| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I am reminded of a quote:
| Quote: | | The great liberal fallacy is that if we educate them, they will think like we do. |
I think this a very exciting time in science - we don't understand how galaxies formed, and why there are super-massive black holes at their centers. We don't understand why cells take the shape that they do, given that that shape is not encoded in the genome. We don't understand why DNA seems to have emerged some 3.8 billion years ago, and then remained stable since then. Far from having it all figured out, we are just getting started - which makes sense, given the very short period of time we have had to work on it.
We need more minds working on the problems - and in the middle of all this, we have an onslaught of anti-scientific thinking - not just from Christian conservatives, but from all sorts of metaphysical positions.
In church this morning, the pastor talked about the power of words, and the impact of sarcasm, gossip and criticism on community (an idea central to the NY Times article in the education topic in this forum). Who is going to encourage people in cohesive community? Where do people go when they want to gain skill at living? Who cares enough to dedicate their lives to helping people grow as responsible adults in community? There is more to religion than YEC and ID and anti-gay marriage bills. In fact, in my church experience, almost no time has been spent on these issues. Instead, the message has been an encouragement to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to be a positive influence in our families and community.
If religious belief is in our genes, then the idea that atheism is going to be the dominant worldview anytime soon is unlikely. I recall sitting on a train in France and talking to an atheist who was actively looking for some spiritual anchor, because they felt like the secular society they were living in was heading to ruin (they worked for the WWF, and had recently sat in a staff meeting where they debated which of two species they would allow to go extinct, since they lacked the funding to save both). It isn't only religious conservatives who view the future with some trepidation. And isn't Science Fiction a kind of prophetic utterance, holding out the promise of redemption through science and intellectual enlightenment?
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799
Last edited by Greg Myers on Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EricB wrote: | | rmadison wrote: | | EricB wrote: | | 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: |
You'll probably like this Eric
The Angry Atheist
|
Ebon Musings also takes on the stereotype of the angry atheist with his essay Turning Away Anger:The myth of the angry atheist |
Wow! That was some disturbing stuff! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcraig
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: Dawkins, PZ not angry? |
|
|
Eric:
Unless you're talking about a different Dawkins and PZ that I am familiar with, from what I read, they are definitely angry about religion. I've met a number of other atheists who are angry about religion, too.
I don't know that "The Angry Atheist" is a myth so much as it is a stereotype, and it wouldn't be that if it weren't sometimes true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WideAwake Inventor
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 292
Location: King of Prussia, Pa, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: Not teaching atheism |
|
|
Eric B said | Quote: | | I would not support you nor any other science teacher teaching atheism in a science classroom. I fully support the teaching of science and critical thinking, and letting the students decide for themselves what their worldview will be. |
Without being one, I would suppose a high school science teacher would abstain from teaching either atheism or theism. However, science deserves to be defined (I extemprorize) as the art of the ordinary; the explained and the potentially explicable. Nothing extraordinary and inexplicable is, by the very fact that it is extraordinary and inexplicable, known to exist. It is also not known to not exist; science only knows what is known and not what is unknown. Rumors and even superstitions might suggest lines of investigation, but only that; and at the high school level we are teaching the basic knowns, which one must master before proceeding to the as-yet speculative unknowns.
This is not quite atheism, even if it is a-theism. But, at least it is not theism.
_________________
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. ~ Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820)
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~ Abraham Lincoln |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricB
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins, PZ not angry? |
|
|
From Ebon Musings {emphasis mine}:
| Quote: | | I have been writing for this website for over five years now, and in that time, I have had the chance to meet, interact with, and speak to a great number of my fellow atheists. I can testify from personal experience that atheists, on the average, are no angrier than theists and in some cases less angry. All we want is what everyone wants: to live our lives in peace and security, to make our own decisions and live as we see fit, free of outside harm and harassment. We are generally quite peaceful and happy - when we are not being harassed by others who want to convert us, treat us as inferior, or take our civil rights away, that is! |
lcraig, are you angry that the six religious conservatives of the school board changed the science standards to be more ID-friendly and anti-evolution? I think you would answer yes. As would Dawkins, PZ, rmadison, and myself.
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack Krebs
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 796
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to answer Eric's question, even though it wasn't directed at me.
