| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| lcraig wrote: | | If you are a professional or amateur science educator, your feelings about religion have nothing to do with what you're doing. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | And accepting science does not necessitate ditching religious faith. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | Only Biblical literalists have the either-or scenario to deal with. |
OK by me.
| Quote: | | If you believe stating your opinion is more important than communicating effectively with people you might otherwise educate, then I must admit I don't follow your thinking. |
I'm afraid I'm not following you here Liz. My opinion is just that - my opinion. I generally keep it to myself because, let's face it, it ain't a popular opinion.
But if the theist insists on talking about religion...what should I do? Bow out? Say, "Sorry, I've been encouraged not to talk about my religious beliefs to you, but by all means, please tell me all about yours."?
If the theists would keep "religion" at home and/or in church...we simply wouldn't have a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lcraig wrote: | | If you believe stating your opinion is more important than communicating effectively with people you might otherwise educate, then I must admit I don't follow your thinking. |
How do you envision this discussion taking place?
How does religion get brought up in the first place? I guarantee you, it ain't by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcraig
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I imagine this discussion taking place ala Jack's "Evolution 101" series at SMUUCH a few months ago, or Genie Scott's at JCCC or at KU recently.
The "Evolution 101" series is available on the KCFS website, I believe. A post about Genie's talk at KU was posted to a list you are on.
Education about evolution does not necessarily involve an attack on religion. Why do you think it does?
In a public presentation, I have never seen Jack or Genie (two of the most effective communicators on these matters I can think of) take a tangent and take shots at religion.
Again, rmadison, I am talking about being an effective science educator, not being a person who stands up for his or her right to have an opinion and express it.
At a family gathering this Thanksgiving, you may decide to blat out your opinions about religion, but it would not be good matters to do so, and it actually would be counter-productive, if you expect to (a) be social with your relatives in the future; or (b) try to educate them about science.
I am talking about pragmatism, not censorship. Get it? YOUR personal beliefs, or mine, have nothing at all to do with educating others about the nature and value of science. If they have problems with it, it's THEIR problem. They may ask questions about the lack of consistency between Genesis and evolutionary science. But as a science educator, I would not make it a point to emphasize that.
Bridge-building is about finding commonalities, not emphasizing differences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csadams
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EricB wrote: | | Here’s a serious question for pondering: What is an atheist supposed to do to help out the Christians of this nation? |
Help us all to make sure that we *all* retain the right to worship - or not - as we choose.
_________________
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke
Stand Up For REAL Science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lcraig wrote: | | Education about evolution does not necessarily involve an attack on religion. Why do you think it does? |
I don't. Why do you think I do? (Serious question. I've tried to make it very clear that I do not believe that religion & science are mutually exclusive.)
| Quote: | | Again, rmadison, I am talking about being an effective science educator, not being a person who stands up for his or her right to have an opinion and express it. |
Ah, OK. We're talking about different things then.
| Quote: | | At a family gathering this Thanksgiving, you may decide to blat out your opinions about religion, but it would not be good manners to do so, and it actually would be counter-productive, if you expect to (a) be social with your relatives in the future; or (b) try to educate them about science. |
"Tact", believe it or not, is my middle name.  Remember, I *am* the atheist that held a book study with my Christian in-laws using "Finding Darwin's God" to deepen their appreciation for God.
| Quote: | | I am talking about pragmatism, not censorship. Get it? YOUR personal beliefs, or mine, have nothing at all to do with educating others about the nature and value of science. If they have problems with it, it's THEIR problem. They may ask questions about the lack of consistency between Genesis and evolutionary science. But as a science educator, I would not make it a point to emphasize that. |
Again, we've been talking about different things. I understand what you're saying now, and I agree with you.
| Quote: | | Bridge-building is about finding commonalities, not emphasizing differences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcraig
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rmadison,
I know that you made a very good effort at educating your relatives about science. I admired the tack you took. That is why I was so surprised at what I thought you were saying about "saying what you think" in the context of science education.
