Dogmatic, Intolerant, Closed-Minded Scientists
Dean
It's increasingly clear to me that for some, dogmatic atheism and "science" have become one and the same. Witness for example scientists protesting allowing the Dalai Llama to speak at a neuroscience conference.
Letting the man so much as speak is a threat to science? How rabidly anti-religion do you have to be to act like that? I don't even like the Dalai Lama--I have no love for theocratic tyrants, which is what he was when he ruled Tibet--but objecting to his very presence on religious grounds? As an atheist, a materialist, and an empiricist, I find this behavior nothing short of pathetic.
Then witness Richard Sternberg, a man with not one but two PhDs in evolutionary biology:
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Ste[r]nberg, 42, who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
His crime? Being willing to publish a paper by a scientist who argued that there was evidence of intelligent design behind some phenomena found in biology. Sternberg didn't even agree with the paper, he just published it in the spirit of free and open debate.
You can read more about how Sternberg was harassed and all but thrown out of the Smithsonian here in the Washington Post. And you'll find more on Dr. Sternberg's home page.
It's astonishing to watch modern-day advocates for Darwin acting exactly like William Jennings Bryan in Inherit the Wind--in other words, as fulminating censorship advocates and closed-minded intellectual bullies who are terrified to have their most cherished beliefs questioned. But that's exactly what seems to be going on among many who claim to be upholding the spirit of free inquiry and open debate. It's shameful and appalling.
Both the Post and you have slipped and called Dr. Sternberg "Steinberg" in some places. Just an FYI.
I have to say, Dean, that you're one of the only atheists I know who can tread the line between "open" and "dogmatic". I know lots of atheists who never bring it up, because it's just not an issue that concerns them on a regular basis. And I know way too many dogmatic atheists who feel the need to mock and belittle the religious at every opportunity. But I know of almost none who both openly explain their views and also respect the rights of others to believe differently. And since those dogmatic atheists are so loud, they shape the perception of the rest of them.
As for atheists--well, just as some "holy roller" Christians bug the crap out of everybody, so too are the "in your face athiests." It's absurd. Something like 90% of the population believes in some form of higher power, including some extremely smart people. And there's a difference between "I think they're wrong" and "they're evil." Which, let's face it: certain atheists do act as if religious people are inherently stupid and the source of much or all evil in the world. Apparently the lesson of the communists never penetrated for them.
I do not wish to be mistaken here--anyone who's read me long enough (you among them of course Bill) knows I really, really, really hate communists, and consider Mao one of the most evil monsters who ever lived. One of my fantasies is getting in a time machine and putting a bullet into the brain of about a dozen people from the 20th century, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho, and Hitler all very high on the list (then only a little lower on the list: Mengistu, Mugabe, Saddam, Amin, and... well... ahem I seem to be drenched with blood, I'd better change my shirt. Call me a barbarian and a rightwing deathbeast, just don't call me late for supper).
But the adoration people shower on this Dalai Lama guy bugs me. Let's say they're right and he is actually the reincarnation of the previous 13 Dalai Lamas. What's he done in his rule since 1391 except been a fairly run-of-the-mill King? Torture and mutilation of his subjects? Oh yes, there's been plenty of that. Making prisoners of his critics? Oh yes, done all that too. Persecuted anyone who questions his religious status? Oh yeah, lots and lots of that.
Now let's say we throw out the mysticism and say he's not the reincarnation of anybody. What do you have here? A theocratic cult who periodically goes out and more or less kidnaps a pliant-seeming boy at the age of 5 or 6, snatching him permanently and forever from his family, and raising him in their cult to follow all their teachings until he's eventually old enough to take over the reigns of power himself--meanwhile having learned ever since he was a small boy to follow the counsel and be utterly dependent upon the club of monks who've been brainwashing him since he was taken from his mother at kindergarten age.
And let's not forget all that stuff I said about executions, torture, mutilation, etc. of anyone who questions the ruling elite in this benign dictatorship.
Yeah, okay, so Tibet went from bad to worse when the communists came. So the whole object of the "Free Tibet" campaign is to take Tibet from worse back to bad? Feh. It's like asking for a restoration of the Papal states after getting rid of Mussolini.
The Dalai Lama's got a great schtick going. He gets lots of unquestioning adoration from Hollywood and the international left. All to what end: so we can restore a theocratic dictatorship in Tibet?
Hitchens had a pretty scathing indictment of this international con artist some years ago that seems to say it pretty well to me. He's made himself quite the wealthy millionaire peddling his message of peace and brotherly love, quite a few million indeed. Seems pretty comfortable for a monk. Doesn't have to do much but show up and spout platitudes to get wallets thrown at him, does he?
Earlier this week, you linked to Insta, who linked to a piece that detailed what's wrong in science reporting. That article noted, among other things, the tendency of journalists to cover a recent study, etc., then seek out a scientist who disagrees with the study just to set up a conflict angle.
I know this piece isn't directly related, but do you have any thoughts on whether the debate over evolution vs. intelligent design reflects this problem in science journalism?
--|PW|--
A scientist figures out a way to determine your death to the minute. He goes to a National Academy of Science (or some such) meeting and what ensues is pretty funny. In a 'heretic, burn-him-at-the-stake' kind of way.
This isn't new. Bureaucratic scientists always hate it when somebody upsets the status quo. Think Galileo. He wasn't hounded so much by the Church as by other scientists who thought he was rude. Einstein was derided by people who knew, just knew, he was wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to compare Einstein or Galileo with an IDist, I'm comparing their detractors only.
Heinlein knew people. That was his greatest gift to his readers, he taught us how people work. He might not have gotten the flow of technology correct, but, in his cynical, depressing way, he always got his people right.
"...Dalai Llama..."
A one 'L' lama he's a priest,
a lwo 'L' llama he's a beast,
but I will bet a silk pajama,
there isn't any three 'L' lllama.
Thus ends todays tribute to Ogden Nash.
Tonight radio debate replay: Hitchens vs George Galloway, a Respect Party MP.
Dumbasses...
On ID, probably the most ridiculous theory since the one about a pyramid of turtles holding up the earth.
The Daily Show has been running a great piece this week called "Evolution Smevolution." I think it puts a proper perspective on the theory of ID.
The proper perspective...hmmh, on your knees and looking up before the bishops of science, and muttering in your beard, "It does too rotate."
That the perspective you talking about?
As for myself, if I was going to the meeting, I suspect I'd be skipping the lecture as well. Not because of the speaker or the topic, but because it's a good time to go sightseeing in Washington DC (where the meeting will be held this year....)
As for atheism and science, y'all are dead wrong. Sure there are some atheists, as in any line of work, but I have met more people who believe in God, or a god, and are stronger in their faith in the halls of academe than in some churches. Understanding the beauty of the universe tends to lend itself to an appreciation of a Creator God.
A much bigger threat is the huge rise in junk science, spiritualism, and crackpot medicine. I haven't seen so much deceptive pseudoscience on TV since I was a kid in the 1970's watching "Project Blue Book" and "In Search Of..." All of these things are presented as science, and because the public trusts science they're accepted as the real thing. Unfortunately real scientists almost never bother to speak out against them or explain why they're wrong. If all the ink wasted beating up on Intelligent Design were used to publically debunk things like "psychic detectives" and homeopathy the public would be much better off.
I had to steal this entire post just drive my 'atheist/evolutionary fanatics' following insane. (don't ask me why I have an atheist following, I don't understand it myself)
"I do not wish to be mistaken here--anyone who's read me long enough (you among them of course Bill) knows I really, really, really hate communists, and consider Mao one of the most evil monsters who ever lived. One of my fantasies is getting in a time machine and putting a bullet into the brain of about a dozen people from the 20th century, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho, and Hitler all very high on the list (then only a little lower on the list: Mengistu, Mugabe, Saddam, Amin, and... well... ahem I seem to be drenched with blood, I'd better change my shirt. Call me a barbarian and a rightwing deathbeast, just don't call me late for supper)."
