Mommy, daddy, stop fighting! You're ruining my birthday party!
For those who haven't been following this increasingly vitrioloic back-and-forth, Pharyngula's PZ Myers has been locked in Internet Ninja Combat with Chris Mooney of DiscoverMagazine.com, over Chris Mooney's latest book, Unscientific America. The book itself is a criticism of science literacy, science education, science communication, etc., that also includes digs at the so-called "New Atheists" for alienating the religious or what-not. Boo-hoo.
Myers, something of a savant at alienating the religious, wrote a nasty (honest?) review of the book, and they were off to the races. Mooney and co-author Sheril Kirshenbaum specifically targeted Myers and his blog in their book, and have been acting indignant and misrepresented ever since they picked the fight.
But, as a non-Pharynguloid, I don't feel obligated to defend PZ Myers. What I do feel obligated to talk about is the attitude that Unscientific America's authors have towards religion. They are apologists for it- they attack the "New Atheists" (whatever those are) for not keeping their mouths shut. They scold atheists for making science 'alienating' to the religious. They seem to be of the perspective that we all ought to get along and anyone who can't say something nice about the religious shouldn't say anything at all.
Sixty years ago, people like Mooney and Kirshenbaum were described as the Vichy government.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem undaunted by the fact that religious people seem to alienate themselves from science just fine without our assistance. For example, religious people seem remarkably reticent to criticize the Creation Museum, so who else is going to do it? Religious people never seem to gather up the chops to criticize the Pope for his fundamentally anti-science worldview; should he go un-criticized? Or should people who aren't humbled by the austere and ancient institution of zombie-worship be able to lift their heads out of the sand and say something without being attacked as rabble-rousers by people who claim to be promoters of science?
No, say Mooney and Kirshenbaum. All that does is make the religious feel hostile to science, because obviously they would have no such feelings whatsoever if there were no atheists exercising their right to free speech.
Ridiculous. The authors of Unscientific America seem to prefer things the way they were around, oh, say, the Scopes Monkey Trial. Back then, there were no 'New Atheists' making all the poor religionists feel silly and have a bad relationship with science. Back then, science did its thing and religion did its thing (they must have never conflicted because these "New Atheists" that Mooney and Kirshenbaum whine about didn't exist back then, and they are after all the cause of all discord between science and religion) and never did the twain meet. Right? Wrong. Religion shat on science with exactly as much flagrant disregard for reality as it does today, and they similarly dumped all over the non-religious with wild abandon because there weren't enough non-religious people and they lived in a society where criticizing religion was off-limits.
That societ is gone. Today, criticizing religion is A-OK, and furthermore religion has earned it. That someone will find some speech offensive is not even plausibly mistakable for an argument against making that speech. That religious people only feel alienated from science because of atheists (sorry, "New Atheists") is patently absurd. Don't waste your time with Unscientific America, guys. If you want to be scolded for speaking your mind, I'm sure the Pope can provide. And if you want to read hollow-sounding platitudes with no actual solid plan for solving America's scientific illiteracy, you can give this book a go. Otherwise, don't bother.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The “accommodationists” as Vichyists? I like it.
Seriously, some of the Vichyists were not as bad as we now perceive: the Nazis had in fact conquered France, and, one way or another, the French had to deal with a very bad situation. Trying to retain a shred of sovereignty for part of the country may have seemed the best deal they could get. Of course, that does not excuse those who eagerly collaborated with Hitler.
I’d like to question your statement:
>…the Scopes Monkey Trial. Back then, there were no 'New Atheists' making all the poor religionists feel silly and have a bad relationship with science.
Surely, the heroic H. L. Mencken ought to count at least as the grandfather of the “New Atheists.” I hear he did a good job on Bryan at Scopes I.
My understanding is that the blanket pseudo-respect for religion was largely a post-WW II phenomenon: that is when they tacked "under God" onto the Pledge, for example.
One of the funny things about the Money-Kirshenbaum vs. PZ fight is that logically this is a fight M & K cannot win. After all, no one on PZ’s side really wants or needs anything from M & K. On the other hand, M & K do want something from all of us on the “New Atheist” side: i.e., they want us all to shut up.
We control whether we do that; they have no control over us.
So, M & K are absolutely guaranteed to lose this.
I’m not sure they have grasped the strategic logic of the debate.
One of the other funny things is that I get the impression that Money really does not like the hard-core religionists – evangelicals and fundies. Now, I certainly think the fundies are quite loony, especially the YECchies. On the other hand, I rather like most of them personally: I have friends, family, neighbors, etc. in that category, and, while I make no secret of the fact that I strongly dissent from their religious views, I generally like them as people.
I think this must rather irritate M & K: that some of us on the New Atheist side can lambast the *ideas* of the fundies while still being happy to associate with them, socialize with them, etc.
It must be hard being M & K.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Surely telling the truth is more important than how people feel about things. Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest are merely telling the truth about religion. It just seems shocking because for so long it's been taboo to do that.
The demand that atheists stop "attacking" religion is simply a demand that people avoid mentioning uncomfortable truths to avoid upsetting the fragile self-deceit of the religious and the accommodationists.
Post a Comment