A View: The Science=Atheism Meme
by JoyThe 'culture wars' keep on keeping on. Mike Gene pokes fun at a Darwin Day petition aimed at the Library of Congress demanding that they re-classify books examining ID so they won't be shelved in bookstores with 'real' science books. I attempted to explain why framing ID as 'anti-evolution' is a poisoning the well fallacy (propaganda), only to find that the critical commenter who asserted and defended it didn't really want to discuss the issues if there are in-principle objections to that frame.
So it was with interest I read Jake Young's latest contribution over on his blog, Why Pairing Science and Atheism is High-Brow. Using an argument made by John Dewey back in 1922 about how science was aligning itself with a "Northeastern liberal establishment" on the subject of evolution - and how that would not serve the cause of convincing a more conservative public - Young brings it up to date with the aims of the 'New Atheists'. His summary is pretty good, so I'll cite it here…
Choice #1: We link atheism and science. We frame atheism as scientific. We as far as we are able exclude the religious from the scientific enterprise. The result of choice one is that the majority of Americans are going to associate science with a secular elite — i.e. science is not for the consumption of the general public. Science in this world is for only special people to understand. Science will in effect become a marker of social status rather than a general approach to understanding the world.
The logical consequence of choice #1?
The logical consequence of making science exclusive is to make those in favor of science a minority. And if we make those in favor of science a minority than we are endangering things that we care about. We are, for instance, drawing continuing scientific funding into question. Why would the public continue to fund what it perceives as counter-cultural and profoundly elitist minority?
The public funding issue is one I have brought up on numerous occasions when critics argue the elitist position while denigrating the very public they depend upon to fund their work. For people who claim to be so much smarter and better than everybody else, this reveals a serious flaw in their thinking.
The public, through their representatives, don't have any choice in what military-industrial complex R&D they'll buy with their hard-earned money. Nor do they have any choice is how corporate R&D investments are made. What they do have a choice about is R&D in academia. This has been made abundantly clear via the restrictions of embryonic stem cell research.
Worse, if the public decides not to fund science departments and no longer provides the paying students, a lot of scientists will have to find real work outside the "Northeastern liberal establishment," in the larger non-elite world. I doubt that will stroke their egos very much. Young offers another choice…
Choice #2: We dissociate atheism and science. We argue that atheism is a valid way to see the world, but that scientists can be religious as well. Further, we stop excommunicating people from the scientific enterprise for what are fundamentally small political differences. We emphasize the importance of science in terms of what it can provide for society, not in terms of metaphysical assertions about the world.
Hmmm… gee, I wonder how it is that Young can suggest on ScienceBlogs that people are being "excommunicated" from the scientific enterprise for what amounts to political differences with the "Northeastern liberal establishment?" At any rate, he justifies this choice thusly…
Let me make clear that Choice #2 does not involve abandoning core scientific values such as verification, commitment to evidence, and argument on the basis of facts rather than interpersonal attacks. We still argue for evolution, for the reality of global warming, and for the utility of stem cell research. What we stop doing is stating that acceptance of science implies a set of political and philosophical values that are unequivocal and about which there can be no discussion.
It's interesting to me that some scientific atheists are noticing that the 'New Atheists' are presenting a real threat to the enterprise of science with their uncompromising authoritarian tendencies. It looks to me like the atheist side of the 'culture war' has broken into factions along the same sort of in-house bickering lines that have been present on the religious side for longer than modern science has existed.
It's an interesting article, so check it out.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Good article. I agree, there is really no other way to reconcile the disparate layers of the public other than what he proposes.
Comment by dimasok — September 13, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
The problem is that in the case of option 2, you're effectively telling some people that they have to choose what's more important: Science, or atheism. And frankly, a good chunk of them are going to choose atheism.
It's my own opinion, but I am convinced that for many, the biggest threat ID poses is that it promotes scientific interest and inquiry among the religious/spiritually inclined, in such a way that will potentially bolster their faith. Dawkins once said that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I do not think that he, and people of a similar mindset, can accept evolution enabling theists or similar to feel more fulfilled in their own respective beliefs.
The only threat to science some care about is losing it as an abused metaphysical weapon.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
dimasok:
I thought the piece was very good for the audience it was aimed at, but wasn't so good for highlighting what's really at issue. Which I believe to be far more than just whether or not the public cares to fund land grant university research. A large majority of the public DOES want to fund. They have relatively few issues in general, and not all research is fodder for the 'culture war'.
I can definitely understand Richard Dawkins and his contemporaries in the Evangelical Atheist 'movement'. They're quickly getting old and in the way, don't have much else to do with the remainder of their time than trade on their self-importance laurels. The ones I am most disgusted with are the young bucks and middle-agers - PZ and the gang. They simply aren't smart enough to know where their limitations are, and aren't politic enough to know how transparent they are to the public they'd love to rule with an iron hand.
There is a great deal of self-deception going. Because there is so much self-deception, other-deception is just a side effect. They believe they can force their agenda on the overwhelming majority by sheer force of their 'excellent intellect' and credentials (trading on the power of science in the modern world). They aren't charming enough, flattering enough, or gifted enough at moving masses of the public to their cause to pull that off.
The danger to science is significant. I wish more scientists recognized that. It's not just funding at issue.
Comment by Joy — September 13, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Those who call ID a science-stopper are wrong on a lot of grounds. This is potentially the real science-stopper, on very real sociological grounds:
If we're telling something like half of young Americans that
"science" opposes their families' core values, won't that affect how many of them take it up as careers? Won't that slow science?