I'll join you!
Dean wrote:
"Yeah, okay, so Tibet went from bad to worse when the communists came. So the whole object of the "Free Tibet" campaign is to take Tibet from worse back to bad? Feh. It's like asking for a restoration of the Papal states after getting rid of Mussolini."
That sounds good to me. And I like Mark Noonan's suggestion of reviving the Holy Roman Empire. Myself, I'd go back even further.
Caltechgirl wrote:
"As for atheism and science, y'all are dead wrong. Sure there are some atheists, as in any line of work, but I have met more people who believe in God, or a god, and are stronger in their faith in the halls of academe than in some churches. Understanding the beauty of the universe tends to lend itself to an appreciation of a Creator God."
That is exactly how I feel. The more I read about astronomy, the more I believe in a Creator God (the Holy Trinity) and in my Most High Goddess, the Queen of Heaven, for Whom They created this magnificent universe. In other words, an Intelligent Designer. And the more that evolution theory sounds to me like a flat Earth held up by a pyramid of monkeys.
A couple of morning radio hosts on KKOH AM 780, Reno, NV, had this exchange:
She: "What would you ask the Dalai Lama?"
He: "What's your middle name?"
OK, maybe I'm too easily amused.
A 3 l lama is a darn big fire in NYC. : -)
Dean
It seems to me there are at least two questions.
Was the universe created?
Given that the universe exists does it evolve?
The second seems to be at least the uncontested working opinion of people who work in the relevant scientific fields. I sure don’t know enough to confirm it or challenge it, so I will accept it on good authority.
The first is a religious/philosophical question, not a scientific question. If one keeps the questions separated like that much of the controversy goes away.
ID and opposing views are related to the first question.
I think the big problem comes from treating evolution as a religion. If one asks “do you believe in evolution?” in the same manner as “do you believe in God?” one is presenting a religious question.
A feature of religious systems is that they have a “Creation Story.” For many people of a non-religious status, evolution plays the sociological function of a “Creation Story.” When one of our Protestant fundamentalist friends attacks evolution, often to the hearer is not hearing an attack on a scientific theory but an attack on the creation story of the hearer’s secular religious belief. Surprise, he reacts like a (secular) fundamentalist whose religion is being challenged.
An act which some consider rash...
I do believe that's both the most original and most atrocious pun I've heard in 2005. And I know some incurable punsters! Kudos!
"A feature of religious systems is that they have a “Creation Story.” For many people of a non-religious status, evolution plays the sociological function of a “Creation Story.” When one of our Protestant fundamentalist friends attacks evolution, often to the hearer is not hearing an attack on a scientific theory but an attack on the creation story of the hearer’s secular religious belief. Surprise, he reacts like a (secular) fundamentalist whose religion is being challenged."
Quite true. The reason why atheists (or anti-theists) are so religious about the theory of evolution, in a way that they aren't about, e.g., the old question of light as waves or as particles, is that evolution is the the only myth or theory of our origin that is consistent with atheism. This is why they are so hostile to the remotest suggestion of intelligent design, even intelligent design by exterrrestials (e.g., the panspermia hypothesis). Because even that would only push the question further back as to who designed the designer(s), and then who designed the designers of the designers, until you reach the point where, in order to avoid an infinite series, you would have to posit a designer(s) who is/are outside of time, i.e., eternal, i.e., Divine. This they cannot abide. Therefore, our origin must be accidental. Therefore, only evolution through random mutations and natural selection, as Darwin proposed, may be tolerated.
Ummm, you're joking, right? That you would even say such a thing shows that you've closed your mind to the evolution/ID debate. Which is fine. I've done the same thing myself. However, my faith allows me to do this. Science by it's very nature cannot. So, Mr. Snyder, let me welcome you to the wonderful world of religion! Remember our motto: "The law of gravity doesn't work when you're making leaps of faith!" Have fun.
