|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2010 : 19:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But I said "I don't personally know any skeptic who..." |
I hardly know any skeptics personally, so that doesn't count. |
- 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 - 07/21/2010 : 19:45:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
But I said "I don't personally know any skeptic who..." |
I hardly know any skeptics personally, so that doesn't count.
|
Ha! Well it counts for me, because I do. |
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 - 07/21/2010 : 21:48:47 [Permalink]
|
I think the best news about the tone debate is that it is almost completely irrelevant and unnecessary in practice.
Only a few people in the skeptical/freethinking "community" would choose to be utter dicks to rank-and-file believers in religion/woo. And only a few would treat even the worst leaders and deliberate deceivers amongst them with undeserved respect.
Most of "us" (if we bother at all, which we need not do) are going to consider to whom we are communicating, and employ an honest but tailored subset of our perceived truths in persuading or countering them. Honest believers might get some thought-provoking words about inconsistencies in scripture, while the likes of Ken Ham or Ray Comfort get the back of our hands, and get called out as liars.
Almost all approaches have their strengths. Some of us excel at dickishness and target mainly the exploiters, the top predators. Others are more touchy-feely and are effective in getting across to the rank-and-file. It's all good. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 02:11:11 [Permalink]
|
| Only a few people in the skeptical/freethinking "community" would choose to be utter dicks to rank-and-file believers in religion/woo. |
Maybe face to face. But online? |
 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 06:21:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| Only a few people in the skeptical/freethinking "community" would choose to be utter dicks to rank-and-file believers in religion/woo. |
Maybe face to face. But online? |
Good point. Online discussions get especially nasty, probably due to the fact that most people aren't worried about being punched in the face for their comments. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 07:44:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| Only a few people in the skeptical/freethinking "community" would choose to be utter dicks to rank-and-file believers in religion/woo. |
Maybe face to face. But online?
|
Well, speaking for myself, I may be blunt but I'm rarely rude. It happens though. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 11:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| Only a few people in the skeptical/freethinking "community" would choose to be utter dicks to rank-and-file believers in religion/woo. |
Maybe face to face. But online?
|
Well, speaking for myself, I may be blunt but I'm rarely rude. It happens though.
|
I don't presume to know how others think of me. But I hope someone tells me if I get out of line, so I can re-evaluate my stance. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 14:19:55 [Permalink]
|
Jerry Coyne on accommodationism (see original for links):In their attempt to marginalize atheists, accommodationists are homing in on a common strategy, which includes these claims:1. There is more than one way of finding out the truth about the universe. Science is one way, religion another. Ergo Jesus. Example: Marilynne Robinson’s post, “Religion, science and the ultimate nature of reality.”
2. If you think that empirical evidence and reason is the sole arbiter of what’s true, you’re guilty of scientism. This makes scientists just as religious as fundamentalists. Ergo Jesus. Example here.
3. And, by the way, science itself makes mistakes. Scientists are human and some of their claims are unreliable. Also, science continually replaces old ideas with new ones, so scientific “truth” is unstable. Ergo Jesus. Rod Dreher of the Templeton Foundation has recently taken this tack (see here and here).
4. Science and religion contribute fruitfully to each other. Ergo Jesus. See anything written by the Templeton Foundation, Krista Tippett, or John Polkinghorne. This “fruitful interaction hypothesis”—never mind that many of the same people see science and religion as having distinct and nonoverlapping domains—is the basis of HuffPo’s dreadful new “Religion and Science” section.
5. Most important, those New Atheists are just so mean and shrill that they contribute nothing, nay, can contribute nothing, to the “dialogue” between science and faith. Indeed, their relentless negativity and incivility alienates the faithful, making them flee from science back to the arms of Jesus. Thus it’s advisable to simply omit the atheist viewpoint from debates and panels. This appears to be the strategy of organizations like the National Center for Science Education (whose “faith project” consists almost entirely of accommodationist posts and “recommended readings”), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Templeton Foundation, the World Science Festival, and bloggers like Chris Mooney and Josh Rosenau. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 15:01:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Yeah, I get that the accommodationists want to be nice. But the question "are science and religion compatible" isn't a part of this debate. |
I think you're being naive about that.
| And this debate is happening mostly among people who aren't what anyone in their right mind would call an accommodationist. |
Yes, those are people who are late to the party.
| Also, the debate started well before Plait weighed in. Months before. |
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Who exactly do you think started this "debate" anyway?
| For fucks sake, while there might be some similarities, no one is saying "accept woo claims" or "don't be critical of religion." or "science and religion are compatible." Not even Plait is saying that. It's about TONE!!! Not about the subject that's being debated at the time. It's about not calling the people you are debating with "dick-heads" right out of the gate. (I should probably note that I'm not suggesting there are enough people doing that to make this a legitimate debate, even though I have in the recent past. I got sucked in too.) |
Ok, Kil. Explain to me why this debate has become so inflamed recently even though, as you admit, there doesn't actually seem to be enough instances of the behavior being criticized to even merit a debate on the subject. If the "tone" debate didn't arise out of the accommodation debate, then why has it recently risen to such prominence?
