|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:10:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
If one wants to know what will happen in the political or economic arenas, there are no solid methods to find out. |
But, but, but... I know plenty of people who majored in political science!
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I think that citing the support of prominent (and lesser-known) atheists along with religious supporters would be an actual advantage to NCSE. After all, if we've learned anything in recent years, it is that the "New Atheists" have built a large and rapidly growing crowd of avowed, proud, loud, and unbowed freethinkers. |
I agree with most of what you wrote, Mooner, but...
...in Expelled, Dawkins says (and it's impossible to blame this on editing or Dawkins being lied to) that no pro-science group is ever going to call him as a witness at an evolution/creationism trial, because he'll testify (during cross-examination, most likely) that an understanding of evolutionary theory led him to atheism.
The NCSE should be promoting that view no more than it should be promoting the view that science and religion are compatible.
|
And I agree with you, Dawkins won't be called. And that's a damned shame. It's a (perhaps necessary, for now) discrimination against good people by our own side. Like self-censorship, this is the worse and most insidious kind. Atheists should be part of the witness mix, if not now, then soon. But this tactical question is separable from the preferential highlighting of the religious beliefs of theist and deist scientists.
Within NCSE, the only attention given to members' religion should be to demonstrate as broad a spectrum as possible. This could also be utilized to place a burden upon Creationists to demonstrate the impossible proposition that they represent anything more than the minority of right-wing Christian evangelical ideologues. Thus the pro-science side could be shown to be more "mainstream" and inclusive than the Creos.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:30:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
If one wants to know what will happen in the political or economic arenas, there are no solid methods to find out. |
But, but, but... I know plenty of people who majored in political science!
|
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:34:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Irrationality is incidental to atheism, while it is an institutional requirement for theism (and even deism). |
Clearly "irrationality" is being used here as a pejorative. And that is quite unfair. People don't and IMO shouldn't conform every conscious thought to pure rationality. When faith is tempered by doubt, it is harmless and clearly still enjoyable to people and thus can be valued for its own sake like food, music, art, and many other things. Many people believe in some form of God or "higher power" for the sense of meaning it gives them, while at the same time acknowledging that they might be wrong. When I had horrible morning sickness a couple months ago, I bought acupressure "sea bands" (among many other suggested remedies for nausea) just to see if they worked. If they had (they did nothing), I'd have suspected placebo, but I would have tried to put that out of my mind for fear that it would stop working. The primary goal was ending my nausea by whatever means which were not harmful to me or others. When irrational thoughts are conditional, when they are tempered by rational limits, they are not bad, and can be quite good. I don't understand this promotion of purist rationality seemingly for its own sake. It is bizarre to me. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:40:36 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
Atheists should be part of the witness mix, if not now, then soon. |
Of fer crying out loud. I have linked you to the people who speak for the NCSE. One of them is a theist. Do you think the NCSE comes to town and blocks atheists from speaking as witnesses? Mooner, either stop making that accusation or show me that it's true.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 22:00:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Mooner:
Atheists should be part of the witness mix, if not now, then soon. |
Of fer crying out loud. I have linked you to the people who speak for the NCSE. One of them is a theist. Do you think the NCSE comes to town and blocks atheists from speaking as witnesses? Mooner, either stop making that accusation or show me that it's true.
|
Okay, time for me to finally do my homework. I'll be back with either a retraction or ...