I shall quote Ogden Nash's response to that pun:
"pooh"
I'm an atheist and I don't know.
I don't know if there is or is not a god.
I don't know if we have been intelligently created.
I don't know lots of things, but...
I have yet to see a religion that I find plausible. I just find it hard to believe that a being powerful enough to create the universe really cares about what I do on Sunday. (Or Saturday or Friday). I find it hard to believe that a creator would give me a mind and then tell me not to use it.
I believe in evolution because you can see it work. I don't know the mechanics of it, I also don't know the mechanics of gravity (nobody does), but I can see it work. I can even do the math. But why do objects attract each other? Why does the formula
F = (G*m1*m2) / (r*r) work? Where did the Universal Gravitational Constant (G) come from?
Are there things called gravitrons? We don't know. All we know is that it works. It would seem a good analogy to say that a supreme being is causing it to work. I don't like that explanation.
How did life start? We don't know.
But imputing a supernatural cause just seems like lazy thinking to me. I'm not saying being religious is lazy thinking, I'm saying that just because we don't know how something happened it is lazy thinking to say it was a miracle.
ID is not science as there is no way to prove it or disprove it.
My friend tried to philosophically prove to me that there must be a creator.
He started by stipulating that "The greater can't come from the lesser". I don't agree with that, if we're throwing around aphorisms, how about, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?
And if there is a creator, why is it a god? What if we are like the hamster cage in the kindergarten of a very long-lived race of aliens? What if we're part of a doctoral dissertation of a long-lived alien? What if some aliens discarded their bathtub scum on our planet 3 billion years ago and we came from that?
But any of the explanations beg the question, where did the creator come from?
That's one of my problems with ID. Who created the creator? If it's unlikely that we could be spontaneously generated, how much more unlikely is it that an all-powerful being was spontaneously created.
I am an atheist because I don't know and I have yet to see a plausible explanation.
You sound like an agnostic (doesn't know whether there is a God) rather than an atheist (believes there is no God).
Yours,
Wince
"SMA, not all atheists are dead set against ID.
I'm an atheist and I don't know."
You're right. I should have qualified what I wrote. I should have wrotten "militant atheists", "ACLU-style atheists", or even "religious atheists" or "atheists who are as dogmatic about their atheism as I am about my Polytheism". Dean, after all, is an atheist and yet he's not attacking ID. And i see that you aren't necessarily either. As Wince said, you do seem closer to an agnostic than to an atheist.
That makes me think of something: More people these days seem to be calling themselves atheists these days and fewer call themselves agnostics. My father called himself an agnostic but he was really pretty close to an atheist. God bless his soul. He was a great man. Back in his day, there was more of a stigma attached to "atheist" (perhaps because of association with Communism), so they tended to call themselves "agnostics", "humanists", or "free-thinkers" (though their "free" thoughts all ran in one direction). Today, "agnostic" is less in use, so many agnostics now call themselves "atheists" ("I don't believe in a God" rather than "There is no God").
And I do not wish to imply that all atheists are Communists. Dean hates Communism, as did Ayn Rand, and my father wasn't too keen on it either (he was a New Deal-style liberal). As is well known here in Dean's World, I admire Ayn Rand enormously but I disagree with her atheism. I think it contradicts much of the rest of her philosophy. I would think that an Objectivist would welcome the idea of Intelligent Design as an example of the power of the mind.
As to whether God or the Gods cares about what I do on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or at 11:11 A.M. or at 6:38 P.M., I will note that, not only did They create the universe as a whole, the galaxies and clusters of galaxies and superclusters of clusters of galaxies, They also created each atom, each particle, each quark, each graviton or photon, etc., or at least keep an eye on these things. So, yes, I believe They work in the small as well as in the large. And I believe that they do want those of us who They created in Their own image (even if, as on this planet, fallen) to be as holy, as like unto Themselves as possible, to strive for the highest values.
That is my belief about it all.