The rest of chapter 8
Moving on.
Scientists as a group are more secular than ‘the rest of the nation.’ Religion is an emotional matter. Creationists fear that evolution [the subject, not evolution itself] will ‘undermine their religious culture.’
Abrasive atheism can only exacerbate this anxiety and reinforce the misimpression that scientific inquiry leads inevitably to the erosion of religion and values. [p. 100]
They apparently mean ‘abrasive atheism’ of scientists there, but they failed to specify that, which is one problem throughout – a constant tendency to overbroaden their claims and confuse the issue. As it stands the claim is nonsensical – ‘abrasive’ atheism as such can only exacerbate fear of evolution? Well, possibly, but it’s not obvious how CM and SK know that. In any case what would one be expected to conclude from that? Abrasive atheism in general will have X predicted bad consequence, so…what? Everybody everywhere should stop being an abrasive atheist? That would be asking a lot.
But they do ask a lot. That’s the problem.
To further the cause of scientific literacy, we need a different, and far more sympathetic, approach, one that’s deeply sensitive to the millions of religious believers among our citizenry. [p 100]
See what I mean? That’s asking a lot. It’s asking a great deal too much. We’ve had that – we’ve had years and years of nearly everyone being deeply sensitive to the millions of religious believers among our citizenry, and we don’t want to be deeply sensitive any more. We want to talk freely. The millions of religious believer can toughen up a little and get used to disagreement.
Then there are two pages of fundamentally irrelevant stuff about history, which demonstrate only what we already know, that people can combine incompatible beliefs, and have done so in the past. Then we get back to the advice.
The official position of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science is that faith and science are perfectly compatible. It is not only the most tolerant but also the most intellectually responsible position for scientists to take in light of the complexities of history and world religion. [103]
That hasn’t been demonstrated.
The problem with the New Atheism [sic], however, isn’t just that it’s divisive or historically incorrect about the relationship between science and religion. It’s also misguided about the nature of science. [103]
Then there are a couple of pages on the putative distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, which is treated as if it were gospel.
The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists [sic] – and neither does the stature of science in our culture. We should instead adopt a stance of respect toward those who hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God’s existence lies outside its expertise. [105]
And that’s about it. I’m not skipping the part where they present a real argument, because there isn’t one. There is some handwaving about methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism, but nothing we haven’t seen on their blog.
One thing that’s interesting about this is that it shoots to pieces Mooney’s recent claims that he hasn’t been telling anyone to shut up. The whole chapter is all about telling ‘the New Atheists’ to shut up – not literally as in ‘Hey, New Atheists: shut up!’; but plainly nevertheless, as in ‘We should instead adopt a stance of respect toward those who hold their faith dear.’ It’s true that it’s not literal censorship, or even a literal command to self-censor – but it’s pretty damn close to being the latter. It is very strong moral advice to self-censor. I think it’s pretty disingenuous of Mooney to keep expressing shock-horror that everyone thinks he’s telling us to shut up. That is pretty much what he is telling us.
If we were to actually follow Mooney’s advice, then it would not seem as though he has aimed for mutual tolerance at all. Rather, as far as this debate goes, by advising one substantive position to interact only defensively, he’s arguably aiming for a mild distortion in the structure of communication, plausibly leading to a disingenuous consensus (over the question of what we ought to effectively believe, esp. when crafting and structuring public policy). If we follow Mooney’s advice, then it precludes even the possibility of having any real consensus at all. Mooney can therefore be rightly criticized for having no feeling for cooperation. His sense of strategy (insofar as it goes beyond platitudes like “don’t be a jerk”) is too Machievellian and illiberal to be acceptable.
It seems to me (though this is arguable) that the metaphilosophical naturalism issue is a red herring. Even if we acknowledge that philosophy and science are continuous in a deep sense, we will still be princesses sleeping on epistemic peas. For all Mooney needs to do is parade an epistemology that acknowledges true justified belief as its criteria for knowledge, and we will predictably enough have a gap between the metaphysical and the evidentially justifiable thrust upon us. Ironically, a pragmatism quite opposite to Mooney’s sense, i.e., one that defines knowledge as something like “optimally justified belief”, would make his position untenable, though at a cost that most epistemologists probably would not bear. (One can’t help but envy Rorty a little bit at this point, even if only a little.)
A question I’m curious to hear peoples’ answers to is, “What is the point of belief?” Answers may illuminate a genuine difference of opinion between Mooney and others. i.e., if a convincing argument can be made to the effect that beliefs are geared towards knowledge first and foremost, and only to foster the brute comforts of social life as a secondary measure, then that would be an added reason behind taking an activist stance against religion.
No, no, no. You misunderstand entirely, OB. Mooney isn’t telling us to shut up. He’s telling us to adopt an entirely different rhetorical strategy – a strategy directed towards a not-very-clearly specified end that all of us may or may not share, an end which (if better explained) may or may not prove to be the only or the most important end we should embrace, and backed up by no evidence or plausible arguments whatsoever that (1) our current rhetorical strategy is actually responsible for any of the harmful effects he asserts it does, or (2) the rhetorical strategy he advocates would actually have any of the positive effects he claims. (On those last two points, see my comment on your previous post.)
As to how telling us to either talk about different things or talk about the same things in an entirely different way doesn’t constitute telling us to shut up, I’m afraid the subtlety of that distinction escapes me and I must defer to Chris Mooney’s evidently superior wisdom. *ahem*
Grr. Pedantic self-correction required. Extra words left from a prior version of a sentence. Drop ‘it does’ and it makes sense, it does. “…(1) our current rhetorical strategy is actually responsible for any of the harmful effects he asserts [period, full stop].”
The Mooney/Nisbet ‘oh, those loony extremists need to tone it down or they’ll alienate everyone’ chant is a reflection of the American political zeitgeist as a whole. This is the country, after all, where we have large percentages of the population who wholeheartedly approve of performing the most heinous acts on innocent foreign nationals–and yet people who advocate for the rule of law are portrayed as the dangerous, bitter, angry extremists. It’s also the country where large segments of the population are denied equal rights–and again, the ones protesting the shameful state of affairs are dangerous extremists who just don’t understand the complexity of the situation and the travails the poor put-upon majority have to cope with. It all starts to sound the same after a while.
It’s sick and it’s disgusting and it’s the norm in America and everything that passes for American “journalism”.
At the sentence level this book seems poorly written.
“To further the cause of scientific literacy, we need a different, and far more sympathetic, approach, one that’s deeply sensitive to the millions of religious believers among our citizenry. [p 100]”
That’s rich. Nevermind how the world’s religions have never gotten along. Is it too much to ask they play by the very same rules, or is that being too intolerant of their right to believe things? Maybe the authors can lead by example and write a book on Sunni/Shia relations. Set the example for the few godless scientists out there who are causing such a huge public relations disaster for science with their book writing jihad.
As soon as atheists infiltrate all levels of government, from the school board to the white house, I’m all ears.
At the sentence level this book seems poorly written.
“To further the cause of scientific literacy, we need a different, and far more sympathetic, approach, one that’s deeply sensitive to the millions of religious believers among our citizenry. [p 100]”
That’s rich. Nevermind how the world’s religions have never gotten along. Is it too much to ask they play by the very same rules, or is that being too intolerant of their right to believe things? Maybe the authors can lead by example and write a book on Sunni/Shia relations. Set the example for the few godless scientists out there who are causing such a huge public relations disaster for science with their book writing jihad.
As soon as atheists infiltrate all levels of government, from the school board to the white house, I’m all ears.
The question of the existence of demons, sprites, and wormhole visitors lies outside its expertise just as surely as the existence of god does… does Mooney think we ought to cater to believers in those things?
No matter how I read it, Mooney seems to be asking that scientists coddle some brands of superstition in a way he wouldn’t advocate for other brands, and it sounds an awful like the fear mongering tactics used to silence Galileo.
I think I’ll worry about the beliefs, sensitivities, and opinions of theists (and their accomodationist spokespals) to the same extent the feelings of their more direct peers. To me, it feels dishonest and smarmy to censor oneself in the ways that they seem to be advising. Moreover, I think the best way to get religion out of science is to treat all superstitious claims equally– and similarly to the way theists want supernatural claims that conflict with their treated by science.
In the world of science, faith is not a means of knowledge or something that deserves special respect.
Damn those embarrassing typos…
First paragraph above: its=Science
2nd paragraph should read “I think I’ll worry about the beliefs, sensitivities, and opinions of theists (and their accomodationist spokespals) to the same extent they respect the feelings of their more direct ‘new atheist’ peers.”
(I like my science honest and straightforward, preferably with a dash of humor–not the kind that Mooney is advocating.)
“Mooney seems to be asking that scientists coddle some brands of superstition in a way he wouldn’t advocate for other brands”
I brought up this point before and the response was something like, we should only respect those beliefs that are taken seriously…perhaps by many people.
How’s that for a reliable metric!
This book really looks to be shaping up as a major disaster for Mooney and Kirshenbaum. It is neither journalism nor science from a journalist and a scientist.
This appears to not even be accomodationism but outright pandering. I guess they gave up. Good thing they were not around to speak during slavery, suffrage and gay rights – they would put those movements back by years.
“Good thing they were not around to speak during slavery, suffrage and gay rights – they would put those movements back by years.”
Ahh but that’s exactly the point! All our progress was made on those fronts without anyone every being rude or hurting the sensitive feelings of their opponents.
Or so Mooney and Kirshenbaum would like us to believe.
“The millions of religious believer can toughen up a little and get used to disagreement.”
The religious believers do that every now and then. Pogroms, Crusades, Inquisitions … yep, they just love that tough-lovin’ god.
I wonder whether the book says anything like this:
“We are civil libertarians and strong supporters of free speech, and of getting arguments out there. Also, being atheists, we want people to know why we think in the way we do, and so of course we believe strongly in the dissemination of atheist ideas. In principle, we agree with people who say that it’s important to criticize religion, because religious ideas are very influential and also very pernicious. We have various views about how our fellow atheists ought to go about making their arguments in order to render them as persuasive and effective as possible. We think that they sometimes put arguments in ways that are not persuasive out of naivety of various kinds.”
This is what Chris says he thinks. I don’t see how he could refuse to sign off on the above; I believe I’ve worded it fairly.
If they could both sign off on that para (but maybe they don’t have exactly the same view, so it’s not guaranteed that they could), it would then be interesting to see how they’d square it with their apparent claim that scientists should not publicly support atheistic views for fear of alienating the American public. I’d like to see the reconciliation.
Is there anything in the book about this? I could understand if they said that scientists should only argue for atheism in the most persuasive manner, and that this always requires a certain level of politeness and a certain gravity of demeanour (which they could then say that PZ doesn’t have). I wouldn’t agree with them, but I least I could understand it if that was what the chapter said.
But if the book said that, I don’t see how it could support the criticisms that were made of Jerry Coyne’s New Republic piece, which was written with all the politeness and gravity that could reasonably be requested. The attack on that piece was the biggest misjudgment we’ve seen from Chris so far, IMO, and although there was a kind of half-apology for it, and a concession over on my blog that writing such a piece is not improper, I still don’t fully understand what considered attitude Chris and Sheril take to a piece like that.
Indeed, if that were their position, wouldn’t they have to praise much of Dawkins’ writing? Not the more humorous bits, I suppose, but a lot of the less humorous bits where Dawkins is very careful to qualify his views, deal with possible objections, make concessions, and so on. And what about Daniel Dennett, whose entire book is like that? Why is Dennett being criticised when he’s gone to such lengths not to write offensively?
Does the new Mooney/Kirshenbaum book help at all with these matters?
It often seems to me that creationists of various stripes see evolution and scientific claims in general as being a rival religion. The constant references to ‘Darwinism’, the attempts to refute scietific findings by attacking Darwin’s character etc, the appeal to consequences (if you accept evolution, people will kill and enslave each other etc.).
I think the best way to conteract this is for scientific organisations to be silent when it comes to religion. Individual scientists of course, can say whatever they like – how could you possibly justify trying to silence them, whether it’s Francis Collins or PZ Myers.
The absolute worse thing scientific organisations could possibly do to reinforce this idea is to actively endorse a particular religious viewpoint. Yet this is exactly what the NCSE etc. all insist on doing. Promoting ‘theistic evolution’ means that that these organisations are promoting Roman Catholic/ liberal Protestant religious beliefs. I know creationists can be pretty stupid, but they are going to notice this. The NCSE cannot claim to be soley promoting good science education while it also devotes time to saying people should favour one variety of christianity over another.
Evolution should be taught in exactly the way other science is, without some special attempt not to hurt people’s feelings. The facts are powerful enough to speak for themselves and should be allowed to do so.
Russell – I haven’t read the whole book yet, but certainly this chapter doesn’t say anything like that (and this is the chief if not only chapter that directly attacks atheism and atheists.)
Why am I not surprised?
Really, I think he’s being bad – that stuff about being baffled that he left on your post is just grossly disingenuous in the light of this chapter. What can he mean he’s baffled?! He thinks and says what you say he does, and more!
Hi Everyone,
Our book is not out yet, though some copies are circulating. We would only ask that before making up your mind, you read the actual book, not this critique of a single chapter. The book itself is not about the New Atheism, but the troubled place of science in our culture, and what that means for our shared future.
More here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/02/pz-your-book-is-en-route/
Chris Mooney
Chris, this critique isn’t intended to get people to make up their minds about the book, it’s intended to be part of the discussion that you yourself kicked off on ‘New Atheism’ and ‘civility’ and self-censorship and all the rest of it. This chapter is part of that discussion. Much of the discussion goes on without you, but that’s because you ignore questions. Doubtless you have little time for answering questions – but if you keep posting on the subject and then ignoring questions – well you’re not going to be able to correct our misunderstandings, if we have any.
Chris, you can be assured of one thing. If I ever happen to write a review of the book, I’ll adopt my usual policy as a reviewer – I start with the assumption that I’m going to read something good that will nonetheless, most likely, have both strengths and weaknesses. I won’t be out to do a hatchet job, but will try my best to be thoughtful and fair.
I think that’s a good policy to adopt all round. It’s served me well for many years now. I must admit that I’m worried about whether you always adopt it in discussing the so-called New Atheist writers, but we’ll see.
Chris, I see no reason why I should buy and or read your book. The summary of the one chapter is enough to clearly show that you want the christian religion to remain on an undeserved throne within the United States.
Clearly when christianity was made up, those people had no concept of evolution, that is evident from the writings included in the current version of the christian handbook. If you presented evolution as a concept to the authors of that handbook, they would, without doubt, deny that evolution was compatible with their intent. Now as a third party you want to shoehorn evolution into the christian handbook by twisting the original intent of the authors. That isn’t consistent with any reasonable conception of scientific practice.
If the United States is so deluded with christianity that the facts of evolution need to be washed with religion, then we have a larger problem then ensuring that young students are exposed to a deliberately deranged version of evolutionary fact.
In the United States we have a culture that is susceptible to deception due not in small part to a reliance on faith over fact. We should be demanding that those in positions that set policy and make laws, present arguments founded on solid reasoning and facts not on faith and appeals to emotional responses. Science is the only subject that traditionally teaches the need for solid fact based evidence to base conclusions upon. That is a skill that is lacking in the general citizenry within the United States. By trying to accommodate christianity within the science classrooms in the United States you are doing a grave injustice to the future prospects of the country.
I should say here that the chapter really doesn’t represent the book as a whole – the book is about other things too. I really meant to discuss the chapter as an entry in this on-going dispute that Chris kicked off at the end of May, not as a report on, much less a review of, the book.
I spent far too much time last week arguing with someone who thought he could tell what our book is like from a few paragraphs at the very end; I don’t want to seem to be playing that role here!
Notagod, I see a few problems with your post:
a) It isn’t clear that Chris interacts with these walls except to advertise an occasional warning over literary prudence.
b) It is not possible to infer from a person’s advocacy of x that they advocate x’s consequences (y). They may be ignorant to x having some consequences (y), or may have a different view of what x’s consequences happen to be (z).
c) Following your reasoning: if you presented the concept of Christianity to the authors of the original handbook, they would deny that it was compatible with their intent. Is this fact of any consequence on the opinions of its inheritors? Certainly not. And the “new atheists” are not primarily interested in criticizing the original handbook(s) for their literary and historical value, they criticize the very ongoing and living practices that go under the heading of “religion” — that is to say, the behaviors of the inheritors.
Of course your other observations seem to me entirely correct.
Speaking of reviews of books: a stirling one over at the New Statesman from Johann Hari for yours and Jeremy’s, Ophelia. That takes away a bit of the sting of the mindless piece that Byrne wrote, I should think.
The trouble with the Byrnes piece, Eric, is not that it’s anti, it’s that it’s packed to the gills with falsehoods.
Anyway yes, a very nice review by Johann Hari.
At its core, this is ultimately a battle for the undecided voter. P.Z.’s approach is to attack religion head on, lobbing science fact wrapped in wit, sarcasm, and bitterness at the bulwarks of organizations like the Discovery Institute. Consider it negative campaigning. Mooney, on the other hand, proposes congeniality over scientific literacy. I presume he imagines that once scientists are seen as warm and snuggly, believers will more readily drop their long held convictions – or at least take science on as a stepchild and not abuse it.
In the real world, the average person would likely recoil from P.Z.’s methods while Mooney’s becomes ineffective because, try as they might, the cold calculations and hard facts of science do not warm the cockles of the heart as much as the welcoming folds of religion.
Do you think either Mooney or Myers will convert Casey Luskin? Mooney, at least, might have an amicable discussion with Luskin, but he’ll be sorely frustrated when trying to defend evolution over intelligent design.
The advantage to Myers is that the vast middle ground is populated more and more by those of the internet age, where his brand of derision is very familiar to anyone who has read the comment sections of blogs and online newspapers – or has listened to talk radio. His style is becoming more prevalent. Perhaps he is even having an effect, as the religious gap between the old and young is growing every day (e.g. see today’s post at The Catholic Review, http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=6473).
I haven’t read Mooney’s book, but I’m hoping it will have a chapter devoted to the more traditional scientists and educators who are keeping a constant strain on this line between science and religion. People like Eugenie Scott keep up the good fight while maintaining high professional standards. Ultimately, I think this is the best approach.
Chris is right about reviewing the book only after reading, but it’s still reasonable to criticise what is said in this chapter, and there’s a lot to criticise.
“We should instead adopt a stance of respect toward those who hold their faith dear”
But why? If I think a belief is foolish and without evidence, and often dangerous, why must I respect it? I respect someone’s right to hold a belief, but not necessarily the fact that they do: I can respect the US President’s right to make the decision to go to war, as part of the wider democratic structure of government, and I can respect that his decision is final once it has been made even if it may be one I didn’t like, but I don’t have to respect the decision itself, nor the reasoning behind it. It’s quite a crucial distinction that isn’t made clear here.
“the question of God’s existence lies outside its expertise”
And again, how is it? Religious believers claim God physically intervenes in the world, and if he does, then the effects and their likelihood of happening – if not their supposed cause – should be scientically measurable. It is partly through such apparent interventions (the other part being revealed truth) that religions claim to ‘know’ God, but they can’t have their cake and eat it: if God does intervene, atheists can measure the effects, if he doesn’t, then religionists have much less to go on in claiming knowledge of some pretty specific stuff about God’s desires.
Jim, what I don’t understand about the cooperative model of persuasion is that it is supposed to appeal to people who want to cooperate. It may produce he groundwork for rational conversions, but rational conversions are not for the most part possible, because there are material impediments in everyday life that pull one’s allegiances elsewhere.
America is an empire. Empires have imperial citizens. Imperial citizens do not just want the consolations of being in an in-group. They also want ammunition against the other-guys. In fact, for many folks, the emphasis lies on the latter, not the former. Such persons are not prepared to have any effective beliefs unless those beliefs are in some sense devastating. In such a climate, P.Z. Myers (or whoever) is more likely to persuade than Mooney is.
Yes, I know, Ophelia, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Byrne’s is a tawdry piece of parti pris. But even lies can sting.
Ben, I think your argument holds for those who are already in their respective in-groups. The vocal ones are those who want ammunition to justify their belonging. On the other hand, I think the majority are non-vocal and are simply satisfied with merely being in the group. As loud as the arguments being waged on the internet and in arresting headlines are, I really believe these represent the extremes and that those making up the center of the bell curve really don’t consider the controversy. They’re just continuing a long pattern of tradition – like getting their sons circumcised without really asking why.
That’s not to say the grounds aren’t shifting. Today, information is much more widely accessible and the younger generations are much more aware of alternatives than the “old guard”.
But I was talking about those who are not in groups or, more specifically, about those who are yet are realizing that credible alternatives exist and are beginning to experience internal conflict. Those people are not taking up ammunition for their cause, but they are looking at the ammunition being thrown at them. The hard core approach can be off-putting. Mooney’s approach is that we lay down arms and have open and frank discussions. I can see merit of this, as long as we’re not fooling ourselves into thinking we’re going to start deconverting priests. His method has to be targeted at that growing group who say they aren’t particularly religious – those who go to church only a few times a year basically as a formality. The problem is that groups like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are not going to lay down arms. They’re going to continue to poke and prod, exploiting any weakness they can find. And Mooney, by relenting, gives them that weakness. He should be asking that scientists continue their yeoman’s work, providing us with the steady, unrelenting progress that banishes religion deeper into the recesses. If scientists have bad PR in getting the word out, well that’s another problem. That’s why the world needs people like Ophelia and Chris and Zimmer. They have the talent that scientists lack (which brings up another topic for discussion: that Mooney is really asking them to be more like him, effective storytellers, even though that’s not their bailiwick).
” Mooney’s approach is that we lay down arms and have open and frank discussions”
Why in the world do you think that that’s Mooney’s approach?
This whole controversy is over the fact that Mooney apparently has decided that the “majority”, or “silent majority”, or whatever, has decided that, no, they don’t want to have this discussion, and we atheists should oblige and shut up about it.
Yeah I have to second that. ‘Open and frank discussions’ are just what Mooney is urging us not to have.
Jim, I see your point, and I think it rests on a sociology that many would agree with. I have a different view.
It seems just as plausible to me to say that those that trend towards only adopting in-group attitudes, and do not become activists in their ideas (i.e., who do not develop effective beliefs), are the ones that are least likely to be convinced one way or another. They are the way they are, not because they’re waiting to be rationally convinced, but because they’re intellectually disinterested in having any independent opinion whatsoever. To carry the caricature to the extreme, for such persons belief is mere endorsement, and it has mainly a diplomatic function: i.e., belief is whatever lets you get along with your neighbors. Such persons are pathological conformists. They cannot be reasoned with.
The people that we would refer to as the “margins”, engaging in the great arguments and what-not, might as well be trying to convince rocks to evaporate when trying to deal with the pathological conformist. Instead, the main strategy when dealing with in-group-only types is to provide forceful incentives and disincentives to form independent and publicly assessable opinions at all. In other words, forcing a total makeover of their temperament. Which is difficult to do, short of getting the lot of them drunk.
But even if you were to succeed, you’d no longer be dealing with in-group-only types anymore — you’re dealing with the “fringe people” in your model. Then you have to re-think what tactics you’re going to use, which may include active and fun and public civil/cooperative debate.
I use scare-quotes because I think the metaphor as you seem to have formulated it is off-base. If we were to reformulate the matter in a direction that I believe would be more useful, we might say that the people who have no opinions are not even at the fringes, and they are certainly not in the middle — rather, they are in the badlands that lies entirely outside of the circle of debate. The people who have a vast majority of beliefs that hang together in a nice way are easily caricatured are those who we can say “are on the fringe” in some direction or other; they’re the ones you have to use brute force persuasion in order to convince. Those that have heteronomous beliefs are “in the middle”; they’re the ones that you should focus persuading with cooperative dialogue. The badlanders cannot be convinced yea or nea at all, they have to come in on their own if they’re interested in being serious. The best you can do is show them why you think they ought to care about the issue.
Peter, Ophelia –
You may be misreading Mooney’s intent…or I may be totally off base. Perhaps my use of “frank and open discussion” was too strong. Nevertheless, he does say something in one of his recent posts which I take as his motivation for the ‘accommadating approach’:
“Take away that perception of conflict, then, and these Americans should be ready to accept science.” (see here)
The goals for the hard core and soft core camps are the same.
Ben,
I don’t think we’re all that far apart, even though we end up with different conclusions. Formalizing the issue with appropriate group definitions, problem statements, etc. would probably show we’re really on the same page. However, not being a professional sociologist, I can only give my inferences based on my observations. The growth in numbers of those claiming no religious affiliation is very promising. Perhaps it really is due to the success of the “New Atheists”, or maybe it’s due to the wealth of information available today for people to make informed choices. I do know that anything else I add will be talking in circles, so I’ll leave at this for now.
Jim,
Cool.
So Coynes review is in, and he notes that current statistics argues against M&K hypothesis. (That vocal atheism is hurting public knowledge and esteem of science.) And history does too. (As CW notes).
PS. “Then there are a couple of pages on the putative distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, which is treated as if it were gospel.” Well, it probably _is_ gospel – as far as I can understand these twin concepts were trotted out by theologists.
Yes, that’s what I gather too. When I first read Mooney’s thoughts on the subject I didn’t know that Robert Pennock is a Quaker (Mooney of course didn’t trouble to mention that).