Abdication not the Way to Go
I was surprised to read this about Panda’s Thumb at Pharyngula yesterday. I didn’t know any of it. I don’t read Panda’s very often, whereas I do read Pharyngula almost daily, because I love PZ’s steady flow of irascible atheism. I now realize that the absence of irascible atheism is not absence of mind but intentional. No wonder I’ve never formed a habit of reading it.
The Panda’s Thumb has done a terrible job of covering the Mirecki situation. F-. Total flop. Nosedive into the latrine pit…No names, no details, but let’s just say that there are a few people in the group who would be more comfortable with Michelle Malkin’s innuendo or John Altevogt’s slanders than with supporting an academic critic of fundamentalism…Another lesson I’ve learned, that might be reassuring to some, is that the group as a whole is far more religion-friendly than you might think from reading creationist sites. Criticizing “fundies” is a bad, bad thing, and will cost you the support of many of the Panda’s Thumb gang. Mirecki should be grateful that he isn’t an atheist; I definitely got the feeling that there’d have been anti-Mirecki diatribes publicly washing our hands of him if that had been the case. At least, I don’t feel particularly welcome there, and definitely perceive that I’m a third-class citizen in the hierarchy (heck, I didn’t even know there was a hierarchy until recently). I don’t feel bad enough about it to start going to church to win the prize of being a valued theistic evolutionist, though.
Oh. Oh dear. How unfortunate. See, I think criticizing fundies is one of the more urgent tasks out there right now. What else can we do? Just lie down and let them take over?
While I’m a flaming liberal atheist, most of the people there are not, and they’re actually a diverse bunch; it’s too bad there’s less interest in seeing that diversity expressed than in maintaining a bland front of tepid inoffensiveness. The Panda’s Thumb is a great resource for science and focused critiques of creationism, and everyone should keep reading it, but we should also be clear on what it is not. It is not ever going to address the root causes of creationism in our country: the virulent, pathological brands of fundamentalism that are growing in our midst. That would be…rude.
That’s just it – the root causes problem. They have to be addressed, because the alternative is just submission.
One of the PT people commented on PZ’s post, and said something I find very strange and somewhat worrying.
As a biologist, I can claim some expertise in my area of study. I also have strong views on politics and religion. But no matter how strongly felt my views of religion and politics are, in these I’m just another citizen. As a biologist, I’ll happily tell you when your facts about science are wrong. As a citizen, I don’t believe I have the same warrant to make pronouncements about the personal, individual, subjectively held beliefs of whole classes of people.
But we’re all just other citizens in our views on religion and politics. Why would it follow that we don’t have warrant to make pronouncements about everyone else’s views – whether they belong to whole classes of people or not? That’s just a total abdication of argument, thought, and rational discussion, isn’t it? And if we do that – if we just throw up our hands and say we don’t have warrant to make pronouncements on people’s ‘beliefs’ then we just give the irrationalists a free hand. And that’s the worst thing we can do. The worst. We’re all citizens (if we’re lucky, if we don’t live in dictatorships), we live in democracies (those of us who do), and public matters are for public discussion. Public discussion rests on reasons rather than authority or revelation – it has to – those are the only alternatives. If you give up on reasons and reason, then authority and revelation is what takes over. So the idea that citizens should abstain from challenging one another’s beliefs merely because they are personal, individual, and subjectively held – is a dangerous idea, in my view. It’s just locking up the only tools we have, in the face of a determined, aggressive, hostile, totalitarian enemy. Why would we want to do that?
The idea of fundies taking over the country fails the laugh test here in Australia.
Are you sure there is no-one quietly giggling behind your back? I mean is it really a concern that you get an American Christian Taliban, or just personal despair as a result of a series of things that really really really bother you with Repugs in power?
Yes, it’s really a concern. These things aren’t just hot air, you know. Laws can be passed, the Constitution can be changed. There’s no magic wizard wall of okayness preventing that from happening.
If you give up on reasons and reason, then authority and revelation is what takes over…
I would argue (and have argued) that the most pernicious and damaging aspect of religion in general is that it corrodes respect for reason and weakens the independence of the intellect. The adherent learns, often implicitly but very unsubtly, that there are ways to knowledge that somehow transcend reason–even that there’s something bad about reason–that somehow, the mystical system in which they’re being indoctrinated has got something better.
