Questions still outstanding
I’ve made a list of questions for Chris Mooney (largely for him, since he’s done nearly all the posting on the subject and the questions arise from his posts as well as his book with Sheril Kirshenbaum). He’s ignored or evaded many questions over the last few weeks, and I thought it would be useful to have a list of the most pressing ones. Feel free to suggest additions.
1) What do you want? What do you mean? You say religion is private so we have no business prying into what people believe, but Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson wrote books, Francis Collins wrote a book and has a website. The National Center for Science Education has a website. Are you saying we can’t dispute claims made in books and on websites? If yes, you’re making a grotesque demand. If no – what are you saying?
2) How do you know overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science? How does that work? What is your evidence?
3) How do you know it doesn’t work the other way? Instead or in addition? How do you know the increased availability of atheism doesn’t make some, perhaps many, people feel more at liberty to explore science, follow the evidence wherever it goes, and the like?
4) How do you explain the fact that theism has had pervasive automatic respect and deference for many decades yet the public-science gap has not narrowed?
5) Do you have any evidence that the putative ‘new’ atheism caused a spike in public hostility to science? Can you point to even a correlation?
6) Do you have any concern that your advice is in sharp conflict with the whole idea of free inquiry, free thought, freedom of debate, discussion, argument? Do you have any sense at all that it is, in general, a bad idea to impose prior restraints and inhibitions on what it is okay (acceptable, advisable) to discuss? Do you worry at all about the general effects of this timid, placating, cautious, apologetic imposition of taboos and ‘ssssh’ and ‘don’t mention that’ on public debate? Do you really think your reasons are good enough to trump those possible concerns? Do they, for instance, rise to the level of the reasons it’s best to avoid racial or sexual or ethnic or national epithets in public discussion? And are their attendant risks as small? Do we lose as little of substance by not saying there is no good reason to believe God exists as we do by not calling women ‘bitches’?
7) Do you take enough care to present your critics’ views accurately? You admitted on Daily Kos that you got Dawkins wrong in your book. Are you thoroughly confident that you haven’t made other such mistakes, in the book and on your blog? I know I’ve seen other inaccuracies of that kind, and pointed some of them out to you. (Just one example: you said “The New Atheist critics don’t like [what Eugenie Scott says], it seems, because they want to force people to be “rational” and completely justify their views to a very high standard, or else reject them.” Can you see what is wrong with that? I pointed it out at the time. Do you see the problem? Do you worry that it is pervasive?) Have you noticed that this has happened many times? Does it prompt you to worry more about a tendency to strawman anyone you disagree with?
8) Do you understand the need to be clear about terminology and to avoid ambiguity and equivocation? In particular, do you now see that there is a difference – an important difference, one that’s central to this disagreement – between saying that people can combine science and religion ‘in their lives,’ that ‘you really can have both in your life’, and saying that science and religion are epistemically compatible?
9) Do you understand the implications of the Pew study, which spells out the fact that a large percentage of people simply ignore the findings of science whenever they contradict their religious beliefs? Do you understand that that is not epistemic compatibility but its opposite? Do you have any qualms at all about telling scientists and atheists to just acquiesce in that?
Good! It’s nice to have a central list.
I think (3) isn’t strong enough. It’s not just mere availability that there is prime facie reason to think he is wrong on. There is reason to believe that there are benefits to bold, direct, unapologetic criticism of theism when it comes to certain audiences, specifically authoritarian personalities.
I would fix (8) a little bit because I think his answer is easy to figure out: he does recognize the difference, but thinks the ‘everyday life’ sense is the only pertinent one.
To cut this off at the pass, one would need to ask: “If we’re talking about coherence and cognitive dissonance, what does the Scott ‘everyday life’ test have to do with compatibility? Do you recognize that coherence is the kind of compatibility that is under discussion?”
