Listening to ID critic Paul Z Myers always makes me think of this advice for lawyers: "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and cry for justice." In my last post, I mentioned historian of science Ronald Numbers dispelling some myths about hostility between science and religion, and you just knew that Myers would give his desk a good thrashing over it.

In the interview, Numbers claims that most scientists are believers:

QUESTION: Are scientists in general atheistic?

MR. NUMBERS: The public often gets the impression that most scientists are non-believers. But, that's not true. Just within the past year the journal Nature published a study that revealed even today roughly the same proportion of scientists believe in God as did 75 years ago. [The figure is almost 40%]

and that scientists like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins bear a big part of the blame for the belief that science and religion are incompatible:

QUESTION: So would you say it is a mythology that people have that science and religion are enemies?

MR. NUMBERS: I think there's a powerful mythology today suggesting that science and religion are enemies, and it is fueled by some of the most public and popular of scientists, such as Carl Sagan in the United States, or Richard Dawkins in Great Britain, who have gone out of their way on occasions to present that view.

As the figure in the bracket indicates, Numbers is wrong about most scientists being believers. (And that is just the number among "average" scientists. Once you look at members of the National Academy of Sciences - that is, the echelon of science - you'll find the number of non-believers to be around 90-95 percent.) Myers takes him to task for this, which is all well and good. But then look at this:

You want to advance the cause of science and oppose ignorance in this country? Don't start by contradicting reality and acting as if the philosophical position of the majority of your colleagues is something shameful. Don't act as if the dogma of the opposition is a virtue.

In the comments at The Panda's Thumb, Myers turns up the heat on Numbers:

That isn't even close to the point of the article I linked to: it's that Numbers, like you, tends to treat people who don't accept religious dogma as cultural pariahs. Get used to this: the godless are here, they're growing in numbers, and they're the people on your side, your most reliable allies.

[...]

My complaint is about the way Numbers and jerks like Lenny will happily marginalize non-theists, all in the name of somehow persuading the creation-believing theists of the country that the evilutionists really aren't out to rape their daughters. It's not about throwing theists out, it's about atheists forcibly elbowing their way forward and declaring that we're here, we're an important part of this story, and you don't get to pretend that only the religious have morals or are of value or have anything to contribute to society.

So, according to Myers, Numbers is "marginalizing" non-theists, making them "cultural pariahs" who have to "elbow their way forward" just to be acknowledged. Of course, this wasn't what Numbers was saying at all. He was simply noting that atheists like Dawkins, Sagan, and, yes, PZ Myers, are a big reason why many people think that science and religion are incompatible. He certainly wasn't making a blanket accusation against all non-theists, and that he claimed "that only the religious have morals or are of value or have anything to contribute to society" seems to have been pulled straight from PZ's rectum.

First, let's note that Myers shouldn't have a problem with this argument. After all, he was the one making the "let's not offend their sensitivities" argument when Islamic riots were burning down embassies over the Mohammed drawings. If he thinks it's okay to ask those with offensive opinions to shut up because he's uncomfortable with the consequences, he shouldn't feign indignation when someone suggests that his opinions are doing more harm than good.

It does seem like PZ has a problem with Numbers' performance, thinking that it alienates the atheist faction of the ID critics' Big Tent. Sooo, what does he want Numbers to do? To stop voicing his opinion? To couch it in comfortable qualifications, like "Although I don't wish to offend anyone, I do feel that I must suggest that claiming that science and religion are incompatible might not be the best solution. Of course, that's only my opinion, and you're free to disagree."

PZ has in the past bragged about using his "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" to hammer on the lunatics and idiots, but it seems as though he expects everyone else to don the fluffy slippers so they can walk around on egg shells without hurting his and Dawkins' feelings.

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pm and is filed under Religion, Richard Dawkins, Science, The Critics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/poor-oppressed-pz/trackback/