Comment by TomG — September 13, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
nullasalus:
Well, we've seen that before too. Astronomer Harlow Shapley - who defined the shape and structure of our galaxy back in 1918, becoming consensus in the '20s - fought hard against the conclusion from GR that the universe had a beginning. As the evidence accumulated, he even advised his colleagues that it must be kept from the public because it might tend to support religious ideas ("Let there be light").
There have been generations of scientists who really, honestly believed in the Science=Atheism meme. So much so that they'd corrupt and subvert science to make it conform to that meme. Luckily, the collective endeavor of science was intelligently designed by humans to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not to impose upon humanity any 'orthodoxy' requiring public obeisance and tithes. We don't and never did need just another religion.
Shapley had way, way more real power in science than Richard Dawkins could ever claim, so Dawkins took his crusade to the public. Yet while he battles Christians and Persians in the Colosseum, real science is busy following the evidence.
Most care not a bit what atheists and theists might conclude about metaphysical supports from their designed-to-be provisional theoretics. Even if your popular science screed sells a million copies, 349 out of every 350 people - in THIS country alone - never heard of it and don't care.
The spiritualists, theologians, and great unwashed masses of humanity never needed scientific support for their beliefs and ways of life in the first place. They don't need it now. It has always been thus. The names change generation to generation to protect the guilty, the innocent have no names. Science is not their savior. Neither is atheism.
Anyone with a lick of sense, a basic grasp of demographics and/or experience with real life knows that.
Comment by Joy — September 13, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Interesting article. What strikes me as somewhat ironic with the whole science==atheism meme is that at its core science is a deeply and I would say irredeemably theistic idea with strongly theistic rather than atheistic axioms at its core.
Can atheists do science ? Sure. But only by adopting a theistic framework about the nature of the world and its inherent understand ability and order.
Before you even get to notions of "which way does the evidence point", the game is already over for the atheist. For sciences basic axioms to work you need to assume the truth of theism at a fundamentally deep level in the universe.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 13, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 7:46 am
This is a meme that is promoted heavily by creationists as well, of course.
nullasalus
I wonder if this is true. Science is important to scientists; to be called a scientist you have to make a career of it, dedicate a fair proportion of your life to doing science. Same with Christianity; Christians dedicate a low of their time to their faith. But not atheism. You can be an atheist without lifting a finger. If we had proof tomorrow that Hinduism was true, I believe atheists would adjust a lot faster than Christians, just because they have so little to give up. Most atheists are atheists because of the lack of evidence for a god. I accept that is not a strong position, and if sufficient evidence came along of the Hindu gods, I would accept they exist. It would be embarassing after years of arguing on the internet (thank Vishnu I have used a pseudonym), it would be quite a surprise. But it would not destroy my faith - because I do not have one.
Sure, some atheist scientists would choose atheism, but I suspect the vast majority (and of course all the theistic scientists) would choose science.
TomG
Yes. And it seems to me that it is the creationists saying that, which is one reason I consider creationism anti-science.
Comment by The Pixie — September 14, 2007 @ 7:46 am
September 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Joy, I think you should replace the New Atheists since with these aforementioned qualities you possess in abudance, maybe we could bridge the gaps once and for all
It is even easier for agnostics/panpsychists/modal realists such as myself
Comment by dimasok — September 14, 2007 @ 9:59 am
September 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Pixie:
And how many 'creationists' does science need in order to fill its quota for post-doc bench grunts? Are there not enough recruits from atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and mainstream Christian denominations?
Why would you want them? Seems there are plenty on your side of the aisle who would deny degrees and tenure to 'creationists' even if you could manage to recruit them. Why would they want to play that game?
Comment by Joy — September 14, 2007 @ 10:20 am
September 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am
No, I do not want the creationists in science, but then, I never actually said that, did I?
You made a big deal about the issue of funding. I am not looking to recruit creationists, but I am looking for them to support the funding.
Also, is it possible that the science=atheism meme promoted by creationists (and some atheists) might just turn other theists away from science?
Comment by The Pixie — September 14, 2007 @ 11:18 am
September 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Pixie:
Public science funding isn't in serious danger any time soon. Unless wars and social upheavals intervene, requiring a limited pool of funds to be allocated to the most important (for everybody) projects.
Specific areas of funding - like stem cell research and cloning - present some moral/ethical issues for a lot of people. And given the track record of WMDs, they don't trust science itself to pay attention to such issues. Scientists can clone chimeras and harvest embryonic stem cells all day long. They just can't get tax money unless they use the approved lines, and justify the research to agency oversight committees.
??? Again, I don't see why anything Creationists believe or say is a matter of concern for science, which doesn't want Creationists in its hallowed company in the first place.
Comment by Joy — September 14, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Pixie,
When I say that having to choose between atheism and science a considerable amount will choose atheism, I'm not saying PZ Myers will give up his job and start preaching from the rooftops. And I'm not saying 'if science disproves atheism' either (philosophically, I believe this to be exactly on par with the possibility of definitively proving theism). I'm saying that if the choice is promoting atheism at the sacrifice of also promoting misunderstandings about or a dislike of science, or promoting science as being entirely compatible with religious/theistic belief, some will simply choose the former.
Sure, for some people atheism, just like theism, is more of a passive belief or trait. But for others, it's an important part of their worldview. That said, I don't think all atheists are like Dawkins, all scientists are like Davies, all theists are like Falwell, or all anyone is like anyone.
Comment by nullasalus — September 14, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Joy
That is good to hear. But how does that fits with:
Ah, so you are thinking about funding specifically for projects that are contraversal for their bioethics? I am still not clear how that fits with your earlier statement, which seems to be talking about all scientists in academic research. Not sure if this is relevant, but personally, I would leave it to scientists to decide what is science, and what should be taught as science, but bioethics is a whole different thing, and should be agreed by a wider circle.
And what do you mean by WMD? To me that stands for "weapons of mass destruction", and I have no idea how that might affect the track record of science.
If children go to church and their preacher is telling them all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God, as written in the Bible, those children are going to have a lower opinion of science, making them easier targets for pseudo-science advcates (like creationism, as well as astrology, homopathy, etc.), and dissuading them from taking up science as a career.
nullasalus
Sure, some will. But I think the vast majority will not, for the reason I gave above.
Comment by The Pixie — September 14, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Pixie:
That's because you neglected to include the context of the statement. Which clearly exempted military-industrial and corporate research. About which the public has nothing to say, one way or the other.
Nobody's telling [academic] scientists they can't decide what science is. They just don't get to appropriate public funding at will on that basis. They have to submit their grant applications and hope to win the lottery, just as they always have. What the public can do is empower oversight and institute rules that tighten way up on certain sectors. The public - per demographic distributions - has already demonstrated this power in the sectors previously mentioned. It can extend them if it gets enough support.
Animal research, gene therapy, drug and ag/industrial chemical development, genetic engineering, human experimentation, cloning, embryonic stem cells… such endeavors are already subject to levels of oversight. Policies can change, and oversight can be toughened. Make the public mad enough and that just might happen. A cavalier and condescending attitude won't help matters.
A chunk of why the public harbors a certain amount of distrust of science and the moral/ethical sensibilities of its practitioners has to do with the harm done by science over the years. We tolerate it and support it for the good things we get from the deal. That in no way means they trust it.
Things change, then they change again. Thousands of scientists were suddenly out of work when the space program wound down. We hear there are way too many biologists in academia, there aren't jobs enough for them all. As recession takes hold (as it must in view of current events), scientists aren't going to be immune and neither is the U.S. treasury. In times of tight money, frivolous expenditures get eliminated. Science tends to suffer its fair share of that. Plus, in tight times fewer students will be able to go to college. Declining enrollment will lead to cutbacks in departments and their funding.
All this is basic economics, complicated by a completely unnecessary but highly inflammatory 'culture war'. That many self-proclaimed scientists are fighting against ~85+% of American citizens in the most insulting and alienating terms they can dream up. This will not endear them or their day-jobs to the public that pays them to have so much free time on their hands.
Excuse me? Did you or any scientist you ever met or heard of get "dissuaded" from being who they are because they went to church as children? Because they go to church now? Children - most of 'em, in fact - have been going to church/ temple/ mosque/ synagogue/ meeting for thousands of years. What's different now?
I don't get it, Pixie. If a person wants to be a scientist they generally work hard to get the papers. If they weren't interested, you'd never know about them. If they lose interest they'll walk away, do something else. No skin of your teeth.
It's long past time for your side of the aisle to give up the silly pretense that you can control the thoughts and beliefs of other people, even dictate their choices of what to do with their own futures. Or that you'd be qualified to be the mind-control police even if it were physically possible (which it's not). You have to share the world with the rest of us. My grandmother's good advice for that would be "get used to it."
Comment by Joy — September 14, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Joy
That was why I said "academic research", Joy. There is plenty of science research going on in universities that is not funded by industry or the military, but has no bioethical issues (say in chemistry or physics, to start us off). Is that public funding in danger or not?
Ah, so funding is in danger.
Of course.
Why do you think it is unnecssary? Do you think the creationists should just shut up and let their children be taught in schools that their beliefs are wrong? Or do you think that scientists should allow children to be taught as science that God created the world 6000 years ago?
Why are you implying by "self-proclaimed scientists" Are you suggesting they are not really scientists?
How many scientists are fighting "in the most insulting and alienating terms they can dream up" Either you believe scientists have an extremely poor imagination, and can dream up precious few and decidedly mild insults, or the number is extremely small. Panda's Thumb is a hotbed of scientists who actively reject ID and creationism. You might like to read the comments and see just how insulting those people are. Some are somewhat insulting, to be sure, but "most insulting and alienating terms they can dream up" No. That is just inflammatory hyperbole.
What is different now is that creationists are promoting the scientist=atheist meme. Remember that culture war you mentioned?
I disagree. I think a world in which virtually everyone is scientifically illerate would be a worse place. I think it is important that we have new people wanting to become scientists in good numbers. I think it is important that as many people as possible have some grounding in science - at least enough to be able to see though the claims of pseudo-sciences, for example.
I have no idea where you get this from; it sound more like a rant than an argument. I hope not from anything I have ever posted. Most scientists I have ever met promote free thought and the education to be able to make informed decisions- in contrast to religion.
Comment by The Pixie — September 14, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Joy asks:
Pixie replies:
Pixie, can you please cite a peer-reviewed, scientific study that documents the extent to which this type of thing goes on?
Speaking of science and atheism, Dawkins' good friend and political ally got his letter published in a leading scientific journal. In it, he attacks Francis Collins and demands "gasping outrage" from the scientific community:
Comment by MikeGene — September 14, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Pixie:
Depends on how the show goes. If things get really tight - and they might - priorities will be assigned and cuts will be made. That would happen regardless of any 'culture war'. How the priorities get assigned in such a situation (and why) is something to think about on those terms, though. I doubt practical science and engineering would suffer much. And medical/public health research, bio-ag development and high tech will do fine. Depends on the priorities. That's usually set via political policy, and that is… politics. Not science.
Scientists don't have anything to say as to what someone else's children are "allowed" to learn about religion. They can work to improve science education. But if they turn science education into atheist indoctrination, they'll be banished to non-public classrooms, just like IDers and Creationists. No religion allowed, no anti-religion allowed. The schools are also residents of the political world, thus policies are made in the political arena.
