Lying for Jesus

First, I guess I should address the fact that I haven’t posted in a while.  It isn’t that I’ve quit on the blog.  This is just one of those cases where life got in the way of plans that were made.  In short, I’ve been busy, but I plan to continue this blog for quite awhile.  That said, I apologize for my lack of posts over the past month or so.

What I want to touch on now is something about which numerous people have already spoken (my “late to the ball” metaphor might serve as a better name for this blog in general), but it’s something on which I want to write regardless.  The issue is the upcoming publicity stunt by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in which they will hand out copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species at the “top 100 U.S. universities.”  You can go here to check out what they’re doing in their own words.  The kicker is that Comfort has written an introduction that will be included in the book.  It is 50 pages long, and it is ridiculous.  A pdf of that introduction is available on the linked site.  Check it out.

For starters, here is a video put out to publicize the event:

 

Let’s consider the first few things said in the video.  Cameron claims, “One by one, we’re being stripped of our God-given liberties.”  Which liberties are these?  Don’t worry, Kirk is going to clue us in.  He says, “Our kids can no longer pray in public.”  Really?  When did this happen?  Of course, it never happened.  It is wholly untrue that kids can’t pray in public, including public schools.  Kids can pray all they want (though teachers cannot coerce children into praying to that teacher’s god).

He continues, “They can no longer freely open a Bible in school.”  Bzzt!  Wrong again.

“The Ten Commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places.”  Where does he come up with this stuff?  Are churches not “public places”?  There is absolutely no such prohibition.  Now, it is true that you can’t display these in places like government buildings, but that’s to avoid the government’s endorsing one god over another.  Moreover, that in no way prevents anyone from displaying the Ten Commandments on their own property where everyone can see them all the day long.

“The Gideons are not even allowed to give away Bibles in schools.”  This is is correct, but, again, this is to avoid having the government, even tacitly, endorse one religion over another.  Honestly, the people who don’t get that this is in their best interest just are not thinking this through.  I can’t even begin to imagine how loud the uproar would be by conservative Christian parents if some Muslim organization were giving away copies of the Qur’an while a teacher was leading his students in prayer to Allah during school hours.  I imagine it would be just a bit less than the outcry by Baptist parents if a teacher were telling her students that they needed to confess their sins to a priest in order to be forgiven, or the reaction of Catholic parents whose children were told that they could bypass their priest altogether and go straight to the source in their confessions.  The reason this stuff isn’t in schools is to protect freedom of worship, not prohibit it, and suggesting otherwise shows one to be either incredibly naive or a deceiver.

It goes downhill from there, but this should suffice for my purposes.  What we have above are three separate lies and one assertion whose words are true but whose implied concern is false, and this is in the first thirty seconds.  That’s quite a bit of untruth from someone supposedly concerned about the moral failings of our society, and it is all done in the name of God.

It gets worse.  Ray Comfort was offered the opportunity to respond to increasing criticism about this endeavor by US News and World Reports. He posited the question “Why are many atheists so angry?…If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) ‘an ignorant fool’, why are so many feeling threatened by what I’ve written? Surely, the Introduction will be ignorance and foolishness, and simply confirm the students’ presuppositions that intelligent design isn’t worthy of even a first look.”

There are many reasons to be concerned about such a thing, and I’ll name a couple before getting to Comfort’s own response to the question.  It is simply the case that a great number of college students are unfamiliar with the material in question and are thus susceptible to being deceived by those claiming to be authority figures.  Those unversed in history or biology will not have the tools or knowledge to see through Comfort’s absurdities and lies and, as such, may very well be swayed by his inaccuracies.  By writing the introduction of the “150th Anniversary Edition,” Comfort puts himself in the role of an expert, an authority on the subject.  He is well aware of this, else why even bother with this charade?  Comfort has the ability to influence children with his introduction, and that is exactly why he undertook this project.  That is why people are concerned.  And, I mean, duh.

Comfort’s responds to his own question is that those opposed to his book should be concerned.  They should be concerned because there’s a direct line from Darwin to Hitler, and “Nazi Germany was the natural outcome of what Darwin called ‘one general law’.”  I kid you not.  Darwin, who, along with his entire family, fought for the abolition of slavery his entire life, who said that mercy, our empathy for our fellow humans, was our best quality, created Hitler and Nazism.  Forget the centuries of Christian writers who were rabidly anti-Semitic.  Forget the role of the Catholic Church itself.  It was all Darwin.  A more absurd lie could not be told.  (Lest there be any confusion, I am in no way suggesting that Christianity was responsible for Nazism.  The rise of Nazi Germany is an incredibly complicated story of which there is no single or simple cause.)

Comfort continues, “The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility.”  So much is wrong with this that it is tough to know where to begin.  First, there are quite a few Christians who believe that evolutionary theory gets it right.  One of the most influential defenders of evolutionary biology right now is Ken Miller, a devout Christian.  His book, Finding Darwin’s God, is a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary theory that also contains a systematic dismantling of the common criticisms of evolution, including intelligent design.  Next, an atheist is not “someone who believes that nothing created everything.”  An atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in any gods.  That’s it.  One’s views of cosmogeny simply have nothing to do with that whatsoever, and the fact that Comfort wants to redefine the word to something radically different only highlights his intellectual dishonesty.  Further, and this is the real kicker, it just might not be a scientific impossibility that the universe popped into existence out of nothing.  What we’ve discovered is that lots of things about the world are counter-intuitive to us, and this might just be another one.  But, most important of all, none of this has anything to do with evolution at all! Our understanding of the universe has radically changed since Darwin, and it will likely change again.  Likewise, the details of evolutionary biology have changed since the advent of relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang theory, and a host of other things in physics and cosmology.  The point here is that these things are just not dependent upon one another in any significant way.

Comfort makes a number of other enormous mistakes, but I see no need to detail each of them.  There is a larger issue here that needs to be addressed, and that is that Comfort has been made aware of these “mistakes” over and over again. This is hardly the first time these things have been said, even by Comfort, and he has been repeatedly corrected.  Even so, he keeps trotting out the same tired examples.  But the point to this is that these can no longer be seen as mistakes.  As corrections have occurred, that means he is aware of the falsehoods, yet he keeps spreading them.  That makes him a blatant liar.

In the end, I am unclear on what Comfort and Cameron’s goal is.  They are liars, and they know it.  Even so, they hold themselves up as moral leaders and say their hope is to save our children and ourselves.  What moral authority can one hope to hold when that authority is achieved by deception?  None.  This is a message that should be heeded most of all by other Christians.  Why any group would allow moral reprobates such as these to act as if they are the group’s representatives is beyond me.  However, I don’t know that I would agree with ripping out the introduction, as others have suggested.  Instead, I would take the opportunity to discuss these issues with any students who receive the book.  I would advocate holding lectures on the campuses at which the books are being distributed where the points in Comfort’s introduction are taken apart one by one.  That way not only do kids get the book, of which they should have some copy, they also get vaccinated against Comfort’s lies, and, more importantly, they become aware of this kind of tactic, making them less likely to fall for it in the future.  That would actually be something very good that could come out of this whole debacle.

Email to a friend

The Argument from Morality

There is a kind of argument for God that seems very common amongst the “New Apologists” that is called the “Argument from Morality.”  I am bothered by this argument for a couple of reasons, and I’ll spell them out here.  This argument runs something like this:

1. There is objective morality.
2. A law-giving God is the only thing that could ground an objective morality.
Hence, God must exist.

