25 March 2008

Who speaks for science? Or, why loud atheists are NOT the problem

Last Friday I mentioned a dispute surrounding the comments of some of the advocates of "framing" in science communications. The claim was that the engagement of pseudoscience – or what I would call folk science – is unwise, at least because the attention "enables" the purveyors of such swill. That's an interesting topic of discussion, but the debate has morphed, and the heat turned up on both sides, because the focus in now on the deliciously ironic expulsion of PZ Myers (but not his chum, the occupant of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford) from the screening of a propaganda film. I think the discussion is now about something a lot bigger than just "enabling" pseudoscience.

In the unlikely event that you haven't heard about the PZ Myers-Dawkins-Expelled "fiasco," I refer you to Greg Laden's links and/or to the New York Times (no joke).

I'll skip the whole "framing" thing for now, except to note that it involves controversial proposals regarding effective means of communicating science to the public. Here is what Matt Nisbet, a blogger at ScienceBlogs (and a well-known advocate of "framing") wrote about the prominent roles played recently by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins in the response to some new ID propaganda:

The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science. Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.

Unfortunately, you couldn't focus group a better message for the pro-creationist crowd. And this message is already reaching well beyond the theaters, on display most recently with the PZ Myers Affair chronicled at the NY Times.

As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals.

The call for PZ and Dawkins to shut up has drawn significant ire in the blogosphere; I would recommend Orac at Respectful Insolence and Brian at Laelaps as sources of principled resistance on that count, and I share their indignation at the call for self-censorship.

But there's been relatively little emphasis on why Nisbet wants PZ and Dawkins to shut up. I think it's pretty clear that Nisbet is saying this: PZ and Dawkins are outspoken atheists, and ruthless critics of religion, who make controversial and/or erroneous statements, and therefore ought not be speaking for science, at least because their anti-religious fervor can hurt the credibility of science in the public eye. And he's right on every count. But he's wrong to suggest, then, that PZ and Dawkins ought to be silenced. (That he seeks voluntary muzzling is, to me, completely irrelevant.)

I maintain that if we have an "outspoken atheists" problem, the way to solve it is not to silence the voices with which we disagree, but to engage them, debate them, even refute them. Here are some thoughts on how to do that.

1. Put Myers and Dawkins into a more complete context. They're both science writers of renown, because they're both brilliant thinkers and wordsmiths. But neither is a scientist of any significant distinction. Dawkins hasn't published in the professional literature in more than three decades, and Myers' last notable contribution to a science journal was in 1993. It's not an insult to either of these guys to simply note that neither is active in serious scientific research. (Sorry, but some of us who are still working our asses off in the lab get a little testy about how the title 'scientist' gets used.) It's hard to exaggerate the difference between the scholarly achievements of Francisco Ayala and Richard Dawkins; the exalted title of the latter surely contributes to a spectacularly inflated perception of his professional achievements. The exaltation of Richard Dawkins (as a scientist) is not unlike the hilarious fawning over the unremarkable accomplishments of a certain biochemist at Lehigh University, whose CV actually dwarfs that of the estimable atheist ayatollah.

Look, I like PZ, and I like Dawkins. I like reading their work, and everyone can learn from their writing. But let's help the world understand that PZ is a science blogger and college teacher, and that Dawkins is a science writer and not much more. If I were Allen Orr or Sean Carroll, I'd be just a little annoyed that the New York Times referred to PZ as an 'evolutionary biologist', and it wouldn't matter that I happen to agree with much of what he says.

2. Add voices, don't remove them. If science is as diverse as it claims to be, there are surely scientists (maybe even real scientists) who can repudiate the religious claims of the New Atheists. Perhaps whole societies and organizations (such as those cited by Nisbet) will add their voices, not just to the condemnation of ID propaganda, but also to the rejection of anti-religious vendettas launched in the name of science.

