Kansas Citizens for Science

[pzmyers]

[Bryan]

I think Richard Dawkins et. al. are correct in recognizing this as a particularly good time to expand the ranks of atheism. And to do that they need to expose the negatives of religious belief. Being quiet just because there is a tender battle going on in the school board arena is not an option. This particular battle involving ID has been going on for seven years with no sign of letting up, and the larger battle over evolution has been going on for over a hundred. Believe it or not, atheists were quiet during the first few years of this debate, everyone understood the tender nature of the battle, but time moves on as fundamentalism and religious extremism dominates the headlines. Now is the time to chip away at religion and hopefully gain some converts to atheism.

Now, there are atheists who would advocate the destruction of religion, but I think these are the less wise of the group. On the other hand, I think the phrase “destruction of religion” is a bit problematic. The phrase brings up emotional images of people being prevented from worshipping, churches burning, and the atheists ruling with an iron fist. This is silly. I think many atheists actually would advocate more of a phasing out of religion—an evolution of sorts.

Religion has changed a lot since humankind crossed into the modern era. In general religious people no longer look to scripture in the same way they used to to answer questions about the physical World. New ideas about equality and liberty also caused the religious to reassess their faith and morals, and often this reassessment led to a reinterpretation of scripture. Reinterpretation is a mechanism by which religion evolves to better support society as it too evolves.

Currently liberal ideas concerning war, the death penalty, and homosexuality are leading to more reinterpretations. I think many atheists are quite comfortable with these changes. It sort of supports the position that we are the source of morality rather than religion, and eventually scripture may just be reinterpreted out of the endeavor altogether leaving a naked Humanist type religion.

Scriptural reinterpretationists need to be cogent of what they’re doing. We’re talking about a process of canonization here. Whole swaths of scripture seem to be falling to reinterpretation, surviving only as historical accounts and life lessons. If you were to be involved in a modern day council of Nicea, what scriptures would you claim to be divinely inspired?

Are you offended yet? Am I attacking religion?

Among the negatives of religious belief is the abuse of NOMA. Certainly some religious claims are ‘out of bounds’, like weather or not heaven and hell exist, but most religious claims are open to scientific investigation. Indeed, it would seem that the existence of God is actually more open to investigation than heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are ‘other’ places entirely separated from this world; but, God gets involved and supposedly performs miracles, and these can be investigated scientifically. Like Mr. Dawkins said, “miracles are a violation of NOMA.”

When it comes to attacking religion, what should we think of scientific investigations into religion? Not the miraculous things like prayer studies, the shroud of Turin or the magical works of Christ. Instead, what should we think of the more mundane things like the mechanisms and origins of religion, mythology, belief in Gods, and magic. Or even the very essence of what faith is. These are questions amenable to scientific investigation, yet I think the mere mention that they are puts many people on a defensive footing.

I have said it here before that I think theists are largely ignoring efforts in neuroscience into the nature of the religious experience. Indeed we may all be hardwired to experience the presence of a higher order. What would this be for? Why would we evolve an experience of the divine? These questions are amenable to scientific investigation, and should not be taken as attacks on religion.

[Jack Krebs]

In response to PZ:

Now that we have a couple of years where the standards aren't our main concern, we plan to work on informing and educated the public about issues in a way that might make the creationists have less appeal at the polls. This will involve helping people understand science and evolution better; it will involve helping people understand things about public policy,public accountability and public education; and it will involve helping people understand some things about religion.

Of course we know that we can't overturn the culture, but we can, I think, shift the views of enough people in the middle to help us keep from yo-yoing back to having the creationists in control - at least we can try.

Also, this will be have to be a joint venture with contributions from many constituencies: moderate Republicans and Democrats working together, people of many faiths including those with no religious faith at all, people with different core agendas (defending the teaching of good science, supporting the separation of church and state, supporting public education, etc.)

As we have found before, sometimes frictions arise when these various groups are working partially for the same cause and partially for different causes. We can live with this overlap because we have to if we want to be politically effective and because it's the right thing to do if we truly believe in the value of a diverse and secular society.

[pzmyers]

[Greg Myers]

We keep talking about creationists, because they are a large block of voters who want to impose their preconceptions on science, but I am certain that they are not alone.

Think Jonathan Edwards, think UFOs, think 'What the Bleep Do We Know?," Think astrology, tarot, psychic dogs, the Sedona Vortex… seems like almost everyone has their own little corner of the world where they suspend rigorous thinking and engage in some “gap” thinking.

Yes, we need to encourage voters to stay alert against creationists stacking the board (or whatever tactic they come up with, as they are not giving up)- but even more important, we need to help devise and implement strategies to move our whole culture to do a better job of critical thinking.

It is not only the religious right that would like us to back away from good science. Madison Avenue, many politicians, and an entire industry of self-help and do-it-yourself religions are working tirelessly to convince folks that reality is whatever they need it to be. People are happy to believe, because they are looking for something to make sense of their lives, and give them a sense of power and control.

