The Chamberlainites and the Churchillians: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
by MikeGeneRecall that Richard Dawkins has identified at least two types of ID critics: the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians. Both group are culture warriors, where the Chamberlainites supposedly view only religious fundamentalists as the problem, while the Chruchillians think all the religious people ("faithheads") are the problem.
If you watch the two groups go after each other, the dispute almost always centers around tactics, not substance. In fact, Chris Mooney, a leading Chamberlainite, admits there is not much difference between the Chamberlainites and people like Richard Dawkins:
Let me explain what happened. The Chris and Matt team went into this debate with a clear strategy: Try not to fight too much over science and religion; and do not fall prey to the tyranny of small differences when basically we're on the same side as Laden and PZ about almost everything.
The Chamberlainites are "basically on the same side" on "almost everything?" Could this explain why the moment has become more than six months?
Sam Harris uses the pages of Nature to attack Francis Collins. PZ Myers uses his #1 Science Blog to attack a Yale biologist who happens to be religious. And where were the The Chamberlainites?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
"Could this explain why the moment has become more than six months?"
Huh?
Comment by Krauze — September 29, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Comment by MikeGene — September 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
It takes a certain amount of nerve for an atheist to point out even glaring flaws in an argument against theism - though it's worth noting that when it came to Dawkins, plenty of atheists and agnostics were willing to go that mile and then some. (Theists poking holes in other theistic arguments, comparably, is easier on the surface - If only because there's so many schools of theists.)
Still, I imagine it may well be the case that the prime problem some may have with the Churchillians is that they're making scientists seem - get ready for it - human. Just when some atheists were itching for scientists to be the priests of a new (anti-)faith.
I'm probably in the minority in believing that, even if the Churchillians keep up their attack, the result isn't going to be a public that frowns upon science. Instead we'll have a public that has the same, or even greater, interest in science as ever - but scientists as individuals will be placed firmly alongside politicians, pundits, salesmen, and sectarians in terms of trust. A world where science is celebrated but atheism doesn't run parallel in popularity is probably a nightmare scenario for a chunk of the Chamberlainites, and all of the Churchillians.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Is that Laden as in Osama bin?
Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Chris Laden.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
It's Greg Laden.
Comment by keiths — September 29, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Whoops. And I went to his website and everything. Not sure how Chris came out.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Hi nullasalus,
You write:
It will be interesting to watch how the Internet changes perceptions over the years. Remember this line from the Wizard of Oz?
When we turn to the Internet, more and more "˜great thinkers' are blogging and many of them clearly have a social, political, or metaphysical agenda. Yet they also prominently display their credentials and university affiliations. It's as if they want everyone to know they are a Professor of this or that, or a Scientist with a Ph D in this or that. It gives them authority and thus serves their cause. But I think as time goes by and people read the rants and see the biases of many "˜great thinkers' in the blogosphere, the message from Oz will become even more common "“ they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma.
Comment by MikeGene — September 29, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Well, the actual situation is that Americans (by 'scientific' survey) are MORE scientifically literate than other countries (including most all of Europe), particularly in questions dealing with genetics. They just lag Europe in acceptance of NDS evolution (translating into blind trust in 'experts' like PZ).
Thus it looks to me like the effort to 'educate' Americans out of their beliefs and preferences hasn't worked. In fact, it's worked counter to what the culture warriors would like. The more they know, the less they trust it. In Europe where people don't know that much, there is more blind trust.
Hmmm…..
Comment by Joy — September 29, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
This sort of thing puts the lie to the way Nick Matzke makes a big deal out of being declared a "Chamberlainite".
Is it really surprising though that the difference between the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians is so slight ? I've always found the Chamberlainites to be a bunch of disingenuous liars and hypocrites anyway who put little stock in anything approaching actual principles. They just wish to lull those who disagree with them into a false sense of security.
Frankly I find their attitude profoundly insulting. Dawkins may be a clueless dunce about so many things but at least he is willing to take a stand on what he thinks rather than behave like the weasels at the NCSE such as Eugenie Scott who want to assure people that "evolution and religion have no conflict" while herself being an atheist.
And of course, as you noted, you never hear them say boo when their co-religionists go off on a rant, except to say, "This is counterproductive" to our shared goals.
But this is clearly more of that vaunted and superior "atheist ethic" in action.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm