Beware that extreme minority over there
It goes on, the relentless othering of atheism.
“The anti-evolutionist fearmongers have to link Darwin to every perceived evil from mankind,” says Kevin Padian, professor of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley. “The two kinds people who believe that religion and evolution can not coexist are extreme atheists and extreme religious fundamentalists. Everyone else doesn’t really have a problem. [A majority] of Americans believe that a belief in god is compatible with evolution.”
Got that? Atheists who think religion is not epistemically compatible with science (which of course is the view that Padian strawmanned by substituting ‘who believe that religion and evolution can not coexist,’ which no one thinks) are extreme, and furthermore, they are not part of the majority of Americans. They must be very bad people indeed. It must be a good idea to hate them very hard. It must be necessary to say bad things about them at every opportunity so that everybody will hate them very hard. There is of course no need for the bad things said about them to be accurate. Good heavens no; there is no need for pedantic accuracy when there is a war on.
Strawmanning, outgrouping, what next?
Really frustrates me.
Here we have a ‘majority’, however constituted, being invited to worship itself. On Durkheim’s model, we are not far from a new religion, in its own right.
Maybe call it Padianism. Not to be confused with ‘paganism’; but then again, perhaps it should be.
In trying to understand Ian’s term I looked up the name “Padian”. This is what I get: angry sexist AIDS denialists. Thank you, internet.
Benjamin: It was news to me. I had no idea there was already a claim in on that invention. Not the first time of course.
But to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to join a club that would have them as members.
Padian might due well to go back and read about Gause’s simple experiments on coexistence of single-celled microorganisms. Gause found two incompatible species could coexist if you gave one a refuge.
Ian, well anyway the word sounds nifty, you need to satisfy my curiosity and tell me how you coined it.
Michael, eh? I don’t understand you.
Benjamin: According to OB’s threadstarter, Kevin Padian, is a professor of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Seems what Padian really hates are people with opinions that differ from his.
This is also being discussed on Josh Rosenau’s blog where Josh is predictably sticking up for Padian (though of course it’s entirely a coincidence that they are both connected with the NCSE). I had a thing or two to say over there, including the following:
‘Padian labelled all atheists who think that evolution and religion “can not coexist” as “extreme”. You know as well as I do that the word “extreme” is a very strong derogatory term in a situation like this, with the connotation of “extremist” and further connotations such as “unreasonable”, “untenable”, even “potentially violent”. You don’t label people as “extreme” lightly. It’s an unfriendly act, to say the least. It’s a way of demonising people.
You must know this, since you’re an intelligent person, so I think momentary silliness is a charitable interpretation of what you wrote.
The only tricky part is knowing what Padian has in mind when he talks about religion and evolution cannot coexist. If he means a claim that we must ban the teaching of either one or the other, that would indeed be an extreme position. But I know of no one – at least no one involved the current accommodat[i]onism debate – who takes that position.
OTOH, many people believe that much mainstream (not just fundamentalist) religious thought is philosophically incompatible with what we know of evolution. It is very difficult squaring evolution with the existence of a providential God, or so they think. Jerry thinks that. Jason Rosenhouse thinks that. So do I. So does Philip Kitcher. So do lots of reasonable (not “extreme”) people. It looks from his quoted sentence as if Padian has such people in mind – people who simply find a philosophical conflict between evolution and mainstream ideas of a providential God. But if Padian was intending to label someone like Kitcher, who is very conciliatory to the less literal kinds of religion, as an extremist, what he said was very stupid. Irrespective of whom he meant to demonise, his comment was, at the least, clumsy and dangerously ambiguous – and it was totally gratuitous.’
Whoops! Thanks Ian. It’s always in the last place you look. Which in this case ought to have been the first place, but no matter…
We have had Scott, Padian and Rosenau all say there is no conflict between science and religion because people can do science and be religious.
These are not stupid people. They must know no one is saying one cannot be religious and be a scientist but that claims science and religion are not compatible are based on claims for empirical actions by the worshipped gods.
I am beginning to suspect there is a party line here and it seems to be one that wants to ignore a difficult issue, claim in fact it does exist, in the hope it will go away.
The “extreme” adjective is idiotic with its hints of violence and unreason. This mirror image of atheist = religious and using the same descriptions for both is stupidly misleading. It’s a silly/clever meme used by people who want to sound smart, so Dawkins = Osama Bin Laden or some fire and brimstone abortion clinic bomber.