| I don't personally know any skeptic who thinks that science and religion are compatible. No one is arguing for NOMA. NOMA is not popular among most skeptics. And no matter how much the skeptics I do know debate this, I really doubt that they will change their minds about that, no matter how much you want them to so that you can call them accommodationists. |
NOMA is still extremely popular among certain skeptics, and is in fact something that many science groups (like the NCSE) continue to endorse. It's still an extremely relevant and topical issue within the skeptical community. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that some of us are invested in how this conflict resolves itself. I don't know why you're getting so fired up if you don't actually have any interest in taking part in this discussion.
| Let me tell you something. The hypersensitivity is coming from all sides now. Am I wrong or are you suggesting that fools like Chris Mooney are now successfully heading a conspiracy to spread accommodationism? |
I'm saying fools like Chris Mooney have successfully spread the meme that the New Atheists hurt the cause of science education and skeptical outreach by being too "militant." And I'm saying Phil Plait has, at the very least, fallen for the bait and unwittingly taken up the accommodationists' cause.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/22/2010 15:06:06 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 21:16:15 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
I think you're being naive about that. |
And I think you are displaying the same hypersensitivity to the "tone" issue that I have been talking about.
Humbert:
Yes, those are people who are late to the party. |
Of course. The accommodationist bug just bit them.
Humbert:
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Who exactly do you think started this "debate" anyway? |
I agree that the "tone" issue started over in the accommodationist debates. I have never said otherwise.
| Ok, Kil. Explain to me why this debate has become so inflamed recently even though, as you admit, there doesn't actually seem to be enough instances of the behavior being criticized to even merit a debate on the subject. If the "tone" debate didn't arise out of the accommodation debate, then why has it recently risen to such prominence? |
I didn’t say that the “tone” debate didn’t arise out of the accommodation debate. What I am saying is that "tone" is the only part of the debate that is at issue in the current debate. No one that I know of is saying that religion and science are compatible who weren’t already saying it.
Humbert:
NOMA is still extremely popular among certain skeptics, and is in fact something that many science groups (like the NCSE) continue to endorse. It's still an extremely relevant and topical issue within the skeptical community. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that some of us are invested in how this conflict resolves itself. I don't know why you're getting so fired up if you don't actually have any interest in taking part in this discussion. |
Ha! Firstly, I know who the players are in the accommodation debate. And another thing I haven’t said is that that debate isn’t relevant to skeptics. I’m weary of it, but as I said in a previous post, the beat goes on.
What I am interested in now is why there seems to be such hypersensitivity to tone when tone hasn’t been all that much of an issue with regard to matters outside of the accommodationist debate. It's become so much of an issue that even I was sucked into it. (I do have a soft spot for civility.) And you have been sucked into it too. You’re just on the other side of it. To you, anyone who worries about tone is an accommodationist or on the way to becoming one. From my perspective, you are the other side of the same hypersensitive coin. While they are busy seeing dickheads everywhere, you’re busy seeing accommodationist’s everywhere.
But here’s the thing, again. Accomodationism is allowing for religion and science to be thought of as compatible. That is not what the current tone debate is about, no matter how much you want it to be. See, what you have done, what you are doing is taking one component of another debate and extrapolating the whole debate on to those who are only arguing that one component. You are fully engaged in logical fallacy. Group one believes A B and C. Group two thinks group one may have some valid points about A. Therefore group two believes B and C also. Or soon will. That is your argument, right?
Now lets bring this closer to home, shall we? A couple of years ago I started a thread about civility on this forum. It really was getting nasty around here and we were losing members and yada yada. You, Humbert agreed with me and said that you were probably one of the people I was addressing, and that you would make an effort to be more civil. (Of course, I’m paraphrasing.) Did either of us suddenly become accommodationists? Did we change our arguments about woo or religion? Or did we just become a bit more civil while debating with those who brought woo or creationism or whatever the un-evidenced claim was that we were debating? I wasn’t asking for us to make concessions. There was no compromise where critical thinking was concerned. Civility (tone) does not equal compromise. It’s just a matter of style.
Now, I get your frustration. Many on the accommodationist side of things have been insufferably wrongheaded and hypocritical, and yes, they have used the “tone” issue as a convenience when that complaint held little merit, because they were demanding that only diplomats could make a difference. But more importantly, they used the “tone” issue to slip in another agenda. All of that is true. I get that you are leery now when tone becomes an issue, because you have seen it used as a red herring. But it just doesn’t follow that whenever “tone” or “civility” (same thing) comes up, another agenda must indeed be on the way.