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 22:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert wrote: | This is an important distinction and so I think we need to draw the battle lines a bit clearer here. |
Draw “battle lines”? Seriously, that's the sort of vocabulary I normally expect to hear from fundamentalists, not secularists. Especially in reference to people who are and have always been our allies in the secularist and humanist movements. I find this to be a very ugly turn (atheists turning against religious humanists) in the culture war. |
Your concern is noted, and rejected. This is a political fight. The "Culture Wars" were started by the whackaloon nutcases, but we'll finish them or at least try to. The fact that some people are becoming a burden in a certain aspect of the political battle is a fact of life, and using different terminology won't change that or even soften its effects.| There is something new about organized rationalists openly attacking non-rationalists and promoting intolerance of any worldview which is not rationalist. |
The rationalist "worldview" includes the idea that stamping out irrationality is more important than an ideal of pluralism which is based upon irrationality. Pluralism in worldviews will still exist if the rationalists win, marf, because there will still be questions that aren't rationally answerable, but action will need to be taken regarding those questions. The goal is to eliminate the irrational answers so that substantive debate is all that remains. If you truly value the irrational as a part of pluralism, then I'm all for having government computers make random policy suggestions. It will still be more safe than allowing irrational people to make those same baseless suggestions, since nobody will care about hurting the computers' feelings, and so they will be ignored.| How is this not an argument against religious freedom and pluralism? The freedom of religion outlined in the Constitution is active tolerance of faith. |
No, it is the active ignorance of faith. Secular government isn't in the tolerance of faith, it is ignoring faith. That's what the Lemon standard is all about.| So unless you want to change the Constitution, I can only assume that you have another ideal (religious freedom and pluralism) which you hold more dearly than the ideal of promoting a pure, rationalist worldview socially. |
Utter nonsense. Nobody has suggested any legislation banning religion. The only way you can bring First Amendment criticisms into this is if you think that someone here has suggested that religions should be outlawed. Your concern is over-the-top hyperbole.| No, you aren't getting what I mean by “blinders.” I mean that when it comes to questions that can't be answered, I refuse to be so arrogant as to assume that my way of thinking is objectively superior. |
You refuse to think that "I don't know" is the best answer to a question which you think can't be answered?! That's unbelievable.| But I will not fight for a rationalist worldview to be taught in public schools. |
So we should grade answers on English exams based upon how sincerely a student clings to an answer to whether |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 23:15:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | Irrationality is incidental to atheism, while it is an institutional requirement for theism (and even deism). |
Clearly "irrationality" is being used here as a pejorative. |
Why shouldn't it be?| And that is quite unfair. People don't and IMO shouldn't conform every conscious thought to pure rationality. When faith is tempered by doubt, it is harmless and clearly still enjoyable to people and thus can be valued for its own sake like food, music, art, and many other things. |
Hobbies don't need to conform to rational guidelines. Ethics do.| Many people believe in some form of God or "higher power" for the sense of meaning it gives them, while at the same time acknowledging that they might be wrong. |
So why don't they simply assume that they're wrong, and find some rational sense of meaning? Really, marf, you are defending the position "I demand an irrational basis for my personal sense of purpose in my life." Why the hell are you doing so in light of the fact that rational purposes exist? What benefit does the irrational provide that the rational does not?| When I had horrible morning sickness a couple months ago, I bought acupressure "sea bands" (among many other suggested remedies for nausea) just to see if they worked. If they had (they did nothing), I'd have suspected placebo, but I would have tried to put that out of my mind for fear that it would stop working. The primary goal was ending my nausea by whatever means which were not harmful to me or others. When irrational thoughts are conditional, when they are tempered by rational limits, they are not bad, and can be quite good. I don't understand this promotion of purist rationality seemingly for its own sake. It is bizarre to me. |
And I fail to see why you are defending your obvious monetary harm as not harmful. If your defense is going to be that you could afford it, then who the hell is anyone to judge a beaten wife who survives her beatings as "troubled" for wanting to stay with her man? Obviously, a black eye and a broken rib can be survived (they're biologically "affordable"), so it would not be irrational to stick with the bastard.
I understand that your desperation drove you to purchase a worthless product, but that's exactly the sort of irrationality I am fighting against.
Ten-plus years ago, I offered myself up as a human guinea pig for various off-the-wall psoriasis treatments (like Preparation-H and wart cream, for two examples). I didn't do it out of any hope that they would work, but simply to find out if they would work. They did not. I wasn't disappointed, because I had no expectation that they would. I was harmed: I spent money and time on useless therapies for my disease. But I started those tests knowing that there was a good chance that there would be no effect, so I willingly assumed the possibility of harm. That harm was done is inarguable. That I accepted that harm could be done doesn't negate that it was done.
Clearly, you were harmed by the "sea bands," but you won't admit it. You consider the harm to have tempered by something (I'm not sure what) to such an extent that the net effect was "no harm" (it obviously wasn't a net benefit).
In my perfect world, the very idea of "acupressure sea bands" would be laughed at hard enough by enough people to ensure that they'd never go into full production without a ton-and-a-half of double-blind, randomized, controlled trials supporting their claims, and so you wouldn't have been able to be harmed by them simply because they wouldn't be available on the market (you could always make your own, of course). However, the irrationalists have a larger voice in Congress, and so such utter crappola can be legally sold in this country to the massively desperate, with few legal or ethical repercussions if the product fails.
In short, marf, you're one of the victims of nonsense that we rationalists are fighting for. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 23:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Do you think the NCSE comes to town and blocks atheists from speaking as witnesses? |
When will Dawkins be called as a witness at a trial? It makes legal and political sense that he won't be called by the pro-science side.
And since witnesses can't call themselves, that presents a huge burden on the outspoken "hard" atheists at a public hearing where the pro-science side is being represented by the NCSE. And because atheists are seen by the vast majority as untrustworthy, that means even Catholics like Ken Miller (who have maybe 25% of the population agreeing with their theology) are much more politically expedient to get on the witness stand in absence of a Protestant making much the same scientific argument.
