You have your orders
Chris Mooney is still at it, telling ‘scientists’ what they must do. They must learn to ‘communicate’ better. They must also learn to reassure trembling theists better. They keep not doing that, and Chris Mooney is getting pretty tired of the way they don’t listen to him.
…at its core, the objection to evolution isn’t about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They’re not priests or theologians and don’t know how to sound like them. Many refuse to try; others go to the opposite extreme of advocating vociferous and confrontational atheism.
Isn’t that irritating? Mooney keeps telling them, yet they go right on being atheist and saying why they are atheist. It’s so perverse and obstinate and naughty. After all Mooney has infallible knowledge of what is the right thing to do and what actions will cause what results, so it’s just unconscionable that ‘scientists’ won’t obey him.
Ironically, to increase support for the teaching of evolution, scientists must join forces with — and show more understanding of — religion. Scientists who are believers also need to be more vocal about how they reconcile science and faith.
They must, you see – not they could, or they should, or it might help if they; no, they must. According to Chris Mooney. That’s how we know he has infallible knowledge of what will cause what to happen – it’s because he’s so bossy.
In other words, what’s needed is less “pure science” on its own — although of course scientists must continue to speak in scientifically accurate terms — and more engagement with the concerns of nonscientific audiences. In response to that argument, many researchers will say: “Why target us? We’re the good guys. And if we become more media savvy, we’ll risk our credibility.” There is only one answer to this objection: “Look all around you — at Climategate, at the unending evolution wars — and ask, are your efforts working?” The answer, surely, is no.
The answer is ‘no’ if and only if your definition of ‘working’ is one peculiar to Chris Mooney. What he means is not ‘are your efforts working?’ but ‘are particular things going the way I would like them to go?’ and it simply is not written into the structure of the universe that scientists as such are obliged to do whatever will make things go the way Chris Mooney would like them to; not even if Mooney’s wishes are on the whole sensible wishes. Mooney does have sensible wishes, but they’re not the only possible wishes, and his version of ‘working’ is not the only possible version of ‘working.’ Scientists spending their time being scientists rather than being ‘media savvy’ suck ups and soothers and appeasers makes a lot of things ‘work’ and it may just not be on the cards for them to add political maneuvering to the menu. It’s also just not as obvious as Mooney thinks it is that if scientists did do that, the things Mooney wants to work would work. He has great and unexplained certainty that it is obvious, but pretty much no one else does.
On other topics, including evolution, scientists must recognize that more than scientific matters are at stake, and either address the moral and ethical issues themselves, or pair with those who can (in the case of evolution, religious leaders and scientists such as Giberson and National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins).
Bossy. Bossy bossy bossy. He really should do something about that – being an expert in communication and all. It’s way off-putting to have a young fella like him telling you what you must do, especially when what you must do is something as rebarbative as either trying to talk ‘moral and ethical’ sludge to theists or pair with Karl Giberson or Francis Collins for the purpose.
Maybe what ought to happen is that scientists ought to start writing articles for the Washington Post telling communication experts what they must do to make things work. That would be entertaining.
I would take that last paragraph and run with it. Chris takes conciliation as a “common sense” approach to science communication, but there are plenty of arguments to be made on behalf of (a limited and reasoned sort of) confrontation. i.e., maybe I’m just a petty little man, but I find my ability to recall the science behind Climategate much easier when accompanied by assurances that Rush Limbaugh is a fatmouth.
I’m convinced that we’ll end up unsatisfied if we continue writing these love letters to Mooney, pleading on behalf of a “big tent” strategy to science communication. His heart lies elsewhere.
The way I see it, Mooney is slowly going bonkers, or he is engaged in a deliberate strategy to bag the Templeton Prize.
Are there any other rational explanations for his precipitous slide into Faitheism?
It still gets me that Mooney, who wrote a book about the Republican Party, didn’t notice how the Republican Party became popular even thought it was basically batshit insane – by doing pretty much the opposite to what Mooney says scientists should do to become popular.
And the Democratic Party, despite being slightly more sane than a bunch of people who think America was founded on Christian principles (Like witch hunts) lost because they were distinctly non-confrontational and followed Mooney’s advice.
I am not advocating following the Republican lead here, in the long term the Republican push to simply be extreme for the sake of extremity bit them in the backside when it came time to perform – I am pointing out that in any field other than being a marketting moron (Like Mooney), the non-confrontational approach doesn’t actually work.
Honesty seems to me to be the absolute best approach in terms of strategy – people don’t have to like what scientists tell them, they just have to be able to trust it.
“For all these efforts, why haven’t scientists made any inroads? It’s because at its core, the objection to evolution isn’t about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They’re not priests or theologians and don’t know how to sound like them. Many refuse to try; others go to the opposite extreme of advocating vociferous and confrontational atheism.”
Translation: The only way to defuse the conflict (between that branch of rational enquiry known as science and received scriptural dogma) is for the science community to assuage those fundamental fears in the minds of believers that the Bible might be wrong on life after death; because it certainly is wrong on astronomy, phylogeny and other areas of scientific knowledge.