This is that demographics problem I mentioned previously. Not to mention a Constitutional issue.
That's nothing new, Pixie. As long as there's more than one human on the planet, there will be disagreements. People can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever they want about who and what they are and how they got here. Religions have traditionally covered such things for most people, and still do for a majority. You can't prevent that.
I haven't said I am in favor of universal scientific illiteracy. So you're obviously not talking to me. Every high school graduate in this country below a certain age has had a semester of NDS indoctrination and passed a test proving they could regurgitate on demand. That many of them go on to choose different beliefs (or hold to those they always had) is not really any of your concern. People are free to choose.
That's a 'grounding'. Kids have science of some variety every year for 12 years of schooling. When they get out, they are still free to choose. That's just the way it is. The National Enquirer boasts a multi-million circulation, and millions of people buy or read it every week. I think Britain has some similar tabloids. There are full and half-page ads for psychic networks, psychic friends, astrologers, crystal healers, magic amulets, eye of newt (etc.) galore. People must buy that junk, since ads like that cost a lot. It seems silly and dumb to me, so I don't buy it or buy any junk. Others can make their own choices. People are free to choose.
You can't control what other people think, believe, or do with their lives. You only have that kind of control over your own self, and often that meets the fickle finger of fate anyway. Such is life. There is no shortage of scientists. If there were, that would be science's fault, not religion's.
Comment by Joy — September 14, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Mike
No, I cannot. Does that mean it does not happen? More germane to this thread, does that mean we should sit back and allow creationists to promote the science=atheism meme? More generally, should we sit back and let creationists promote anything that is factually wrong?
So what? I am not disputing that some athiests also promote that meme, though I do believe those to be a very small fraction of scientists.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 3:06 am
September 15th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Joy
Right. So scientists should be fighting the science=atheism meme whoever promotes it.
I think you misunderstod me; I am talking about creationists objecting to their children being taught about evolution in science classes.
The problem arises when religion teaches something at odds with science. Perhaps that is what is new. As you say, religion has traditionally covered the origins question, and still does for most people. Science also covers that question. Scientists would like everyone to have a good scientific education so they can see the evidence for a 4 billion year old planet. YECers would not, and so (I suspect) promote the science=atheism meme.
I am talking to you, Joy, actually. I was explaining why we should stand against the creationists promoting the science=atheism meme as well as the atheists, not saying you were in favor of universal scientific illiteracy. Perhaps you are not listening to me?
Interesting you use those terms I highlighted. Would you say those children also receive "indoctrination" in Newtonian physics? Modern evolutionary theory is accepted as being the best model we have by the vast majority of biologists (those who have studied the evidence), whether theist or atheist.
And surely the "regurgitate on demand" term is an indictment on that education. The implication is that those children have no understanding of the science, but merely parrot the facts. Hardly a good grounding in science.
Great! I suggest that if the creationists are successful in promoting the science=atheism meme that grounding will deteriorate, because children will be (more) uninterested, the teachers reluctant to teach the contraversal subjects.
My preference would be for everyone to be sufficiently science literate that they would choose not to buy the National Enquirer, because they had the knowledge and understanding to see it was all nonsense. I do not consider that mind control. Do you?
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 7:47 am
September 15th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Guts
I am not sure if you are being ironic here. There is no peer-reviewed, scientific study that my children exist, but I would not describe by belief in them to be an act of faith. My claim (for reference) is: If children go to church and their preacher is telling them all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God, as written in the Bible, those children are going to have a lower opinion of science, making them easier targets for pseudo-science advcates and dissuading them from taking up science as a career. So far no one seems to want to dispute whether it is true, only whether it is science. Odd, as I never said it was science.
Does anyone want to argue whether creationists promote the science=atheism meme? Does anyone want to discuss whether this influences how some children perceive science?
[EDIT: Not sure if it is the time difference or what, but this post has gone before Guts' post, even though I wrote it some hours later.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 8:25 am
September 15th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Pixie:
There is more to the origins issue than time frames. Scientific data is most emphatically not at odds with the position that life was the end result of a purposeful process.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2007 @ 8:35 am
September 15th, 2007 at 8:41 am
My comment was also timed prior to Gut's comment even though it was typed after it. Let's try this. Gut's comment bears this time stamp as of this moment:
What will it be after I post this comment?
So Gut's comment retained its stamp but the stamps of my comment and that of Pixie's changed. Weird.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2007 @ 8:41 am
September 15th, 2007 at 8:46 am
It means you believe something for which there is no evidence for, in other words, you only have faith
Comment by Guts — September 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am
September 15th, 2007 at 8:59 am
It is now 9AM EST. It is fixed.
Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2007 @ 8:59 am
September 15th, 2007 at 9:32 am
In contrast to religion in what sense? Do you mean that religious people don't make informed decisions? You are implying that all religious people aren't as informed as the scientists are about the reality around us?
Comment by innerbling — September 15, 2007 @ 9:32 am
September 15th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hi Pixie,
No, if we were to restrict our beliefs to those things science has demonstrated, we'd have a false view of reality.
But it seems to me that your claim is little more than a Dawkins-like stereotype. I'm sure there are several people here who attend church or have attended church. Why not ask them how often their pastor/preacher/priest teaches them that all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God? I've been in church myself many times, and I never heard this message taught from the pulpit.
For years, I have been combating the science=atheism meme.
First, it's not just that some atheists promote the meme, but that some scientists promote the meme. These are people who preach atheism while posturing as Ambassadors of Science. Second, the "some atheists" only happen to be best-selling authors who are leaders of a socio-political movement.
Comment by MikeGene — September 15, 2007 @ 9:58 am
September 15th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Pixie:
Yes, they should. Sadly, they aren't. In fact, there's a whole crew of 'usual suspects' who don't mind tarring and feathering any respected scientist who claims that science DOES NOT equal atheism. Go figure.