First, I don't think anger is the emotion I personally have felt towards the Board members who have subverted parts of our educational system the last few years, but however one might characterize my feelings they have not been because those Board members are religious people. Among other things our supporters on the Board are religious people also.
What I am angry (or whatever it is) about is:
a. those Board members believe that their religious beliefs allow them to ignore and reject mainstream science, and
b. they have been willing to abuse their power by focusing on their own narrow agenda - one which is religiously, politically and socio-culturally motivated.
Merely being a religious person is not the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josh Rosenau
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 437
Location: Oakland, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pzmyers wrote: | | And yes, you've done a fine job of winning the last election. Next one? Have you managed to change the fundamentalist culture down there, or have you succeeded in slapping a bandage on the latest outbreak of nonsense? Do you even think it's going to start getting easier from now on? |
We won't break the fundamentalist culture by attacking religion qua religion. That is what you would call a "pragmatic" approach.
But to act as if I, Liz, Jack, Pat, or Ed secretly agree that the war against religion is the real war, but that we are just too pragmatic to admit it is frankly absurd.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I spend a lot of time fighting religious authoritarianism, and I do it because I have a problem with authoritarianism. Like CSAdams, I don't give two shits whether people have religious beliefs or not. It honestly doesn't matter to me. I know that people can be religious without being authoritarian, but I don't know any authoritarians who aren't problematic (if given any power at all).
I do not care if religious belief becomes more or less common, provided that the means by which that change happens is not built on force or coercion. Not only do I think that working toward a godless Kansas would hinder more useful efforts, I don't support the goal of a godless Kansas, any more than I support a fully Jewish or fully Buddhist or fully Christian Kansas. I don't care about any of those things per se.
On a side note: saying that Ed and Pat "run to suck up to the Christianists" is, and I say this after careful consideration, stupid. Both devote their entire blogging output and a lot of their personal time and effort to fighting religious extremism and authoritarianism. When I say that comment was stupid, I want to say that you are personally quite smart and I consider you a role model in certain senses. But your doctrinaire attitude towards people's religious beliefs and tolerance of religious belief is not just counterproductive, it's wrong.
And you know it.
_________________
What's new at Thoughts from Kansas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csadams
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EricB wrote: | | csadams wrote: | | 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. |
And when Dawkins spoke at KU, he acknowledged all the hard work all the teachers and educators were doing on the front lines here in Kansas. He said it was those people who deserve all the credit, and he appreciated all their efforts. It received a very hardy applause. |
EricB, I wasn't able to make it to Dawkins' talk at KU. Do his books or other publications acknowledge the contributions that theists have made in this fight against incorporating creationism in the science standards?
| EricB wrote: | | He also acknowledged that his words were not always the most politically correct or helpful during these times. But his words are his to speak. If he was actually supporting destroying religion, do you think he would have any following? |
I'm glad he acknowledged that his statements are sometimes detrimental.
| EricB wrote: | | Look, atheists are just regular people who don't believe in a god. They generally support science and critical thinking. As far as religion goes, I think they are in the same boat as "liberal" theists. If religion doesn't get forced into our lives, who really cares? Not atheists. |
Yes, EricB, I wasn't trying to demean atheists.
| EricB wrote: | | But Fundamentalism is rampant these days, and religion is soaked into the fabric of society. With times like these, there will be many people, primarily atheists, who speak openly against religion. We will not remain quiet while (in our mind, irrational) beliefs are taken as truth and used to decide best actions. And when we speak out against what we view as irrational beliefs, some people will feel offended because they may hold to these beliefs. It's bound to happen. |
Fundamentalism is a world-wide phenomenon at this time, not limited to Christianity. Strike that - 'religious authoritarianism' would probably be more accurate.
And, yes, offense is easily taken. My previous post was waaay too cranky in its tone, and I apologize.
| EricB wrote: | And there are atheists who feel offended as well. In fact, this whole thing is about atheists offending other atheists in regard to how they think they are treating theists. Kinda ironic, in a way. In the exchange of ideas and worldviews, there are bound to be hurt feelings both ways. We should all try our best to not offend others. But is it always the offender being insensitive, or the offendee being overly sensitive? I'm sure it's a little of both. And we should all strive to not be either one of these.