An outspoken atheist is closer to a devout Christian than a religious extremist. A devout Christian takes the religion seriously, follows the observances of church going and praying and reads devotional books, but with no thoughts of violence. In fact the “extremist religious fundamentalist” at least of the Islamic kind is often not devout, hasn’t shown a history of constantly attending the mosque and following all the observances. His attachment to the religion is tribal and political.
Of course an atheist can’t be devout in the sense that a Christian is because there is no real equivalent to church going and praying in atheism. But s/he can be serious about the subject, can speak and write about it, and read Dawkins, Dennett etc.
I can say “my flatmate is a devout Christian” without sounding pejorative. It’s purely descriptive – he reads devotional books, he attends church regularly, he’s involved in church affairs, he tries to live by his religion. But is there a neutral adjective to describe an atheist? “Strenuous atheist?” “Militant atheist?” “Outspoken atheist?” All of those descriptions have a pejorative tinge. “Serious atheist” is probably the best description.
Most atheists are like most Christians in not being that serious about the subject – it’s there in the background, their vague disbeliefs and beliefs, something they’ve got through their upbringing or through general cultural osmosis. It doesn’t cause them the problems it used to if they live in a secular society.
I’d like to float another idea. I agree with Russell that Padian et al. are using language carelessly. They’re brighter than that. The must know that no one is saying that you can’t be an evolutionary biologist and religious at the same time. There are too many people who are, like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, for example.
But the opposition to atheism goes much deeper than this, so they are bound to come out with what look like extreme positions. This is beginning to look much more like a struggle for the heart of a civilisation, than a disagreement over words, and this could explain the apparently uncomprehening opposition to what some scientific atheists are saying. In fact, I’m beginning to think that this is all that will really explain it.
I believe it may be closely connnected to the clash of civilisations theory. Islam is the other option. The tendency of atheism in the West is, of course, to oppose and criticise Christianity first of all, which is, you might say, now that Islam has decimated the Christianity of the Middle East and North Africa, which was once a flourishing Oriental Christianity stretching all the was from Persia to Morocco, the native religious tradition of the West.
I believe that a lot of the critics of atheism see this as a struggle for cultural survival, with the accompanying belief that for most people religion is a vital part of any culture. They do not see how it is possible to win the coming cultural struggle, already in its first stages, without a strong cultural centre to carry the load. So atheists – not the simple unbelievers of the past, but the active deniers of religion of the present – are looking to be culturally destructive and endangering.
Now, remember, I’m just floating this as a possibility, a hypothesis, if you like. But there have been lots of signs that people take the ‘new atheism’ as new in this way. It is opposed to what is seen as ‘Christian Civilisation’, a civilisation that has, to some degree, indiginised Enlightenment values and ideals such as human rights, freedom, democracy, etc. Never mind that these arose in the first place largely in opposition to Christianity; it’s the present perception that America or Europe are founded on Christian values that counts.
Well, there’s my grand theory. Time to have it pulled apart. It’s the only thing that explains, for me, the almost hysterical (and certainly blind) opposition to the ‘new atheism.’
Interesting theory Eric. I’ve had the thought a few times that by being openly critical of religion, so called new atheists are attacking what some believers hold to be part of their identity. So they kick back strongly. Instead of hearing “this belief you hold is irrational” they here “you are irrational” and nobody likes to be belittled. On top of that, there are more than a few knee-jerk atheists who do indulge in playing the man, not the ball (so to speak).
But that’s my half-arse psychological analysis. Yours has a bigger narrative, mine’s not more than preservation of self-esteem.
Or maybe “extreme atheists” are ones who believe that there’s REALLY REALLY no god, absolutely none, not even so much as a divine toenail, nope, nothing to see here, move along now folks…
If you work for the NCSE it seems you think that the claims that religion and science are incompatible come down to the fact those claiming incompatibility think you cannot be both a scientist and religious.
This is nonsense. No one disputes individual can be both. It is so ridiculous that it is inconceivable the likes of Scott or Rosenau actually believe it.
The main reason given for the incompatibility of science and religion is a practical one. Simply a total lack of evidence for god(s).
If there really is a god who intervenes in the universe then there should be evidence of that. If the god answers prayers to heal the sick we will find a difference between the cure rates of those prayed for and those not.
