51. Comment #243378 by DiveMedic on September 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I, as well, am a member of the Skeptic's Society and have been a bit confused by Mr. Shermer's work with Templeton on their pamphlet showing contrasting arguments on whether science makes belief in a god obsolete as well as the fact that they have been able to run a full page ad promoting the pamphlet in the as recent issue of Skeptic.

Shermer claims (and I believe him) that Templeton gave him complete editorial control of the pamphlet.

Now, pardon me for being somewhat SKEPTICAL... but does this not seem like a brilliant way for Templeton to portray itself as a legitimate scientific organization. It just seems to me like Shermer is allowing himself to be used as a self-promotion campaign on the part of Templeton.

Am I way off base here, or what?

Other Comments by DiveMedic

52. Comment #243382 by decius on September 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #243378 by DiveMedic

Am I way off base here, or what?

Not at all. Did you watch Beyond Belief 2007? At some point Kroto makes some scorching remarks about the TF, and Shermer gets all emotional and upset - loudly interrupting the lecture and demanding an apology from Kroto.

Stunning.

To tell you the truth, I think he has been bought in a way or another. Most likely TF is advertising on Shermer's magazine and injecting much needed cash. It's still inexcusable and Shermer increasingly looks like a twat.

Other Comments by decius

53. Comment #243389 by Janus on September 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I'm in complete agreement with decius. It would be interesting to take a look at a list of the checks cashed in by Shermer over the last few years.

Other Comments by Janus

54. Comment #243403 by Smith on September 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm

My concern:

Did Josh and the admin know that this conference is (partly) co-sponsored by the Templeton Foundation and still promote it on "The Official Richard Dawkins Website," bearing in mind that Richard has publicly and on multiple occasions denounced its overt intent to subverse science?

--------------------

Or am I being cynical (as usual)?

Other Comments by Smith

55. Comment #243404 by DiveMedic on September 5, 2008 at 5:29 pm

When I first heard of the pamphlet a few months ago, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I have been very pleased with Skeptic magazine and with the few lectures of theirs that I have attended, and found it very hard to believe that Mr. Shermer could not see what seemed like a very transparent PR trick to me.

Upon receiving my latest issue of Skeptic, I immediately cracked it open and searched for this ad that Shermer had mentioned... and there it was. I know what it is like to run a campaign on a shoestring budget, but this just seemed like an act of "selling out" that is even worse than allowing a full page ad for the Church of Scientology to run in Skeptic (at least none of the readers could potentially take such an ad seriously).

I truly do hope that there is SOME kind of rational explanation for all of this, though it looks increasingly unlikely to me that there is.

Other Comments by DiveMedic

56. Comment #243494 by Bernstein on September 6, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #242910 by SaintStephen

I'm also here for that. We'll see.

Other Comments by Bernstein

57. Comment #243499 by Tumara Baap on September 6, 2008 at 3:22 am

Templeton Foundation paid millions to have their God vs Science essays published online/ and in magazines such as Huffington Post and the Economist. Michael Shermer believes in having a civil discourse with the other side, and he was apparently given full latitude by Templeton to choose the writers. But what did Templeton Foundation get back for its millions?
A religious Deepak Chopra/Eckhardt Tolle reading buddy of mine wrote me an email about his distrust in leftie over-analytical scientists who don't see the big picture. He thinks Richard Dawkins is so foolish not to believe in God. Appended was a link to the Templeton Foudation essay project by Shermer! It dawned on me then what Templeton got for its millions.
It will never occur to the average reader that the intellectuals who contributed are not necessarily the finest minds on the subject, and especially not by Shermer's standards. The writers I'm sure were chosen to reflect a diversity of opinions. Some such as Ken Miller hold an extreme minority opinion about God amongst evolutionary biologists, but is a public relations gem for NCSE. Another was a theologian notable for being pro-evolution. Nothing wrong in pursuing diverse views. But Templeton got away relaying to countless people that there is legitimate division on the subject amongst leading thinkers, even scientists. (a breakdown of members National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society is overwhelmingly lopsided on the subject) It also legitimized Templeton Foundation as an arbiter of the debate. Shermer's participation in this project surely lends heft to all those dubious prizes they intend to award. Michael Shermer, you got bloody bamboozled.

I noticed Richard wasn't one of the essayists, though he must've been approached. Hats off to him!

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

58. Comment #243521 by AfraidToDie on September 6, 2008 at 5:02 am

Don't you think it does more to promote our cause to get our point of view out to theists, than for theists to get their point of view out to atheists? I doubt there is one atheist converted to theism, but having the chance to promote rational thinking to some theists who may have doubts would be to our benefit. Theists rarely open rational thinking to their flocks for good reason. We need to sponsor a Rational Thinker's TV program on Sunday mornings on local stations everywhere in the US and continually play debates and lectures from RD and others just to let it be known that there is another logical, rational way to look at things. As it stands, theists and their flocks wallow in isolation from the truth.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

59. Comment #243546 by blakjack on September 6, 2008 at 6:40 am

Skeptic - Definition
"One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions."

I actually object to being called a skeptic; it is the religious view that is the "abnormal" position as far as I am concerned

How long I have to wonder before religious believers are conventionally known as skeptics? ie, believers who don't accept the "norm", namely atheism, will be the new "skeptics".

Jack

Other Comments by blakjack

60. Comment #243552 by decius on September 6, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #243546 by blakjack

Scientific scepticism is what you should look up.

Other Comments by decius

61. Comment #243577 by Wosret on September 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

59. Comment #243546 by blakjack

That makes no sense. Atheism is not an assertion, nor can one "accept" it. It is the rejection of an assertion, and the failure to accept a proposition. Atheism is not equal and opposite to theism, it is the lack of theism.

Other Comments by Wosret

62. Comment #243587 by Janus on September 6, 2008 at 10:09 am

I hope everyone will read comment #243499 by Tumara Baap, because it's absolutely spot-on.

Other Comments by Janus

63. Comment #243594 by Quine on September 6, 2008 at 10:48 am

I would like to hear Michael Shemer respond to the questions from Tumara Baap. Does anyone, here, have his email address and would ask him to post?

Other Comments by Quine

64. Comment #243657 by thebigpill on September 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Regarding Sean Carroll, ergaster wrote:

"He is an outspoken atheist, who argues that scientific thinking leads one to a materialist worldview."

Really? This fascinates me...I have a dvd from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, where he gave the Holiday Lectures on Science (along with David Kingsley of Stanford), and when the question of religion and evolution came up, Sean Carroll stated quite unequivocally that he believes it is in poor taste to even discuss the religous views of others (if I recall, he compared it to talking about how much people make). I love Sean Carroll - could anybody point me to some speeches/writings by him that would indicate that he is an outspoken atheist? I wasn't even sure that he WAS an atheist from the stuff I've read (Making of the Fittest, Endless Forms Most Beautiful).

Thanks.

Other Comments by thebigpill

65. Comment #243666 by Smith on September 6, 2008 at 5:22 pm

thebigpill,

There are (at least) two scientists named Sean Carroll. One is S. M. C.. Another is S. B. C.. You can try wikipedia yourself to tell them apart.

Other Comments by Smith

66. Comment #243669 by Darwin's Teapot on September 6, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Quine et al-

It would be great to get Shermer to respond.

Schermer's Email: mshermer@skeptic.com
Phone Number: 626-794-3119

Best,
www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

67. Comment #243695 by Jayday on September 6, 2008 at 11:16 pm

TThank you Comment #243499 by Tumara Baap for your comment about the Templeton Foundation's involvement with Shermer. I am a Skeptics Society member. Or should I say, when my subscription runs out this Fall I won't renew my membership. If you read some of my "other comments" by Jayday, there are several regarding Michael Shermer's perplexing behavior over the last few months.

Comment #243521 by AfraidToDie

Michael Shermer and Dinesh D' Souza debated this year at Cal Tech in front of a few thousand people. Most of the people attending were theists. I thought it would be a great opportunity for them to hear another point of view via Shermer. To my shock and dismay, Shermer laid down on the mat and just handed D'Souza the debate. I was so surprised because I've heard Shermer speak numerous times in person and have known him to be quite articulate. His display at the debate was embarrassing. I lost a great deal of respect for him that day. I saw a huge change in his behavior that just didn't make sense. If this conference reflects more of the same, the theists aren't likely to hear anything that may make them considers a different perspective. After the D'Souza debate, I am inclined to think Shermer doesn't really care if they are exposed to something different. I would like it if he would respond and explain his intentions.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

68. Comment #243702 by SaintStephen on September 7, 2008 at 1:56 am

From the half-baked (and incredibly presumptuous) idea department:

I wonder if Professor Dawkins could convert (de-convert?) my religious Mother, by directly responding to her questions/comments on this website. I've noticed that Richard DOES respond occasionally in these comment sections (which makes me go "WOW!"), and I think it could be very interesting theatre, at least for an hour or two.

My Mother is a devout Catholic, 70-something in age, and simply a delightful person. I've tried to bind her myself with our hero RD's Kevlar-reinforced logic, but to no avail... and her smile, her positive attitude toward life, and her unflagging grace cause me to walk away feeling like I AM the one who is deluded.

I've succeeded in getting her to watch Richard's discussion with Alister McGrath (Root of All Evil), to which her reply was "They both make good points," and she even tuned-in to Parts 1 and 2 of The Genius of Charles Darwin recently. I know she is listening to me, and I know she respects Professor Dawkins' amazing intellect, and that she has also begun using "compatibilist" language in some of her statements.

Could be an interesting experiment for the good Professor! If you're lurking, and stumble upon this post, consider this an invitation to conduct your own research on my Mother -- who is perhaps the perfect candidate for examining how a Christian mind works, one that has been indoctrinated over a period spanning six decades.

I'll inform her that The Doctor is IN. She would be immensely flattered, believe me! (And she would have all those extra hours on Sundays to catch up on her gardening, too!)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

69. Comment #243757 by D'Arcy on September 7, 2008 at 9:22 am

(And she would have all those extra hours on Sundays to catch up on her gardening, too!)

Now what was that Commandment about the Sabbath? FWIW, let the old girl enjoy her fantasy and your company!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

70. Comment #243766 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 9:43 am

Thanks, Teapot, I have written to Michael Shermer asking him to post the facts about the Templeton involvement.

Other Comments by Quine

71. Comment #243892 by Darwin's Teapot on September 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Totally awesome. Hopefully, he responds. Keep up the good work.

www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com

Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot

72. Comment #243907 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I just received the following reply from Michael Shermer:

You can post this on Dawkins web page if you like:

The Templeton Foundation Association with the Skeptics Society

From Michael Shermer:

There seems to be much hand-wringing and angst over the Skeptics Society annual conference this year at Caltech because of the association with the Templeton Foundation (TF). I find this rather amusing. It seems that it is perfectly okay for us (the Skeptics Society) to host conferences and debates about science and religion, God's existence, origins, etc. (we've done several of these since we began in 1992, and many issues of Skeptic magazine have been devoted to the topic), but the association with the Templeton Foundation calls everything into suspect. Why? No one seems able to articulate that. Do you think people at the TF call me up to command "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in scientific vain."? Even if they did, don't you realize by now that I'm my own man and call my own shots?

Nevertheless, here is how the association with the TF came about: For this year's "Big Question" that the TF sponsored, they invited me to gather and edit a dozen essays answering the question: "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" That's right. The Templeton Foundation invited a person who Dinesh D'Souza and others call one of the world's most prominent atheists to edit a series on science and religion for them. I had free reign to invite whomever I wished to contribute, and together we put together a list of people who would offer us a wide range of answers (you can read them all at the TF web page (http://www.templeton.org/belief/).

I managed to get Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, and others who I'm sure would receive the atheists' stamp of approval. At no point did anyone at the TF attempt to manipulate how the essays would turn out, how they were edited, and how they appeared in the final print versions (in ads in major publications and in a booklet, which you can get for free at the TF web page). I was well paid for the work I did (and it was a fair amount of work), all the authors were paid (including the atheist authors), I was well treated by the TF staff, and my overall impression was that these are exceptionally professional people running the foundation.

In searching for a topic for this year's Caltech conference, I thought that I would build a conference around this thematic idea (it is a huge amount of work to put on an international conference, so it helps to organize it around a familiar topic with speakers who are friends), plus add more science to the day with an entire morning session on origins (origins of the universe, origins of life, origins of complexity, and origins of consciousness), since these are the biggest "god of the gaps" areas, and for these we have some of the top scientists in the world speaking. Check it out here: http://origins.skeptic.com/.

Then I thought it would be fun to have a head-to-head god debate between hard-core atheist/scientist Victor Stenger and someone comparable on the other side. Here in So. California is Reasons to Believe, headed up by the Ph.D. cosmologist Hugh Ross, who has debated Stenger on the radio before, so I invited the two of them to debate, and they agreed.

So, the entire conference theme and all its elements were my idea. I simply asked the TF if they could help me out with the travel expenses for the afternoon colloquium speakers on the Big Question topic, and that is all they are doing. In fact, the TF made it clear that they are not sponsoring the Stenger-Ross debate or the morning lectures, as they did not want my event to become their event.

So that's it, but if you want to see for yourself (atheists are good empiricists, right?), then come to the conference. See you all the first weekend in October. It's going to be a great weekend, and the conference price includes all meals.

Michael Shermer

Other Comments by Quine

73. Comment #243941 by SaintStephen on September 8, 2008 at 1:41 am

Yippie! More essays to read. Nectar of the gods, so to speak. (Or maybe not.)

Thanks, Quine! Sounds like Shermer took your inquiry very seriously.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

74. Comment #243963 by decius on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #243907 by Quine

I don't have time for a lengthy comment right now, but I perceive an obsession with money, costs and returns throughout his reply.

Other Comments by decius

75. Comment #243969 by keith on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 am

The Templeton Foundation invited a person who Dinesh D'Souza and others call one of the world's most prominent atheists to edit a series on science and religion for them.

Well, if Jayday is correct in his analysis of how the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer went, then of course D'Souza would claim that Shermer is 'one of the world's top atheists'. You would naturally want to claim that you had caught a big fish rather than a minnow. It would have been much more of a recommendation if either Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens or Harris had called Shermer one of the world's top atheists. It's quite possible that they might, but I don't know.

Regarding debates in general rather than the specific event that Michael Shermer is arranging, then of course you're going to get a nicer, more polite debate if you put him up on stage with a religious believer instead of any of the four above-mentioned atheists. To some this suggests productive bridge-building. After all, what use is a completely polarized debate? And what a great way of reaching a better understanding of the other side's views?

To me it suggests a dilution of our message at best, and a selling out at worst in the name of being 'helpful'. And let's be honest, we already know exactly what the other side believes so to dress such events up as an opportunity to learn and better understand the religious mindset is an exercise in self-deception. Give me any one of the 'strident' atheists any day.

Actually, I don't mind Michael Shermer at all and have read a couple of his books, but I feel that he is too determined to be 'nice' and is in danger of bending so far over backwards to accommodate the religiously minded that he will soon be able to see the back's of his own knees - upside down!

Other Comments by keith

76. Comment #244039 by qomak on September 8, 2008 at 7:59 am

What's the big fuss? And I was under the impression that we are the ones who is not afraid of more debates, more conferences and more talks, regardless of who is paying for what.

@Tumara Baap

But Templeton got away relaying to countless people that there is legitimate division on the subject amongst leading thinkers, even scientists. (a breakdown of members National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society is overwhelmingly lopsided on the subject) It also legitimized Templeton Foundation as an arbiter of the debate. Shermer's participation in this project surely lends heft to all those dubious prizes they intend to award. Michael Shermer, you got bloody bamboozled.

If your point is theists will not listen to the arguments and associate Templeton's name appearing on a skeptic conference with the legitimacy of their beliefs, then they already do that. They already do argument from authority, be it Godel and his ontological argument or Templeton co-hosting a skeptics conference.

The point you are missing is that if they listen to the talks in the conference (which is about the "Big gaps filled with God") then the foundation of their beliefs will be shaken.

I actually like what Shermer did. It is quiet probable that many theists who otherwise would not listen to a bunch of "evil atheists" will actually hear the arguments *against* religion and have their petty belief system shaken a little bit. Hopefully, some of then will be so curious after this even that they will start questioning their priests, mullahs and rabbis and unsatisfied by their pathetic arguments will join atheists in the coming years.

Other Comments by qomak

77. Comment #244462 by DiveMedic on September 8, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Wow... Shermer's statement said a great deal without saying much at all. The theme of it all seemed to revolve around two central points:

1. Templeton gave him complete editorial control of the pamphlet and had no say in the content of the conference.

and

2. Templeton coughed up some cash.


These were both points that have been included in the critiques of Shermers and Skeptics association with Templeton. Again, the problem is that Shermer and Skeptic lending their names to Templeton legitimizes an organization with a track record that is questionable at best.

I would really like to see a response that addresses THAT issue. I sincerely hope that what we saw was a cookie cutter response that was drawn up to alllow for a quick response to people who criticized the Shermer/Skeptic/Templeton association. If not, Shermer dodged most of the issues raised in this forum.

I also noticed that Shermer's statement was placed as an addendum to the original post announcing the conference. Kinda lame in my book.

I am curious to hear the opinion of Dr. Dawkins in regards to all this Templeton business.

Other Comments by DiveMedic

78. Comment #244527 by RichardofYork on September 9, 2008 at 5:21 am

Everything interesting is always in America

Other Comments by RichardofYork

79. Comment #245014 by Shane McKee on September 10, 2008 at 4:56 am

Fair play to Michael on this; different people will have different views, but from my viewpoint, we don't need to see this as a "war". There are many people on the theist side who are quite genuine in their search, even if they are barking up the wrong tree (or just barking, since their tree is non-existent).

Yesterday I went to a lecture in a church in Belfast from a minister who was a one-time geology lecturer, entitled "Rescuing Genesis from the Creationists" [see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/08/rescuing_genesis_from_the_crea.html for Will Crawley's blog post on the event]. I heard a few things that I agree with (that Creationism is "junk", and not science) and that I disagree with (that John Lennox has made a reasonable response to Richard Dawkins. Hardly!). But it was an interesting occasion.

Most theists are not *bad* people, and while we need to be appropriately strident in making sure that our views are known (particularly regarding the primacy of reason and the reasonability of an atheistic position), we can often work with them in dialogue to construct an appropriate arena for actual debate.

So if the TF can help in getting the debate out there, and letting it be known that atheists are not bogey-people; that they are nice, that they care, that they actually do have views on the "ultimate questions", so much the better. Indeed, the more theists see that it is possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled, friendly, moral, happy atheist, the more of them that will eventually jump ship (maybe).

And as it was, I made it very clear at the church that I was an atheist and a secularist; they did not try to convert me; I did not try to convert them, but we had a very constructive discussion in pleasant surroundings.

So I'm going to give Michael the thumbs-up for this, but I do think we need to be "strident" and "shrill" from time to time, in order to keep the consciousness raised. Softly softly doesn't always catchee monkey.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

80. Comment #245034 by Jayday on September 10, 2008 at 6:20 am

The point I was making about Shermer and the conference in my previous posts is that if the idea of the conference would be to expose theists to a different point of view than they may find in their church, then the opportunity may be lost in Shermer's hands. That is if he continues along the same line of conversation that I witnessed with the debate with D' Souza.

I quite agree that Mr. Shermer dodged the central questions about his association with the Templeton Foundation as the head of the Skeptics Society.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

81. Comment #245566 by isthatclear on September 11, 2008 at 6:01 am

what about a sytairway to the reason and logic rather than we don't know how the earth and universe started. Scientists are working on it(1)

Indeed they are working on finding out the amazing system in the universe.

By the way where is Mr Dawkins? I hope not he is camming up with his books and trying to write or prepare a lecture to convince high school students that we came from a worm.

He needa a very long vacation; free from evolution.

Other Comments by isthatclear

82. Comment #245597 by chewedbarber on September 11, 2008 at 7:02 am

isthatclear, is this

isthatclear?

isthatclear?

you?

I realize it's a long shot, but the tone and
delivery is so similar to yours I had to ask.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

83. Comment #246747 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2008 at 2:33 am

I like Michael Shermer. He's a lucid thinker and I think he's done enormous service to rationality with his magazine, podcast, articles, lectures and books.

But I have serious reservations about his tryst with Templeton. I do not deny that many theists have probably been exposed to our way of thinking with this collaboration. On the face of it, such "balanced discussions" do sound entirely reasonable. It is probably one reason why many writers for whom I have the utmost respect agreed to participate. Many also have books of their own, and such large scale promotion at someone else's expense in the Times and Economist must've been irresistible. Some maybe humanists who sympathize with Templeton's agenda on some level ... they're atheists themselves but want to lure believers to common causes of promoting science to combat global problems, albeit at the cost of soft-pedaling a few hard truths.

Templeton has a very obvious agenda. Their innocuous mission statements notwithstanding, their prizes to the tune of a whopping two million dollars goes to those academics who convey science and reason as not at odds with the supernatural. It is a position I oppose with every fiber in my being. One has to take stock of the painful history that led to our current culture of rational assessment. Advanced civilizations from the Indians, Greeks, Mayans and Chinese got only so far. As perplexing as it is to modern Western minds, the Chinese viewed every paradigm as a war of two opposing unseen forces. We take rational inquiry for granted today but for Thucydides to chronicle events based on painstaking research and eschewing rumour and myth was a watershed event. The scientific method eluded all of these people ... a sort of dualism prevailed ... believe that which you can verify, and believe just as well that which you can never see, measure or prove.

The scientific method is a precious rarity, only feebly in our grasp. You either believe in the scientific ethos, or you don't. There cannot be one compartment for reason, and another for God, just as you cannot be a capitalist the first half of the day, and a communist the second half. Yet Templeton and more than a handful of myopic atheist scientists would have us do just that. This is intolerable.

Of course, I'm all for dialogue between theists and non-theists. But on whose terms? Templeton's? I'd rather have the clout and authority for honest answers reside with Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, or Sam Harris' Reason Project. Given the sort of media coup Shermer has handed Templeton on a silver platter, they ought to give him a smooch along with the money and kindness they've showered him with.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

84. Comment #247246 by isthatclear on September 14, 2008 at 7:20 am

to chewdbarber mate!

well, delivery of truth has got many ways. Take your pick. What about the Reason?

Cheers

Mr dawkins? still keeps quite, no wonder he he is cramming up with something. Let's see what is next?

Other Comments by isthatclear

85. Comment #247248 by Vaal on September 14, 2008 at 7:24 am

Ah Wooter, is it that time of day that they take the straitjacket off?

Have you ever heard of a spell checker? Amazing the powers of science or do you just pray that your punctuation is correct?

Other Comments by Vaal

86. Comment #247253 by epeeist on September 14, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #245566 by isthatclear

what about a sytairway to the reason and logic rather than we don't know how the earth and universe started. Scientists are working on it(1)

Wooter, I have posted this elsewhere but nobody has been able to answer it. A master of logic and science like you should have no difficulties.

You are given two very large books, they have different bindings and different titles.

Looking through them you notice similarities, so you look closer. You find that some things that occur in book 1 do not occur in book 2 and vice versa. You also find some minor differences between the books. However, the overall difference between the books is very small.

Now the alphabet used in both books is Roman. However there are some passages that are in other alphabets, Cyrillic, Arabic, Kanji and the like. Inspection of both books show that these passages are exactly the same in both books. Furthermore not only are they the same, but they occur in exactly the same place in both books.

Why do you think both books are so alike?

Other Comments by epeeist

87. Comment #247301 by bayareadude on September 14, 2008 at 9:31 am

"Gamma ut" said:
"Even if it is in part funded by the Templeton foundation (i can't find out for sure), Michael Shermer is HOSTING the conference, so I am pretty sure this conference will be mostly about how ID is not science."

Correction! It's being CO-hosted by Shermer. The other host is Philip Clayton, a man whose life work is an obvious attempt to reconcile bizarre beliefs with science. This bullshit is no different than the current trend in neurology in which they are entertaining notions put forth by the Dalai Lama. Even appearing on the same stage with these morons lends them an air of legitimacy.

I smelled this several years ago when Shermer came out with that little booklet, "The Soul of Science," in which he asks things like, "Can we find spiritual meaning and purpose in a scientific worldview?" I remember thinking, "Oh brother! Here we go! He's gonna do a de-conversion and become what Norma McCorvey has become for the anti-abortionist crowd!" I guess this conference is Step 2?

Other Comments by bayareadude

88. Comment #247423 by DiveMedic on September 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm

[From bayareadude] "Even appearing on the same stage with these morons lends them an air of legitimacy. "

So long as the stage is shared, maybe it would be a good idea to have a tooth fairy apologist up there as well... Just to keep things fair. :)

Other Comments by DiveMedic

89. Comment #247657 by Jayday on September 14, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Michael Shermer calls himself an agnostic. In his books and in person he has stated as such. He has also stated that the existence of God can't be proven one way or another. And, that he doesn't care if people believe in God or not just as long as they don't impinge upon his freedom. He is more interested in "why" people believe in God, not that they do or don't. Okay fine. But here's the rub...At this time in American history, we are manipulated by the actions of the general theistic masses and by the fact that the highest level of our government is trying to legislate their religious values and forge them into laws that affect us all, based on their Judeo Christian beliefs.

There are people in positions of power and influence trying to join church and state. Our president informed the American people and the world that God "told him" to attack Iraq. A man who has the ability to direct the most powerful military on the planet. This is frightening and it is a wake-up call for those who disagree to be vocal and assertive about an opposing view.

It is my opinion that we cannot sit back and say "It is okay that people believe what they do, just as long as it doesn't affect me personally" without even countering their views. That "private" world view doesn't exist anymore, it is a fallacy and one well discussed in the book: "The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life" by Austin Dacey. Well worth the read.

As professor Dawkins has said, "why should scientists tiptoe politely away?" It isn't just scientists, but anyone who opposes the belief in God as an explanation of the origin of the universe and life. If we allow the advancement of religious ideas that forge church and state without any resistance or active movement away from that goal, then we could soon find ourselves living in a legitimate theocracy. I use the word legitimate because if we stay on the present course, the US Constitution will gradually be amended by legitimately elected government officials and judgments favoring laws that will support theistic morals via our courts with a theistically minded judiciary will be implemented. History will be re-written and the America intended by the founding fathers will cease to exist. It is already happening. The "personal freedom" Mr. Shermer wants for himself is being eroded away and becoming more illusive with each day.

If there is no active resistance or opposition, then those who are actively forging a theocracy will just easily gain power to change our country to their liking. In my opinion Mr. Shermer can't afford to be as visible as he is as the head of an organization that by its very nature opposes theistic views based on the fact that there is no evidence to support a God or anything supernatural, and be simultaneously wishy washy (as he was in the debate with D'Souza, which I have mentioned in several other comments on the Dawkins web site).

Michael Shermer obviously isn't as strongly the vocal opponent as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Shermer is a bright and articulate person, but he doesn't belong in their league. He doesn't seem to CONSISTENTLY behave as though there is any value of taking an active stance based on the evidence. He isn't showing a consistent integrity of his thoughts, beliefs, and actions as head of the Skeptics Society.

One may say, the Skeptics Society isn't an advocacy group in the political sense. I say, perhaps not directly. But religion, which is a primary topic that the Society takes on, has become a political issue. The religious in our country have put it on the table whether we like it or not. In an extreme future, will the existence of the Skeptics Society be illegal one day? Don't laugh, look at the Muslim societies. Might we be on that slippery slope professor Dawkins speaks of? Where moderates support an environment that allow the extremists to gain more power to make a theocracy by simply not doing anything to oppose the movement? I never thought in my wildest expectations that the rise of an American Theocracy would be possible. I was wrong. It is very real.

Yes, yes I know, the skeptic's mind should be open to explore all evidence and welcome discussion with opposing views. As a skeptic, my mind is open and I do welcome discussion, I do welcome a conference of ideas. And, if there was hard evidence for God, I would admit it. I was raised as a theist and I know what it "feels" like to believe that God is real and working in my life. I've had my doubts for a long time. However, George W. Bush and the 9-11 fiasco and all its religious and political fallout was a pivotal force that helped me to wake up to the reality. I chose to let go of those false beliefs. I chose to look at the evidence and make a decision to grasp reality and live in the real world, not in what amounts to a collective fantasy or delusion. I sought out the Skeptics Society precisely to find a group of like minded people who opposed the theistic view of the world as the basis of reality. I wasn't looking for a group of people who support "whatever goes."

Mr. Shermer says:

" It seems that it is perfectly okay for us (the Skeptics Society) to host conferences and debates about science and religion, God's existence, origins, etc. (we've done several of these since we began in 1992, and many issues of Skeptic magazine have been devoted to the topic), but the association with the Templeton Foundation calls everything into suspect. Why? No one seems able to articulate that. Do you think people at the TF call me up to command "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in scientific vain."? Even if they did, don't you realize by now that I'm my own man and call my own shots?"

I will articulate why....because one of the goals of the Templeton Foundation is to legitimize the connection between science and religion. To raise their status and put them on equal terms. It is the same old stance of creationists vs the evolutionists. As though they were two equally valid theories to be discussed. THEY ARE NOT! I don't think legitimizing an organization that supports a fairytale as the explanation of life and the universe is inline with the purpose of the Skeptics Society. I was of the assumption that the view of the Skeptics Society is that they had made the distinction and could move on unless some new and REAL evidence could prove otherwise.

I don't have any problem with the Skeptics Society having theists in for debate. However, the purpose of the debate on the part of the skeptic is to talk about the reality of the natural world and to debunk supernatural ideas and stories embraced by the theists. We base our views on real evidence and facts. We support the scientific process as our guideline because it is based on real evidence that is reviewed, challenged and revised openly. It isn't based on revelation and private subjective experience that we must "take someone's word for." Are we still considering the theists view of reality as equally valid? Is it something we haven't made a clear and mature judgment about with the information we have? I don't think the skeptic is standing on the fence waiting for the big guy in the sky to make an appearance and prove us wrong. About this topic, we are living our lives in the real physical world. Being an empiricist doesn't mean we haven't taken a stance. We don't perpetually hold our breath....keeping such an "open mind" that our mind will fall out in the meantime.

Shermer also states that:

"I simply asked the TF if they could help me out with the travel expenses for the afternoon colloquium speakers on the Big Question topic, and that is all they are doing. In fact, the TF made it clear that they are not sponsoring the Stenger-Ross debate or the morning lectures, as they did not want my event to become their event."

Unfortunately I think Mr. Shermer is kidding himself. I strongly doubt that the general public is going to understand the nuances of what part of the conference was financially underwritten by the Templeton Foundation and what aren't. Unfortunately the masses don't tend to look that close. They don't tend to read the "small print." I am sorry to say that too many function on the "sound bite" mentality. Advertising works by association and playing on assumptions. People pay attention to appearances, whether we like it or not, and I think the Templeton Foundation knows this. It works to their advantage, not the Skeptics Society to have their name on the program and the advertisements for a conference at Cal Tech, one of the worlds prominent and great institutes of science. But, it appears that, since Mr. Shermer doesn't really care one way or another what we collectively believe in the end....why should it matter what the associations do in terms of furthering the credibility of the Templeton Foundation's mission? I would like to remind Mr. Shermer of something I think I heard him say at a Skeptics Society meeting. It was something like this...."Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." The Templeton Foundation is going to associate their own "religious opinions" with the "actual facts" brought to light by the scientific process about the origin of the universe and life supported by the Skeptics Society to gain credibility in the mind of the public.

Mr. Shermer is free to express his opinions and live his life as an agnostic who apparently passively associates with both passionate atheists and passionate theists and everyone with opinions in between. It is nice to be liked by everyone. Most of us have some friends or work with some people who are theists. I have family who are theists. It is hard not to. I live in America, and choose not to live or work in seclusion. However, in his official role as the head of the Skeptics Society, I would challenge Mr. Shermer to be more protective of the Skeptics Society mission and reputation. When the majority of people in the US are theists, and some in very powerful positions who don't think we should have a country that separates church and state on our heals, we can't afford to be so passive. We can't afford to have a Skeptics Society leader who passively hands over the debate to theists, or potentially advances the credibility and influence of their message saying it is fair play or in the name of being open minded. That is a fallacy. The playing field of ideas isn't anywhere near even at this time in history.

Professor Dawkins is an open minded skeptic, yet he has taken an active stance to oppose the proliferation of theism. He sees the belief in God as a shared delusion, and in some cases a dangerous one. I wonder if Mr. Shermer thinks the same?

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

90. Comment #248773 by squee8174 on September 16, 2008 at 10:19 pm

I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Shermer recently at Penn State.
I must say this looks interesting, and I would love to attend.

Other Comments by squee8174

91. Comment #255064 by mjosef on September 26, 2008 at 7:48 pm

I am glad that there is a groundswell of opposition to Michael Shermer, who is a pro-Bush, pro- corporate, neo-con charlatan. He is about as much a "skeptic" as P.T. Barnum was an educator. Read his latest ode to Ayn Rand fascism, and then wonder why the likes of Richard Dawkins and these tenured whoevers keep associating with this fellow. Of course Shermer's now connected with Templeton. Of course he's Dinesh's co-conspirator. Of course he's going to edge atheism away from any public integrity.

Other Comments by mjosef

92. Comment #255313 by ggab7768 on September 27, 2008 at 9:40 am

It is a fact that the TF has injected some much needed money into some much needed areas.
You have to understand the good that they have done. The problem is that they have an agenda to advance and that their money is working to that agenda.
Has Shermer been bought? All I can say is that it is my opinion that he has.
It's a pity, but seems true from my perspective.
Purchasing souls from the soulless is one of their goals, and will always be attainable to some degree.
Money makes the world go round.
I think that the tough part is going to be believing Shermer to be an honest "skeptic" after having been so publicly purchased.
Good luck to Michael with his inherited agenda.
I hope he knows what he's doing.

Other Comments by ggab7768

93. Comment #263140 by emmet on October 10, 2008 at 10:01 am

Did you watch Beyond Belief 2007? At some point Kroto makes some scorching remarks about the TF, and Shermer gets all emotional and upset - loudly interrupting the lecture and demanding an apology from Kroto.

Yep, I remember that very clearly. Quite amazing. I can understand someone taking issue with what Kroto had said, but I was taken aback by Shermer's reaction. I remember wondering at the time if Shermer was trying to cosy up to the TF.

I have to say that I've never been very impressed by Shermer. He's OK, and I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but there's something about him that makes me think that he's not quite as smart as he'd like people to believe, and, while he is a very competent public speaker, he certainly isn't dazzling.

Other Comments by emmet