At least that's the way I see it. |
Agreed. The whole 'Christians are being persecuted' outlook that seems to permeate the fundamentalist movement in this country is ridiculous. (Reminds me of students who complain that a teacher 'yelled' at them, where 'yelling' has nothing to do with the tone or loudness of the voice - the teacher just reprimanded the kids.) If anything, non-Christians are the ones who aren't represented in the power structures in this country.
| EricB wrote: | ***Added in edit:
Btw, csadams, I would not support you nor any other science teacher teaching atheism in a science classroom. I fully support the teaching of science and critical thinking, and letting the students decide for themselves what their worldview will be. Of course, with religious indoctrination from their very first years of life, it's quite biased against my views. But, I hoping time will give some assistance. |
IHMO, most kids are exposed to more hours of inappropriate TV programming or violent videogames than they are to church. Kids - adolescents, anyway - are usually smart enough to judge authority figures on their actions, not their words.
_________________
“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 |
|
|
Joe Meert
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if they are angry at religion or angry at how some religious folks are attempting to legislate science and establish a theocracy. Make no mistake about the goals of ID/creationism. Behind Ken Ham and the DISCO institute is a utopian society where everyone worships the same God in the same way. I find that very, very disturbing. Fortunately, I think that most mainstream religious folks would also find it disturbing if they were made aware of it. I think the anger of PZ and Dawkins is not so much at religion but rather fundamentalism and its political activism.
Cheers
Joe Meert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KC
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Location: San Narcisco, RRR
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Meert wrote: | I don't know if they are angry at religion or angry at how some religious folks are attempting to legislate science and establish a theocracy. Make no mistake about the goals of ID/creationism. Behind Ken Ham and the DISCO institute is a utopian society where everyone worships the same God in the same way. I find that very, very disturbing. Fortunately, I think that most mainstream religious folks would also find it disturbing if they were made aware of it. I think the anger of PZ and Dawkins is not so much at religion but rather fundamentalism and its political activism.
Cheers
Joe Meert |
I've always wondered what would happen if ID eventually wins. Does anyone seriously think Catholics like Behe and Unification Church members like Wells would still be welcome under the Big tent? More likely, they would be the first up against the wall after the victory party.
KC
_________________
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricB
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KC wrote: | | Joe Meert wrote: | I don't know if they are angry at religion or angry at how some religious folks are attempting to legislate science and establish a theocracy. Make no mistake about the goals of ID/creationism. Behind Ken Ham and the DISCO institute is a utopian society where everyone worships the same God in the same way. I find that very, very disturbing. Fortunately, I think that most mainstream religious folks would also find it disturbing if they were made aware of it. I think the anger of PZ and Dawkins is not so much at religion but rather fundamentalism and its political activism.
Cheers
Joe Meert |
I've always wondered what would happen if ID eventually wins. Does anyone seriously think Catholics like Behe and Unification Church members like Wells would still be welcome under the Big tent? More likely, they would be the first up against the wall after the victory party.
KC |
Absolutely. It's the conservative, fundamentalists that are out to destroy religion, "mainstream, liberal" religion, that is. The atheists and secularists could care less about "mainstream, liberal" religion. Live and let live, by most accounts. But the conservative fundamentalists have a different goal in mind, and believe that liberal religion is just as bad as atheism, in their eyes at least.
So, it’s the fundamentalists that we should be fighting against. Not each other. And I think everyone agrees there. But I suppose when the atheists fight with the fundamentalists, it gives the impression that atheists are attacking religion in general. Of course, atheists have completely opposite worldviews that involve no supernatural aspects, while most religions do have supernatural concepts. So, of course atheists are going to argue against these supernatural concepts, and find them, well, unbelieveable. Is this offensive to religious people? Disagreeing with their impression of reality?
I suppose it’s got to be said repeatedly. Atheists do not care whether people believe or not. Atheists do not want atheism taught in schools. Atheists are not generally angry people. Atheists support freedom of religion. All that atheists want is to not be marginalized, and to not be automatically considered immoral. We are normal folks. We just happen to not have a god-belief. Otherwise, we are just like everyone else, in every respect.
I think there’s been a lot of unsubstantiated accusations going back and forth lately in the blogosphere. And it needs to stop. Let’s get back to focusing on the problem of our days – the aggressive efforts to control society by the conservative fundamentalists. They are the root cause of our present day problems. Not the atheists. And not the theistic evolutionists. The fundamentalists are the problem.