Creationists can object if they want, even opt their children out of the class in public school if it bothers them too much. No big deal. Besides, high school age youth are years beyond confirmation - often the objection would be their own.
But let's go ahead and parse what you asked, each of the three questions…
Why do you think [culture war] is unnecessary?
It is unnecessary because people here are free to believe or not believe as they choose. Declaring 'culture war' on those who choose to believe something you and your homies don't like is not just unnecessary, it's a waste of time and effort and violates the social pact that establishes the state by consent of the governed. Science should not associate itself with such corruptions.
Do you think the creationists should just shut up and let their children be taught in schools that their [religious] beliefs are wrong?
Absolutely not! The schools have no business teaching any student that their religious beliefs are wrong. That's not their job, and is unconstitutional. Not to mention unethical, and on the social scale, immoral.
Or do you think that scientists should allow children to be taught as science that God created the world 6000 years ago?
Again, 'scientists' have nothing to say about what children are "allowed" to be taught per religion. Once they give up their claim to the title "scientist," they as citizens have the same duty as all other citizens to ensure that the state (public school) does NOT teach religious origin mythologies as science. That is unconstitutional. Not to mention unethical, and on the social scale, immoral.
What kids learn about such things at home, at church and in private religious schools is no one else's business.
Why do they care? "Everyone" need not believe-in a 4 byo planet in order for the planet to be as old as it is. Such a tidbit has zero impact or importance in most people's lives, and doesn't factor at all in how they live, what they do, or their relative success or happiness. What scientists 'would like' is not the measure of how humanity lives and dies, or of what they must believe.
If YEC's want to promote the meme, they have plenty of support from Dawkins, Myers and the gang. As cited in the OP, and is the topic of this thread. Young's complaint is about SCIENTISTS who promote the science=atheism meme. Notice that he does not address what members of the public believe. Because that is entirely irrelevant, beyond the impression the public gets from this corruption of science - which offers confirmation of the meme.
Creationists are irrelevant. The issue is that scientists are promoting the meme. Are you denying that?
And it is taught as such in public schools for a semester, and students have to pass a standardized test demonstrating they can recite RM-NS without mixing up the letters. Neither science nor the state can require affirmations of faith in the equation.
Public education in this country is so bad that half the high school GRADUATES can't find California on a map, don't know a verb from a noun, and can't spell "evolution." This is something we should be trying hard to rectify, and many people are. Bad science education is just one problem. There are many others.
The subject of this thread is SCIENTISTS who promote the science=atheism meme. Again, your diversionary tactic is unappreciated.
I don't care if people buy the National Enquirer. Means exactly zip to me. I have occasionally purchased one with a particularly humorous headline, just for the laugh potential. My favorite was "I Was Bigfoot's Love Slave." We got laughs out of that one for months!
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 11:22 am
September 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Science does not have a theory of evolution — other than "it just happens", accidentally, for no particular reason. Science does not have a theory about how life originated. Nor does science have a theory about the origin of all the biotical complexity that has appeared since the origin of life — other than "it just happens", random mutations. The only alternative to accidental, random assembly would be some form of intelligent, purposeful organization. Whether the intelligence responsible for the organization of living systems is a force of nature or whether it is directed by some god — either way, life is intelligently designed. Most religious people promoting intelligent design acknowledge they can not prove the designer is god. That their god is the designer is merely their personal opinion. However an honest difference of opinion never satisfies a zealot. Most people fighting the concept of intelligent design will accept
no theory that even acknowledges a possibility of participation by a deity.
Questions about Materialism
Comment by Bert — September 15, 2007 @ 11:28 am
September 15th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hi, Bert! I've gotten about halfway through your questions - very good stuff, just don't have too much time these days.
Well, they can always argue the definition of "intelligent," but design is certainly evident. And you see some cracks in the NDS wall when research is reported as "challenge" to current theory and its just-so predictions. I suspect it's increasing fear that biology may in fact be turning toward a design approach that is part of the motivation for the NAM [New Atheist Movement].
The point that should be grasped by all - on both sides of the fence and those straddling it - is that it doesn't matter how people interpret the presence of design. Atheists will still believe it's an accident, and theists will still believe God did it. So what?
Have missed you! §:o)
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Mike
I agree that it would be a small minority of preachers. I also believe it is a small proportion of atheists.
Me too (as promoted by creationists anyway). At least we agree on the need to fight the meme.
It was fifty-fifty whether I labelled them atheists or scientists.
And I think we might agree that we should combat the meme whether promoted by best-selling authors who are leaders of the creationist socio-political movement or the "Dawkin" (for lack of a better term) socio-political movement.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Joy
Personally I think it is wrong that parets can deprive their children of a decent education, but there you go, that is just me advocating "mind control", I suppose.
But it goes beyond what people choose to believe when it affects what other people (children) receive as education. Why should one side be allowed to exhert "mind control" over the children of the other side?
So I would have to assume that you believe teaching children the world is 4 billlion years old is immoral, as it contradicts the religious beliefs of some Christians. I disagree.
I was talking about what is taught as science. YECers (some at least) want children to be taught the world was created 6000 years ago as science. Would you be happy with that?
Remember, I see this from a UK perspective, so the unconstitutional issue is not relevant for me personally, though I appreciate you post for a wider audience than just me!
I think here the point is the scientists are the ones most concerned with the issue, so it is the scientists who are arguing.
I suppose so. But I (and most scientists I think) would prefer most people knew the truth (as science currently holds it). May be we are just weird.
And as I said, I am not disagreeing with that. I just pointing out creationists do it too.
