Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the best strategy for defending evolution?
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 131 (290237)
02-24-2006 10:23 PM


What role should atheists play?
There's recently been a minor controversy in the blogosphere regarding the best way to defend evolution and increase its acceptance among the American public. It starts with a remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett, in which they discuss, among other things, the damage that vocal atheists such as Dennett and Richard Dawkins have done for the cause of evolution. A good quote:
Michael Ruse writes:
I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design - we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms - what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues - neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas - it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims - more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.
The claim is that by lambasting all of religion rather than just anti-evolutionism, as Dawkins, Dennett, and many here at EvC forum do, evolution defenders simply strengthen the false belief that evolution=atheism, thus making their message thoroughly unpalatable to people of faith, including pretty much all creationists.
Two evolution defenders within the blogosphere, PZ Myers and Jason Rosenhouse, disagree. Jason writes:
Jason Rosenhouse writes:
Now, I happen to share Dennett's and Dawkins' contemptuos attitude towards Christianity, but that's not the part I want to comment on. Rather, I want to challenge this idea that the atheism of Dawkins and Dennett hurts the cause of promoting quality science education.
This assertion is frequently made but it is never backed up with anything. Is it really true that the strident atheism of people like Dennett and Dawkins negatively influences the way people look at evolution? If that's true, it certainly paints a bleak picture of many religious people. If I argued that I would be symapthetic to evolution, except that I see people like Ken Miller, John Haught and Simon Conway Morris drawing theistic conclusions from it, I don't think Ruse would show me much respect. After all, evolution should sink or swim on the basis of the relevant evidence. If that evidence is strong, it should not matter what Dawkins or Dennett (or Haught or Miller or Conway Morris) thinks.
Arguing that strident atheism hurts the cause is remarkably condescending towards religious people. It's saying that they are too emotional to understand and think seriously about the evidence. It's saying that those people can't be expected to provide an honest assessment of the evidence because mean old Richard Dawkins made a snide remark about their religious views.
And PZ Myers agrees:
PZ Myers writes:
Bravo. Ruse is echoing a common tendency, the habit of trying to hide away the atheists on the side of evolution”it's also represented by that common adjective, "strident". You can't be a plain-spoken advocate for common sense and the avoidance of absurd superstitions, no matter how hallowed by time and tradition, without getting called "strident", "dogmatic", and "fundamentalist" over and over again, as well as being told, in more or less these words, to sit down and shut up and quit scaring away the rubes . while every scientist who makes room in his head for a little credulity towards ancient myths is treated as a special gift to the cause of reason. It's extraordinarily irritating. Can we get a little consistency, please?
We need more atheists speaking out”that's how we're going to get people used to the fact that we exist. The fact that we are content to work with the religious, while many of the religious will not reciprocate that tolerance and even some of our fellow scientists want to hide us away, is a good example of who is holding the moral high ground here, and Ruse's condemnation is yet another reason why I don't hold much respect for the guy.
But another pro-evolution blogger and writer, Chris Mooney, disagrees with the pro-atheist strategy, saying that people base their opinions on far more than just a dispassionate view of the evidence. He says:
Chris Mooney writes:
First, let's tackle the assertion that there's no evidence that attacking religion hurts the pro-evolution cause. Hmm...let's just say that Rosenhouse is perhaps not thinking creatively enough. Maybe such evidence does exist, but there are good reasons for keeping it out of the public arena, no? Or, maybe such evidence doesn't exist but that's because it isn't needed--i.e., it's obvious that attacking religion is divisive and not helpful to the cause of promoting the teaching of evolution.
More interesting is the second argument here: Those who claim that attacks on religion undermine science education are demeaning the intelligence of religious folk, says Rosenhouse, by suggesting they can't look dispassionately at scientific evidence when their faith is under fire. Not exactly: If anything, we're demeaning the intelligence of everyone, whether religious or otherwise. What we're saying is that people rarely make up their minds solely on the basis of evidence; all sorts of subtle cues, prejudices, and societal factors condition their responses to political issues (an assertion, by the way, which is backed by loads of evidence).
In this situation, one of the strongest societal cues we have to deal with--a cue coming out of countless churches--is the contention that evolution kills God, therefore evolution can't be right. I don't care if it's rational or not, it's strongly believed. If people are told they must choose between evolution and their faith, guess which one is going to get pitched in the garbage?
That's the real hurdle here, and that's precisely what Dawkins and Dennett don't help us to overcome.
My question to you guys is, of course, what do you think? When people defend evolution by vociferously attacking christianity or religion, do they hurt rather than help the promotion of good science education?
For additional context, see what PZ Myers and Chris Mooney have already written last month on the topic.
This message has been edited by Aximili23, 02-25-2006 12:53 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 02-25-2006 12:05 AM Aximili23 has replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-25-2006 12:48 AM Aximili23 has replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2006 11:29 AM Aximili23 has replied
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 02-25-2006 12:35 PM Aximili23 has not replied
 Message 17 by sidelined, posted 02-25-2006 12:57 PM Aximili23 has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 131 (290239)
02-24-2006 10:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 3 of 131 (290249)
02-25-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-24-2006 10:23 PM