You know, I never even heard of Richard Dawkins five years ago. Five years ago, I was pretty much what you would call an apathetic atheist. But in the last few years, especially, the religious fundamentalists have encroached way too far into our secular society, to the point where many people are fighting back against this encroachment. Richard Dawkins is a biologist. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. If it wasn’t for religious fundamentalism, they would more than likely just be doing science, and not bothering with writing atheist books. When the religious fundamentalists force their views so far into society, religion is going to take a beating. And it’s a shame, really, because most believers are quite harmless. They enjoy a free, open, honest society, where everyone has a chance to fulfill their potential. And then these fundamentalists come along and make every effort to force their views on everyone else, including the liberal theists.
Fundamentalists, leave us be! Go back to your medieval thinking and your bygone concepts of morality. Let us live in our modern society, where people are free to worship as they please, where people are able to think and choose for themselves, and where atheists and theists can and do live and work side by side without any problems.
_________________
"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: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EricB wrote: | | I suppose it’s got to be said repeatedly. Atheists do not care whether people believe or not. Atheists do not want atheism taught in schools. Atheists are not generally angry people. |
Ugh! I can't even begin to tell you how much this pisses me off!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Myers
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1210
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KC wrote: | | Joe Meert wrote: | I don't know if they are angry at religion or angry at how some religious folks are attempting to legislate science and establish a theocracy. Make no mistake about the goals of ID/creationism. Behind Ken Ham and the DISCO institute is a utopian society where everyone worships the same God in the same way. I find that very, very disturbing. Fortunately, I think that most mainstream religious folks would also find it disturbing if they were made aware of it. I think the anger of PZ and Dawkins is not so much at religion but rather fundamentalism and its political activism.
Cheers
Joe Meert |
I've always wondered what would happen if ID eventually wins. Does anyone seriously think Catholics like Behe and Unification Church members like Wells would still be welcome under the Big tent? More likely, they would be the first up against the wall after the victory party.
KC |
Sure - and then they have to sort out ID, YEC and OEC - perhaps a series of small tents, pitched somewhat seperate from each other.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lcraig
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric posted:
| Quote: |
lcraig, are you angry that the six religious conservatives of the school board changed the science standards to be more ID-friendly and anti-evolution? I think you would answer yes. As would Dawkins, PZ, rmadison, and myself.
|
Sure. But I'm not an atheist, and I'm not angry that they hold the religious beliefs they hold. Just that they tried to change the definition of science in the standards to agree with those beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rmadison
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 877
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lcraig wrote: | | Sure. But I'm not an atheist, and I'm not angry that they hold the religious beliefs they hold. Just that they tried to change the definition of science in the standards to agree with those beliefs. |
This isn't really a reply to you Liz...I'm just posting to point out that I think there are *still* a couple different conversations taking place here, and I don't think we're all on the same page.
There is the issue of how atheists should discuss theism with theists...without pissing them off. How are we (atheists) supposed to have the discussion if, as csadams has pointed out, it's such an integral part of how they see themselves?
There is another issue that Eric has been talking about. Where it seems to him (and me) that Brayton's post was an over-the-top bit of hyperbole, where we once again see Group-B ("Brayton's Team") trying to marginalize Group-A ("Dawkins Team"). This discussion naturally blends into the first one I pointed out, but it's still a different issue.
Then there is the issue that you've brought up: That religion and science are NOMA, and what in the hell does *any* atheist (or theist for that matter) care what somebody else believes. This POV says it's all about science, and religion just shouldn't be a factor.
There is also a discussion going on about how unpragmatic it is for "Dawkins Team" to go about bashing religion. More than that, as many people (like Ed Brayton) feel that it's not only not pragmatic, it's morally wrong to attack somebody else's religious beliefs. (Which, leads back to the discussion of "So just what constitutes an 'attack' on religion?")
It seems to me that these are all related, yet slightly different discussions.
It also seems to me that we'd be much better off (for the sake of these discussions) in *not* defending a "position" (which only causes people to dig their heels in deeper), but to understand the other person's interests, and then compare them to our own.
And to that end, I submit that it is in ALL of our interests (both "Ed's Team" & "Dawkins Team") to keep our eyes on (at the very least) these shared interests:
1) Separation of Church & State
2) Freedom to worship any God, or none
3) Strong science education in public schools
Furthermore, I think this approach would work very well when extended into other social/public issues. |
|
| 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