Science does have something to say here. It is not a religion, and it does not have all the answers – but I think that there are important lessons to learn from the study of the natural world, including personal responsibility, inter-connectedness with all of life, the severe consequences of mismanagement and greed. People want (and need?) a way of looking at the world that helps them make sense of their day, the times they live in, and the life they are building. Taking a look at the way the world looks should have a place in that process.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799

[EricB]

I have found it quite interesting to see how this whole blog post has evolved. It's seems like it's always a good time to bash atheists, especially those atheistic atheists.

And it seems to me that it really gets out of hand rather quickly. It all began with Brayton claiming that Dawkins, PZ, and Moran want to "destroy religion by any means necessary", which is a completely ridiculous hyperbole.

On the contrary, I think that these atheists, and others like them want nothing more than better education and critical inquiry into all aspects of society, without giving quarter to religion. That's what most of us want, but there are those that will not criticize religion because of long-entrenched, societal taboos. For some reason, religion has become off-limits to questioning.

And when some clever atheist does openly and loudly criticize religion, is the criticism even acknowledged, or is it an immediate gasp at the very thought of questioning holy sacredness? Either way, the inquirer becomes stamped as an agitator and a troublemaker, without sensitivity.

So, it becomes a question of whether we are allowed to question the sacred cows of this society without fear of reprisal. At the present time, the answer appears to be no.

You can say what you want about Dawkins, PZ, Moran, and others, and make your wild accusations of tactless, religious assault, but they are only questioning the taboos of this society and why we have them in the first place.
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~

[rmadison]

[lcraig]

It is clear to me that advocating for the teaching of science and bashing religion are two different things.

Some atheists have rage and anger toward religion because they were raised in a rigid fundamentalist religion, and they haven't gotten over it. Others may be angry about religion for other reasons. Why get angry about other people's beliefs?

Angry confrontations with theists are unlikely to be effective in either causing theists to question their faith or in causing them to embrace rationality The result will likely be either a tooth-and-nail fight or the exit of the theist from the scene.

I'm asking that everyone who supports science identify their goals and dispassionately determine whether their methods are helping accomplish them. There are a couple of testable hypotheses here:

First hypothesis: If I express anger at a theist for his or her religious beliefs, I would expect to see him or her understand what I'm saying and become an atheist. Test. Record result. Analyze.

Second hypothesis: If I draw a theist into a discussion of science, I would expect the theist to enjoy learning and ask for book recommendations so s/he could learn more. Test. Record result. Analyze.

NOW, having said that, I believe people who know better and still do wrong for political or economic reasons are deserving of criticism. The "social conservatives" on the BOE decided to ignore all input from scientists, educators and curriculum experts when they adopted science standards written by ID friendlies.

I'm not angry with these people for their religious beliefs. I'm upset that they put the education of Kansas kids second, after their desire to insert their own specific religious beliefs into standards for taxpayer-supported schools. I can respect anyone's right to believe their own beliefs. It's when they try to force those beliefs on students in public schools that I draw the line.

Some atheists may primarily be trying to get theists to give up religion. It's an impossible mission, but if it makes people happy to try, I say, go for it. But that is not a part of my personal program, nor is it part of KCFS'. Don't say that attacking religion is helpful in defending science. It ain't.

[EricB]

Ah, the angry atheist stereotype. Who's angry? Dawkins, PZ, rmadison, me? From what I can tell, none of these people are angry about religion. We feel pretty much the same way you do:

[Bryan]

The angry, militant atheist really is a common stereotype, one that atheists dearly need to correct. A difficult task when simply being an atheist offends a good majority of people. Where I'm from if you wanted people to like you you had a bake sale. Would you buy goods from an atheist bake sale if you knew the proceeds would go to help support atheists? Maybe an atheist scholarship, funded by such a bake sale.

[rmadison]

[rmadison]

[csadams]

Oh for crying out loud. We logged 1700+ miles in 4 days, and I thought catching up on the blogs would be a helluva lot more relaxing that climbing that mountain of laundry. Instead, it's Holy War #452.9 .

I *honestly* don't care whether PZ or Pat or Ed or Robert believe in God or leprechauns or Santa Claus or whatever.

My only dog in this fight is that I'm a public high school science teacher. I will no more try to convert my students to atheism than I will try to get them to accept Biblical literalism.

PZ stated that if we teach critical thinking and science that unbelief will follow. Does it then follow that good science teachers, most of whom are theists, are trying to mold little atheists - or, as Connie Morris accused, "indoctrinate children into materialism?" Does this mean that since I'm most assuredly NOT an atheist, that he and his ilk think I'm not qualified to teach science?

All I want to do is to teach science, dammit, without interference from *any* pressure groups who think their 'worldview' is the one that needs to be foisted upon these kids. My job is to get the kids to ask questions, to help them figure out *how* they know *what* they know.

So until some of these folks have boots-on-the-ground experience in teaching high school science and working to GOTV for an election and dealing with irate parents who believe the latest Connie Morris pap . . . maybe they should consider how their words and actions affect those who are on the front lines and don't have the luxury of an ivory tower for shelter.
_________________
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

Stand Up For REAL Science!

[EricB]

[EricB]