But beyond that, it makes sense that Dawkins' religious ideas aren't promoted by the NCSE at all. But it would also make sense if Miller's weren't, either. That's the sort of parity the NCSE really needs to follow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 09:41:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Do you think the NCSE comes to town and blocks atheists from speaking as witnesses? |
When will Dawkins be called as a witness at a trial? It makes legal and political sense that he won't be called by the pro-science side.
And since witnesses can't call themselves, that presents a huge burden on the outspoken "hard" atheists at a public hearing where the pro-science side is being represented by the NCSE. And because atheists are seen by the vast majority as untrustworthy, that means even Catholics like Ken Miller (who have maybe 25% of the population agreeing with their theology) are much more politically expedient to get on the witness stand in absence of a Protestant making much the same scientific argument.
But beyond that, it makes sense that Dawkins' religious ideas aren't promoted by the NCSE at all. But it would also make sense if Miller's weren't, either. That's the sort of parity the NCSE really needs to follow.
|
You know Dave, the NCSE's mission is to have science taught as science in the classroom and to keep pseudo-science out. They wouldn't have to do that if they weren't dealing with people who live with the idea that evolution is a threat to their religions existence and a call for their children to become atheists. Those people have been continually lied to by their churches, by organizations that target them, like the Discovery Institute does and the ICR and CRS has been doing for decades. They are being told that if evolution happens as it is taught, as it should be taught, it will pollute the minds of their children who will subsequently turn away from their faith.
The not so dirty little secret is that they should feel threatened, because a good grasp of the sci-method may just well do that. If nothing else, at least some of their children will turn their backs on their parents literal take on creation as presented in their bibles because they will correctly see that they have been lied to. Others will indeed run from the lies their parents and church have told them and become atheists or agnostics. Best case from our point of view.
To be effective, the NCSE must expose the lies for what they are, to an audience that is attempting to control the agenda. Or, at least to the parents of the kids who voted for those school boards. To that end, they need to drive home the point that there are practicing Christians who accept evolution and reject scientific creationism and DI as pseudo-science. They need to target that vote. And in light of that, the "faith project" makes sense as a strategy. It is also there that the controversy springs from. But then, it's the NCSE that is down in the trenches, and they know who they must convince that teaching good science will not bring their world crashing down upon them. They do need to make a case from a theological perspective that is counter to the claims that the ICR and the DI have made, also from a theological perspective, and done so with some success. How do they do that and remain neutral? So yeah, I will agree that their neutrality has been compromised by the "faith project". Maybe they need to work on being more subtle in their approach? But ultimately, equal time for atheists, while addressing objections to evolution based on scripture, makes no sense. I will say it again. In the larger culture war, as skeptics, that's our department.
As for Miller, he had to be a witness in Dover, because he wrote the text book that the school board objected to and around which the case was hinged. (As a side note, his new book Only A Theory was given a mostly positive review by by PZ Myers, in The Journal Nature. And both the book and a link to as much of Myers review that as is allowed without paying for it is on the NCSE site.) He is also on a list of scientists who support the mission of the NCSE, not as a theist, but as a scientist. One of many who if all were polled are likely a majority of atheists.
On the whole, if you really look at the NCSE site, you will not find that atheists have been locked out of the battle. The controversy hinges around one area of their site. Maybe the criticism of that area is justified. But unlike you and especially Mooner, I do not see where atheists have been thrown overboard for the sake of promoting the NCSE's rather narrow agenda.
If we insist that they remove the case for theists to understand that other theists accept evolution, for the sake of parity, it seems to me that all we will have succeeded in doing is to tie one hand behind their backs, by removing a persuasive argument directed at people who are not going to stop being theists.
And fuck them anyway. It's the kids who need the good science education, because right now, it is there that they will have to confront some real critical thinking by way of the sci-method and come to their own conclusions. Sometimes the end does justify the means.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 10:05:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
When faith is tempered by doubt...
|
Interesting series of words. I wonder if they correlate to anything, indeed if they ever can correlate to anything. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 10:37:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But unlike you and especially Mooner, I do not see where atheists have been thrown overboard for the sake of promoting the NCSE's rather narrow agenda. |
You misunderstand me. I'm in favor of further narrowing of the NCSE agenda, by giving zero time to atheists and theists alike.
(Um, I suppose no time for either side is "equal time," in a way.)
As I said before, I have no problem with the NCSE countering the "evolution leads to atheism" lie by pointing to Ken Miller or the Clergy Letter Project as disproof. I've done it myself, and will probably continue to do so.