Built into this is an unstated premise, that being that no person’s opinion is adequate to ground an objective morality as all opinions are merely subjective.  Sometimes this is made explicit, but often it is not.  So, if someone were to ask why people merely getting together and agreeing that something was moral or immoral would not suffice for grounding an objective morality, this would be the core reason.  If it is true that all people’s opinions on morality are merely subjective, then an objective morality would never be possible.  Subjectivity never gives you objectivity, no matter how many people agree.  Even if everyone agreed, that would never cut it, and that’s just because it’s still just opinion and not moral law.

This unstated premise is important as it provides the reasoning behind the premise (2).  I want to grant this without issue.  I think it’s fine, and I am happy to let it stand.  However, that’s the only thing which I am willing to concede to this argument.  Beyond that, it looks like it fails on all fronts.  That is, both of the stated premises just seem ridiculously problematic.  Certainly, they are not the kind of thing that can be taken as self-evident.

Starting with premise (1), we see that this is just a bald assertion with little genuine support.  Is there any such thing?  Maybe.  But, if there is, it is not obvious.  Even worse, it’s not obvious what the laws of such a morality would be.  Indeed, moral laws appear to vary from community to community, and this is simply indisputable.  I do not think much time needs to be spent on this.  Suffice to say that if there is an objective morality, what it is, how it works, and what justifies it are subjects of great debate.  As such, this premise cannot be  taken to be the starting point of any proof for anything, much less something as controversial as God.

The above said, I think the problem is much worse than that.  Even if we granted (1), it is not clear why (2) is true, and this, I think, is the big issue.  The idea here is that all we mere mortals have is a subjective opinion, and, as stated above, this never gets us to objective law.  But why should we think, then, that pushing the problem back to God solves this issue?  This is what I do not get about those who push this argument.  If tastes and opinions are all subjective, why isn’t God’s opinion subjective?  Does He not have a perspective?  Presumably He has some point of view, and that necessarily means He sees things from that vantage, that he has some perspective that is peculiar to Him.  But that means that his views are just as subjective as everything else’s, and, as such, His tastes (Tastes?) do not amount to objectivity, either.  Rather, what He has is some particular set of values, and He wants those values (Values?) respected and accepted.  But this is no different than anyone else.  Certainly, I want my values accepted by everyone else as well, but that does not make my values in any way objective.  So why does it work that way for God?

One possible response is that God’s values are objective because God created everything.  But how does this follow?  What is it about creating something that means that the creator’s values are what counts over and beyond any other entity’s values, including those of the creation?  For example, if I created a robot, and that robot was so sophisticated as to be sentient, would my values count as objective in relation to that entity?  So, if I thought it was a good thing for that robot to be tortured and caused to suffer for my own pleasure, would that be “good” for the robot?  Would it be morally obligated to suffer?  I cannot see why such would be the case.  But that seems to call into question the idea that a creator’s tastes count as objective moral imperatives for the creations.  I just do not see how this could work for me, and, as such, it does not look like it works for any creator, even the Creator.

Another response might have to do with God’s power.  That is, God’s values are objective and apply to all because His power is infinite.  But that seems to directly contradict our intuitions about morality.  It does not seem that if some really strong guy, say Superman, came along and wanted to impose a different morality, then that morality would become objective, and we would all be obligated to obey that “law.”  So, if Superman wanted you to kill your kids, that does not seem like his wanting it would make it good.  And if we imagine a Super-Superman, it does not look like it would work for him, either.  So we just extend that all the way out to omnipotence, the Super-Super-Superman, God, and it does not look like we are warranted in saying that His will has any more obligating power just because He happens to be infinitely strong.  Certainly, He can harm anyone who fails to live by His tastes, but that does not seem to make His tastes objective.  Rather, it just means that he can harm someone who does not do as He wishes.  As such, it might be prudent for us to follow His orders, but it does not appear that we are morally obligated to do any such thing.

The big point here, then, is that this argument cannot demonstrate the necessary existence of God just because positing God is not a solution to the proposed problem.  That is, even if we allowed for the first premise of the argument to be true (which, as I’ve already shown, we have no reason to do), the second premise in no way explains the first premise given that the unstated premise, that subjective opinions will never grant objective law, holds for God as well.  As such, the conclusion cannot be reached:  God’s existence cannot be deduced from this argument.

In the end, this argument seems to suffer from the same flaw from which so many other arguments for God suffer.  That is, those pushing it attempt to make God necessary by suggesting that everything of which we are  aware is insufficient to do some particular job that supposedly needs to be done.  This is most obvious in the various cosmological arguments for God.  God becomes the Prime Mover, the First Cause, etc.  This is even a similar problem for the teleological argument that supposes that everything requires a designer.  The issue for all those arguments is why the thing they propose as a solution is exempt from the problem they are attempting to raise.  If everything needs a cause, what caused God?  If everything requires a designer, what designed God?  In each case of those arguments, God is supposed to have some special property that makes Him different from everything else, but in allowing for such a property, the proponents of those arguments undercut the supposed necessity of something like God.  If it turns out that not everything needs a cause (since God does not), then we no longer need a First Cause.  If everything does not require a designer, then we no longer need a Designer.  And, in the same way, if it turns out that something’s subjective tastes are sufficient for an objective morality, namely God’s, then the claim that subjectivity never gets us objectivity is completely undercut.

By proposing a solution to the problem of morality, the “New Apologists” only succeed in showing that they do not believe the most important premise of their own argument, thus negating the power of the entire thing.

What Happens When a Theist Thinks Evolution Leaves No Room for God?

On the 12th, the Wall Street Journal published two essays together that had the author of each answer a seemingly straightforward question:  "Where does evolution leave God?"  The authors of the essays were Karen Armstrong, who has a book coming out entitled The Case for God, and Richard Dawkins, whose latest book is The Greatest Show on Earth.  Given the differences between the perspectives of the authors, you’d expect them to say something very different.  And, indeed, they do come to different conclusions.  However, in response to the question itself, namely where does evolution leave God, their answers are strikingly similar.  That’s something of which to take note.

So, I’m late to the party again.  This has already been addressed by Jerry Coyne, Jason Rosenhouse, PZ Myers, Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and even Jesus and Mo (you really want to click this one).  Even so, I feel the need to say something about it, so here goes.

It will be no surprise how Dawkins answers the question posed to him.  After a brief explanation of evolution he says, “Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear.”  Entirely expected, of course.  How, then, does Armstrong, author of The Case for God, respond to the same question?

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making.”

Yes, at least in terms of the question posed, “Where does evolution leave God,” Armstrong provides a response entirely consistent with Dawkins’ answer.  It might strike you as surprising that Armstrong, a writer on world religions, a former nun, and definitely someone who thinks of themselves as a theist, thinks that evolution leaves no room for God to work, at least in terms of humanity being a product of God’s creation.  Lest you missed the point, from above:  “Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making.”  I mean, it just doesn’t get much more clear than that.

So, what then, does Armstrong have in mind when she talks about “God”?  I’m afraid you won’t get much from her essay.  What she says is that “God” is a symbol that is supposed to point toward something that cannot be understood.  No holy book is to be taken literally.  Rather, they are all myths that attempt to convey some kind of message.  Maybe not even that.  Maybe she thinks they are merely art.  It’s hard to tell with Armstrong.  She does seem to be of the opinion that it has only been since around the Enlightenment that anyone has taken “God” to be an actual entity that exists.  She writes:

But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact. Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton’s Mechanick and, later, William Paley’s Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.

Before that, Armstrong maintains, no one took the notion of God as presented in the Bible (or any other set of holy texts) as actually existing. 

In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.