Are you saying that if Young says it is irrevant then it has to be irrelevant? Argument from authority? Even if we take Young as an authority here, why should we assume that because he did not mention it then it must be irrelevant? Surely the impression the public gets from this corruption of science is exactly the point.
I thought I had made it clear that I agree that some scientists are promoting the meme.
I am glad we agree there at least.
Then ignore it. It was a single sentence trying to give (in my opinion) some balance. You could have responed to the other points in my post, but you chose to respond to this. You could have ignored my post altogether; you chose not. Raw nerve? I do not know. For some reason, this would seem to be the contentious issue on this thread.
Well, there we are different. I find it sad that people are fooled into believing that nonsense.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Pixie:
No, it's just you complaining about reality. A pointless exercise in wasting your time and energy.
Proselytizing isn't illegal in this country. That's the "free marketplace of ideas" people get to choose from. What you allude to is teaching religion *as* science, which is already illegal in this country. There's nothing for you to do about it. That issue is taken care of. Public schools can't teach your children there is a God, nor can they teach a theist's children that there is no God. That's how it stands, here and now.
I didn't say that. Please stop with the gross misrepresentations. One might start getting the impression you're being completely dishonest. Teaching science in science class is fine. It cannot be emphasized as a challenge to anyone's specific beliefs. That would be unconstitutional. I didn't make the rules or write the Constitution. Take your issue up with them. Oops… you don't have a stake, do you? Then bug off.
No. I have answered this at least three times in THIS thread. Stop ignoring it, and stop repeating it. It's boring.
I do remember that. Hence the thrust of many of my arguments. The US is the US's problem. Solve your own issues on your own time.
No, they're NOT the only ones concerned. The targets of their ad homs are also concerned, and their rights are broader than science's rights. Science isn't a person or even a corporation. It has no standing in line for human or citizenship rights, and cannot legitimately argue on that level in the public arena.
Young is a scientist aiming his criticisms at science and scientists. That is what the thread is about. I think his criticisms bear weight on that level because that's the level he's arguing. Shouldn't matter to him (or to you) that there are members of the public who disagree. That means nothing beyond the fact that the public is likely to notice the rift in science itself.
LOL!!! So now there's some scientistic version of FoxNews Propaganda Network, and you are its prophet? Please, Pixie. Things aren't nearly so polarized out in the real world as dichotomists on both 'sides' of any issue would have us believe.
I guess some would find it sad, but I'd be inclined to think they're just taking reality way too seriously. People without a healthy sense of humor are what's wrong with this world, IMO. I'd hazard a sociological 'prediction' that most people who buy such rags buy them for their humor value. Because there is significant humor value to be had. Those who buy just to get the "FACTS" about what it's like to be Bigfoot's love slave are beyond anybody's help. We should both learn to live with that. §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Pixie:
Of course not, anyone can plainly see them with their own eyes if they chose to do so. But people would have to believe the statement:"If children go to church and their preacher is telling them all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God, as written in the Bible, those children are going to have a lower opinion of science making them easier targets for pseudo-science advcates and dissuading them from taking up science as a career." on faith alone. That is a testable claim about reality, but there is no evidence for it.
Comment by Guts — September 15, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Joy:
Most Christian theists who accept scripture as holy writ place revelation above science. IOW, scripture transcends mans' truth. They are not on equal planes. However, I think the average such Christian would allow scientific evidence to influence their interpretation of scripture in some areas - particularly with the question of the age of the earth - since "Yom" can mean something other than a strict 24 hour day, and can mean an unspecified period of time. Most OECists accept this. So most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians do not really care what "science" might show contrary to scripture. They understand that scientific data is interpreted by fallible human beings, while believing that scripture is inspired by an infallible God. On the other hand, scripture itself is also interpreted (many times incorrectly) by fallible human beings.
Comment by Randy — September 15, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Randy:
As well they should, if they're seeking absolute truths instead of provisionals. Science is notorious for changing its mind.
"Average" Christians are those who seek some understanding of the nature and destiny of man, yet want to live in the modern world and enjoy its benefits. I don't claim to know how that sort of thing gets judged in the end, if such things are judged. I'm just saying people of faith don't need scientific support or confirmation and never did need it.
Here I think you're wrong. I know too many fundamentalist Christians who take it literally, no interpretation required. Now, they don't count for very much in world politics or socioeconomic policy, but they have been making a lot of noise in the past few decades. That they aren't a considerable problem to the larger world is evident in how little effect they've had in spite of all the noise.
That's why I try to separate the Evangelical Atheist propaganda from the actual situation. There does in fact exist the unreasonable minority of religios. EA portrayal of them as 'mainstream' is fallacious. There are some Mormons in small enclaves of Nevada and Utah who practice polygamy and child molestation (as a mockery of marriage). That they exist doesn't present a significant issue for the world, or even just for the US. Where there is freedom, you'll have some fringe groups exercising it. Comes with the territory.
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Joy
Ah, well there we disagree again. I think it is worthwhile making a fuss about education. Sure, I might be wasting my time, but I might not. I think it is worth a shot.
But then, I could point out that this thread is "just you complaining about reality". Atheist-scientists promote the science=atheism meme; that is their right, and surely posting about it is a pointless exercise in wasting your time and energy. I guess in that case you think not. I have no idea what the difference is.
There is an excellent reason for creationists to promote the science=atheism meme, all by itself.
I am sorry if I am misrepresenting you; the truth is that I am confused by your position here. See some people believe the world was created by God 6000 years ago as an article of faith. Science says the planet formed 4 billion years ago. Any science teacher saying that the planet formed 4 billion years ago is contradicting the religious beliefs of those people. You seemed before to be saying that "schools have no business teaching any student that their religious beliefs are wrong" and that it is "unethical" and "immoral". Perhaps you could clarify your position so I do not misrepresent you again.