Guess we do agree, after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josh Rosenau
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 437
Location: Oakland, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rmadison wrote: | | Josh Rosenau wrote: | | rmadison wrote: | | I think what Dawkins is saying, and PZ would probably agree, is that there isn't anything wrong with "religion" (whatever is meant by "religion"), per se, |
Except perhaps in the chapter of The God Delusion entitled "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?" |
Hold on Josh...you didn't include the rest of what I said.
| Quote: | | I think what Dawkins is saying, and PZ would probably agree, is that there isn't anything wrong with "religion" (whatever is meant by "religion"), per se, it's just that of the religions that they - that I - have been presented with, not one of them makes a bit of sense, and there are very good reasons for considering every single one of them ridiculous. |
What I meant by that was, (1) I'm not sure what people mean by "religion". Is it the practice, the core beliefs, the texts, etc? (2) And since I'm not really certain what people mean when they say "religion", I'm not certain that all religion is bad. For example, I have a "religious" love of science. [shrugs] (3) Therefore, it's entirely possible that there might be some good religions out there. Maybe Dawkins could find one he likes? And (4) he seems willing to accept the idea that there might be a God out there, but at the same time, he is pretty darned sure that none of the current religions do a good job of describing him/her/it.
I haven't read "The God Delusion", and don't have any intentions to. But I'll betcha by "religion" he means "organized religion". Most likely, Christianity and Islam. I doubt he means "anything that could be considered religious".
Anyway, that's my guess. |
No, he states pretty clearly that his target is any form of supernatural belief, and that he sees the real war as the fight against such belief. That is why he describes people like me or Ed or Liz as "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists." We're appeasing the enemy: believers. Sam Harris argues along the same line – that religious belief is bad a priori.
I feel like the arguments they make to justify those claims boil down to what you wrote above, that they know of no form of religious belief which they find adequate or acceptable, but they specifically state that their goal is not just to tear down particular religions.
I can't find the precise quotation just now, but PZ Myers has made similar comments about the problems of religious belief per se, and the foolishness of providing any cover at all for people who agree with you and me and him on everything about science and politics, but don't agree about religion.
I personally just don't see the point. I lean toward apathist agnosticism: don't know and don't care. Indeed, I'm not clear on why other people do care.
_________________
What's new at Thoughts from Kansas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricB
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csadams wrote: | | EricB wrote: | | Here’s a serious question for pondering: What is an atheist supposed to do to help out the Christians of this nation? |
Help us all to make sure that we *all* retain the right to worship - or not - as we choose. |
Well, I certainly believe that most atheists, at least humanists, do support our right to worship as we choose. However, I didn’t realize that this was in any jeopardy at this time. On the contrary, the legislature has recently been trying to make an amendment to enshrine the “under god” in our PoA, and have taken possession of a plot of land underneath a giant Christian cross that has been declared unconstitutional by several district justices over several years now, and have passed a law making it financially difficult (next to impossible) to sue violators of the religious establishment clause. Seems to me they are (unconstitutionally) establishing a religion rather than taking away any rights to worship as one chooses.
My question was an attempt to demonstrate that the Christians of this nation have all the rights any religious organization could ask for, and even more, with all the privileges that they now enjoy. So, there isn’t much an atheist can do to help Christians with their rights. They enjoy a majority rule at this time in history. It is the atheists that are marginalized.
But, like your answer infers, atheists have to ensure that if we actually get some positive recognition, then we have to promise not to take away any rights from the religious. What atheists have even suggested such a thing? Giving rights to all people does not take away any rights from anyone. This is a Bill O’Reilly idea. “I’m okay with the atheists. Just don’t take away my rights!”
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricB
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Brayton wrote: | | I am firmly a member of the first group, as are the vast majority of those I work with on this issue. Genie Scott, Rob Pennock, Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke, Jack Krebs and nearly everyone I consider colleagues in this regard recognize that the dispute is over evolution and creationism, not over theism and atheism. But some, like Larry Moran, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Gary Hurd and others, are involved in an entirely different battle. For them, it's not enough to protect science education from the attacks of some religious people; religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary. |
I think Ed is quite a bit over the top here. Yes, I agree that there are two camps in the science education battle. One are only concerned with the religious attacks on science education. The other is concerned with religious encroachment into every aspect of society, including science education. Obviously, the former camp will not be so concerned with the larger picture, since they are focused on a single issue. And the latter camp will be mostly made up of atheists.
It is quite an exaggeration, however, to say that the second camp wants "religion itself … to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary." Where is this coming from?!? Destroyed by any means necessary?!? I think Ed is way too far off base at this point.