The Prevention of Literature by George Orwell (1946):
About a year ago I attended a meeting of the P.E.N. Club, the occasion being the tercentenary of Milton’s Aeropagitica — a pamphlet, it may be remembered, in defense of freedom of the press. Milton’s famous phrase about the sin of ‘killing’ a book was printed on the leaflets advertising the meeting which had been circulated beforehand. …
Out of this concourse of several hundred people, perhaps half of whom were directly connected with the writing trade, there was not a single one who could point out that freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose. Significantly, no speaker quoted from the pamphlet which was ostensibly being commemorated. Nor was there any mention of the various books which have been ‘killed’ in England and the United States during the war. In its net effect the meeting was a demonstration in favor of censorship. …
The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue [of] truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. Although the point of emphasis may vary, the writer who refuses to sell his opinions is always branded as a mere egoist. He is accused, that is, of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege. …
To keep the matter in perspective, let me repeat what I said at the beginning of this essay: that in England the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats, but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all. [boldface emphases added]
Here are my questions for Mooney, which I’ve posted on my own website at least twice, without ever having received an answer. A while back, Mooney made the strong claim that I was being “uncivil” in my criticisms of accommodationists.
1. Could you please give me ONE example of my uncivility in the article you cite (my New Republic) review of Kenneth Miller’s and Karl Giberson’s books?
2. More important (question 2 from Ophelia): what do you want us to do? Should I have never published that article? Or should I publish other, accommodationist articles instead that say what I don’t believe. In other words, do you want me (and other atheist-scientists) to shut up, or do you want us to be hypocrites?
People, I said it before and I’ll say it again: spending so much time and effort on Mooney is wasteful. You might as well try to fence against a down pillow — and he’s being paid to obfuscate and nitpick, while most of us are not. Do one solid round of criticism of his book, then save your breath and spirits for real struggles to come.
Ah, but you are neglecting two important points.
1. Mooney is easy. Criticizing him does not take much effort.
2. Mooney has establishment credibility, and taking him down a notch or three is useful.
Good choice on your first question; I think this is by far the most important one. It’s also the one that, to my knowledge, Mooney and his comrades have evaded every single time it’s come up. This is probably not a coincidence.
I reiterate this simple question for Mooney and anyone who sympathizes with him: What are you asking us to do?
If we genuinely believe that religion and science are incompatible, or that religious beliefs are false and should be criticized, what would your advice to us be? Should we lie and say things we don’t believe? Should we just muzzle ourselves? Or is there another option, and if so, what is it?
PZ, I think the best defense is a good offense. Write a book of your own. It can be a polished, extended version of your blog columns. Or make a DVD. Ask the NSF to fund this under their Science and Society grant section. So if/when Mooney et al try telling people that their (ahem) belts are longer by arguing, “We have a published book!” you can reply, “So do I.”
P. S. By NSF funding, I meant protected time to write the proposal. Once that’s done and agented, you put it out to bid.
PZ’s working on the book even as we speak! (He mentioned that in a comment at Pharyngula last week.)
Oh, these questions are all so easy to answer: godtoldme!
Like many others I have no clue what Mooney is getting at either. I come to the same conclusions as others about what he’s trying to say and yet he comes back and says “No, that’s not what I’m saying”. Since so many people “just don’t get it”, I’d say that Mooney either isn’t communicating effectively or he’s confused and doesn’t get it himself.
7) Do you take enough care to present your critics’ views accurately?
That’s a smacker, Ophelia, nicely put – goes well with:
Misrepresent what people you don’t like say – then ignore them when they try to set you straight – then do the misrepresenting all over again, right after people have just told you you’re misrepresenting them –
_____
“Since so many people “just don’t get it”, I’d say that Mooney either isn’t communicating effectively or he’s confused and doesn’t get it himself.”
This is oddly reminiscent of his buddy Nisbet’s behavior when criticized (well, Nisbet also goes ahead and just deletes critical comments from his blog, as well.) Funny how bad- by their own standards!- the advocates of “framing” are at actually doing it.
Unfortunately I can foresee exactly how Mooney will reply to the criticism; by retreating even further into his thorny disdain for atheists, insisting that it’s some kind of a religion with a militant wing and that the leaders of this cult have called down their brainwashed minions upon him.
I’d like to say that this is a caricature of how anti-atheists react, but I’ve seen it both online and in person (primarily from house-sized neckbearded agnostics convinced that atheists are identical to jihadis because they saw a South Park episode to that effect) enough times that I would put some serious cash on Mooney taking the same out.