Armstrong is explicit that reason has gotten in the way of understanding this “transcendence,” and that reason was never thought to be applicable to searches for such things before…well, I guess the Rationalists of the the 17th century (Armstrong isn’t explicit).  But she is explicit that the early Jews, Christian, and Muslims did not think reason had anything to do with God, and she extends this to the Greeks as well.  She writes:

Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary, each with its own sphere of competence. Logos ("reason") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world and had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. But it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggle. For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology; if translated into ritual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity.

Really?  Greek thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (not to mention Parmenides, Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, etc) did not all explicitly reject mythology as a means to knowledge and look to logos (roughly “reason”) as the only true route to knowledge?  I mean, I could have sworn that that was actually one of the hallmarks of the pre-Socratics, and that logos was at the core of Platonic and Aristotelian thought.  And, of course, I am right.  Contrary to the claims of Armstrong, the Greek thinkers did not privilege myth as a way to understand the ultimate nature of the world.  On the contrary, they were explicit in their rejection of such a thing.

Nor should we take Armstrong seriously in her claims about any other groups doing something similar.  It is absurd to say that the ancient Jewish conception of God, whose first commandment is to worship no other gods, is not an actual entity but only a transcendence toward which all religion is pointed.  Were that the case, there would be nothing of which to be jealous.  Clearly, ancient Jews thought differently, not even allowing the interbreeding of their people with worshippers of other gods.  And what kind of sense would it make to kill someone for collecting sticks on any day, if all the believers were merely using the rules as a rough guide to something about which they could not talk but which was understood to be myth.  Why would you have rules that would result in death for something you knew was a myth?  That’s absurd.  Further, there was an enormous amount of conflict in the early Christian church over the concrete way in which scripture was to be interpreted (and even which scriptures would be accepted as true).  If all these early Christians were aware that the scriptures were all myth, all equal in their attempt to point to something beyond themselves, why the fighting, killing, and dying over it?  Again, absurd.

I honestly have no idea about what Armstrong is talking about when she writes about “God.”  It is unrecognizable to me, as I suspect is the case for most everyone else.  I think she is as wrong in her description of God as she is on her history of how ancient peoples saw God and their holy books.  I think she is pretty much wrong all the way around.

Here is what is funny about the two pieces.  Neither saw what the other wrote before penning their own.  Yet, here are the last two paragraphs of Dawkins’ piece:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right.

Maybe there is such a thing as prescience after all.

Students Cannot Mention Evolution Because it Violates Religious Neutrality

Story via Why Evolution Is True via ERV:

 

I get asked sometimes why I’m concerned about the anti-science movement in the US.  Many people seem to be of the opinion that there really is not any cause for worry over creationists, moon-hoaxers, anti-vaccers, or any of the other nutty positions people hold.  I am of the opinion that those who feel that way are just not paying attention.  So, just to serve as a reminder that this stuff warrants concern, I want to point out this story in the Sedalia Democrat.  It is titled “Band shirts hit wrong note with parents,” and it is about the high school band making shirts to promote their fall program.  This is something they do every year without issue.  However, this year was different.  The design they used was this one:

If you’re wondering what all the hubbub about such a shirt is, let me quote from the article:  “[Assistant Superintendent Brad] Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.”  That’s right, the shirt violated the school dress code because it was not neutral with regard to religion.  What about it was not neutral?  From the article: 

Band parent Sherry Melby, who is a teacher in the district, stands behind Pollitt’s decision. Melby said she associated the image on the T-shirt with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“I was disappointed with the image on the shirt.” Melby said. “I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.”

The lack of neutrality in regards to religion has to do with the perception that this shirt promotes evolution, which parents think “should not be associated with [the] school.”  Now, exactly how a reference to the underlying theory of biology outside of which nothing in the field makes sense is supposed to have anything to do with a religious stance is unstated, but it isn’t hard to imagine.  There are numerous Christian leaders proclaiming that evolutionary theory is nothing more than a conspiracy by atheists to get rid of God.  This, of course, is patently absurd, but that does not change the fact that the claim is made often and with vigor.  And, for those who insist that there is no cause for alarm at the fact that such misinformation is being spread, I give you this example. 

There is every reason in the world to be worried.  If you cannot wear a shirt referencing something, you certainly cannot teach it in the classroom.  That means our children are not being taught the basic fundamentals of science.  This is why scientific illiteracy is so high here, and it will not change until those of us who know better take off the kid gloves and stop bending over backwards to accommodate those who would keep our kids ignorant and uneducated.

H.E. Baber’s Object of Ultimate Impotence

H.E. Baber recently wrote an article for the Guardian entitled “Unverifiable God is still good.”  In this article she makes a number of claims that I find incredibly problematic, such as a strange conflation of the notion of philosophical zombies and the distinction between a world in which God exists and one where He does not, the implication that Hume was a verificationinst, and the suggestion that that verificationism is the “bogey” of the religious believer.  I will not address the first two questions here, and on this last question I will be brief so as to get to a couple of important points raised in the rest of the article.  Talking about the concern over verificationism, Baber asks the (supposedly) difficult question, “What is the difference between an invisible, intangible, hidden God who makes no difference to the way the world works and no God at all?”  She does not explicitly answer this question.  Rather, she attempts to make the argument that such the question of God’s existence is intelligible by comparing it to the question of philosophical zombies.  For those reading this who are unfamiliar with either verificationism or the notion of philosophical zombies, do not worry.  I don’t think it matters here.  Put simply, the answer to Baber’s question, assuming one has some clearly defined concept of God that allows for Him to be invisible, intangible, hidden, and make no difference to the way the world works (admittedly a criterion tough, and perhaps impossible, to fill), the answer is simple.  The difference is that in one case you have something, namely God, and in the other you do not.  Whether or not that thing is detectable is irrelevant to the fact that it either exists or does not.

That out of the way, there are other issues about this article that need to be addressed.  The first one is this assertion by Baber:

I never expected religion to provide any practical benefits, so I have never been disappointed. And, like most educated Christians, I do not believe most of the empirical claims associated with Christianity. I do not believe that the universe came into being just a few thousand years ago. I do not believe that humans or other animals were created their current form or even that God had some hand in "guiding" evolution. I do not believe that the Bible provides an accurate account of Middle Eastern history, or that any of the miracles it reports actually occurred, or that the wisdom literature it includes is a suitable guide to life. I do not believe that the existence of God makes any difference to the way the world operates or that religious belief should make any difference to the way we live.

I do not think this in any way this represents the views of most “educated Christians.”  In fact, I have never personally met a single Christian who holds anything like this view.  The empirical claims of the the Bible are false?  The existence of God makes no difference to the way the world operates?  Belief in God should make no difference to the way we live?  Not only have I never met anyone who holds this view, I do not think even Baber holds it.  That last point on the list is pretty broad:  “…religious belief should [not] make any difference to the way we live.”  I am not at all sure I even know how she means this.  Certainly, she would not have written this article if she did not believe in God, and that writing seems to be some aspect of her life.  I mean, it looks like Baber has put forth quite a bit of effort into defending this particular belief in her life, and that is directly the result of her belief.  In fact, there is no way to enumerate all the things that Baber has done in her life because of her belief that would have been different had she not held such a belief.  That’s the nature of belief in general, as has been pointed out before on this blog.  Beliefs inform our actions in that each action we take is based upon a particular set of beliefs, however mundane.  When someone puts a key in a door to unlock it, it is because they hold a certain set of beliefs which may or may not be justified or true.  That person has to believe that their senses are getting the world right, that keys unlock doors, that the door is locked, that this key is the one that will unlock this door, that the lock on the door is not broken, and on and on.  So, of course, all of our beliefs do and should make a difference in the way we live.  I really have no idea what it means for Baber to say otherwise.