We don't need to silence Myers and Dawkins; we need to refute them if and when they claim to speak for science against belief. And we need to speak as scientists, in defense of the integrity of our profession and in defense of our fellow scientists who are being marginalized by atheological fervor, not as slick spinmeisters who know that our grant success rates depend on our silencing of a subset of our colleagues.

And if that doesn't convince you, just try to imagine what it looks like to outsiders when a community tries to shush one of its embarrassingly obnoxious members. It seems to me that this is easily seen (perhaps accurately) as outright dishonesty. Are there some scientists who are skeptics, and who are hostile to religious belief? Of course there are. So?

3. Hold the scientific community accountable for how it responds to misuse of its name. Instead of blaming Myers and Dawkins for doing what they do best, exert moral pressure on the rest of science to be clearer about what is and isn't a legitimate invocation of the authority of science. Christians, after all, are rightly suspected of moral failure when/if they fail to condemn outrages perpetrated in their name. Why should this not be expected of scientists? And while no human can find the time to answer every summons to repudiate the idiocy of fellow travelers, the world has a right to ponder whether relative silence signals tacit approval.

We have some loud atheists who like to pretend that it is science, and not unbelief, that is in conflict with belief. Shall we silence them? OF COURSE NOT. We should thank them for getting some important questions into the public square, then we should make it quite clear that their efforts have little to do with science, and everything to do with their perfectly legitimate but completely religious convictions.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

OK, lets add voices. But where? Where will people be able to speak and, this is the important part, actually be heard by anyone outside of the science blogosphere?

I agree that Mooney and Nisbet's perspectives can be limiting, largely b/c they have blindspots that come from thinking of communication from the point of view of Washington politics. But from a PR perspective, they are much more level-headed and reasonable because they pay much more attention to how the general public actually comes to make up their minds on how and what to believe, something that Myers and Dawkins don't seem to have given much thought to at all. In the already small share of news coverage that science issues receive, it may be true that there may not be room for much more than a couple voices; and when you have voices that make for good television (from a ratings/conflict standpoint) like Dawkins and Myers, will anyone else get room to actually have a voice? In a field as well covered as presidential politics, it is hard for any but the most strident voices to make themselves be heard, so for the lower-priority (from a media standpoint) issue of science, a couple of loud, un-nuanced, controversial voices actually can drown out all the other much more thoughtful commentators.

I don't think this means we should get Dawkins and Myers to shut up, I think it means we need to get them to learn something about either PR or about the incredibly naive, un-scientific, and under-philosophized nature of their standard commentary on the relationship between religion and science, but I doubt either one of those is happening any time soon. I'd be much more sympathetic to anything Dawkins and Myers tried to do if they ever showed that they have even an ounce of PR instincts when it comes to the issue of religion or to the task of communicating much of anything to a broadly religious public (yes, they do have PR instincts, but they are only honed to communicate to the very slim part of the public that seeks out information on science outside of formal educational establishments).

Regarding your point number one, how can we effective place Myers and Dawkins in context as science writers but not (any longer) scientists when the public at large doesn't really understand that distinction? And note that we're running into the same problem here as with Hugh Ross, who is credentialed as a scientist but who doesn't actively do science anymore.

(How about that: I've just made a tangible connection between Myers/Dawkins and Hugh Ross. Only Ross is much, much, much better at PR...)

Anonymous said...

That last part of my comment, which was initially meant to be more amusing than serious, got me thinking. Could what Myers and Dawkins do be labeled as "folk philosophy", a term that parallels your concept of "folk science." Certainly their pronouncements are formed in such a way to make it sound they've thought carefully about the philosophies of religion and science, but they fall woefully short of the kind of well-thought views that we expect from university-based educators who like to speak out in public. But they also are so convinced of their folk philosophy that they can't really be charged with maliciousness. They truly believe, in the face of vast evidence, that science is antithetical to religion, and no amount of counter-evidence can get them to change their mind. And they very publicly, through books and blogs, seek to promote these incredibly silly ideas. How is this very different from how someone like Hugh Ross operates? Yes, they're great when they are dealing with science qua science, but when they deal with religion, they are horrible (on the flip side, I agree with your deploring of Ross's science, but we both probably substantially agree with his theology...). So why shouldn't they be opposed using the same means that you use to oppose Ross?