Curious how often a certain UK atheist-scientist seems to crop up around here… On could almost imagine a globalisation of the issue.
I meant it was more of a throw away comment than a profound statement, actually Joy!
I am sure some do. I fear they are the minority.
I think it is too late for them, but I still think we should try to education the next generation.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Actually I think the reason for asking for documentation is that at best this is a very very rare phenomena among "creationists".
I've never encountered anybody pushing the "science = atheism" meme from the creationist side of the camp. By compariosn I see people on the atheism side pushing such a stance all the time.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 15, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Guts
You are disputing my statement earlier: "If children go to church and their preacher is telling them all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God, as written in the Bible, those children are going to have a lower opinion of science making them easier targets for pseudo-science advcates and dissuading them from taking up science as a career." Could you clarify what exactly we disagree on?
1. Do you agree that many (most?) children go to church, and will see the preacher as a credible authority figure, i.e., if the preacher says it is true, and they have no reason to suppose otherwise, they will accept his word.
2. Do you agree that a significant fraction (though not a majority) of preachers are creationists?
3. Do you dispute that many (perhaps most) preachers who are creationists promote the science=atheism meme?
4. Children who hear the science=atheism meme from a credible authority figure will have a tendancy to believe it.
5. Children who are religious will tend to reject science if they associate it with atheism.
I think number 3 is where my argument is weakest, and I have to accept I am, in part, building it on a stereotype. Creationism is anti-science; it rejects the findings of science in favour of the revealed word of God. For a creationist, no amount of evidence will ever change his understanding, and this is the antithesis of science, which is tentative and evidential. Therefore, for the creationist, science is the enemy. For them (I suggest) the Christian gets knowledge from the Bible, the atheist gets knowledge from science, so science and atheism become all mixed up in one bundle.
Of course, the Darwinism=atheism=materialism meme is their favourite.
Comment by The Pixie — September 15, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Pixie,
I have no idea what you are asking for, I just want to see evidence for this claim:
"If children go to church and their preacher is telling them all scientists are atheists who deny the holy word of God, as written in the Bible, those children are going to have a lower opinion of science making them easier targets for pseudo-science advcates and dissuading them from taking up science as a career."
You're the one that claimed it, why did you claim it? Was it something you read somewhere? Did you just make it up out of thin air? Is it just a suspicion?
Comment by Guts — September 15, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Pixie:
A science teacher teaching the (approved) text to the (standardized) test is just imparting the requisite factoids for passing the course. There are no requirements for affirmations of faith, and no way to measure whether any of the students who pass the test actually believe-in the material. That's simply true. No one has to like it, they just have to accept that it's the way things are. Now.
At no time during the impartation or tutoring to the requisite response on the test is it the job of any teacher to tell little Johnny that his beliefs that God created it all are "wrong." Johnny can raise his hand and lodge the complaint, the teacher can send him to the school counselor or tell him to ask his preacher and parents. Job done, reiterate what will be required in order to pass the test.
If I am a geography teacher and tell you that Cleveland is in Ohio, you don't have to believe it. I can show you where Cleveland is on a map, I can show you that we label those particular coordinates as "Ohio," and I can tell you that if you say Cleveland is in Texas on the test you will fail. If you choose to fail anyway then you've screwed your own future. Not my responsibility.
Passing the test doesn't measure belief-in. This should be obvious to you, Pixie. It's certainly obvious to me and most other people. But you can choose to believe whatever you want. There's nothing I or anyone else can do about that, so more power to you. You simply won't be convincing me.
Believing that the world is 6,000 years old doesn't prevent anybody from filling in the correct circle on the standardized test that indicates the 'correct' answer of 4 billion years. Nor does filling in that circle in order to earn a diploma mean that anyone must believe-in a 4 billion year old creation. That's just how life is, education is, and freedom is. It's all okay with me.
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
September 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Guts:
We know it's just hype, don't we? Only an incorrigible elitist would insist on repeating over this many posts that humans are too stupid to make up their own minds, as they choose.
That there are relatively stupid humans isn't an issue. Of course there are - but they're mostly not posting to internet forums on a regular basis or debating with scientists who think differently. They - like all others - are just living their lives. Going to work every day and punching the clock, hopefully coming home to someone who cares.
I don't know a bit about the rest of you, but I earned my views honestly. The hard way. And I am not a stupid human. Flawed for sure, dysfunctional as befits this family's story, as prideful as anybody else about the things I do think I know. Nobody I know fits Pixie's demeaning psychoanalysis. They were all perfectly capable of handling a semester of the 10th grade.
The implication is that if a student is smart enough to pass the test - indicating that s/he knows what's on the test and what the expected answers are - s/he must believe-in the requisite answers. The ONLY options in such a situation are that the person "dishonestly" passed the test, or passed it by accident because s/he is really too stupid to function. A demeaning assumption, completely unwarranted by reality either way.
Which I keep trying to explain simply, and Pixie keeps pretending he can't fathom. The subject of this thread is scientists' promotion of the "Science=Atheism" meme. Pixie supplied the thread diversions into public education and YECs.
Comment by Joy — September 15, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Guts
I am posting several parts from our exchange as it seems to have morphed somewhat from Mike originally asking if there was a peer-reviewed, scientific study. It is an intuition, if you like, something I reasoned out on my own. Do you think I am wrong (you have not actually indicated whether you agree or nor so far, as far as I can tell)? Do you think my reasoning is flawed? If so, please say where the flaw is, and I will attempt to address it (perhaps even admit I was wrong).