Someone might suggest here that what Baber intended was how one should view morality, but that does not seem to be true either.  If I believe God prefers my behavior to be one way rather than another, that seems to be a religious belief that affects what I think I am morally obligated to do.  I do not know how much of the Bible Baber wants to throw out, but, as she calls herself a Christian, it seems that at least she would want to keep Christ’s moral teachings.  In that case, as someone who holds that Christ’s teachings were in some way better than others, and as Christ is related to God in some significant fashion, then one should live their life differently on the basis of that set of beliefs.  So, no matter what you take Baber to mean, this idea that religious beliefs should make no difference to the way we live is just wrong.

Then there’s this whole business of educated Christians not believing the empirical claims of the Bible in general.  I think this is just a false statement as survey after survey shows that Christians of all levels of education take things like the virgin birth, Christ rising from the dead, and any number of miracles to be true.  I do not know how Baber wants to cash out “educated Christian” here, but it looks like the only way she could do this is to play the “No True Scotsman” game and declare that anyone who held those beliefs was not really an “educated Christian.”  Otherwise, there is just no way to say this statement is true as, empirically, Christians with educations do hold the beliefs Baber declares they do not.

Next I want to address a point that I just find strange.  After making the case that the version of God in which Baber believes has absolutely no effect on anything, she poses the question:

…what is the point of believing in such a God? Why would anyone even want to believe in a God who makes no difference: a God who does not answer prayers, give our lives "meaning," or imbue the universe with purpose, reveal moral truths, strengthen us to fight the good fight or, in some sense, ground values.

I would take it that, assuming the belief was true, the reason one would want to believe it is because, in general, one wants to believe true things.  But I do not know that “want” has much of anything to do with that.  What I mean is, someone might prefer to believe in a god who saved babies from fires, healed amputees, and would provide us with a pleasant after-life.  That might be the thing in which someone wants to believe.  However, if there is no reason to do that, if, for example, they think that God does none of those things yet does, in fact, exist, then their wants would be irrelevant.  They would believe in what they thought was true, regardless of whether or not it was preferable, in the same way one “believes in” hurricanes and nuclear bombs even if it was preferable that those things did not exist.  With that in mind, I just find this whole line of thinking strange, and I just cannot see what Baber is getting at when she asks why anyone would want to believe in a god that makes no difference.

In the end Baber says she believes because:

God is the ultimate aesthetic object, ultimate beauty, glory and power, and that the vision of God embodies the quintessence of every aesthetic experience and every sensual pleasure. Religion is an escape from the world–not because the world is bad but because it isn’t good enough. Pleasures are fleeting and no matter how intense any aesthetic experience is, it could always be more intense. The vision of God is the asymptote they approach.

I confess that I do not follow this at all.  Baber has already declared that God, her version of God, at least, “does not answer prayers, give our lives ‘meaning’, or imbue the universe with purpose, reveal moral truths, strengthen us to fight the good fight or, in some sense, ground values.”  So how is this the “ultimate aesthetic object”?  How is it beautiful, this thing that does nothing and cannot be experienced?  How does it have glory or, more importantly, power?  What does it even mean to talk about ultimate power having no influence on anything?  What sensual pleasure is there in a thing that is in no way able to be sensed?  And what does it matter if the world “isn’t good enough”?  In what way does that serve as evidence for God’s existence?  And how is the world better, how is it good enough, with a god in it that is wholly impotent? 

To me, it appears the the vision of God Baber spelled out as the object of her belief earlier has none of the attributes that she claims serve as her reasons for belief in God.  As such, I find that her conclusion follows in no way from the rest of her argument, the result being that nothing of any substance is said in the entire article.

I don’t know what Baber had in mind when she wrote this article.  What I do know is that this argument is the kind that I hear from time to time from the intellectual elite who do believe in God.  They claim to have such belief, but their god in no way reflects anything like the God in which other believers put their faith.  Even worse, when they begin to spell out what their god is and why they believe in any such thing, all you end up with is a group of words with little to no real meaning.  In the end, it looks like they are not saying anything at all.

Wright Is Wrong

“Compatibility” is something for which there’s always a market but which never produces a good product.  It’s the “can’t we all just get along” position for which would-be peacemakers constantly yearn.  And it’s almost always put forward by people who get neither of the sides they are attempting to reconcile correct.  Doing the math, you should notice that that means they get both sides wrong.  Thus, there is little chance of of the compatibilist getting anything right at all.  If there is some sort of substance to disagreements, and if you attempt to solve that problem by ignoring the substantial claims on both sides of the disagreement, then it is very hard for you to say anything of substance about the issue in question.  For that reason, I do not know of a single compatibilist argument that has ever worked.  Unsurprisingly, then, when Robert Wright decided to write his piece suggesting a compatibility in “[t]he ‘war’ between science and religion,” “A Grand Bargain Over Evolution,” (which is just a more concise version of his book, The Evolution of God) he got everything wrong.

In the blogosphere you need to move pretty quick if you do not want to be late to the ball.  Though Wright’s piece came out Saturday, there have already been substantial replies to it, the best, in my opinion, being from Jerry Coyne.  I strongly urge you read it.  Even so, since opinions are like…well, you know, I’ll go ahead and say something about just how wrong Wright is, especially since there are a couple of things not noted in other posts.

Only eight sentences into the op-ed piece, Wright, sounding eerily like the angel in Luke 2:10, claims “I bring good news!”  It turns out, according to Wright, that “militant” atheists and the “intensely” religious are both wrong when it comes to their lack of consensus.  Even more, “they’re wrong for the same reason.”  What is that reason?  “[A]n underestimation of natural selection’s creative power…”  It might strike someone as odd that Wright would suggest that those problematic “New Atheists,” again epitomized by Richard Dawkins, would so radically misunderstand the power of the primary mechanism of biological evolution.  This is especially odd since Dawkins, who is referenced specifically in Wright’s article, is well-known for talking at length about that very thing.  But the oddness does not stop there.

The core of Wright’s article revolves around his assertion that our moral sense is the result of evolutionary processes.  He takes it as a given that science has come up with some pretty good explanations for how the intuitions we all tend to share can be accounted.  In that case we have a purely materialistic explanation for the values we generally share.  This is unproblematic for those on the side of science in Wright’s “war,” though it certainly is an issue for the true believer in one of the big monotheistic religions.  The kicker, though, is that he moves an extra step and asks:

If evolution does tend to eventually “converge” on certain moral intuitions, does that mean there were moral rules “out there” from the beginning, before humans became aware of them — that natural selection didn’t “invent” human moral intuitions so much as “discover” them?

He suggests that the answer here is in the affirmative.  The idea that our moral intuitions reflect something external to us, indeed, external to all life itself, that natural selection “discovered,” has no basis in evolutionary theory, moral theory, or even in any commonly held theology.  And, here, Wright simply goes off the rails.  It is at this point that Wright wants to suggest that it is not contrary to science to suppose that there is some possibility that God set up either natural selection itself or the laws of physics themselves to produce moral animals like humans.  He writes, “But the point is just that these speculations are compatible with the standard scientific theory of human creation.”

There are a number of problems with this, and I want to highlight a few.  First, such a view is not “compatible with the standard scientific theory of human creation.”  In point of fact, there is no standard scientific theory of human “creation.”  In science, humans were not created.  There is a connotation to the word “create” that has no place in the standard scientific account of how our species came to be.  That connotation has to do with some notion of a creator.  For example, in general, we don’t talk about rocks being “created.”  That’s because, even though we think we understand the process by which rocks came into existence, no force maneuvered or managed things in such a way that the stones underfoot were the result of such guidance (presuming we mean stones that are not explicitly the result of human artifice).  Evolutionary theory does not have room for such guidance, either.  As such, “created” is not a word that has any place in the “standard scientific theory” of how humans came to be.