Humbert:
I'm saying fools like Chris Mooney have successfully spread the meme that the New Atheists hurt the cause of science education and skeptical outreach by being too "militant." And I'm saying Phil Plait has, at the very least, fallen for the bait and unwittingly taken up the accommodationists' cause. |
Look. Plait has always been the diplomat. We used to have a thread called the BA Bitch Board here on SFN because Plait did not allow incivility on his forum. So some of his members came here to do their bitching. Sometimes even Plait showed up. I don’t think he’s changed much. Even when he weighed in on that Pope business Phil wasn’t saying “religion is, on this day forward, compatible with science.” I happen to think he was wrong in doing what he did. But there you go.
I have told you what I think. We can go around and around on this if you want to. That’s up to you. In my view, what you are suggesting is just the other side of the same coin. And it’s become a very interesting coin to me.
But I’ll tell you what. When Plait and the other skeptics that I have mentioned start saying that religion and science are compatible, or that woo and skepticism are compatible, when those skeptics ask me to sing Kumbaya with them, I’ll concede your point. How’s that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 22:37:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What I am interested in now is why there seems to be such hypersensitivity to tone when tone hasn’t been all that much of an issue with regard to matters outside of the accommodationist debate. |
That's an easy one.
For accommodationists, "you've got a nasty tone" is a not-so-subtle rephrasing of "shut the hell up, you're not wanted in this discussion."
Many of the targets of the accommodationists also happen to be top-notch, public and vocal skeptics, and to be told to shut up is diametrically opposed to free inquiry.
To be told to shut up by people who supposedly share your passion for free inquiry is simply an astounding betrayal of the principles of skepticism.
In other words, the accommodationists are prioritizing what they think is political expediency above the foundations of critical thought. A political expediency which has already been shown to be intellectually dishonest and condescending (to those who allegedly should be accommodated). Yet the accommodationists keep on doing it, anyway, demonstrating themselves to not only be wrong and morally bankrupt, but also to be dogmatic.
Their targets (the "New Atheists") are indeed hypersensitive to this, since it's basically a horrific back-stabbing, and they write about it. Other people who self-identify with their stand on skeptical principles (be they "New Atheists" or not) also become sensitive (and sometimes hypersensitive) to the same issues. The bleed-over from religious debates to skepticism in general is thus complete.
Especially when one considers that the practical difference between faith and other forms of woo is minimal. They all boil down to unevidenced claims, logical fallacies, unfalsifiable nonsense and/or postmodernist apologetics. Some people have beliefs about UFOs that are just as "deeply" and "sincerely" held as other people's beliefs about Jesus. Accommodate one, and there's no good reason not to accommodate the others. |
- 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 - 07/22/2010 : 23:42:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
In other words, the accommodationists are prioritizing what they think is political expediency above the foundations of critical thought. |
Right. I get that.
I also know that the people I have mentioned are not asking for critical thinking to be thrown under the bus for the sake of political expediency, whether or not their assumptions are correct. They are not the same brand of "tone nazi" as the accommodationists are. But yeah. If you have been told to shut the fuck up over there, I can see how it might feel the same way over here. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 16:39:41 [Permalink]
|
The "tone" critics suffer from a major problem, one that (as skeptics) they should fix before they make further arguments. Their position is one of zero evidence. It is an entirely unevidenced claim that any "tone" (rude or nice or whatever) has any impact on any argument intended to change a person's thinking. Especially when the "tone" is not directed at your target audience but rather towards specific ideas and the people who peddle them.
Also, I've made this point in these forums before, it is inherently uncivil to challenge the assertions of other people. It generates conflict regardless of "tone". You tell another person they are wrong and almost everyone will attempt to defend their position to some degree.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 02:34:32 [Permalink]
|
If these are examples of/from accomodationists, then those accomotationists looks more like religionist infiltrators on a mission to destroy the skeptical movement.
If people carrying those claims really are skeptics, what the f* have thy been smoking? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 07:24:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If these are examples of/from accomodationists, then those accomotationists looks more like religionist infiltrators on a mission to destroy the skeptical movement. |
Actually, because this thread is mostly about the rift among atheists and/or skeptics, I neglected the biggest class of people who get called "accommodationists," and that is the people who say, "my faith needs to be accommodated by science." Anything from anyone at the Templeton Foundation or BioLogos falls into this category, because while the Foundation states that its goal is to explore the boundaries between religion and science, it's really an evangelical organization whose primary interest is increasing the reach of Christianity into science.| If people carrying those claims really are skeptics, what the f* have thy been smoking? |
Really, only #5 was relevant to this thread. #1 through #4 are only claimed by theists or post-modernist woo-masters. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘tone’ debate
