Not Helping what?
I’m left with one question in particular about Chris Mooney’s position at the Secular Humanism bash yesterday. He kept saying various versions of “you’re not helping!” That’s not helping; I still wonder how that’s helping; I can’t see how that’s helping.
Here’s my question.
Helping what? What are we supposed to be helping with? What is this giant X that Mooney is so familiar with but I am not, that we are all supposed to join hands and help with?
Sometimes it seems to be science education in the US; sometimes it seems to be some kind of peace treaty with science; sometimes it seems to have to do with climate change…but most of the time it’s not even as definite as that, it’s just Unity For Its Own Sake.
But why?
Why are we supposed to be totally united at all times? Why are we under such relentless pressure not to have opinions that the majority does not share? Why are we assumed to have some vast overarching Project that requires unity and will Not Be Helped if we refuse to be drafted into that unity?
I don’t know. I really don’t. I don’t know why Mooney’s reaction, when PZ calls Francis Collins a clown, is to cry out in agitation that that is Not Helping. Not Helping what? What is it that PZ is supposed to want to do that will be Not Helped if (say) Francis Collins becomes annoyed with PZ? Or is the idea that PZ’s calling Collins a clown will Not Help some larger project that we all want to Help because Collins will abandon or sabotage that project out of annoyance at PZ? If so, 1) what is that project? and 2) if it’s that large, why would Collins abandon or sabotage it out of annoyance at PZ?
Really – Mooney seems to have this very easily-triggered terror that a critical comment from one person about one other person will cause some terrible, general, societal harm. But is the structure really that fragile? Are cascades that easy to set off? PZ calls Collins a clown and, whammo, children flee biology class, and Congress passes laws making fuel economy a felony, and the glaciers melt and everybody dies.
I just don’t get what the mechanism is supposed to be, and I don’t get what One Thing we are all supposed to be doing or working for or supporting that will be in jeopardy if too many gnu atheists say boisterous things about people who see the trinity in a waterfall.
I’m not doing One Thing. (Yes I know it looks that way a lot of the time, but even there, it’s really a lot of things, and besides, it only looks that way.) I have a lot of projects. We all do. We can get together with people for one project and then separate for some other project. We don’t have to all agree about everything in order to work together for some particular project. We don’t want to know. We don’t issue criteria for working on Project Q; we just work on it.
So what exactly is it that we’re Not Helping?
Oh, the embarrassment.
Benson, you are a treasure. Can you imagine there even being an America if the Mooney Mind ruled?
I feel like it means “not helping with what I’m trying to do”. If an accommodationist is trying to reassure the faithful that science is not trying to destroy their religion, and that the two are compatible, it’s probably exasperating to have PZ going around, telling people that their religion is stupid and that science provides far more opportunity to discover the truth.
Of course, this is somewhat of a silly objection to make. The reason PZ is “not helping” is because his end goal is totally different. He doesn’t want to “help” create a world where NOMA rules and people can do science because their religion is compartmentalized away; I don’t think he believes it’s even possible to make that work for everyone (nor do I). Without agreeing on an end goal, it’s not very fruitful to discuss how to reach that goal or what helps you get there.
When I look at these accommodationist versus “confrontationalist” (gnu) debates, I feel like I’m watching an argument about “covering” vs. “flaunting”. The question in that case would be “How much do we want to adjust our behavior in order to fit in?” But, given that atheism is not a total identity, but an ontological stance, I think it’s appropriate to answer the question with “Not at all.” In fact, my feeling is that it’s dishonest and patronizing to pretend to see more value or rationality in religion than you actually do see there. So, given what we already know about PZ’s beliefs and ideals, I’d consider him to be contributing less to the discussion if he one day weaseled his way into pretending he thought that religion is not so bad (luckily, that’s unlikely).
“Helping what? What are we supposed to be helping with?”
Mooney’s profit margin? His sense of security? His fragile ego? The Illuminati?
I think Sean is getting pretty close to the core issue. Unity is what Mooney claims is important but his own leadership and setting the tone still more so. If he wants to be united, let him do what we’re doing instead of criticising us for not doing things his way.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Not Helping what? http://dlvr.it/6qF3G […]
My charitable interpretation is that this is a variant of C.P.Snow’s “Two Cultures” fear: that society – or at least U.S. polity – seems to be fracturing into a large, know-nothing hoi polloi and a smaller reality-based elite. And Mooney thinks that this is a Bad Thing, and that in the interests of societal harmony and stability it should be resisted.
Or something like that.
I think it’s a crock, because it is based on an uncritical acceptance of the narrative of those who are pushing the “split” for their own political reasons. Yes, the rump of Christianist Right has morphed into a pseudo-populist Tea Party, most of whom are unreachable by reason, but that doesn’t mean that we have a substantial split within the majority of the country. (Did you catch the news that in the upcoming elections, it looks as if self-professed independents are breaking decisively towards the Democrats?) Despite what Fox TV might display, the O’Donnell’s and Palins of this world do not represent a substantial sentiment in the country, and there is no urgent need to back-pedal on science and reason in order to try to prevent the emergence of any cultural chasm.
For Chris Mooney, I assume the What is wider support for a scientifically informed understanding of the world, and he seems to think that accommodation helps with that mission. I’m not sure how. With respect to acceptance of climate change, people don’t resist the truth because they think that the scientific consensus is somehow atheist. They resist the truth because they think that their economic well-being depends on it, and because the paid skeptics have convinced them that climate scientists are covert socialists. And while resistance to the honest teaching of biological evolution is obviously based on religion, it’s because people find evolutionary theory in conflict with their Biblical understanding of human origins that they resist the truth. Telling them that evolutionary biologists respect their religious beliefs isn’t going to do a thing to change their minds. They haven’t listened to Francis Collins, after all.
The main impact of accommodation is to flatter liberal Christians that they’re not anti-science. That’s all very nice, but it doesn’t do anything to confront ignorance and opposition.
Helping the cause of course! And what cause is it? Well not my cause clearly, since my cause is to get rid of religious thinking so that humanity can prosper. It is rather like a wife-beater who preaches never to hit his wife again, and he comes back smiling with a bunch of flowers and a box of empty promises. Chris Mooney obviously still sees humanity in the wife-beater, and thinks that he and his wife should stay in the same house and live in bliss for eternity. But most realists have waken up from this domestic nightmare and have finally ousted the abuser out of the house.
I can’t speak for Mooney, but in my view, ad hominem attacks are not helping because they draw attention away from the argument. This is a subtle but important nuance. One might reasonable argue that the other person is misinformed, substantially irrational, dishonest, or whatever. But notice how each of those words are claims in themselves that can be supported with sound argument. The subjective label “clown” is much more difficult to support and more likely to produce a strong visceral response across a wide swath of people (including fence sitters and well meaning believers), thereby diminishing their willingness and/or ability to consider opposing views.
Let’s remember that events like the Secular Humanism conference are viewed and/or followed by many people. If we want well meaning people to seriously consider our arguments, then we must use care to keep them focused on the arguments themselves. Shifting focus from the argument to attack the person in a fallacious manner (an ad hominem attack) is a distraction that can work against us, i.e., it’s probably not helping and may be hurting.
I don’t think of this as being an accommodationist, but rather, it’s an effort to argue as effectively as possible.
Here’s a thought:
Mooney is, actually, a bigger clown than Collins.
That is all.
In all seriousness, I think what Moonhead meant was some mixture of “that’s not nice” and “that’s doesn’t produce any positive outcome.”
On both counts, he’s fundamentally correct, but he’s not right. What I mean is, while it is true that calling Collins a clown might not yield any measurable benefit in the fight against nonsense, there is a negative effect that happens when someone like PZ censors himself, which is what Mooney seems to want him to do (for “strategic” reasons). “This guy is a clown” is, in fact, a rather tame response to Collins’ book, considering how rife with nonsense it is. In Mooney’s vision of discourse, no one would ever say what she or he really thinks of Francis Collins, lest Collins be offended and…and what, exactly? Start campaigning against stem cell research? Because some jolly bearded blogger/professor called him a Bozo? Come on.