Next, the idea that there is some end toward which natural selection is pointed, that it has some goal in mind, is antithetical to the actual idea of natural selection as presented in evolutionary theory.  There is no “thing” out there to even have such a goal.  It just turns out that some things are better at sticking around than others, and those are the things that stick around.  That’s it.  If some environment exists in such a way that being taller would result in a greater likelihood of survival, and if the random events involved in mutation produce some individual that is taller than others, and if being taller does not have some sort of negative effect on other traits also good for survival, and if that individual does not die by some other means, then that individual will survive and pass on the genes responsible for its taller height to its offspring.  That’s it.  There’s no direction or purpose in there.  In fact, it is explicitly purposeless.  To attempt to place purpose in the process is to misunderstand what the mechanism actually is.

At this time something needs to be said about the problem of the naturalistic fallacy in this schema of reconciliation between science and religion.  Even if it turned out that there was some set of behaviors that worked best (“best” being remarkably loaded here), and that given enough time some intelligent species would inevitably adopt those behaviors, that would not make such behaviors moral.  As has been pointed out several times on this blog, you cannot deduce and ought from an is.  The move is simply illegitimate.  It will never be the case that just because some behaviors work well that those behaviors are moral “shoulds.”  For example, it might turn out that rape is a fantastic evolutionary strategy.  Indeed, there are species where forced sexual congress is the rule and not the exception.  But, even if some segment of the population took to rape as a means of ensuring that their genes were spread far and wide, and even if this worked out such that those individuals with those genes began to thrive and dominate within the population, that would not make rape a moral action.  And that’s the point! No action is moral merely because it helped some individual or population to survive.  Were that that case, all actions taken by all successful species, and that means all species that currently exist, would be moral actions as morality would just be that kind of activity that worked to ensure that population’s survival.  And, of course, that is just wrong.

The idea that we can discover morality by looking at what behaviors are common to our species, even by looking at what behaviors are considered moral across groups, is fundamentally flawed.  That just is not what morality is.  Now, this might have some uncomfortable consequences for those hoping to discover what is moral, or those with a variety of meta-ethical concerns, but none of that changes the issue.  This is where we are, and no amount of hand-waving or wishing is going to change it.

I want to point out that this kind of morality, the kind that is the result of natural selection, would be the kind that would apply to all species and not just our own.  If it is the case that there is some over-arching direction to make things moral built into the process of natural selection, then all organism on the planet have a share in that morality.  If that is where we are, then what actions are moral?  Certainly, any action that I could dub as “immoral” can be found to be the rule for some existing species.  But that suggests that there is no “moral law” whatsoever.  Now, it might be the case that Wright would want to engage in more hand-waving here and attempt to make some argument about the specialness of our species.  But there is nothing in evolutionary theory that suggests any such thing.  Certainly, we are special to us, but not in the grand scheme of things.  We are no more special than any other species that exists right now.  And if we want to make our behavior out to be something that is unique, something that is truly moral whereas the forced sex, killing of live, healthy young, and whatever other actions in other species that we would abhor in our own, then it is difficult to make the case that morality is something that is discovered by the process of natural selection, something toward which there is a definite and unalterable tendency.  Regardless of which way you cut it, Wright is just wrong in his suggestion that evolution can give us genuine morality.

It is only fair to point out here that, even if one could get morality in the manner envisioned by Wright, it would be nothing like what is wanted by most theists, especially Christians.  Christians believe in an interventionist god by definition.  They believe in a god that created the world for humans, and this is evidenced by Jesus Christ being sacrificed for the sins of humanity so that a genuine communion between God and human could be achieved.  What Wright is suggesting is, at best, some kind of deism, and that is nothing like what Christians say God is.  Indeed, it largely misses the point.  And the reason deism has lost popularity is not due to a failing in a belief in some god.  It is largely due to the recognition that a belief in a deistic god is just superfluous to what is needed to explain the facts of the world.  “Prime mover” arguments are simply unnecessary in contemporary physics.  The main people left to whom Wright can be speaking are believers in an interventionist god, and those people are not interested in hearing that morality might be salvaged if they give up the intervention part.  So, the question here is this:  whose religion is being salvaged here by supporting this supposed compatibility?  Almost no one’s that I can see.

In the end, it is just weird that anyone would think that this kind of compatibilism will be satisfactory for anyone interested in the substance of this debate.  The scientists are going to point out that Wright has screwed up the science, and the theists are going to point out that he has screwed up theology.  Like most of the compatibilisms before it, this one attempts to find a “common ground” on which both sides agree, and, in the process, comes up with that very thing:  they both agree that Wright is just wrong.

Traitors in Your Midst

There has recently been a bit of a brouhaha in Illinois at which Hemant Mehta, "The Friendly Atheist", is the center.  Mr. Mehta is a math teacher in public school, Illinois’ District 204’s Neuqua Valley High School, to be exact, as well as a popular blogger.  The controversy started because of a conservative Christian organization, the Illinois Family Institute (italics all their own), whose writer Laurie Higgins, Director of the IFI, decided to let people know that they should avoid the "Bean" in Millennium Park in Illinois on Saturday, August 15 at 1:00 pm because the "Great Nationwide Homosexual Kiss-In" was going to be taking place there.  Lots of people responded to this, and Mr. Mehta was one of them.  On his blog he wrote, “The only thing that could make this kiss-in even better is if it took place just outside Higgins’ house.”  I want to say that, while funny, I don’t know that this was the most appropriate kind of response.  Mr. Mehta insists that the remark was sarcastic, and that “Obviously, I didn’t mean on her property (that’d be illegal). And not purposely in front of her children.”  I guess I’m much more bothered by the suggestion that people should show up on Ms. Higgins’ lawn in a sort of protest than I am that her kids might see some benign public display of affection.  My concern would be that a public school teacher could be seen as exhorting his students to break the law.  While Mr. Mehta later explicitly said that’s not what he intended, as the quote above indicates, I will say that such was not at all clear from the context of his initial post.  (As an aside, it’s weird to me that his response was phrased in such a way as to suggest that her children seeing some homosexual couple kissing would be “worse” than the couple illegally trespassing.  I mean, really?  There’s more I could say about that, but I do not want to get away from my actual point here.)

Mr. Mehta’s response to the IFI’s “warning” about the Kiss-In led Ms. Higgins’ to write an email to the entire administrative staff of Mr. Mehta’s school as well as every area school board member.  Part of that email read as follows:  “He, of course, has a First Amendment right to write whatever he pleases on his blog ‘The Friendly Atheist’ during his free time, but it’s unfortunate that a role model for students would write some of the things he writes.”  While the entire content of the letter is not available, Ms. Higgins did not stop with that email.  She wrote this article on the IFI website further condemning Mr. Mehta.  There she has published at least one response she received to her email:

Making District 204 leaders aware of Mr. Mehta’s comment was all I intended to do regarding this issue, that is, until I received an angry email from attorney and school board member, Mark Metzger. His email contained the following not-so-veiled threat of a lawsuit:

"Have you considered the possibility that if your actions caused Mr. Mehta to suffer consequences in his employment, you’d be subjecting yourself and/or your organization to liability? That’s potentially unwise to your organization’s self-sufficiency, surviival (sic) and mission."