Like all the adminstrators say, attack the position not the debater, if the person comes from a position of religion you have to sometimes attack relgious ideas, but its preceved sometimes that the person is being attacked when they are not.
As for the whole evolution=atheism, it is purely untrue and subscribing to the idea that it is, would just make more and more people turn from science, thus making it harder for science to move forward. evolution isn't atheism, since it isn't religous in nature, how would we detect god? without that question answered theres no way to talk about it
attacking religion is bad if you do it for no reason, if you have to criticize religious belief it should have a context, such as people using the bible to prove their religious views
It doesn't help that people equate atheism with evil or ungodliness

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-24-2006 10:23 PM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 4:01 AM ReverendDG has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 131 (290252)
02-25-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-24-2006 10:23 PM


Re: What role should atheists play?
I prefer to not attack religious beliefs of others. However, I really doubt that it makes much difference one way or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-24-2006 10:23 PM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 4:02 AM nwr has replied

Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 131 (290256)
02-25-2006 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ReverendDG
02-25-2006 12:05 AM


Like all the adminstrators say, attack the position not the debater, if the person comes from a position of religion you have to sometimes attack relgious ideas, but its preceved sometimes that the person is being attacked when they are not.
I'm not sure that this is relevant. Atheist evolution defenders usually do attack the position, and yes in many cases religious ideas. But what I'm asking is whether or not these attacks on religious ideas, and particularly the idea of theism, is damaging to the cause of science education and acceptance.
As for the whole evolution=atheism, it is purely untrue and subscribing to the idea that it is, would just make more and more people turn from science, thus making it harder for science to move forward. evolution isn't atheism, since it isn't religous in nature, how would we detect god?
No serious evolutionist is saying that evolution=atheism, this is an argument you usually hear from creationists. But this argument is perceived when famous evolution defenders such as Dawkins are also vocal atheists. It strengthens the impression that evolution is a necessarily atheistic belief, rather than a well-supported scientific theory.
In a way, my question can be rephrased as, should people like Dawkins censor themselves, or their atheistic arguments, so that evolution can be more widely accepted by the public?
if you have to criticize religious belief it should have a context, such as people using the bible to prove their religious views
People can criticize religious belief simply in the context of the broader culture wars. Some people perceive religion, or particularly fundamentalism, as an imposition of morals by one group on another, and on this basis alone I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize certain religious views. With evolution as one of the many issues within the greater culture wars, and with atheists and church-state-separationists usually on the same side as evolutionists, the association between evolutionism and atheism can be created. Do you agree with this or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ReverendDG, posted 02-25-2006 12:05 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ReverendDG, posted 02-25-2006 4:26 AM Aximili23 has replied

Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 131 (290257)
02-25-2006 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
02-25-2006 12:48 AM


Re: What role should atheists play?
So you don't think that attacking religion is damaging to the popularization of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-25-2006 12:48 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 02-25-2006 9:42 AM Aximili23 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 7 of 131 (290259)
02-25-2006 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Aximili23
02-25-2006 4:01 AM


I'm not sure that this is relevant. Atheist evolution defenders usually do attack the position, and yes in many cases religious ideas. But what I'm asking is whether or not these attacks on religious ideas, and particularly the idea of theism, is damaging to the cause of science education and acceptance.
only if the scientist feels the need to use the science wrong, ie: to say there is no god, then yes it would damage theists views of science. mostly for the fundi's who have a loud voice, if their message says science is anti-god from inference that no one talks about god that would damage it
No serious evolutionist is saying that evolution=atheism, this is an argument you usually hear from creationists. But this argument is perceived when famous evolution defenders such as Dawkins are also vocal atheists. It strengthens the impression that evolution is a necessarily atheistic belief, rather than a well-supported scientific theory.
people as liable to believe that if you do not talk about god you don't believe in it i guess
In a way, my question can be rephrased as, should people like Dawkins censor themselves, or their atheistic arguments, so that evolution can be more widely accepted by the public?
if his views boil down to saying there is no god and science shows it, then yes he should, since he is giving a false perception of scientists and science
People can criticize religious belief simply in the context of the broader culture wars. Some people perceive religion, or particularly fundamentalism, as an imposition of morals by one group on another, and on this basis alone I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize certain religious views. With evolution as one of the many issues within the greater culture wars, and with atheists and church-state-separationists usually on the same side as evolutionists, the association between evolutionism and atheism can be created. Do you agree with this or not?
i would agree with this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 4:01 AM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 5:01 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 131 (290263)
02-25-2006 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ReverendDG
02-25-2006 4:26 AM


to say there is no god, then yes it would damage theists views of science.
I'm glad you do.
if his views boil down to saying there is no god and science shows it, then yes he should, since he is giving a false perception of scientists and science
In my opening post I linked to something written by PZ Myers, one of the most famous science bloggers in the blogosphere. He argues that while yes, science is by definition neutral with respect to theism, the kind of critical thinking fostered by science is antithetical to religion:
quote:
I really think we (not me, of course, but the general "we" of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It's not. The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity. While individuals may be happy to sheathe that knife during the church service, filling the pews with ranks of critical individuals while preaching absurdities is a risky business. Why do you think I can't go to church? It's because I'm sitting there with a demanding and hair-trigger critical faculty, thinking "baloney!" at almost every platitude from the preacher, struggling against the urge to stand up and shout "Show me the evidence!" at the pulpit. Even if I keep that urge in control, it's not a comfortable time. The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA "insane") sects.
(Take the time to click the link and read the whole post, I think it's quite good).
My point in mentioning this is that it may not be too inaccurate to create a link between science and atheism. Atheism and agnosticism are after all highly overrepresented among scientists, as compared to the rest of the population (I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that upward of 60% of scientists are atheists).
Myers would likely argue (I think he has) that by portraying evolution as religion friendly, the core principles of critical thinking and following the evidence are diluted, or even betrayed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ReverendDG, posted 02-25-2006 4:26 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 02-25-2006 10:02 AM Aximili23 has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 02-25-2006 12:25 PM Aximili23 has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 131 (290284)
02-25-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Aximili23
02-25-2006 4:02 AM


Re: What role should atheists play?
So you don't think that attacking religion is damaging to the popularization of evolution?
The preachers will manage to associate evolution with atheism, even without attacks against their religion.
Sure, the strident style of Dawkins and Dennett doesn't help. But their same strident style is there, even when they are not attacking religious beliefs.
It is my impression that YECs at least give some respect to atheists for their open atheism. They don't have much respect for "liberal theologians."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 4:02 AM Aximili23 has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 10 of 131 (290286)
02-25-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Aximili23
02-25-2006 5:01 AM


