Friday, July 10, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Unscientific America and those awful atheists

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Thanks to Mark for the link.

To return to Unscientific America again, I hardly touched on chapter 8, where they express their dismay at those uppity "New Atheists". I am not going to address his personal criticisms of me — there's no point, you obviously know I think he's completely wrong, and the uncharitable will simply claim my disagreement is the result of a personal animus — so instead I'm only going to address a couple of other general points that Mooney and Kirshenbaum get completely wrong. They plainly do not understand the atheist position, and make claims that demonstrate that either they didn't read any of the "New Atheist's" books, or perhaps the simple ideas in them are too far beyond their comprehension.

This is a basic one, from philosophy of science 101. There are several different ways to derive a naturalistic position. Mooney and Kirshenbaum sort of get it right, although I disagree with some of the details.

Continue reading:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_and_those.php

Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #395035 by Quine on July 10, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I saw this today over on PZ's blog, and find it to be one of the best pieces he has ever written.

Other Comments by Quine

2. Comment #395037 by c_mullark on July 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm

This is by far one of the best things PZ has produced to date. His own uncompromising passion for science exudes in this piece just as much as the iconic men he cited. Brilliant.

Bookmarked.

Other Comments by c_mullark

3. Comment #395042 by Szymanowski on July 10, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Yes, an excellent post. My only reservation is that PZ's call for all scientists to be interesting, exciting, and impassioned unfairly devalues the boring but meticulous and productive nerds. The perhaps accidental implication of the last part of PZ's post is that he thinks all scientists must be amazing communicators and/or 'performance artists' to be worthy of greatness.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

4. Comment #395048 by mirandaceleste on July 10, 2009 at 1:43 pm

This is absolutely brilliant and very much needed right now.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

5. Comment #395051 by locutus7 on July 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Brilliant article.

In my opinion, the stealth theists (they pretend to be atheists) have waged a campaign to divide the "atheist community" into "new atheists" and silent atheists, and to portray the New Atheists as the bad guys who are harming even other atheists.

They hope to create a schism in the atheist camp; and to enlist the quiet atheists (the ones that keep their opinions to themselves) to muzzle the strident, militant New Atheists, for the good of everyone.

It won't work.

Other Comments by locutus7

6. Comment #395064 by PERSON on July 10, 2009 at 2:19 pm

5. Comment #395051 by locutus7 on July 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm
There really are people who are atheist, think that atheists should just keep their heads down and believe so passionately, not just to get along with the largest number of people. But the groups I'm aware of that have such views derive them from such obnoxious interpretations of the world that they can't state them directly, and need to wrap them in neo-liberal or right-wing populist concepts, e.g. the US neocons, who use both forms, generally the former apologising for or eulogising the latter, or the contemporary British Conservative party which seems currently dominated by a faction which principally relies on the former, at least in public. (With the uptick in far-right activity I have to wonder about that being the limit of their activity: I suspect them of following a model similar to the Reaganite Republican party in the 80s.)

I wonder if Mooney and Kirshenbaum wrote the copy for this sign. Perhaps more importantly, can the congregation distinguish it from a version without the quotes?

Other Comments by PERSON

7. Comment #395066 by critica on July 10, 2009 at 2:22 pm

This certainly shows the lack of imagination typical of many theists. How is it that, when presenting the concept of an all-powerful creator of the cosmos, they make him seem so bloody boring? No contest! It's not so much that science rocks (it does), but that religion is so mystifyingly dull.

Other Comments by critica

8. Comment #395070 by j.mills on July 10, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Particularly liked:

And if science can't say a thing about the existence of gods, sweet jebus, Mooney, be consistent and admit that the jabbering, sanctimonious priests can't either! Why we should respect their fairy-tales and complete lack of humility while you castigate godless science for relying on mere evidence is incomprehensible.

Arrr! Go get 'em, tiger!