I have a big problem with the NCSE promoting Miller's style of epistemological compartmentalization as either rational or scientific, since it is neither. I used to think that Gould's NOMA was a good idea, but the realization that we have an epistemological responsibility utterly destroyed NOMA's charm as it is obviously nothing more than a protective shield for that which doesn't warrant protection. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 11:02:25 [Permalink]
|
I promised to better research this issue, as Kil has stated that I have given no evidence that NCSE has pushed atheist voices into the background as part of its alleged "accommodationism."
I'll take this step by step, starting with NCSE's avowed policy: What is NCSE's religious position?
None. The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We and our members enthusiastically support the right of every individual to hold, practice, and advocate their beliefs, religious or non-religious. Our members range from devout practitioners of several religions to atheists, with many shades of belief in between. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum. |
I fully agree with this policy. The question is, does NCSE itself consistently carry it out?
NCSE promotes on its own pages something they call the "Faith Project." Among the Faith Project's statements: | In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes. |
That statement seems to me a clear advocacy of religious evolutionism. It's fine that some religious people are in favor of this science, but many atheist scientists hold an opposing view that science and religion cannot be reconciled, and are, in fact, contradictory.
Where on NCSE's Web site is a "balancing" presentation of this atheist viewpoint? Nowhere, as far as I can tell.
I see that as an important, obvious and indisputable case of NCSE taking a "religious position." I think that in itself is sufficient to make my point. You and I, Kil, can surely see the same information and interpret it in an opposite manner. But the above suffices in my mind to support my position.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 11:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Draw “battle lines”? Seriously, that's the sort of vocabulary I normally expect to hear from fundamentalists, not secularists. Especially in reference to people who are and have always been our allies in the secularist and humanist movements. I find this to be a very ugly turn (atheists turning against religious humanists) in the culture war. |
It was just a turn of phrase, mostly playing on the fact that we're in a middle of a discussion on the "Culture Wars," a phrase you just used yourself. How ugly and militant of you.  I think you're being more than a little over-sensitive.
| This is just blatently false. “The New Atheists” as they were dubbed by the media in article in Wired and The Nation were being set apart from previous nontheistic movements and communities for their outspoken attitude, NOT for any change in worldview. |
It was the change in worldview that led to them being more outspoken.
| I find little of this sort of approach - http://newatheism.org/ - helpful to the causes of skepticism and promotion of modern, humanist values, and I find much of it antithetical to religious freedom and pluralism, two things that I hold dear. |
I admit that website is a bit over the top in its language, but the tone of one website isn't an impeachment of the views of an entire movement. And religious freedom is a good thing. I don't see why religious pluralism necessarily is.
| The difference between “New Atheists” and the traditional secular movement as far as I can see is one of philosophical arrogance verses reasonable humility and tolerance. There is nothing new about rationalism. There is something new about organized rationalists openly attacking non-rationalists and promoting intolerance of any worldview which is not rationalist. |
Well, if it's “philosophical arrogance” then it's an arrogance the religious have openly displayed for centuries. I think they're wrong, and they think I'm wrong. So we're equally “arrogant,” which you seem to define as “confident in the merits of one's ideas.”
| How is this not an argument against religious freedom and pluralism? |
Because encouraging someone to think critically about their faith and religion does not infringe on their freedom to ignore me.
| The freedom of religion outlined in the Constitution is active tolerance of faith. So unless you want to change the Constitution, I can only assume that you have another ideal (religious freedom and pluralism) which you hold more dearly than the ideal of promoting a pure, rationalist worldview socially. |
Atheism is considered a religion in the eyes of the law, so unless you want to change the Constitution, I have just as much a right to argue for my worldview in the free marketplace of ideas as Christians have to argue that they follow the "one, true religion." Recognizing a person's right to hold to a particular religious belief system does not preclude my right to argue against that system, Marf, or otherwise religious debate of any kind would be outlawed. Does a Christian have a Constitutional right to try to convert all atheists into Christians via free speech? Yes? Then that's gotta work both ways. Or are you suggesting the Constitution mandates that the government step in and |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 13:09:53 [Permalink]
|
marf asked:
| Then how do you explain the billions of people who do not hold a rationalist worldview making rational decisions of all sorts every day? |
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Creating straw-men to argue against? Because it seems like you are.
Crazy fundamentalists don't put their hands on a red-hot stovetop for the same reason that you and I don't do it. Because that shit fucking HURTS! Jesus didn't tell them not to do it.
A person's world view does not necessarily inform their decision making processes, nor has anyone here claimed it does.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
