subject where what we take to be common sense may be treated with extreme, even Pyrrhonian, skepticism. It's not simply dealing with issues such as cognitive bias or how our senses can be fooled.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

J. J. Ramsey (52 & 55)

Pardon my minimal philosophical training, but how can a way of gaining knowledge not have (or not be) an epistemology?

When I consider what it would mean for something to not have an epistemology I think of things like: having no particular relevance to the creation of knowledge, having no standards of evidence, having no methods for the discerning of truth from falsehood, etc. But science has all of these things.

You say science is an activity. I suppose so -- it's the activity of applying a scientific epistemology. You also say that science doesn't do the philosophy of epistemology itself. That is, it doesn't judge ways of knowing, it just acts on them. Again yes, but I don't see the relevance of this point.

Amos: "Pardon my minimal philosophical training,"

Considering that you are talking to a layman, do you really need to ask for a pardon? :)

Amos: "but how can a way of gaining knowledge not have (or not be) an epistemology?"

I don't think that, strictly speaking, it really makes much sense to say that inanimate things have epistemologies. People hold epistemologies, that is, they have certain (possibly ill-formed) ideas on how they know what they know. Of course, if a person holds certain views about the world, such a one is likely to have an epistemology consistent with those view, so we can usually associate a world view with an epistemology, but associating activities with an epistemology is more iffy.

Amos: "You say science is an activity. I suppose so -- it's the activity of applying a scientific epistemology."

Not necessarily. The trouble is that individual scientists can easily have different reasons for doing what they do. A scientist who is a theist may work under the assumption that since God is rational, the world he supposedly created is orderly, and therefore he can find out that order. Another scientist may simply may a judgment that the universe seems to operate in regular ways (and if you think about how chaotic the world can be in various ways, that is not a trivial judgment), and act accordingly. Do these scientists share the same epistemology? Probably not.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2010 #permalink

"It's not simply dealing with issues such as cognitive bias or how our senses can be fooled."

Hm. Is that what you've taken away from work in cognitive science?

And if you aren't capable of having a civil conversation with people you disagree with

Hmmm. Interesting that you write this in a post whose very title asserts that your opponents are not grown-ups.

gillt: "Hm. Is that what you've taken away from work in cognitive science?"

That's not the only thing I've taken away, but how cognitive systems fail is a big part of cognitive science.

By J. J. Ramsey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2010 #permalink

Though I will grant Rosenau one point: On reflection, I have decided that he is completely right that far too much of this debate has been about "who started it", and it's time for that to end. I have attempted to acknowledge that even as I disagree with a lot of the other things he says in this post.

It's 'just deserts,' not desserts. Thank you.

I am late to this skirmish and am confused by what people mean by religion. My impression is it refers to fundamentalist Christianity foremost with inclusion of any theism to expand the group. For me--and quite a few others--religion (small r) is born of the mythology one holds true. Before literacy was achieved and heresy became an acceptable religious orientation, Religion (big R) dictated to the masses. It still does to the timid and unthinking.

Intellectuals--by which I mean those who study and reason to their depths--have revealed the essentials of mythology and ever changing meaning of religion since science began and the deeply religious have always used the science of the day as the platform on which to stand in considering the ineffable.

It is disturbing to read a non-religious scientist refer to a religious one (who accepts scientific findings without exception) as an accommodationist. Where in science is the support for using personal slurs as logic?

For me, there is no science versus religion debate because they are not apples and oranges, they are known/knowable and ineffable/transcendent respectively. As science extends knowledge into the previously unknown, mythology changes. This is readily seen in cultures where myths are oral, unwritten. It is when the myth is recorded that concretization begins and the mythic "truth" which is sensed, never proven, decays into "terminal moraine", a Joseph Campbell label.

Until there is a clear working definition of terms--religion and science--the debate is bogus. Neither is "intuitively obvious to the casual observer" although some speak to them as though they are.