This does not mean there cannot be a god, only that it is unreasonable to believe in a interventionist god. It also means that any god that does exist cannot do anything. Which is not really what gods are about. You are left with a rather wishy-washy version of deism, which denies the god a role even in starting everything.
People say that this reason for advancing the incompatibility of god and science is wrong, and that science and religion are compatible. Scott, Rosenau, Moony, Kishenbaum, Knopp and others advance this view. They do not elaborate on why it is wrong though. I have asked some of them, and they have not provided an answer. Mooney simply said it was an interesting question and never followed up on it.
I think after asking a number of times, and never getting an answer we can conclude there isn’t one.
Totally off-topic, for which I apologise but I would be interested in hearing people’s opinion of Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.
I have never read it before, but picked up a copy today in a second hand bookshop. Are there any glaring errors I need to look out for ?
I am only part way through the first chapter, but so far I am impressed with how clear Russell is. No woolly language a la Armstrong with him.
Personally I think Eric is wrong, I don’t think there is enough evidence to float that (unless the NCSE is secretly a part of a giant neocon conspiracy).
I think its more a case of people in Darwin’s position on fighting public battles against religion. They don’t want to say something they think will offend/alienate family or friends but they want to do it for a ‘better’ reason so they have to invent ‘other ways of knowing’ or such.
I also think that blogs are partly to blame, it is too easy to take a public position, have to defend it by strengthening it past the point you might have felt was reasonable if you had come to it cold and then feel you have to stick to it to stop looking weak/daft/whatever. There are a lot of people out there (there are probably a few here) who kept digging when they should have stopped and spoke when they should have kept quiet.
At least when you take on some ludicrous position in an argument in a bar you can quietly drop it later. When its on the web for eternity you have to publicly eat crow, which is not everyone’s favorite dish.
“When its on the web for eternity you have to publicly eat crow, which is not everyone’s favorite dish.”
Reckon there’s something in that. Maybe linked to self-image – the old “I am an intelligent, logical, rational, thinking individual, so how can anyone possibly not agree with my conclusions on X?” sort of thing.
“Other ways of knowing” is such a desperate ploy, and the straw persons being bandied around to support it such obviously terrible self-justificatory strategies…
These folk *must* be aware, on some level, that what they’re arguing is untenable, simply does not stand up to scrutiny…but that doesn’t fit the old self-image, of course.
Plus in the (rather self-regarding & self-aggrandising) blogosphere, there’s such a huge degree of intellectual “willy waggling” going on, that attempts to get one up, to absolutely, definitely, 100% be “right” become ever more ridiculous.
Especially when, as in this case, the roll-call of fuzzy thinkers are so blatantly in the wrong.
Ho hum.
Of course, I could be way off beam, they’re actually all secretly in the pay of the Vatican, and it’s really just about intellectual prostitution for the money…
:-)
Hmmmmm
But on the other hand, if you do admit to changing your mind, to having gotten it wrong, etc…well then maybe you get to think that you stand a chance of not being a dogmatic immovable loon. That’s worth looking weak/daft/whatever! Really, it is. I would think people would figure that out fairly quickly.
Eric has made some good points here, but I view his evidence somwhat differently. Where Eric sees a clash of civilisations, I see rival ancestries.
Christianity in the West, insofar as it survives, is a bit like an early computer operating system: say MS-DOS. It is clunking along there in the background, and provided nobody expects too much of it, can deliver the basics. Most importantly, it gives people a tribal identity based upon shared values, in a period when the original tribes of the West have sunk into irrelevance. (It is not everything that has changed for the better: my tribe, called in Scotland a clan, is definitely not what it used to be.)
My view is that ancestor-worship is not far below the surface of all modern religions. Much of the ritual of Christianity lays stress on cultivating feelings in the congregation that it is one big family, just from the terms used: Our Father, Blessed Mother, God the Son, Communion of Saints, Holy Communion, etc. Communal singing and chanting binds people together at another level again.
I claim no originality for this by the way. But the common ancestors of modern Jews, Muslims and Christians are almost as far removed from us in time as those of the modern Hindus and Buddhists. Understandably then, us Xs (read Christians, Muslims, Jews…) have got to stick together lest we be swamped by those Ys (read Muslims, Jews, Christians…)
At the same time, the vengeful god of the 19th Century fire-and-brimstone preacher has given way in the popular mind to a god who is far more easygoing. He does not mind for example, if people do not go to church. Understandably, as most of them don’t. What the Church used to offer exclusively can now be found elsewhere.