As a member of the second camp, I certainly don’t have any feelings like that. I would like people to think more critically about their beliefs, and actually, I think most people are doing just that. I think the vast majority of religious believers are reasonable and critical in their thinking. They are not the dogmatic, literal, inerrant fundamentalists that are causing a lot of the problems we are dealing with today. So, in no way do I want to attack and destroy all religion by any means necessary. I think Ed has to show some evidence that PZ, Dawkins, or any other prominent, outspoken atheist today does support such a notion.
And, certainly, atheists are engaged in a battle between theism and atheism. As an atheist, of course I will be disagreeing with most theistic ideas. Am I not supposed to argue my side? How can I argue against religion without being cast as a militant, dogmatic, destroyer of all religion? It’s a thin line that the atheist must tred on. It’s too bad that the easy path is remain quiet. Especially when the atheist makes a lot of sense most of the time.
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcraig
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
EricB wrote:
| Quote: |
And, certainly, atheists are engaged in a battle between theism and atheism.
|
Why? No one will ever win that one. A discussion of science does not have to include a discussion of atheism or theism. Science is not about faith beliefs. It's about physical nature, as Josh indicated.
If people want to believe in various ideas others may consider nutty or dumb, that's their right. There is no harm, unless one set of believers tries to force its beliefs on all others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuck in KS
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 188
Location: Wichita, KS
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
We have a similar discussion going over at IIDB, here.
I think someone there raised a very good point, here.
| Quote: | This talk of how atheists should behave is very interesting (However they see fit, as individuals), but I wonder if it is being mirrored on "the other side"? How should they behave? I noticed this line in the article from the OP:
| Quote: | | Charles L. Harper Jr., [Templeton Foundation] senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth. |
Personally I think that his use of "scientism" as a descriptor in this way is completely intended as a total slur on the character of anyone who writes the "pop conflict" books he was talking about (plus those who read them and agree with them). Are the Christians out there saying that they should be more mindful of the feelings of atheists? Somehow, I think not. |
I would reiterate that last question here. I think the fact that we are having this conversation at least says more about the self correcting nature of many of 'us' (the rational/critical), regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because I'm interested in this discussion, I'd like to point out that there seems to be (at least) two, very different discussions taking place.
Liz, I think, is talking about how a teacher, or promoter of science, should go about doing it. Her point is that religion (or lack of religion) is irrelevant to science, so there's no point in bringing it up.
Eric & I have been talking about the way that atheists are once again being marginalized. It seems the theistic evolutionists are saying, 'Atheists are to be seen, but not heard. And frankly, it'd be better if y'all weren't even seen."
So, my reaction is to say, "Go pound sand! I love science just as much as you do, and I'm *not* going to quit defending it because *you* don't like my theological position."
The way I see it - and I think Eric would agree - It's the Theistic Evolutionists, agnostics, and politically correct breeds that need to get over the "shock" of having atheists on their team.
See, in theory, it all works out real nice and smooth. Science & Religion are apples & oranges, and they occupy separate, nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA)
But in reality, it doesn't work out like that. In reality, we (defenders of science) say, "OK, we're not sure how life began, but we do know that a few billion years ago..."
| Quote: | | Theist: [interrupting] "Excuse me. We know how life began. In the beginning was the word, the word of God. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the Earth is *not* billions of years old. And on top of all that...your "theory" (the pejorative usage) is just that...a "theory"." |
We all know it. That's how it happens. We talk about science, they talk about religion, and how science is wrong, and science is inadequate, and science is provisional, and science is responsible for nuclear weapons, and yadda-yadda-yadda.
Now what? As an atheist, should I say..."Hrm, look, I can't really answer your concerns, becasue I'm an atheist. Here, let me call Ed Brayton, and have him take it from here." ???
Am I "hurting the cause" if I say, "Look, that's all fine-and-dandy, but not everybody believes that stuff. Yours truly included. And besides, you're talking about religion now, and I'm talking about science, and they're apples & oranges and...
Theist: [interrupting] "Noooo...I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about science. I'm talking about facts. I'm talking about the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. I'm not talking about religion at all."
Remember? FtK?
She said that because she genuinely believed it.
Back to square one. Now what?
Can you see how people like Dawkins have ever-shrinking tolerance for "religion" (still not sure what that word means) when they're continually dealing with people who think the world operates to "facts" that contradict all known science? And by science, I mean *real* science...not Behe science.