Someone above me may have said something like this already, but here’s my best attempt at a sympathetic take on/translation of what Mooney is saying. He thinks we are in the position of a political party, except the policies we are trying to “sell” to the public – and he specifically has in mind the American public – are such things as a price on carbon and the teaching of good biological science in schools. Not that he does not think our policies include such things as sexual freedom, reproductive freedom, freedom of speech, gender equality, or even a better philosophical understanding of the universe.
Okay … so much like a political party’s campaign advisors, he then thinks: “How can I make our policies attractive to various demographics, including religious demographics?” Answering that means making his policies as unthreatening as possible to as many people as possible, including as many religious people as possible. That means not challenging their core beliefs and values wherever that can possibly be avoided and dressing up the policies as being compatible with their core beliefs and values wherever possible. He’d presumably understand that there are genuine fundamentalists who’ll never accept evolution, but he thinks that for many people the age or the Earth is not a core belief – he’d probably say that many people who do not have liberal religious beliefs still have rather inchoate religious beliefs, so they are reachable with “our” policies as long as we don’t blatantly threaten their religion (or, say, their ingrained beliefs about such things as sexual morality). And I suppose he’d say that even the fundies form a demographic that we shouldn’t go out of our way to antagonise, even though part of what’s in our policy platform will never be acceptable to them.
If you look at it in this way, it makes sense of how he acts and what he says … and why he just doesn’t get why any of us would challenge people’s religious beliefs. He’d say that giving a threatening message to one of the demographics that we’re trying to reach with our policies is the equivalent of a political party committing electoral suicide. He’d also say that everyone in our party needs to be on message: breaches of party discipline should be avoided, and there’s no reason for our party’s propaganda organs, such as The Intersection, to publish material that criticises the message or approach.
Obviously Mooney doesn’t use this kind of language. It’s my “translation”. But I think it’s a pretty accurate translation of what he is thinking, and it’s coherent on its own terms.
* er, “Note that he does not think …” Not “Not that he does not think …”
Heh, good, I was just wondering if you meant ‘note’ instead of ‘not.’
I think that’s right, and it’s what I’ve always thought, and sometimes said – he’s very political – he has a political mind, especially in the political operative sense. Kind of a Rahm Emmanuel or George Stephanopoulos wannabe. But what I don’t get is why he can’t get it into his head that not everybody is like that, and we don’t have to be. He talks to us as if we had all agreed that we’re all on a permanent political campaign, and most of us have absolutely no interest in that – especially that kind of narrow, purely policy campaign.
It was telling during the debate when an audience member asked: if you could change someone’s politics or religion, which would you choose? And Mooney answered, like lightning, and as I knew he would, “politics” – and PZ said “I refuse to answer – they’re inextricable – change one and you change the other.” He elaborated a bit, in an interesting way. Scott and Stenger agreed with PZ.
Mooney’s version of politics is horribly shallow. It would be fine if he were a city councillor, but when it comes to telling atheists what to say – it’s not so good.
Ophelia Benson wrote:
I see a parallel between Mooney’s accusations of “not helping” and the criticism leveled at those (me included) who see the current political “choice” between Democraps and Repugnicans as specious, since both represent a crushingly narrow spectrum of political views and policies — and either bail out of the process altogether or vote for independents like Ralph Nader, who are then tarred and feathered as “taking votes away from viable candidates.”
Personally, I have chosen to reject the false Dems-vs-GOP “choice”, but then I have to endure the often venom-laced accusation that “I’m not helping”, or that I’m allowing the GOP to win by default. In other words, even those who see the political game as highly flawed choose to contribute to its continued existence by accepting that it’s always a matter of choosing the “least worst” among “viable” candidates (“viable” according to whom?) which are mostly bought and sold to powerful financial and business interests (with the rarest of exceptions, which never make it very far anyway).
Instead of looking at how perverse and unrepresentative the political system is, people accept it as the only “realistic” option, and bovinely submit to this ritual “choice” as if it actually “helped” anyone other than the large interests that pour truckfuls of money into the big travesty we call our “democratic” process.
Is that what “helps”? Certainly not in my own view, borne of decades of close attention to politics.
Well here’s one thing that I did get out of that panel, and that was that each participant was taking about different things. Eugenie pointed out multiple times that her objective was to increase science education and literacy. To accomplish this objective she was fine with cooperating with religious leaders.