The same process is underway in urbanised Islam.
Group dynamics suggests that the maximum size a group can reach before it begins to divide is around 30-60, depending on circumstances; which happens to be much the same maximum size as the hunter-gatherer band, the pre-industrial village, and the Christian congregation. The latter two have overlapped at various times and places.
This is allowed for many ways in Catholicism, and has been the driving force behind the historical splintering of Protestantism into a multitude of competing sects.
But Christianity is today not just an operating system. It has evolved into a huge grab-bag of business organisations, ranging from the Vatican to televangelists to the shopfronts of enterprising preachers. Attacking rationalism by attacking evolution is a way for many of them to reinforce their operating system (if you like, apply the latest Micro$oft patch) get publicity, and keep themselves in the headlines.
Rationalism on the other hand has never managed to make itself into a religion, with rituals and other activities designed to reinforce group identity. Free thinkers are just that, whereas the religious have to be group thinkers.
Now where was I? Oh yes. Back to the legendary Somerled. Ah, those were the days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubgall_mac_Somairle
Matt, I read Russell’s history a few years back. I thought it was a cracking read. As to the philosophy, when I read it, it pretty much was the first philosophical book I’d encountered. I had no idea about lots of stuff, and probably still don’t. I have heard that criticisms that he relies too much on other peoples interpretations of philosophical doctrines and is too hard on poor old Aristotle. Personally, I thought his treatment of Aristotle was good, something like: “Aristotle made a great start, but unfortunately with the stagnation of thought after the demise of the Greek city states, he became enshrined as the end of philosophy, or at least the bedrock” (see Aquinas and Catholic philosophy). In any case that’s just my vague recollection and I’m an ignoramus regarding philosophy.
By the way Russell I saw your comment on Rosenau’s post yesterday and thought it was great.
“Extreme” also has positive connotations these days, as in “extreme sports” and “extreme programming” (which is actually a rather conservative methodology as compared to traditional free soloing).
I actually think it’s kind of cool to think of myself as an “extreme atheist” or even a “new atheist” when I’m really the same agnostic I’ve always been. An old attorney of mine was able to upgrade his LLB to a JD for a small fee; it feels like the same thing.
I think Eric is looking a bit too deep into the motivations of the accomodationists. I think a simpler explanation is that they see a ‘moderate’ position as being a politically useful one to adopt.
I see a similar situation in the position of senior democrats regarding same sex marriage or gays in the armed forces. Does anyone seriously believe that Clinton thought “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the best strategy in any way other than politically?
How about Obama and same sex marriage?
I find it hard to believe that he really thinks continued discrimination is the ideal solution.
It’s the same with the evolution debate.
The accomodationists find the new atheists as useful tools in carving out a ‘middle ground’ of ‘moderate’ evolution. The fact that they fight against creationism and intelligent design while simultaneously endorsing the intelligent design-lite of theistic evolution is an uncomfortable point they try to avoid, almost as much as they avoid admitting that science and religion are epistemically incompatible.
“I think a simpler explanation is that they see a ‘moderate’ position as being a politically useful one to adopt.”
Hmmmyes, but it seems to me that a simpler explanation, because it is simpler, doesn’t really explain the level of animosity that is often shown. I’m not sure I buy Eric’s explanation but I do think there is something visceral going on. But maybe not, maybe it’s just cold-blooded deception for pragmatic political purposes.
From a European perspective the relationship of the NCSE and the Discovery Institute does appear somewhat symbiotic. If the NCSE managed to be achieve the level of acceptance of evolution seen on this side of the Atlantic (minus Turkey, I guess!) they would be out of a job.
Another thing they don’t seem to take into consideration is that removing Coyne, Myers and Dawkins from the US evolution debate wouldn’t mean the end of accusations of extreme atheists promoting evolution – there will still be claims of this happening.
The difference is that it will be Eugene Scott, Kevin Padian and their fellow accomodationist travelers like Chris Mooney who are called extremist.
There is no such thing as a moderate atheist to the fundies.
I’m not absolutely sure they would mind being out of a job. I’m pretty sure they would agree that the need for such a thing as the NCSE is pathetic and ridiculous.