The best way for scientists to do this IMHO would be by turning up at their local church, introducing themselves and citing their qualifications, and then assuring those assembled that just because the Bible is wrong on phylogeny, astronomy and psychiatry, it does not mean that it is wrong on everything. It could just possibly be right on life after death, which is the areas of main concern to all those assembled.
I am sure Mooney would agree with this course. Who knows? It might lead to a reduction in global warming denialism as a bonus.
That’s the real WTF here, isn’t it? Many scientists are discussing the issues of moral values – they just like to point people towards secular moral systems. But apparently scientists are not allowed by Mooney to advocate their own moral worldview, unless it’s a religious one. Is Mooney really surprised that atheist scientists aren’t going to listen to him when he makes such inane demands?
I’m not quite sure what Mooney is talking about when he refers to ‘the moral and ethical issues’ involved in evolution. Nor is it clear why teaming up with religious scientists would help with whatever it is that is involved. Religions, it is quite clear, have no particular moral or ethical authority. They have, with the rest of us, moral norms and prescriptions, but their being religious does not give them authority. The only thing that would give them authority is being getting the ethics right, and religions usually get it wrong.
Of course, one moral issue that is involved in talking about evolution (or any other aspect of our knowledge of the world) is the question of truth-telling. Funny that Mooney didn’t notice. And, while Mooney might like the idea of NOMA, the claim that religion is the ‘magisterium’ relevant to moral questions is perhaps the biggest mistake that Gould made in trying to divvy up the world of knowledge between science and religion. In what way could religion (remembering its 57 varieties) provide a foundation for morality?
But, just to be bossy, there is a very important must here. Religions must not be left with the belief that they are in sole possession of the field here, regarding ethical and moral issues. Mooney may know a lot about communication, though I have questions even about this, but he doens’t know much about ethics.
Hahahaha Ben – you’re probably right about the love letters.
Templeton. You know, that hadn’t occurred to me. [smites brow] Of course!
Templeton is a seriously corrupting organization. Nicholas Wade says right in the Acknowledgements of his book that they had a hand in the writing. I find that absolutely staggering – that they did, and that he’s apparently not in the least ashamed to admit it. WTF?
The problem I see is this remains one-sided. Atheist scientists must accommodate religious belief and make nice to religious scientists who accept evolution, but where is the commitment of religious scientists to repudiate religious beliefs about homosexuality, for instance. It is not good enough for them to be for evolution. They need to back science across the board and explain how the universe is not how they or their coreligionists believe it ought to be.
Larry Moran has an interesting comment on Chris’ article. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/01/communicating-science.html
From the article, Karl Giberson:
“Many Christians, including fundamentalists, can accept evolution as long as it is not attached to the view that life has no purpose”
And who’s doing that but the bloody religionists?
Is Giberson similarly prescriptive about mathematics, geometry, chemistry? There’s not much in their about life’s purpose.
If there is anything about evolution that suggests that life is without purpose then that’s a conclusion drawn on _theological_ grounds. It is therefore the job of the theologians to assuage the fears of those who draw those conclusions.
Good points – all good points. Mooney brings out the best in everyone – though not perhaps in the sense he intended.
I can’t believe Mooney would bring up climategate. All of the trouble started when the scientists adopted the framing approach he recommends. They took a messy, confusing set of data, models, and assumptions and ‘framed’ them in a simplified, easily digestible form for the masses. And when the masses found out about this framing they felt lied to.
Does anyone expect a different result if we similarly frame other issues?
Yes, OB. Well said.
Science differs from religion in that everything it does is supposed by its own mores and values to have a transparent and rational basis. Mooney appears to believe that the same holds true for religion, and that therefore ther can be valid dialogue.
But then reality intervenes in its club-footed way and spoils the game. The latest inanity: Malaysia’s government has just vowed to fight a court ruling that permits Christians to refer to God using the name ‘Allah’.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/ruling-that-christians-may-call-god-allah-sparks-passion-in-malaysia-20100104-lq6w.html
That’s bullshit on the face of it. The objection to evolution IS about science, because science DOES directly threaten faith by both its content and its structure. First, there’s the content threat: The concrete findings of science threaten many faith-based beliefs about the world, most especially beliefs about the nature and origin of homo sapiens. For the most part, the content of science only poses a threat to rather literal-minded believers, but there are many, many more of those than Mooney and his fellow travelers are usually willing to admit.
The structural threat science poses to faith is broader and deeper, going to the heart of all faith-based religions regardless of how literal-minded and dogmatic the faithful may or may not be. The way science is done – which has more to do with what science is than any of the particular and always-subject-to-revision findings of science – is antithetical to faith. Ultimately, science is no more (and no less!) than a rigorous, formalized approach to critical thinking: The scientific approach to the world demands solid evidence and clear arguments before accepting any claim as true and rejects claims that fail such scrutiny, a mind-set in exact opposition to adopting any belief on faith. It isn’t just the mind-set of science, but the overwhelmingly evident SUCCESS of the scientific approach to learning about the world that threatens faith as a way of deciding what to believe – especially when contrasted to the utter failure of faith claims to in any way live up to or even slightly approach that gold standard of success. Science threatens faith because science works and faith doesn’t: Science works to understand the world, to draw conclusions and make predictions and produce changes in the world. Faith has only ever worked to change minds, and by its very nature faith is a change for the worse.