I’m deeply saddened that it has turned out this way. He’s not a bad fellow I don’t think, but he’s bought into accusations leveled against atheists which are hastily cobbled together propaganda (most in response to the God Delusion) meant to distract from the indefensibility of theism. I’d even wager that most of the theists responsible for that sort of propaganda are shocked and delighted that one of the opposition has bought into it and turned on his own.
I sometimes lament being an atheist for the same reason I lament being a democrat. It’s the most sensible position given what’s available, but just look at the company I’m in. So few have the spine necessary to make the most of their clear advantage over the opposition. Let’s press our hand, because given the way atheism is already regarded, there’s nowhere to go but up.
This is going to seem weird and tangential, and possibly I have a mistaken impression which someone here could correct. However, I think I’ve discerned a common character trait among the self-professed atheists and agnostics who throw the most frequent and asinine accusations of “militancy” and “stridency” at non-religious fellow travelers who choose to clearly and directly criticize both the failures of faith-based epistemology and the widespread religious endorsement of bad ideas and unethical behavior. I’m not just talking about Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet here, but also the ridiculous Mark Vernon and several other professed non-believers (unfortunately including Julian Baggini, albeit on only a few occasions) who, despite their own unbelief, direct overheated rhetoric, bad pseudo-arguments, and an occasional outright slander at the so-called “New Atheists” and their allies. I don’t know any of them personally, but from their writings – essays and articles, blogs and commentary – I get the distinct impression that all of them are rather lacking in a sense of humor.
Matthew Nisbet’s writing in general, and especially his writing in response to criticism, exposes him as a particularly humorless, self-important ass. Chris Mooney’s writing is altogether more personable, generally speaking. But, while Mooney’s writing in general has many virtues (excepting his arguments on this subject), no substantial spark of humor has ever been evident among those virtues, even in his earlier and more informal blogging days when I was a regular reader. I can’t imagine Mark Vernon either making a joke or taking one with good humor; although his arguments are a joke, they aren’t particularly funny. And so on.
In distinct contrast, PZ Myers is hilarious, although his humor is frequently quite barbed. Our hostess Ophelia makes me laugh out loud all the time (sometimes in coffee shops and other embarrassing public places). Dawkins, for all that he’s supposedly so fire-breathing – “Darwin’s rottweiler” and all that rot – actually has a fairly genial sense of humor for the most part. Dan Dennett’s recent reports from the Templeton-funded Cambridge conference were brilliantly funny in an easy-going, low-key fashion. Sam Harris is a bit over-serious, in my opinion, but even he demonstrates considerably more humor in (some) essays than any of the accommodationist crew ever do.
So what gives? I noticed this a while ago and I’ve been chewing on it and trying to figure it out. My ruminations so far are a bit incoherent, but I thought I’d put them out here among some of the brightest sounding-boards I know to see what y’all think.
A sense of humor is at least partly about having perspective: Much humor relies on a very particular kind of social intelligence, an ability to see things from multiple points of view simultaneously. Rhetorically effective humor – especially satire – is very dependent on this component of humor. One must genuinely understand another perspective to effectively satirize it – and to be a truly brilliant satirist, one must be able to see how that perspective appears to yet a third perspective, a sort of conglomerate or average person’s view that allows one to craft satire that has broad appeal. To satirize a person or group or institution, one must be able to portray it such that its character rings true but that also reveals its absurdity in a way that almost anyone can see.
To my mind, what the accommodationists have in common is a poorly-developed faculty for seeing things from the perspectives of others. They profess to have empathy with believers who feel their world-view threatened by science, but most of what they say about believers seems to belittle or infantalize believers rather than respecting or understanding their perspective. Worse yet, they take the responses of believers purely at face value with no allowance for the perspective that the believers occupy: Believers are offended, so those pesky militant atheists must in fact be terribly rude and offensive! Also, the accommodationists frequently treat religious believers as a block and generalize about them in far more broad-brushed ways than Dawkins ever does: Believers who attend the scary little Church of the God of Prophecy I drive past on the way to Macon share little or nothing of the perspective of my Episcopalian friends who jokingly refer to themselves as “Episcopagans,” but the accommodationists frequently treat them all alike – often while accusing outspoken atheists of ignoring theological nuances! (I’ll worry about the theological motes you claim are in my eye when you pay attention to the sociological beams in yours. Dumbass.)