Other Comments by j.mills

9. Comment #395090 by Pobjoy on July 10, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Re: 3. Comment #395042 by Szymanowski

I could be wrong but I don't think he means ALL scientists need to be amazing communicators and/or performance artists. I read it to mean that science just needs more people like that. The more purely academic scientists may still be doing the vast majority of the research etc., but those that are great communicators and entertainers would be the ones drumming up interest in science and getting the information out to the public.

Other Comments by Pobjoy

10. Comment #395108 by Crazycharlie on July 10, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Thought about writing a long winded affirmation of PZ's article but I won't. I'll just say excellent & right on as usual PZ!

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

11. Comment #395109 by Border Collie on July 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm

For some reason, this article made me think about an article I read in Nature this week about a possible easier and or simpler cure for rabies. When I was a rural kid, the possibility of contracting rabies was always in the backs of our minds due to our constant dealings with livestock and wildlife. And, if you've ever seen a video of someone dying from rabies, it makes a lasting impression. I thought about the scientists working for years on this possible cure and the extreme suffering and death of tens of thousands that will probably be averted because of their efforts and then I thought about the religionists. If by some unfortunate circumstance I'm ever exposed to rabies, I think I'll stick with the scientists.

Other Comments by Border Collie

12. Comment #395110 by Crazycharlie on July 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Border Collie-- You can bet if the religionists are ever in that unfortunate circumstance they will stick with the scientists too.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

13. Comment #395154 by Hominidae on July 10, 2009 at 10:11 pm

To Comment #395070 by j.mills

And if science can't say a thing about the existence of gods, sweet jebus, Mooney, be consistent and admit that the jabbering, sanctimonious priests can't either! Why we should respect their fairy-tales and complete lack of humility while you castigate godless science for relying on mere evidence is incomprehensible. text

I particularly loved this. A Jesus freak came up to me the other day ranting on and on about how science cannot DISPROVE God.

Well...there a tons of things wrong with that sentence to begin with.

But I said, "OK. Let us assume that you're right. Science cannot disprove God. But how in the hell do you make a positive claim that God exists, eh? You can't use science to back up any of your claims, right? Please enlighten me.

"I use faith. Science uses the scientific method. Religion uses faith."

"Explain to me how faith finds truth?"

" Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true."

Yah...my head exploded at this point. Sorry I cannot report the rest of the conversation.

When will people understand that faith is incapable of finding truth? Are they really that blind?

Other Comments by Hominidae

14. Comment #395191 by John Desclin on July 11, 2009 at 1:18 am

to HOMINIDAE (13) #395154

"Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true."

Under such circumstances I like to ask: "If these things are true indeed, what's the point of hoping for them?"
LOL

Other Comments by John Desclin

15. Comment #395228 by Jack Rawlinson on July 11, 2009 at 4:41 am

PZ at his best. I love it when he really takes the apologists apart like this.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

16. Comment #395249 by Border Collie on July 11, 2009 at 7:23 am

Hominidae ... When the JF's approach me on the street, I just tell them to fuck off ... or worse.

Other Comments by Border Collie

17. Comment #395259 by Sievers on July 11, 2009 at 8:38 am

" Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true."

And we need it in Cardiff right now.

20 for 2, ye Gods!

Sweet Jesus please send rain.

Other Comments by Sievers

18. Comment #395262 by Buchner on July 11, 2009 at 8:51 am

Guide me o thou great Jehovah....

And did those feet in ancient time...

Swing low..

etc

Other Comments by Buchner

19. Comment #395279 by kram50 on July 11, 2009 at 10:04 am

I'm quite sure there are many among us who, "make an absolute declaration of the impossibility of the existance of a deity", or is he talking about the high profile individuals like Dawkins, Hitch, et.al?

I for one, tend to lean in this direction. If there might be a deity, how far off is this from the absurd "God of Abraham" delusion?

It's all twisted thinking as far as I'm concerned.

Other Comments by kram50

20. Comment #395295 by Fizzle on July 11, 2009 at 12:54 pm

I was wondering when it would be up. Aside from this fine piece, Cuttlefish posted a poem about it, and it is also excellent.

Other Comments by Fizzle

21. Comment #395413 by thereisnodog on July 12, 2009 at 4:27 am