In addition, he suggested I was setting "a poor example for families"…

Whatever the total content of the email was, it is clear that at least one school board member recognized that such correspondence could have the result of Mr. Mehta being fired.  And this gets to the heart of the reason I’m addressing this.  In this same article Ms. Higgins writes:

Of course, teachers have a First Amendment right to blog or speak publicly about anything they want. And parents have every right not to have their children in the classroom under the tutelage of someone whose publicly articulated views they find fallacious and deeply troubling. Having a First Amendment right to speak freely does not guarantee public approval or public silence. And the public response may be that parents choose not to have their children in the class of those who espouse views that parents find foolish and destructive.
Parents have a justifiable concern that the personal views of teachers may find their way into the classroom, either through curricular choices or classroom commentary. Those parents who want nothing more than that their children will believe in God may find someone whose mission in life is to persuade young people to reject a belief in God to be a poor role model.

If you read this as a call to action, you are not alone.  Indeed, I cannot imagine who could read this as anything but a call to action for conservative, Christian parents to do something.  But what is that something?  It would appear that she wants these parents to band together to somehow get Mr. Mehta removed from his position as a public school teacher.  What other action could she be suggesting?  Giving her the benefit of the doubt that she is not wishing her readers to do actual violence to Mr. Mehta, I just cannot see what she would want the parents who “have every right not to have their children in the classroom under the tutelage of someone whose publicly articulated views they find fallacious and deeply troubling” to actually do if not that.  In Ms. Higgins’ own article she provided evidence that someone reading similar words would take that call to action to be getting Mr. Mehta fired from his job, so she is clearly aware that that is just how her words will be taken.  Since she continued to use similar words in her article to the public as she did in her letter to the school administration (“He, of course, has a First Amendment right to write whatever he pleases on his blog ‘The Friendly Atheist’ during his free time, but it’s unfortunate that a role model for students would write some of the things he writes.” vs. “Of course, teachers have a First Amendment right to blog or speak publicly about anything they want. … Those parents who want nothing more than that their children will believe in God may find someone whose mission in life is to persuade young people to reject a belief in God to be a poor role model.”), it would be absurd to suggest that she did not understand how her words would be understood.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Mehta responded to this article on his own blog.  In it he writes, “It seems I have a conservative ‘family’ group angry with me because of this website. And they’re trying to attack my character (and my teaching position) as a result.”  The following day Ms. Higgins posted this in the IFI site:

District 204 parents really should spend some time perusing Neuqua Valley math teacher, Hemant Mehta’s website to determine whether he is the kind of man with whom they want their children to spend a school year. He absolutely has a First Amendment right to promote any feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas he wants via his blog, but, as I mentioned in my earlier article, parents have the right not to have him as a teacher and a role model for their children. I want to be very clear about what I’m suggesting: I am suggesting that parents who have serious concerns about Mr. Mehta’s potential influence on their children’s beliefs politely insist that their children be placed in another teacher’s class.

One notes the post here gives an explicit claim as to what is being suggested, and this differs from the earlier interpretation of the call to action that I claimed was reasonable.  Here Ms. Higgins says that she simply thinks that parents should “politely insist that their children be placed in another teacher’s class.”  Of course, one must ask how reasonable such a suggestion is.  If it turns out that a significant number of parents continue to insist that their child be taught by someone else, and if the school is under any obligation to respect that demand, there seems to be little way that they could continue to employ Mr. Mehta.  Further, and this needs to be addressed, is it reasonable to believe that Ms. Higgins wants any child taught by someone who promoting “feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas” in his capacity as a role model?  I would think not.  So, while it might not be the case that Ms. Higgins called for parents to phone the school board demanding Mr. Mehta’s immediate firing, it seems ridiculous to suggest that she wants anything other than that.

Of course, that’s just how Mr. Mehta took the article.  He then wrote, “The Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins is going after me (and my job) again.”  This would appear to be a wholly reasonable thing to say given what Ms. Higgens has actually written.  So, here comes the big issue, Ms. Higgens responded by publishing an open letter to Mr. Mehta on the IFI site.  It begins with the quote from Mr. Mehta above, and then follows with, “I have never in any context suggested that you should be fired or that you should resign. In fact, I don’t believe the school has any legal right to fire you. You should have fact-checked before you posted that inaccurate statement.”

So, for those of you still following along, here’s where the meat of my post comes.  It is patently absurd to insist that you want anything other than the removal of a teacher when you have done everything in your power to make that happen!  Did Ms. Higgins ever explicitly say she wanted him fired?  No.  But the reason for this is clear in her article.  “In fact, I don’t believe the school has any legal right to fire you.”  So, the reason she has not publically called for such a thing is because she does not believe that Mr. Mehta’s actions legally warrant that response by the school.  But, of course, that is what Ms. Higgins desires.  She has made that repeatedly clear, and the fact that she cannot legally get her desire in no way diminishes that.  It is wholly dishonest for her to pretend that anything other than that is what’s going on here.

All that leads me to my big question.  Why is she so deceitful?  How does her lying about what she’s attempting to accomplish promote her values?  And the answer is obvious.  By taking the route she does she hopes to provide an actual reason for Mr. Mehta being removed from his position.  It would not be what he’s written on his blog, because that will not cut it.  But a large movement by area parents who refuse to let their children be taught by Mr. Mehta will have a similar result.  Mr. Mehta will be unable to do his job, will face public ridicule, and, I suspect, the refusal of parents to let their children be taught by someone can be used in some way so as to provide a legal reason to fire Mr. Mehta. 

All that means that what Ms. Higgins has said is bullshit.  Flat out.  She has danced around, deceived, and outright lied about her intentions in order to get what she wants.  I have no doubt that Ms. Higgins holds “truth” to be an important value for families.  And yet, she has no problem abandoning that value when it is convenient for her.  If values can be discarded on a whim, that should suggest that those values are of little importance in the first place.  People like Ms. Higgins should be shunned and her opinions fully disregarded by all sides.  Their organizations should receive no support from anyone, especially not those who actually hold dear the values that Ms. Higgins parodies.  Those who are genuine in their adherence to conservative, Christian values should view Ms. Higgins as the worst kind of enemy, a traitor within their own camp.  And, of course, those who think her values of hatred and misrepresentation of those who differ from her are garbage should see her as nothing less than a genuine threat exemplified by all those who would plunge us into a new Dark Ages.

What the Hell, Asshat?

*This post has been edited*

Yesterday, Ethan Siegel of Starts with a Bang fame wrote a post called “Weekend Diversion: How to Argue.”  In this post Siegel talks about there being good ways to argue and bad ways to argue.  He even put up a helpful graphic to emphasize good vs. bad arguments (not made by him).  Here it is:

 

I’m sympathetic to the concern that if people are going to engage in debate they act in some kind of reasonable manner, which, for me, means addressing the issues at hand rather than calling someone names.  A big reason I’m sympathetic is that, like most people reading this, sometimes I get into debates online.  Often these debates are frustrating as many of the people on message boards and the like are more than happy to sling insults rather than address relevant issues.  In light of that, I found myself nodding vigorously when I read the post by Siegel. 

What I did not expect was anything like the response from Isis the Scientist who wrote her post here.  She wrote, “I find Ethan’s post derailing and counterproductive at best, offensive and naive at worst.”  She continues to hammer away at Siegel, saying that his post is an attempt to maintain his position of privilege, and that he wants to prevent others (Others) from having a voice.  She even replaces his graphic with her own:

Maybe you are not scratching your heat at this.  Maybe you see this, and it makes all the sense in the world.  But if so, you are not me.  I am just puzzled.  Nothing in Siegel’s post said anything about sex or ethnicity.  He never even hinted at it.  He merely suggested that there are good arguments and poor ones, and that, to quote him, “on my site” (italics his own), you had to use good arguments, that you had to actually address the issues, if you wanted to participate in discussions with him.