He argues that while yes, science is by definition neutral with respect to theism, the kind of critical thinking fostered by science is antithetical to religion:
It is to some extent. However, many scientists manage to remain Christians.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that upward of 60% of scientists are atheists
That sounds a bit high, compared to what I had heard.
The proportion of biologists who are atheists is significantly higher than the proportion of scientists who are atheists. Perhaps that 60% figure is the one for biologists.
Myers says (of Dennett):
While I disagree vigorously with many of his ideas about evolution, ...
I think that is more of a problem with Dennett than his comments about religion. The non-scientific public already has confused ideas about evolution, and IMO Dennett doesn't help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 5:01 AM Aximili23 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 131 (290290)
02-25-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-24-2006 10:23 PM


Re: What role should atheists play?
I don't think it's necessary to trick people into accepting evolution; if one believes that evolution is not consistent with religious faith then they should be free to say so. They should make every effort to make it understood that that position is a seperate question from "is evolution accurate?" but no matter how often a person does that, their opponents will surely conflate their arguments to equate evolution with atheism.
Evolution is inconsistent with fundamentalism, and fundamentalists don't really seem to draw much of a distinction between moderate believers and atheists. These comments are a misguided attempt by religious moderates to placate fundamentalists who can never be placated. And predictably it's happening at the expense of atheists, whose views must once again be silenced.
The battle isn't one of tricking people of faith into accepting evolution. The battle is one of teaching people to think rationally, scientifically, about the world they live in. Of what possible use is it to believe in evolution just because somebody told you that you were allowed to? We're trying to get people to think about the world in a rational way, not present evolution in a light that seems acceptable to a superstitous mode of thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-24-2006 10:23 PM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 1:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Gary
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 131 (290295)
02-25-2006 11:44 AM


It is hard to fight religious thought because religion is more accessible to people than science. People can go to church or read the Bible, but where can they go to learn about science of any type? They can go to the library, but they won't know where to start. Turn on a TV, and there are at least a couple of purely Christian channels. If there were more science channels, people would be more interested in science and they would learn more about it, instead of simply dismissing it whenever it goes against their religious beliefs.
There are TV channels about science, but they are pretty low quality, and are heavily influenced by pseudoscience. How many times do we need to see documentaries about blurry UFO pictures and people searching for chupacabras, only to find nothing? There have been some absolutely fascinating discoveries in evolution and developmental biology lately, why not make documentaries about stuff like that? I'm sure there is a market for this stuff, its just that people don't know they can become interested in it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 03-02-2006 9:05 AM Gary has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 131 (290305)
02-25-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Aximili23
02-25-2006 5:01 AM


Is science antithetical to religion?
In my opening post I linked to something written by PZ Myers, one of the most famous science bloggers in the blogosphere. He argues that while yes, science is by definition neutral with respect to theism, the kind of critical thinking fostered by science is antithetical to religion:
While that might be his position, it is certainly not fact. Many, if not most religious leaders see no conflict between religion and science. The two endeavors are actually complimentary in many ways.
If you look at the history of court challenges related to teaching ID or Creationism, you will find religious organizations at the forefront of the battle in support of teaching the TOE. Most if not all major Christian Churches have come out in support of the TOE and in opposition to teaching Biblical Creationism or ID.
IMHO the best strategy is to keep pointing out that religious people, particularly Christians do accept Evolution. We need to make it crystal clear that there really is no controversy.
GOD gave us a brain to use, not to check at the door.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 5:01 AM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2006 1:24 PM jar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 131 (290311)
02-25-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-24-2006 10:23 PM


Re: What role should atheists play?
the false belief that evolution=atheism,
I don't think this is a false belief. It seems inevitable to me that evolution logically includes atheism.
ABE: so if you want evolution to be accepted generally, you better not mention this. Just call it a explanation of "population change"--make it sound innocuous.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-25-2006 11:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-24-2006 10:23 PM Aximili23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 02-25-2006 12:54 PM robinrohan has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 131 (290318)
02-25-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by robinrohan
02-25-2006 12:35 PM


Re: What role should atheists play?
It seems inevitable to me that evolution logically includes atheism.
Only if one stipulates that one's religious beliefs be logical. I don't see any indication that this has to be the case. Maybe it is for you, though. Are you an atheist, too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 02-25-2006 12:35 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 02-25-2006 12:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024