I'm all ears. How do you avoid talking about religion when so many people are dealing with "scientific facts" that are *NOT* scientific, and nor are they facts? When you *know* they've got their information from a religiously inspired/motivated text, like "Icons of Evolution", or "Darwin's Black Box"?
I submit that it's the theists who make the conflict between science and religion. They make it inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricB
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lcraig wrote: | EricB wrote:
| Quote: |
And, certainly, atheists are engaged in a battle between theism and atheism.
|
Why? |
Because someone has to keep theism in check.
| Quote: | | No one will ever win that one. |
The goal is not to win, but to openly discuss.
| Quote: | | A discussion of science does not have to include a discussion of atheism or theism. Science is not about faith beliefs. It's about physical nature, as Josh indicated. |
Agreed. Absolutely. Now make the fundamentalist Christians agree. That’s the trick.
| Quote: | | If people want to believe in various ideas others may consider nutty or dumb, that's their right. |
Agreed again. And when they openly discuss these ideas, then openly disagreeing with them is my right.
| Quote: | | There is no harm, unless one set of believers tries to force its beliefs on all others. |
Yes, and which group is doing this? The atheists? No, it’s the theists doing the forcing. And that’s why atheists are especially upset.
And then you have people like Ed Brayton calling you an enemy and claiming you are fighting the wrong battle, or at least a battle that shouldn’t be fought. Like Mr. Madison said, don’t be shocked that there are atheists on your team. This is their fight, too. And don’t tell me that I shouldn’t be fighting a battle you don’t agree with. Atheists will fight any battle they deem necessary for their own sake. And why will they? Because nobody else seems to want to. Especially Ed Brayton.
And we do it despite being called an “enemy”, despite being called “militant”, despite being called “dogmatic”. I find Richard Dawkins to be a very level headed thinker and speaker. What I’m seeing is a lot of people upset about an outspoken atheist, railing against the fundamentals of a religion-soaked society, who blame the messenger, and then classify him as an “extemist”.
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[Consulting the Oracle of Principled Negotiation...]
And she says that we (defenders of science) should seek areas where we have common interests. I think some of these are:
#1 Science: We all love science, and don't want to see it get watered down with bogus crap like ID.
#2 Secular Public Schools: None of us wants religion taught in school. Actually, none of us want religion taught as anything other than a topic in a "Comparative Religion" course. I have no beef about religion being taught in that sort of context.
#3 Religious Freedom: None of us would like to have somebody else's religious beliefs shoved down our throats, so it's in ALL of our best interests to avoid proseltyzing.
Some of the Theistic Evolutionists have an additional interest, one shared by the folks attacking items #1, #2, and to a certain extent, #3 -- The shared interest of Theistic Belief.
So let's start weighing our shared interests. If (to the TE's) I've got your back on 3/4 of YOUR interests, is it really in your best interest to marginalize me for the 1/4 that I don't share with you?
Keep your eyes on the ball TE's. Atheists like Dawkins, as much as he may piss you off, are not the problem. The problem lies with your Theistic brethren who *insist* on compromising several of *OUR* shared interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
les
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 276
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't the whole "gee, scientists/science educators just shouldn't bring religion up" kinda disingenuous? We're here, the whole (insert state) Citizens for Science network exists, the discussion is happening because scientists and teachers were truckin' along teaching science w/out mentioning religion, and the religionists attacked. Look at the polls on what people believe; those numbers didn't happen because scientists (or the evil atheists) interjected religion in the process. Somewhere upthread, I think someone said scientists need to be better at speaking, at bringing the public into science. Guess what--scientists and educators have been writing popular books, producing text books, creating elementary, intermediate, advanced, weekend, adult, etc. etc. etc. classes forever, without mention of religion. Religionists started the whole fracas; I'm tired of hearing that atheists are the problem because religion has sacred cow status. Personally, I'm with Josh in the don't know/don't care camp; but when somebody says evolution (or any science) is wrong because it disagrees with their religion, the only response is "your religion is wrong." When the "good religionists" start saying this, instead of saying "the atheists are wrong, and your religion is really ok, just rationalize this way," maybe you'll convince me that they're somehow on "my side." Maybe science and religion aren't necessarily at odds; but 99+% of the people saying they are, are religionists, without provocation by scientists or atheists.
_________________
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