The reason I find this so weird is that a number of people on Isis’ journal chimed in agreeing with her.  And that just leaves me wondering, again, what the hell?  Isis provides a number of points that sound great, and they would make a fine argument if anything Siegel suggested any of the things Isis perceives.  But he doesn’t.  As such, things like “Being Polite in the Discussion Does Not Make your Message Civil” and “The Fact That You Don’t Understand the Argument Doesn’t Mean the Other Person is not Being Clear,” while correct, have no relevance to Siegel’s argument at all.  Isis misses the point of Siegel’s post completely.  That makes me wonder, is she projecting?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that it’s confusing and a little frustrating when people jump all over you without actually touching on anything you said.  

For me, this is merely something to muse over.  It isn’t like someone jumping on you for no good reason on the internet really matters.  After all, it’s the internet.  If you get your feelings hurt every time some nameless and faceless individual attacking you for things you haven’t done, you need to cut your LAN cable.  But it is weird.  It makes me wonder just what is going through these people’s minds.  What do they think is going on?  Where do they go so wrong?  How do they get such a wrong idea about what you’re saying?  Seriously, what the hell?

What Would Darwin Do? Who Cares?

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (M and K) are what might loosely be called science writers.  Much of their work is on “framing,” attempting to present science and its concerns in a particular light so as to make it more appealing to the general public.  They have a blog over at discovermagazine.com, and they have a new book out, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future.

Since their new book came out there has been quite an uproar on the big science blogs over these two.  Much of this centers around their argument in the book that a good deal of the blame for US science illiteracy can be laid on the shoulders of scientists themselves.  M and K seem to think that the public does not understand and often opposes evolution, global warming, vaccination, and a host of other issues where they are wrong on the science because scientists are not doing enough to educate the public.  You read that right.  It’s the scientists fault that the general public refuses to believe the science.  Even worse, say M and K, there are the “New Atheists” with which to contend, and many of them are scientists as well.  These people are so detrimental to the spreading of science literacy, in fact, that M and K have an entire chapter on the problems these atheists cause in their book.  As one might imagine, this has caused quite a bit of controversy amongst the scientists themselves.

Recently news came out that Richard Dawkins was releasing a new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.  M and K took this as an opportunity to write a new op-ed piece for the LA Times.  This has caused a new flurry of activity in the blogosphere, some of which can be seen here, here, and here.  The first two of those links point to posts written by those addressed directly in M and K’s article, PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne.  You can read their responses in their own words, and I encourage you to do so, but I want to say something about M and K’s accusation as well.  But let’s take M and K’s points in order.

M and K begin by criticizing Dawkins on his upcoming book.  They write, “But it’s also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins’ new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?”  There is so much wrong with this that it’s difficult to know where to start.  First. the book is not even out yet, and it will not be out for a month, yet it is already outselling M and K’s own book, so clearly dramatically more people will read it than theirs.  If that is the case, then it is more likely than their book to change someone’s mind.  So, if Dawkins’ book is, as M and K suggested, a waste of time (“merely preaching to the converted,” “going to make no difference whatsoever,” or whatever pejorative characterization anyone disagreeing with that line thinks more accurately describes M and K’s position), then it is the case that their book is an even bigger waste of time.  And yet, they seem to have no problem promoting it every chance they get.  One has to wonder why, in the minds of M and K, Dawkins deserves criticism on this point but, presumably, they do not.

Then there is the issue of this whole “United States” business.  M and K are wholly aware that Dawkins is not a US citizen.  He’s British.  Clearly, then, his book is not intended solely for a US audience.  As such, that is quite an odd bit of criticism.  It would be silly to think that M and K are suggesting that books that do not cater explicitly to a US audience should not be written, but then one is left wondering why such a line was included.  If it was just a note that they think a US audience will be unreceptive, then the “it’s also fair to ask” line seems odd.  Why is such “fair to ask”?  What about a British scientist writing a book about evolution suggests that a question about US readers is a necessary one that needs to be addressed?  I can see no way to get around this concern just being strange and misplaced.

Next,  M and K are just wrong when it comes to the suggestion that no one changes their mind after reading these kinds of books, especially when it comes to Dawkins.  There are a great number of people who are not steadfast in their commitment to some position.  There are a numerous individuals out there who are genuinely ignorant of what evolution even is along with the dramatic evidence in support of it.  And, of course, M and K know this.  That’s the whole point of their latest book!  The high rate of science illiteracy is the premise about which they wrote.  With that in mind, it is not only possible but likely that someone reading a well-written presentation of the facts would be convinced and move that much more toward being science literate.  This is the case even if the reader is religious.  One would think that M and K would celebrate this rather than disparaging it.  And this is not mere conjecture.  We actually have evidence of this!  The number of people who have been educated by Dawkins alone is ridiculously high.  The reports from those individuals who now understand evolution because of Dawkins can be found everywhere, including the blogs written by those converts.  Even the late Douglas Adams contributed his pro-evolution stance to Dawkins’ writing.  M and K just don’t have a leg to stand on here when they insist that no one is going to be convinced by one of the most well-known science writers in the world writing a book in his area of expertise that is, because of pre-orders, guaranteed to be a best-seller and, as such, read by millions of people.  On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this book will be the catalyst for even more people to come to understand what is arguably the most successful scientific theory ever devised.

Lastly, since when has it been the case that people are only allowed to write books that will cause others to have an “epiphany”?  People write books for niche groups all the time, often only for the purpose of informing them of something they did not know before.  These books erve an important role.  There’s no sort of rule out there that says that the only books fit for publication must have some kind of transformative effect on society at large.  Were that the case, no books would ever be published as the chances of such occurring are always slim to none.  Now, some might want to say that M and K never explicitly said that only books causing epiphanies have relevance, and they would be correct.  But certainly the implication of the quote “But it’s also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins’ new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?” is something like this.  Otherwise, why bring it up at all?  The phrasing is akin to asking “What’s the point of this?”  The point is to offer lay-people a clear and concise explanation of the facts surrounding the theory of biological evolution.  The question they raise is not “fair” in any relevant sense.

After the question about Dawkins’ new book M and K begin their attack on the “New Atheists” using Myers and Coyne (along with, of course, Dawkins) as their whipping boys.  M and K accuse these individuals of something akin to religious intolerance, and they suggest that Dawkins, Myers, and Coyne are all willing to attack organizations such as the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization who exists almost exclusively to promote the teaching of evolution in public schools, if such organizations demonstrate even the smallest bit of tolerance for believers.  M and K write, “Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science.”  But this is an absurd characterization of the situation.  In fact, those being criticized are members of the NCSE.  Their criticism of the organization is from within its ranks, and it is relatively mild.  The only concern these people have is that the NCSE has started what is called the “Faith Project,” a program that is intended to promote the idea that religion and evolution are wholly compatible.  And it is not the case that these New Atheists want the NCSE to promote atheism, either.  They simply want the organization to refrain from promoting any position on religion whatsoever.  Far from an attack on the NCSE, what Dawkins, Coyne, and Myers want is an organization that is clear on its goals and avoids the many pitfalls that come from attempting to debate with believers on their own terms, on what their holy book says is the case.  I do not think it is hard to see why someone would hold that position. (*see endnote)

In an effort to solidify their position and hammer the New Atheists into the ground, M and K invoke “one figure both sides respect,” Charles Darwin.  This is a bizarre “WWDD” type of invocation.  They write:

It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, "Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science."