Comment by The Pixie — September 17, 2007 @ 4:58 am
September 17th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Joy
Do physics teachers impart "factoids" about Newtonian physics, or are those real facts because they coincide with your metaphysics?
Your hypothetical job as a geography teacher should be to teach me how to find out where Cleveland is, how to look at different types of evidence, and how to evaluate the validity of that evidence. And if you fail to do that (across the range of abilities in your class) then it is you who screwed up, it is your responsibility. And the test should measure the pupil's ability to apply that knowledge and understanding. The test should not ask "Where is Cleveland?" the test should ask "How would you go about finding where Clevelend is?"
I am still not getting this. Are you saying that the science teacher must qualify what he says. Something like: "Now, children, people have many different views on the age of the planet, but in the test, you must say it is 4 billion years old, if you want to pass, whether you think it is right or wrong." Or perhaps it should be made clear at the start of the chemistry lesson (say), that science is just one set of beliefs, no more valid than anyone elses's. I know, I know, I am misrepresenting you. I am pretty sure you do not really mean that. I am just said it to illustrate that I still do not get what you think teachers should actually do. They cannot tell YEC children that the world actually is 4 billion years old - that much you made clear - as that would teach the children that his or her religious belief was wrong. So they must qualify it in some way. And they have to get those YEC kids to learn the right "factoids" to "regurgitate" in the exam, accepting that the kids believe them to be false.
Sorry, but I thought the point of your OP was about the science=atheism meme having an effect on the public. Now you are complaining about me being an "incorrigible elitist" because I alsoo claim that the science=atheism meme will have an effect on the public?
So if I think creationists promoting the science=atheism meme will affect the public, it is "demeaning psychoanalysis", but when you say scientists are promoting the science=atheism meme, and it will affect the public, what is it then Joy?
Joy, you are the one hung up on passing tests. I am advocating an eduction where people learn how to think, where children gain an understanding of the subject. and not where they merely memorise a load of "factods" that they can "regurgitate on demand". Now if the YEC student really understands the scientific method, understands the evidence for modern evolutionary theory, for geology, for astronomy, and can show that understanding in an exam, then I have no problem with that.
Comment by The Pixie — September 17, 2007 @ 7:23 am
September 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Pixie:
"F=ma" is a factoid. That earth is #3 in distance from the sun is a factoid. "Sir Isaac Newton" is a factoid. Factoids are tidbits of information students are expected to hold in their heads and plug as answers into the correct questions on the test. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it.
You didn't go to school in the US during the past ~40 years, did you? There are lots of things teachers could be teaching. What they're teaching is often unrelated to the preferred ideal.
No, if the student objects to a 4 byo earth, the teacher informs him/her that this is science class, and that the subject is what SCIENCE thinks about the age of the earth. If that student is disruptive, the teacher can send him/her to admin, discussions can be held, and his/her parents can sign a paper that puts that student in study hall instead of science class on a religious exemption.
The student can go on to be a fine accountant, business manager, car salesman, factory worker, nurse, etc., etc., may do very well in life. What s/he will probably not go on to be is a scientist. Science will not care.
The OP links and discusses scientists who promote the science=atheism meme, and one science blogger's response to that situation, recognizing that it will likely harm the public's perception of science.
You want to turn the topic completely around to members of the public who promote the science=atheism meme. That is an off-topic distraction taking up too much space. Either speak to the subject or go to a different thread.
Comment by Joy — September 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
September 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The problem is that in western culture we have assumption that science = truth and because science is based on a materialistic assumptions of the reality it assumes that science = materialism/naturalism. Following that logic materialism is necessarily atheism so we can finally deduce that atheism = truth.
Of course the problem with this logic is that we can only assume naturalism we can never prove naturalism with naturalism. Also we have no idea what is really naturalistic there could be "gnomes in the machine".
Comment by innerbling — September 17, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Pixie:
What do you mean "admit I was wrong", you can't even show that you were right in the first place.
Comment by Guts — September 17, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
You might need to go back to the drawing board because your claim has little connection to reality.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 17, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I can't really relate to this, Pixie.
I attended catholic grade school, we had to attend church on Wednesdays. I think the priest could have said many things that none of us put much weight on. However, I can't think of many priests doing what your hypothetical assumes. At least none of them that I ever came across.
But back to the point - did most/many of my catholic school-mates view the priest as some type of authority? I don't believe so. I don't think we even paid that much attention to even be able to recollect what he stated. Again - this is children we are talking about.
Comment by Doug — September 17, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Guts, Doug, the scifishow
Well obviously I thought I was whe I posted it. The comments by thescifishow (the first one to me anyway) and Doug do make me wonder. I think I was basing this on the Darwinism=materialist=atheist meme, which certainly is promoted by creationists, but is not quite what Joy was talking about, now I think about it. From a promoting atheism perspective, if nothing else, I find reassurance in Doug's comment that children pay no attention to what they are told in church.
Comment by The Pixie — September 17, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Joy
Ah, okay. I (and Dictionary.com) think of "-oid" as indicating "like"; an android is like a man, rather than a tidbit of a man!
It is not ideal in the UK either, though science education in early years (say K-5 ish, where I have children) seems to have improved, with an emphasis on how science is done, how to test hypotheses, etc. Unfortunately it does teach to the exam, however.
Great. Then it turns out we agree that biology teachers should teach what SCIENCE thinks about biology, such as the modern evolutionary theory. And referring back to:
Er, no, sorry. Still confused. Are you saying schools have no business teaching any student that their religious beliefs are wrong unless it is science? Or that schools have to qualify science in some way so they can say science believes one thing, but that does not contradict anyone's personal beliefs?
Science will care if the opinion of that person influences science funding. That was the point of the OP, was it not?