Nor is it just believers that accommodationists fail to understand. They seem to be fixated on a “best way” or “right way” to communicate science, utterly failing to grasp that different approaches work for different people – which is again tied to understanding multiple perspectives. They absolutely suck at understanding criticisms of their claims from a perspective outside the narrow one they occupy, and they demonstrably aren’t good at relating their perspective to those who don’t share their assumptions. And they have a marked tendency to take criticisms of their arguments very personally rather than taking them as criticisms of their arguments, which seems to tie together lacking a capacity for seeing other perspectives and lacking a sense of humor quite neatly.
Am I on to something here, or am I stretching a few fleeting observations beyond their load capacity?
Q (6) “Do you have any concern that your advice is in sharp conflict with the whole idea of free inquiry, free thought, freedom of debate, discussion, argument?”
THAT is the killer question.
Mooney is engaging in a supposedly free debate, whilst attemting to deny the right/ability of OTHERS to debate, because of The respect we must shoiw religious beliefs .
Uggg, the hypocrisy.
Every Living Person Has Problems
Related to 3), one of my intuitions on this subject is that the noise that the outspoken atheists make will force some of the religious to explore their beliefs and, if they are of a certain mindset, try to find the arguments in science to rebut the atheists.
I think one of the biggest problems here (science illiteracy) is simply apathy, surely by turning this thing into a bit of a drama, it’ll reduce the apathy.
On the basis of logic, evidence, common sense, etc. Mooney et al. don’t have a leg to stand on. They’re clearly, obviously, and thoroughly wrong on that basis; there’s no subtlety or controversy at all: they’re just completely wrong.
So, of course, they simply will not fight on that basis; they’re not completely stupid. No general fights a battle on her enemy’s terms.
One quality I greatly admire about PZ Myers work is that he simply accepts as a fact that the religious are, by and large, irrational. He’s not shocked, he doesn’t wring his hands, he doesn’t get blindsided, and, most importantly, he doesn’t assume they want to be rational.
I think that faction of the intelligentsia that like our hosts does indeed value truth and rationality must recognize that today just as much as in 1946, the rest of the intelligentsia simply does not want to discuss the issues rationally; they do not care about the truth. They do not deserve even the benefit of the doubt that they might have a rational, logical, sensible point. Even if they are correct about some point, they are correct by accident.
If Mooney & Kirshenbaum were going to address Dr. Benson’s questions, they would have done so in the book. They didn’t do it there, and they won’t address her questions directly anywhere else. Stating them in the form of actual queries (not even rhetorical questions) seems to give them a lot of ground they do not deserve: it presumes they care about the truth, and presumes there is some reasonable doubt as to the validity of their position. Neither presumption is true or even supportable by the facts; I can see no other reason than academic and professional courtesy for granting these presumptions.
It might be true that the professional intelligentsia demands extending the courtesy that members really do care about the truth, and Drs Benson & Stangroom would do themselves and their ideas more harm than good by challenging Mooney’s fundamental commitment to the truth. If so, the professional intelligentsia is in real trouble (and on Orwell’s evidence has been for many decades at least), because it seems clear to me that those who really do care about the truth are in the minority; the majority use the presumption of caring about the truth to shield the most outrageous ideas, from accommodationism to Islamophilia, from vigorous criticism by undermining the critical standards themselves.
My add:
Do you even begin to grasp the anti-ethical implications of the following quote?
“Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot.”
Aside from this, have you ever actually spoken to writers in fiction to get their take on this line – given that in general every single guide to writing any form of fiction emphasises the point that even fiction must obey its own rules?
“Drs Benson & Stangroom”
Oi, Mr Bum, leave me out of this: if anything I’m on Mooney’s side in this argument.
Tsk!
OB: I think you more or less have your answer to questions 2,3 and 5 in Mooney’s latest post.
Empirical evidence for his claims will be forthcoming after his plan is implemented nation-wide.