They follow that up by saying “Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then — something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.”  But they left out the rest of the quote, something that is very telling.  Darwin went on to write, ““I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.”  This changes the entire tone of what Darwin meant.  For those who do not know, Darwin’s wife was deeply religious, a devout Christian, and she was deeply troubled by the attacks levied against her husband by those who thought his ideas were in opposition to religious doctrine.  Looking at the last quote, then, it appears that Darwin was, by his own admission, influenced in his decision to refrain from this particular discussion by his concern for his wife’s feelings and not, as suggested by M and K, out of a deep disagreement with the position of Dawkins and his ilk itself.

Further, and this needs to be emphasized strongly, who cares what Darwin would do?  Darwin is not some patron saint with whom all biologists must agree at all times.  He was not inerrant.  He was just a very smart guy who came up with a brilliant idea.  But that does not mean he got everything right.  He didn’t.  In fact, Darwin got lots of stuff wrong.  M and K using Darwin in this way actually plays up to that mistaken notion of so many creationists that Darwin is god-like in the eyes of “evolutionists,” and nothing could be further from the way things are.  Science is not sacred.  Ideas that do not work are discarded.  Nothing is holy.  M and K missing this massive point should suggest caution to anyone who would accept their views as having some deep insight into the issues of which they concern themselves and about which they write so often.

 

*What is truly strange about Mooney taking this position is that he is one of the original posterboys for the “anit-accommodationists.”  In 2001 he wrote an article entitled “Darwin’s Sanitized Ideas:  PBS’s Evolution is an exercise in Creationist appeasement.”  In that he said:

Yet the fundamentalists seem to be exactly right about the religious implications of the study of evolution. Sure, Kenneth Miller can separate his scientific research and his religious beliefs. But few top scientists actually do so. In 1998 in the journal Nature, the historian Edward Larson and Washington Times religion writer Larry Witham reported the results of their survey of the religious views of National Academy of Sciences members. Nine out of 10 were atheists or agnostics, and among NAS biologists, just 5.6 percent believed in God, the lowest percentage for any scientific field. Larson and Witham quoted the Oxford scientist Peter Atkins: "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

Here Mooney seems to be highlighting the problems inherent in attempting to reconcile evolution with Christianity, the very point that the so-called “New Atheists” press.

The CreoZerg Fallout Continues

So much has gone on in the blogosphere in the past couple of days concerning the now infamous visit by the SSA and supporters to the Creation “Museum,” there is just no way to keep up with it all.  My last post providing links to various reports on the CreoZerg barely scratches the surface.

As I noted before, Ken Ham, head of Answers in Genesis and the man behind the CM, has personally responded to the criticisms of his creationist theme park.  He has continued this over the past couple of days, and his latest response is concerning (unsurprisingly) PZ Myers, yet again.  PZ’s first full-on report of the CM included this picture:

(click for full size)

Beneath the picture he wrote:

With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.

PZ’s suggestion that the above graphic offers credence to the ridiculous racist idea that blacks are the offspring of Ham’s son, Canaan, who was cursed by his grandpa Noah because Ham (the son of Noah, not the creationist) saw Noah naked, made Ken Ham (henceforth referred to as "Ken") quite angry.  Ken responded that PZ’s research could not be trusted, and that PZ was not interested in educating his students but instead wanted to “brainwash” them with “blatantly anti-Christian blasphemous propaganda.”  He also offered up some strange version of an argument from authority saying:

…our own full-time PhD scientists and many other scientists who work in the secular world provided the research for the museum scripts. But, then again, he [PZ] wouldn’t want to acknowledge that people with better qualifications than he holds (qualifications obtained from secular universities, including PhDs from Ivy League schools like Harvard and Brown) were behind the Creation Museum teaching.

Of course, Ken does not list these PhD’s, nor, if he did, would it matter in the least.  As PZ appropriately retorts:

These highly qualified PhD “scientists” believe in talking snakes, global floods, an earth that poofed into existence more than 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog, and that they can make a case against evolution by ignoring almost all of the evidence. They can wave their diplomas all they want, but against that palpable nonsense, I reject them bemusedly.

Most of this back and forth, fun though it might be, is not really relevant.  What is relevant is that, contrary to Ken’s insistence, his “museum” does indeed serve to act in just the way PZ suggests, regardless of whether that is the intent.  The map above does indicate something akin to the racist notion that those groups from Africa are descended from Ham.  This stupid idea is hardly unknown, and, indeed, has its roots back several hundred years.  From the Wikipedia article on the curse of Ham:

According to Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich [1774-1824], "I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang."

In light of this, Ken, who admits knowledge of this position, has some responsibility to ensure that his “museum” does not contribute to this racist fable when presenting “information” (such as it is) that appears to suggest that very thing.  Ken says he does this.  He also writes, “In fact, it is only one of Ham’s sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan—who gave rise to the Canaanites and people of Sodom and Gomorrah—judged for their sexual immorality. And this ‘curse’ of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade!”  But, this is where it get funny.  Part of what Ken misses is that, as has been pointed out by a number of people in the comments of Myers’ post, the CM map depicts the descendents of Ham completely missing Canaan.  It’s quite strange to say that Canaan (the man) gave rise the city of the same name and yet depict Ham and his sons (including Canaan) completely bypassing the land they are supposed to inhabit on your own illustrative map!  Ken can attempt to push this off on his “expert staff,” but he is the man behind the museum.

Ken’s attempt to deny responsibility for promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins is all the worse because he is clearly aware of the moral implications of the theory.   He  explicitly said:

“Not only do we not teach such an absurd idea (that sadly has been used by some to promote racism and prejudice against dark skinned people), we teach against it. In our book Darwin’s Plantation, I particularly deal with this issue, pointing out that dark skinned people (‘black’ people) are certainly not ‘the cursed offspring of Ham’.”

So, Ken demonstrates he is completely aware that some people have used the ‘curse of Ham’ to justify racism, and yet, instead of disposing of this stupidity on the displays in his creationist funhouse, he (at least implicitly) supports it by having a wall-sized diagram showing that Ham’s descendents did  go toward Africa, completely missing the land supposedly named for Ham’s cursed son.

This is compounded by the fact that the writing at the bottom of the map above is almost entirely gibberish.  Most of the words are not genuine words.  Instead, they are merely groups of symbols meant to look like words.  This in and of itself could be described as racist, though I think it is much more likely laziness on the parts of Ken’s “Ivy League” contributors.  What is emphasized is a total lack of concern about producing anything in line with the facts, and this serves as an exemplar for Ken’s whole house-of-nonsense.  The result is that, regardless of Ken’s insistence to the contrary, the CM present something that gives the impression that they support a ridiculous and racist idea on the origin of those with black skin.  The fact that they push all sorts of bizarre and clearly false nonsense ruins any generosity that one might have in terms of interpreting their exhibits.  The graphic in question itself puts forth the patently absurd idea that all the variety in our species arose in the past 4000 years, the time after the Noahic Flood.  As the people behind the CM (Ken, especially) already believe and promote that kind of craziness, one just has no room to allow for any sanity in interpreting what they mean.

It might be interesting to point out here that Ken didn’t stop with the response given above.  After that he wrote:

Ironically, as this atheist was falsely accusing us of racism, I was in Seattle speaking in the church led by a black pastor—and a good friend of our ministry. See the photo of me and Pastor Hutchinson a former NFL football player. And I spoke Sunday evening against racism! (By the way, a few years ago I spoke with Pastor Hutchinson at an anti-racism conference.)

Yes, he actually trotted out the ‘I can’t be racist because I have black friends!’ line.  That alone speaks volumes.

Also, for the record, the preacher from the last quote is actually named “Hutcherson,” not “Hutchinson” as Ken claimed.   Yes, he and “Hutch,” as Ken calls the man in picture captions, must be very close if he cannot even get his name right.