PZ often repeated the question (referring to creationism and other religious nonsense): “but is it true?” A fair question indeed and obviously something that concerns him as a university professor who has creationists as students and activists on campus.
Mooney asked something different (and I think this is also a fair question), even though something is true, why are so many people not accepting it. The example of global warming was given to point this out ie something were the preponderance of scientific evidence points to it but yet large majorities in the US don’t accept it. So Mooney was not disagreeing with PZ on the merits. His concern seems to be more: “how do we get the message across” on issues like global warming and stem cell research. To me.
So at least to me, each panelist had a different One Thing in mind: Eugenie was thinking of the NCSE mission statement. PZ was more concerned with reducing belief in creationism and other irrational and non-scientific ideas. Mooney’s One Thing seemed to be science advocacy. The only one I could be sure of however was Eugenie, since she explicitly stated her particular objective on multiple occasions.
Because of the fact that the panel had a very broad topic and the speakers apparently had different things they were advocating for, it made it very hard for me to follow.
Athei novi projectum Mooneyi non adjuvant. Ergo Athei novi Mooneyi non placent.
Dico Mooneyo, ‘fute et caballum tuum!’ :)
Oh it was the last thread where we had dodgy latin…..
Simon, yes, good point – although I don’t think PZ is One Thing-oriented the way Mooney is. Scott sort of is, but it’s way more understandable in her case, since it really is her job – and as PZ forcefully said, it’s a crucial job, and everybody should join the NCSE. In Mooney’s case this single-focus advocacy thing is totally self-appointed – so in him it seems more myopic and more a matter of temperament. But PZ – PZ has a lot of concerns, but they all have to be consistent with not telling lies and not bullshitting. Stenger ditto.
Brian, snicker. I mean, ridens.
Ophelia, PZ is indeed not really One Thing focused (at least on his blog) and he’ll probably be the first to admit it.
As far as Mooney, admittedly at the panel he gave the impression of someone who tries to micro-manage a bit too much(eg the Clown Exchange), so myopic would be a fair assessment. That said, I do share his desire for science to be better communicated to the general public. Admittedly the playing field is not level and there are media narratives that are hostile to this, but I personally don’t mind him advocating for scientists to use their limited media bandwidth to be as effective communicators as possible.
In order to achieve that, I think it’s fair game to both offer constructive recommendations on improvement as well as to offer criticism where it’s warranted-as long as the criticism is sincere (not always easy to tell). I don’t read enough of Mooney’s stuff to know how much time he spends on either activity frankly.
I was also pleased to hear PZ say that we should criticize everything-including ourselves. This is why I was also happy to see this panel convened. If there are legitimate points of disagreement, then open and honest discussion and debate are extremely helpful in my view. I hope CFI has more of these types of discussions in the future.
I appreciate that this is off-topic, but…
…How’s that been workin’ for ya? Like, say, in 1980 or 2000?
Just to clarify, I think I’m like a lot of folks in that I have no problem with Mooney advocating an accommodationist approach. It’s the way he does it that aggravates me. I’d never dis the guy if he didn’t…
a) Insist that his position is somehow the more nuanced position. I.e., anyone who doesn’t think about it the way he does—anyone who wants to fight for a viewpoint that he does not share—is oversimplifying things or being dogmatic. (He, of course, is not dogmatic…)
b) Imply that his views are somehow the more politically savvy. I especially can’t stand this. His views are not politically savvy; they’re politically naive. He is never more out-of-his-element than when he’s talking about “framing” and “messaging.” Puh-leese.
c) Tom Johnson
In message #21, Pidcock baited thusly:
Changing the subject? This is a thread about something else. My example was meant to illustrate a point of principle, whereas you are just baiting me for your own amusement or a cheap shot.
I suggest that you keep trolling the web for other suckers.
One would think Mooney would want to avoid that phrase…
What ever it is we are helping Mooney with, it seems to be a very US-Centric thing.
He seems blind to the role religion is playing in the world outside the US. In Unscientific America he criticises an international science body for not paying attention to US public opinion when demoting Pluto from being a planet. On his blog he has criticised the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, on the grounds that it cause friction within certain sections of US society. The idea that international organisations need not, indeed should not, pay special attention to US public opinion seems lost on him.