Er… the link in 1) “You say religion is private so we have no business prying into what people believe…” goes to Madeleine Bunting rather than Chris Mooney.
Naughty OB, getting two people mixed up like that when both are on your mind. What’s your ulterior motive I wonder? ;-)
if anything I’m on Mooney’s side in this argument.
My sincere apologies. I was confusing the controversy over Mooney’s book with the controversy over Does God Hate Women?.
But seriously: You’re on Mooney’s side? WTF? Mooney is a doofus, but you’re definitely not a doofus. I’d be more interested in hearing your defense of his position than his own defense.
I’m not a Dr!!
I’m not a philosopher, I’m not an academic, I’m not a Dr. I’m not anything with a title or a handle.
Argh, I used the wrong link – that’s me all over, isn’t it. Sloppy!
BB –
“I myself — an uneducated and uncredentialed amateur”
Me too.
Yeah, don’t ask me why Jeremy is – if forced to choose – on Mooney’s side. It’s partly (I think) because he too dislikes overt atheism – but why he would prefer Mooney’s way of arguing etc is beyond me. But I can see perfectly well why he wouldn’t want to be included in all this, so to be clear: this is all me and nothing to do with Jeremy.
I thought of putting it all in the declarative, and at times wanted to – but I also wanted to put it all in the interrogative, partly because I and others have actually asked some or all of these questions, often repeatedly, and Mooney has stonewalled all of them. I wanted a list. I’m forgetful – as we know! – so I wanted a memory-aide.
Bruce – yes – that’s a striking line. On the other hand it’s also a little ambiguous – they may be simply pointing out a hard fact about the way Hollywood works. I decided last week to leave it alone, for that reason.
Well I’m just a bit of a puzzle really… ;-)
And probably a doofus.
But yeah, just wanted to make it clear that some battles I happily fight alongside OB; others are her own to fight, etc, (and I’m sure she wouldn’t have it any other way).
Indeed, and the other way around too. All these battles over BBC bra policy for instance – those are all yours.
Hahahahahaha
Indeed, for you it’s life, God, the Universe. For me, it’s bras.
That says it all really! :-)
Ah you’re playing the old reverse snobbery I’m more vulgar than thou game. I won’t have it. I’ve been known to watch real estate tv. That shocked even you. There is no depth lower than that.
I win!
I think perhaps still the most important question is:
Would you be willing to specify conditions that would lead you to change your mind?
That’s a good one, I might add that.
Have you seen their Newsweek piece? I’m reeling…
I stand corrected, on a number of points.
But I did ask Mr. Stangroom himself why he’s on Mooney’s side: It’s one thing to just say you doesn’t want to join the fray, but it’s quite another to tease us with a provocative tidbit and not deliver.
“but it’s quite another to tease us with a provocative tidbit and not deliver.”
It’s not the first time I’ve had that complaint…!
But at any rate it’s not simply that I wanted to say that I don’t want to join in the fray, although I don’t, I don’t want it assumed that I’m against Mooney.
I’m certainly entitled to point that out without having to explain my thinking on these matters.
Frankly, I’m quite content for people just to assume I’m a doofus.
You’re entitled to say or write whatever you like Jerry; it is after all your blog. But I think it’s reasonable for readers here (many of whom read and like your work) to wonder what you mean. Mooney appears to be at serious odds with what many would think were your very good epistemological positions (you did co-write WTM and DGHW, after all). It’s natural, and normal, for people to be curious to see your position elaborated.
I’m writing this as an admirer, not as a provocateur trying to make you cross (you do seem irritated to even be asked). Again – I’m writing in good faith!
G – Your comment above about the humorlessness of the Mooney set was really spot-on. I hadn’t even considered it until you wrote about it, but now it’s blindingly obvious. Yeah, you’re onto something, just not sure what it is. Correlation? Causation?
I’ve noticed this trait, on reflection, in other people who are interested in issues besides this one. Those who tend to dislike confrontation – or who characterize even mild, reasonable disagreement as provocation – tend to get sniffy whenever someone writes something actually funny (which usually requires a dash of the risque, a tart jab at someone, irreverence, etc.). But they just love “kids say the gosh-darndest things” type of anecdotes. Belly slappers, those!
Thanks Josh. Just a point of correction, though – it’s not my blog!
This is very much OB’s work, etc: she has complete editorial control.
(The complication has to do with legal ownership, and therefore legal – as opposed to moral and editorial – responsibility.)
I’m not irritated, by the way. I very rarely get irritated (that Independent review managed to provoke it though!).
But this is off topic, so I’ll keep quiet from now on.
Very good, Jerry, thanks for writing back. I would have been provoked by the Independent review, too!
Cheers and hats off to both of you – there’s far too little writing of your quality in the world.
RE: Humorlessness.
I don’t know how well it generalizes, but it is certainly true of Mooney, Nisbet and Kirshenbaum. Humor is largely lacking in their blog posts.
Ophelia: And you haven’t been dodging questions left and right directed at you over there? Come on, give me a break.
Ah, TomJoe – I couldn’t possibly be bothered to answer you on the M-K blog, but I can here.
You kept saying double standard: I was rebuking Mooney for not answering my questions but I was ignoring your questions.
There’s a difference: Mooney is the blogger, not a commenter.
There are other differences, to do for instance with the fact that Mooney’s claims are very public and get a lot of oxygen, so (for instance) his character assassination of Coyne, Myers, Dawkins and the like can do real harm. This means he has some moral obligation to heed criticism. Another difference is that I offered some concise, clear questions and objections which he could have answered without much effort.
None of this is parallel to your questions to me. You’re just some anonymous commenter on M-K’s blog; that blog is knee-deep in long wordy confused comments by random bystanders; I feel zero obligation to answer all of them, even ones that address me by name.
Anthony McCarthy on the other hand should have answered me yesterday because he made a very specific accusation which was very obviously false. If I had done that I would have both responded and taken it back. McCarthy refused, which shows what a worm he is.
I trust that answers your question.
For what it’s worth, Anthony McCarthy has been out and out lying about atheists since he was a regular on Hullabaloo years ago; it doesn’t matter if you correct him on a point, he thinks he knows what atheists are about, and will persist even when asked — and then harshly told — to stop. And then he’ll get defensive about how the mean old nasty atheist called him a liar! My advice to all and sundry is to do what I’ve been doing for years, and ignore him completely.
On another tangential topic, to answer your comment, Steve LaBonne, “framing advocates” aren’t bad at what they do; Nisbet and Mooney are bad framing advocates and terrible communicators generally. I’m a framing advocate; speaking as a professional writer and sometime educator, I think the first rule of writing is to tailor your message to your audience, which is framing in a nutshell. Amazingly, it’s possible to do that without screwing with the facts. For example, nobody in academe would deliver a graduate-level seminar on a given topic to a fresh class of first-year students taking an introductory survey course on the same subject, and yet we don’t accuse professors of “lying” or “spinning” when they change the material to suit the students — and yet, if you listen to some people, writers of similarly expository and didactic material are expected to stick with only one method of presenting the facts. That’s patently absurd, and needs to go away.
That doesn’t mean one needs to soft-pedal or act like an accommodationist, but rather to take different approaches for different audiences. How any given writer chooses to approach that is up to them, but M&K’s approach hasn’t worked too well so far.
Mooney really doesn’t like your questions. I have posted a link to it in various threads on their blog three times, but it has been deleted twice, and the third post is still in moderation.
I don’t understand why they can’t debate these questions freely and openly. What do they have to hide? Is it perhaps that they now realise their argument extremely weak?
It’s been deleted? I didn’t know that!
Okay – in that case I’ll have to step up the…effort at persuasion.
I saw the one you did yesterday – I guess that’s the one that was in moderation.
That is very odd, isn’t it – the questions aren’t uncivil. Mostly. I suppose they could say the string of adjectives in #6 are uncivil – but enough so to justify deleting a link to the whole set of questions? Hardly!
The first two times the posts went to moderation and were deleted rather than added to the threads. The third post was accepted.
I didn’t use any offensive language in the two earlier posts, I just proposed that repeatedly evading the questions was itself a form of anti-scientific intellectual dishonesty. It seems that only the third post was accepted because the criticism wasn’t as explicit.
That’s pathetic.