Modulous writes:
To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.
Is this about how we should treat theistic evolutionists, or how we should treat the believing public?
Ed Brayton is right, there are at least two different battles being fought. Moran is engaged in the athiest vs theist debate - is there a supernatural intelligence at all.
Your Larry Moran quote is about how theistic evos treat the public and how it is damaging to the bigger argument.
Tyson is interested in the big debate, but thinks the methods of the proponents are sometimes counter productive.
It's a debate about the debate.
Can you correct any mistakes in this interpretation please?
Modulous writes:
How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way?
It all depends what argument you are involved in. There isn't one correct way to approach the problem pragmatically.
Richard Dawkins writes:
Why bother to express truths, if they are truths , why bother to make up a parable, to make a tenuous allegory when you can just tell people the truth. The truth is perfectly simple. Why bother going back to the bible and seeking out some sort of analogy. Why not just natural selection, teach evolution, the way it is. It's perfectly simple.
There are other people who feel that we should be conciliatory, I think that Michael Shermer called it making nice. I think that there is something to be said for that and I am genuinely uncertain what I feel about that because I can see the political benefits of winning that battle (evo vs creo in schools), and I do see it as a battle rather than a war, I do see it as a skirmish. I'm actually more interested in the deep truths in the universe. Is there actually a supernatural intelligence in the universe, and thats the war that I'm really interested in.
Cooperation with theistic evolutionists is political and limited to the issue of evolution/creation. RD thinks the theists are not helping because truth should be enough. He will compromise for the evo/creo debate, but that is not what he is primarily engaged in, apparently.
Tyson writes:
85% of the national academy reject a personal god, and then they compare it to 90% of the public [accepting a personal god]. You know that's NOT the story, they missed the story. What the article should have said is 'How come this number isn't zero?'. Thats the story. My esteemed colleague Professor Krauss says all we have to do is make a scientifically literate public. When you do, how can they do better than the scientists themselves, thats kind of unrealistic i think. So theres something else going on that nobody seems to talk about. As you become more scientific the religiousity drops off, but it asymptotes not to zero. So they should be the subject of everybodies investigation, not the public. It's not 85% reject, its 15% of the most brilliant minds that the nation has, accept, and thats something that we can't just sweep under the rug, otherwise we are being disingenous to our efforts here.
Tyson in interested in the same argument, but with real people. I think that is the extent of the difference with regard to that debate. Giving breaks to theists is limited to particular areas.
Scott Atran writes:
Liberty and freedom are reccurently won and lost in alternating cycles of war and violence and there is no evidence whatsoever that that is changing one iota. I don't see scientists, although there maybe in a ideal world the possiblity of a scientific moral ethics, I certainly don't see in this audience the slightest indication that people here are emotionally or intellectually equipped to deal with the facts of changing human knowledge in the context of unchaning human needs that haven't changed much since the pleistocene and i don't see theres any evidence that science is being used to try to understand the people you are trying to convince to join you.
Atran is dealing with serious real world problems caused by fundamentalism, not just one on one debate or argument for it's own sake. Completely different question, and he certainly favours using whatever language and methods help to reduce the damage caused by fundamentalism. He is engaged in a different debate to RD.
Modulous writes:
Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs?
In principle yes, but not if it means you are going to get shot. I think this is a serious point, and it has to affect the method you use. Science lacks the techniques to deal with these situations because it has no experience of it.
Modulous writes:
Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists?
It depends on the situation. Politically the theistic evolutionists can be used for the skirmishes when their aim coincides, but that doesn't mean their theism need be protected outside the public area of that particular aim.
Modulous writes:
Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?
Yes yes yes. In the way Tyson did in his final Salk lecture. It was awesome, inspiring, and uplifting, but it's not going to work everywhere. Maybe when we know why 20% of people don't respond to transcranial magnetic stimulation we'll have a better method.
I think it is possible to pick your aim and compromise the nature of your attack without compromising your position.
Modulous writes:
Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?
They are either having different arguements, or arguing towards different target audiences.
--
Apologies for dictation errors, all my quotes are from the SALK lectures. I'm aware my point isn't very well made, I want to spend more time on this but I have to go out. I hope it makes some sense. Spelling corrections later...