I tackled him about his when he was trying to re-launch framing a couple of years ago. The answer I got was that it was the US he was interested in. Well fair enough, but that does not explain why thinks people with an international reach should only take into account the needs of an American audience.
Ken
Well Ken, I assume you are a liberal – how has voting Democratic worked out for you?
In 2006 liberals in America went out and voted for the Democratic party en masse, so that Congress and the Senate would stop being a rubber stamp to GW Bush.
What happened? Congress and the Senate continued to be rubber stamps to GW Bush, thanks to the Blue Dogs, who you had to vote for because everybody knows third party candidates don’t stand a chance.
Not because third party candidates are wrong precisely, but because they can’t get the same lobbies you complain about the current guys deferring to, to fund their campaigns.
And of course, liberals who voted Democratic knowing they weren’t really liberals, are getting completely ignored while the Democratic party hunts the conservative vote.
So really, how has voting Democratic worked out for you?
Maybe Mooney thinks we should be more kind to the handicapped. After all, they NEED to believe that stuff.
I wish people would stop using the word ‘clown’ as a pejorative. I don’t want to be associated with the likes of Collins.
It’s naked coulrophobia, I tells ya.
Marco, yes exactly – part of what I dislike most about Mooney is this party operative schtick he does. It’s the church of savvy again. Did you see that essay? A reader pointed it out a few weeks ago (er, maybe it was you, I forget who it was – sorry, whoever it was) and I put it in Flashback; it’s great stuff.
I remember some very bitter arguments over Nader in 2000. (Before anyone shouts at me – my particular vote did not “take” anything from Gore, and I was sick to death of least worst.)
Increasingly it feels like Republicans push the government rightward and Democrats maintain the status quo. Definitely not the same, but also not acceptable. What we really need is preferential voting, campaign finance, and public media. But how? The system resists change. Nader’s and Perot’s campaigns couldn’t achieve it. McCain-Feingold couldn’t achieve it. Real liberals, like Howard Dean and John Edwards, keep getting shot down, and conservative tools are lauded by our bought-and-paid-for corporate media.
Notice how the media never challenges our right and responsibility to protect the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from terrorists even if they want us gone by a 20 to 1 margin, only whether we can afford to or not. The media discuss whether or not to extend tax cuts for the rich without ever mentioning that for 30 years the top tax bracket has been half what it was for the 40 years prior, and working class people and the economy as a whole did much better under the progressive regime. The media demonizes immigrants for “stealing” jobs while praising neoliberal free trade policies which depress wages and cause job insecurity by shifting the balance of bargaining power toward international corporations and away from workers at home and abroad. The media focuses on meaningless fluff while glossing over the erosion of worker rights, consumer protections, and civil liberties. Private media casts doubt on good science because it profits their owners and advertisers to do so.
The cynic in me says there is no hope against the primal forces of nature, but the fighter in me says, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!” So don’t just argue over blue vs. green, change the mind of those already elected! Wright your president, congresspeople, state and local officials! Volunteer, donate, or just let them know what you think! http://www.contactingthecongress.org
In message #30, Ophelia wrote:
Exactly. I couldn’t agree more. I would even go as far as calling it tyranny of the “least worst” (which is what Mooney seems to be doing as well), considering how strongly those who oppose it are being demonized even by those close to them in the political spectrum.
It’s a narrow way of defining political action as a never-ending continuation of the present, with no vision of something better, no courage to pursue it and no conviction in one’s strength.
Mooney’s not helping pay my mortgage. What a dick.
As far as this OT thing about 3rd-party voting… Let me preface this by saying that your vote is your business, and I wouldn’t deign to criticize someone for voting their conscience (unless their conscience leads them to the Tea Party or something, but that’s another story). For me, however, whether I would choose to vote for a 3rd-party candidate I found superior would depend greatly on the nature of the race and what district I am voting in.
For example, as a NYS resident, in the case of presidential elections I am pretty much entirely free to vote my conscience without reservation, because we know the electoral vote is going to the Democrats. If I lived in Florida or Ohio or something… I might feel differently.