These ways to ‘knowledge’, in practice, however, are in de facto terms one of two things: either i) directly, simply authoritarian (the local alleged representative of the deity says this is what the deity says), or, more frequently, ii) a slightly more complex mix of the authoritarian and the communally coerced (in which the previous mechanism is also used, but there’s also a local mythos that we’ve all had words in some fashion with the deity, and if you’re really one of us, you’ll convince yourself of the same, thanks so much).
End result, in my I think not so wild conjecture: an amplified tendency to accept authoritarian and communally coerced notions (a weakness for ‘groupthink’, in the vernacular), and a generally reduced respect for reason.
A populace so conditioned is ripe for manipulation by demagogues. So though I doubt it’s the whole story, I strongly suspect it contributes to a certain dynamic in politics (in the US among other places)–allows self-interested oligarchies greater latitude in securing popular support for agendas not by any means in the interest of the people at large. And in that sense, at least, ‘authority and revelation’ are indeed already taking over in said political climates, at least in some demographics.
And yeah, indeed. Just repeating what you’ve been saying for months, but damn, no, let’s not be locking up reason out of mere concern for hurting anyone’s feelings. By all means, let’s teach religious studies (as does Mirecki) in the context of the archaeological and historical evidence available, and let’s not worry too much who gets offended. And by all means, let’s be insulting. Dumb ideas gotta be called dumb ideas. Lies, same deal. Manipulative bullshit playing on popular predjudice, damn straight you call it that when you see it. The fact that someone calls it their religion doesn’t put it out of bounds. Not by any means.
Aj Milne, I’m going to quote your post on another discussion board where the debate is raging :)
Public discussion rests on persuasion.
One has to make peace with the idea that in a democracy, everybody has a voice and a vote. EVERYBODY. The smart and the dumb, the educated and the ignorant, the reasonable and the unreasonable.
OB, I find it interesting that in the following post you admit that some of what P.Z. Myers says or writes is over your head. To accept his expert authority, you have to go some distance on faith–faith buttressed by reasonable assumptions, that P.Z. is a smart and decent guy with sound credentials who’s never steered you wrong before, or whatever. But reason doesn’t take you the whole way. An element of persuasion is necessary.
Surely you see that the commenter is using “pronouncement” specifically to mean an authoritative statement made in a meritocratic context, such as a biologist stating his findings in a paper or a seminar, about a class of organisms who will not resent being told what they are without their consent.
None of us is an expert on everything, and in democratic discourse there is a principle (politicians at least pay lip service to it) that nobody is an expert on anything at all, we are all just masses of selfish interests and irrational prejudices. Through the democratic process, interests and prejudices are balanced and sifted out until we arrive at a just conclusion. Theoretically. Provisionally.
The commenter you quote? His adversary in that discussion later states that Christians Are Insane. That’s a pronouncement for you.
I think of the way some Republicans suffered from Clinton Derangement Syndrome; partisan mental health problems.
So we have a fight over display of 10 commandments in courtrooms or public parks. It is a bit removed from witch trials with real hangings, last seen in the US a short time ago…
And we see Roe vs Wade not actually under judicial attack, but with Chicken Little abortion activists PRETENDING it might get reversed.
And the courts just NAILED the ID nutjobs.
You have collossal protections of free speech and non-religion. You have habeas corpus. You have the rule of law. You have edjukayshun (except in motel-based creation science universities). You have the internet, press, TV, radio, computers, printers…
And you have the armed might of the US military sworn to uphold the US constitution.
Now explain again how a surge in church attendance is going to create a fundie Taliban? You know, where women are banned from education or leaving the house without a man’s letter of permission? I just don’t see anything except the usual dynamic tension here.
I don’t lie awake at night worrying about a fundamentalist takeover, but the US Constitution has been taking a beating lately. In recent news, US military and intelligence are secretly torturing detainees overseas, and secretly spying on US citizens at home.
!
!
Damn, I just CAN’T raise a damn.
Dix Hill: “None of us is an expert on everything, and in democratic discourse there is a principle (politicians at least pay lip service to it) that nobody is an expert on anything at all, we are all just masses of selfish interests and irrational prejudices. Through the democratic process, interests and prejudices are balanced and sifted out until we arrive at a just conclusion. Theoretically. Provisionally. “
Dix, I find this a bit hard to accept. Who has stated this principle seriously? The one-person-one-vote idea implies something of this, but in real humans the one with experience and authority speaks, is heard and voters then exercise their vote on their judgement. That includes possibilities both self-interested and Altruistic behaviour, plus ignorant or informed voting.
In traditional ideals of reresentative democracy, a person is elected to hear the arguments whether from the wise or the foolish and JUDGE according to his best lights. His vote is not bound by opinion polls or compromise with every idiot idea that presents.
The democratic process is not intended to be fair as between ideas of differing merit, but fair as between individuals of voting status.
If takeovers by fundies were merely a wild imagining, a worry about something that might happen but had never actually been known to happen in the real world, I’d say, ok, laugh at OB all you like. But we have this a couple or more centuries back in our own history (Western world in general) and right in front of us right now in other countries. Why the complacent certainty that the pendulum can only swing in one direction and that in the 21st century none of its swings can be radical? I hope it can’t happen but I don’t intend to shut up about things that are wrong right now just because I hope they won’t get a lot worse.
“Who has stated this principle seriously? … in real humans the one with experience and authority speaks… The democratic process is not intended to be fair as between ideas of differing merit, but fair as between individuals of voting status.”
I overstated the case. There is such a thing as leadership, as leading public opinion toward what it needs, not what it thinks it wants. But effective leadership has little to do with proving how correct you are.
“Why the complacent certainty that the pendulum can only swing in one direction and that in the 21st century none of its swings can be radical?”
I don’t mean to be complacent. And I strongly oppose the encroachment of religion on science in U.S. schools. It just struck me after ChrisPer’s post that with regard to the Constitution, we got good news this week on the ID front, but very bad news on the search-without-warrant front. But maybe there’s some other website for me to talk about that.
OK, you could call this complacent, but I believe that Americans may be infatuated with Creationism, but they REALLY LOVE modern medicine, technological conveniences, economic growth, and other stuff that depends on science. We need to work to point out the irreconcilable conflict between these two things, but I’m confident which way history will ultimately go, especially in the U.S.
“One has to make peace with the idea that in a democracy, everybody has a voice and a vote. EVERYBODY. The smart and the dumb, the educated and the ignorant, the reasonable and the unreasonable.”
Yes – so? What’s the point of that? Who said anything different? I’m not talking about votes, or even voices, I’m talking about deference, and self-censorship. Having a voice doesn’t mean being entitled to be told you’re not wrong. A voice is just a voice. I have a voice, but no one’s going to invite me to sing at La Scala.
“OB, I find it interesting that in the following post you admit that some of what P.Z. Myers says or writes is over your head.”
I didn’t really say that. I just assume it would be, from what he said. I haven’t actually listened to him. Anyway the point is more that it could be, on principle, because no one knows everything, no one can understand everything.
“Surely you see that the commenter is using “pronouncement” specifically to mean an authoritative statement made in a meritocratic context, such as a biologist stating his findings in a paper or a seminar, about a class of organisms who will not resent being told what they are without their consent.”
No, that’s exactly what I don’t see, and I don’t think that is what he’s saying. I think he’s making a false equivalence. There’s no such thing as “an authoritative statement” in politics. As for religion – I would say there are more or less informed, more or less thoughtful statements – but no authoritative ones. Theologians haven’t actually done research on the deity, so no one has to defer to the density of their knowledge, because there’s nothing to know.
“None of us is an expert on everything, and in democratic discourse there is a principle (politicians at least pay lip service to it) that nobody is an expert on anything at all, we are all just masses of selfish interests and irrational prejudices. Through the democratic process, interests and prejudices are balanced and sifted out until we arrive at a just conclusion. Theoretically. Provisionally.”
Well, I think that’s nonsense. “Through the democratic process” nothing – through rational discussion. If that’s ruled out, all we get is a mess.
Chrisper,
“And we see Roe vs Wade not actually under judicial attack, but with Chicken Little abortion activists PRETENDING it might get reversed.”
No. Abortion is unavailable in many states in the US right now, because intimidation has made it such a nightmare for doctors that they don’t provide it any more. It’s not the case that there are only two choices here: either a Supreme Court reversal of Roe, or everything is just fine. Chicken Little me no Chicken Little; abortion is already much harder to get than it was 30 years ago.
“Now explain again how a surge in church attendance is going to create a fundie Taliban? You know, where women are banned from education or leaving the house without a man’s letter of permission?”
Gradually, by steadily working away, that’s how. I’m not saying it is going to happen, but I am saying it is not impossible, and there are a lot of people who would like to see just that. It’s smug to just decide that it’s impossible. The fundies have already made a lot of changes by steadily working away, and they’re increasing their numbers, and they have no intention of stopping. And I’m not talking about a surge in church attendance, for fuck’s sake, I’m talking about politics, legislation, school boards.
“Americans may be infatuated with Creationism, but they REALLY LOVE modern medicine, technological conveniences, economic growth, and other stuff that depends on science.”
Yes. Very true. And that may well be the limit past which the fundies can’t go. I certainly hope so! But I don’t think we should declare ourselves certain of that.
Well, my invitation to refuge here is still open. But come first for your pleasure; IMHO you won’t soon have cause to become a refugee!
And your point is good; that a string of small changes may be adding up to a major change of climate.
For me it was interesting working in Africa, because there was a freedom – freedom to say you are a churchgoer without fear of social opprobrium because the person you were speaking to likely was as well. I understand the ‘chilling effect’ a little from the other side.
Damn, its probably the same as being of the ‘intellectual elite’! Hand me a glass of chardonnay, I have a toast:
Merry Christmas OB, and I wish you and those you love a happy, prosperous and safe new year.
A. J. Milne writes:
>I would argue (and have argued) that the most pernicious and damaging aspect of religion in general is that it corrodes respect for reason and weakens the independence of the intellect. […]< >End result, in my I think not so wild conjecture: an amplified tendency to accept authoritarian and communally coerced notions (a weakness for ‘groupthink’, in the vernacular), and a generally reduced respect for reason.< That this is rather more complex than A. J. Milne writes can be seen from the fact that (i) historically there have been plenty of people with religious beliefs who have been free-thinking in all sorts of ways, socially, scientifically, etc, and (ii) tendencies to authoritarianism can be found in some Leftist groups who renounce religion in all its guises.
G. Tingey writes:
>ANd it is only marginally better here – we have got millionaire christian second-hand car salesmen being allowed to partially fund state schools, and then peddle their deliberate lies to the children.< Only *marginally* different in the UK? G. Tingey is letting his imagination run away with him.
Back atcha, Chris.
If by “church” G. Tingey means the kind of schools he alluded to previously, these number a tiny part of one percent of the scores of thousands of secondary schools in the UK.
At the moment Allen, that’s true. But Tony and his Opus Dei Education Secretary are trying to introduce legislation that will change that aren’t they? Even John Prescott has cried ‘foul’ on this one. And there’s the re-assertion of the morning prayer law – why now? Constant dripping, you know?
If we want to see how it can go, Egypt is a good example. The government’s trade-off with the Muslim Brotherhood has led to many more restrictions in daily life there, especially for women and now that as ‘independents’ the MB has got a lot more seats in Parliament this wil probably accelerate. Or northern Nigeria with it’s full implementation of sharia law. The pendulum CAN swing back.
Thanks, Chris. My point all too frequently. I so often feel people are afflicted by a mentality of “it can’t happen here” or “it won’t happen to me” or “we’ve advanced too far ever to go that far back again” which are positons about as defensible as faith in god. It may be true that there are certain things in history which seem very unlikely to recur, but when something has happened for centuries at a time, in almost every country and has been seen to repeat itself even after societies have liberated themselves of it, saying “don’t worry” does not reassure me. There are countries that are at present secular enough that they manage without legislating separation of church and state. Not only could that change, so could laws in other countries that are the only things holding the religious landslide at bay.
And we should also keep a sense of proportion. I think most of us here find that Welsh compulsory prayer thing revolting, but surely that’s largely because for most of us it hits closer to home. If we were to wake up to the news that in all Islamic-ruled countries religious coercion had suddenly been limited to compulsory prayers in schools, wouldn’t we be celebrating like mad?
Just so. I would love to think it can’t happen here – and I certainly hope it doesn’t – but some of it is already in the process of happening, and I don’t think anyone knows where is the magic dividing line that will keep it from going any farther.
Interesting. I hadn’t heard of Potter’s House before. I see it’s an offshoot of Foursquare. Ick. Foursquare is very big around here (Pacific Northwest).
Wikipedia entry
A remarkably badly written, mistake-riddled Wikipedia article. I thought there was supposed to be some oversight there. Still, there it is, for an overview.
Potters House ain’t gonna replace the Supreme Court and legislature anywhere.
I have seen a bit of Foursquare because my grandparents were actual pastors in it, though I was not raised ‘in’ any church. I have been to a Potters House plant. With all due respect, these are just slightly nutty churches even if they are differently abled in the ‘exercise of the gift of discernment’.