And science is not just threatening to faith in this straightforward epistemological sense, it’s also very emotionally threatening. As my friend HambyDammit eloquently pointed out just yesterday, faith is an emotionally and mentally shaky state that requires constant tending and reassurance. Anything which undermines those reassurances – which science does both by its content and structure – scares the crap out of believers.
Moreover, science cannot remain science without being both epistemologically threatening and emotionally scary to believers in these ways, so no approach to scientific communication strategy – not even outright lying about science, which at times appears to be what Mooney advocates – can help. But showing the frightened faithful that the world is full of happy, well-adjusted, moral and caring non-believers – scientists and non-scientists alike – is probably the most effective thing that can be done to assuage these kinds of fears: And, sadly, that’s the exact thing that Mooney is trying to cajole and bully and command scientists not to do. I don’t think he’s doing that to suck up to the Templeton Foundation: I just think he’s fixated on some muddle-headed mistakes he’s made, and he has too big an ego to ever learn better. Ego is always the first and foremost obstacle to critical thinking, to learning any new truth or unlearning any old falsehood.
I’ve only addressed the bullshit about science not threatening faith because Mooney’s sly addition of moral values as if it was separate from faith is just more of the same bullshit: Science does not threaten moral values in themselves, but only the moral values of the faithful insofar as they are based on faith – foolishly, illegitimately, irrationally based on faith. And since anything more I said about the utterly disastrous connection of morality to faith would be redundant with things I’ve said many times before, I’ll leave it at that.
Funny, I was pursuing much the same train of thought a couple of hours ago. Theists tend to have a chronic sense of persecution, even (or especially) here in the US where they’re the majority and get kissed on the bum every few minutes. This is probably because of the ever-present awareness that their beliefs are not based on anything. It must be like always being on a tightrope over a ravine. Any second now someone could say ‘But why do you believe that?’ Arrrrrrrgh!
Googling ‘the templeton foundation’ reveals some wondrous possibilities.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
My pet project is the aerodynamics of angels. Analysis of angels modelled on tombstones reveals that their wings would have to beat like those of hummingbirds for them to fly, as the wing areas are so small relative to presumed body weight (unless of course the angel body is hollow and filled with hydrogen or helium).
If an angel wished to fly at high speed, it would require remodelling and streamlining along the lines of a jet fighter. And what does that suggest?
I think I’ll apply for a grant to investigate the possibility that UFOs are in reality high speed angels. I’m willing to collaborate with any interested theologians, and Chris Mooney might even be persuaded to join the team. Perhaps we could work up a joint grant application. No snake oil of course. Just pure clean scientific-theological collaboration.
G Felis and OB. Quite right. As Festinger et al. point out in their book When Prophecy Fails, it’s when people need reassurance that they start proselytising (or as they call it, proselyting). The insecurity of belief also leads to discomfort and frenzied response to anyone who doubts. Religious belief is extremely labile, precisely because it has no critical foundation. It is like tightrope walking across a ravine, and when you’re doing it you expect adulation, not criticism.
So, of course, the religious are not going to give up responding like scalded cats to atheism, or to anything else that challenges belief. Believers can deal with their insecurity by increasing the volume, accommodating (framing) the sources of disquiet, or limiting the scope of belief (a la Armstrong and apophatic theology). Framing will work for some, but only for those, I suspect, who have already recognised that the outlying details of belief have to be surrendered, but then, of course, they’re already doing the framing for themselves. This is, of course, an empirical point and could be checked, though I think it is probably true. What Chris needs to do is to pay more attention to the dynamics of religious belief, and do some research, before he makes broad “religious” pronouncements about framing. (Is Chris’s rhetoric, I wonder, the result of the growing lability of his beliefs regarding framing?)
“On other topics, including evolution, scientists must recognize that more than scientific matters are at stake, and either address the moral and ethical issues themselves, or pair with those who can…”
Apparently Mooney hasn’t heard of bioethics, or the likes of Peter Singer.
Scientists already know there are ethical issues and are addressing them.
What utter ignorance Mooney displays.
Michael Fugate: about the duty of religious scientists to repudiate religious homophobia, I like Russell Blackford’s statement that atheists are not enemies of “genuinely moderate religious believers.” A genuinely moderate religious scientist would repudiate homophobia AND be more concerned with creationism than the rudeness of New Atheists. I have no problem with genuinely moderate religious scientists, but if they’re genuinely moderate then why do they need so much handling with kid-gloves? If they need that extra-sensitivity then they’re by definition NOT moderate, correct?
That’s a good point. If they flounce off in a huff for fatuous reasons, then they’re not moderate. V good point.
Perhaps just moderately unstable?