So while again I wouldn’t criticize someone for voting their conscience under any circumstances… I would strongly exhort people voting in swing states to vote Democrat even if it is not their ideal choice. If you aren’t in a swing state, hey, go for it.
James – quite. I could and would have entirely understood people begging me to vote for the possible in a swing state, but I wasn’t in a god damn swing state, and what I got was shouting about the very principle – of actually voting for the candidate I would much have preferred to see elected.
Folks, if you want third (and fourth, and beyond) political parties to have a shot in the U.S., you need to work to change our voting system. As long as we have plurality voting, there will only be two viable political parties, and a vote for one of others really is, not “thrown away”, but a vote for the major party you probably like least.
I recommend William Poundstone’s book Gaming the Vote to everyone I know. I don’t have near enough math to be able to judge his proposed solution (a tweaked version of range voting), but his explanation of the problem seems clear enough.
Sorry for bringing things even more off-topic, but…
Voting dem in 2008 got me a Democratic DOJ arguing that the states secrets privilege prevents the judiciary branch from adjudicating any decision by the executive branch to illegally imprison or even assassinate American citizens, let alone anyone else in the world. It got me a hugely expanded secret CIA robot war in Pakistan. It prevented anyone from holding the 21st century’s greatest war criminals (so far) accountable for their actions. It got me a federal health care bill that forces me to pay a fine if I don’t want to cooperate with corporate insurers. It got me another couple billion dollars of taxpayer money funneled straight into investment banks.
If the two big parties are essentially indistinguishable in terms of effected changes (even if stated policies differ slightly), and if, in addition, a third party vote is, as you imply, simply a waste or even counterproductive, then there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn: American democracy is a failure.
Which do you object to more? The notion that a third party vote can be worthwhile, or the notion that American democracy has failed? Either way, no way in hell am I voting Democrat again in the foreseeable future.
Obama failed to enact equal rights protections for gays, expanded executive power concerning wiretaps and secret military prisons, silently continued neoliberal economic policies, dismissed any discussion of drug reform with a JOKE, ignored campaign finance reform, tripled the crackdown on illegal immigrants compared to Bush, started out with a compromise on health care, financial reform, stimulus spending, restoration of progressive taxes, and military adventures, and after all that, he appointed 2 moderate female Supreme Court justices, Sotomayor and Kagan – yay for race and gender diversity, boo for any meaningful change, and of course screw you if you’re not Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish. Six Catholics and 3 Jews control one branch of our government, and only male Christians have ever controlled the other (officially).
If this makes you mad, then do something about it! Write your congressperson, participate in activism, and get out the vote!
[…] snarky blog, En Tequila Es Verdad. The post was about an attack on Chris Mooney’s position (I’ll quote some of the attack here, in part to convey a sense of the debate): Really – Mooney seems to have this very […]
In post #34, James Sweet wrote:
Reality check: when I brought it up, I premised that mine was a parallel, a way to make a point by analogy — not a way to derail the discussion onto an extraneous topic, but something that I thought helped me make a point pertinent to the subject under discussion.
How did this become an “OT thing”? Please pay attention to what people write and why, before you yourself end up sidetracking the discussion.
By the way, with all due respect, I also really don’t care about what you think of my voting choices, nor to hear what yours are.
Bad ideas promoted publicly need to be confronted publicly. A harmful status quo needs to be brought down. There is so much of “How dare you?” in the religious response to the non-theists’ attacks on their <strike>strangle</strike>stronghold that my bullshit meter immediately goes into the red zone, indicating way too much protest.
If their position were unassailable, they would act that way, and would not need to stifle complaints. Criticism ultimately strengthens a strong position by causing unsupportable objections to be rejected in the open. But it necessarily weakens further a weak position.
Benson is absolutely right on. I cannot understand how attacking the influence of clearly false and harmful claims to magical authority is a bad thing. Is it because the poor believers will be shattered, hearts broken? Just because they say so (What will we DO without our FAITH????), does not make it true.
If you have a broken leg, you may get used to the cast, but it is not going to damage you to take it off when the time comes. In human history, a good time to lose the cast would be right now, considering someone is being killed in the name of god(s) even as I write.