Anonymous said...

P.S. I'm not referring to Myers's and Dawkins's atheism per se as silly (while I disagree with atheism, I admit there may be good philosophical reasons that might lead one to be an atheist), but, rather, their blanket statements that religion and science are necessarily opposed. After all, much of The God Delusion is little more than anti-religion propaganda.

I make this note just in case an atheist reads this and mistakenly think I'm rejecting Myers/Dawkins for their (non-)religious beliefs instead of their egregious instances of non-thinking.

Anonymous said...

I agree fully with your conclusions. In particular the one about adding voices, and not muzzling the extremists. Richard Grant linked to your post from Nature Networks and I am glad he did.
As to, why can't we get some more moderate but current lab scientists out there writing polemics, which of us has the time *and* the writing talent? I think once you devote yourself to communication, you have no more time left to do, even to direct, bench work. And vice-versa.
By the way, although he doesn't couch it as such, I think many of Douglas Hofstadter's writings offer spiritual food for thought to us atheists, in particular I am a Strange Loop.

John Farrell said...

This is a great post, Steve. I've often thought, as a further step, that a network of Christians who are scientists and science writers, should more formally come together to counter the corrosive effects of outfits like the Discovery Institute. It's great that PZ, Dawkins et al have at them regularly, but more concerned Christians refuting them as well would further undermine the popular dogma that science and religion cannot be reconciled.

RBH said...

John Farrell wrote:

This is a great post, Steve. I've often thought, as a further step, that a network of Christians who are scientists and science writers, should more formally come together to counter the corrosive effects of outfits like the Discovery Institute. It's great that PZ, Dawkins et al have at them regularly, but more concerned Christians refuting them as well would further undermine the popular dogma that science and religion cannot be reconciled.

(cough) ASA (cough)

Anonymous said...

ASA?

(I don't think you mean any of the top few Google hits, from context)

Stephen Matheson said...

rpg:

ASA

Anonymous said...

Righto: Ta!

Anonymous said...

"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth."

2 Timothy 24-25

Stephen Matheson said...

Gunbine:
Interesting proof text. Why is it here?

Anonymous said...

Oh, pardon me if it was inappropriate. Your dedication to honest, reasoned debate with people you disagree with reminded me of Paul's advice to 'gently instruct' rather than quarrel. I liked it, but I do apologize if I ought to have kept my mouth shut. Sorry for the intrusion.

Stephen Matheson said...

No need to apologize, and your comment was welcome, whether or not it was meant as criticism or even sarcasm. My problem with the comment was that it was unclear. And I'm not a big fan of proof-texting.

Anonymous said...

Oh, quite the opposite, I meant it as a compliment, not a criticism or sarcastic jibe. I've been lurking at your blog intermittently for a few days and it seems to me you evince a more charitable, honestly Christian spirit than many--though, of course, not all--on the other side of the 'evolution vs. creation' debate. Of course, as you said, a single quote from the Bible without any supporting context may not have been the best way to prove that point, o I do apologize for proof-texting and being vague. :)

jimvj said...

Of course Dawkins is right about the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. Please read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" to see how pathetic is the formation and evolution of the so-called "Bible" (actually Bibles, because there is no intrinsic definition of a "Bible".
Or read Finkelstein & Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed" to see that most of the OT is legend rewritten to provide a petty ruler a pedigree.

Kyle (in the comments) shoots much ad hominem at Dawkins but provides not a single example; I wonder why.

Face it; most religious belief is superstition and make-believe. No amount of linguistic icing is going to change that. Why would that icing work only for your religion, and not for the thousands of other incompatible religions?

Stephen Matheson said...

Hey jv, my favorite part of your comment was when you whined about Kyle "not providing examples" following "ad hominem". Looks like your ox got gored. Boo hoo! If you want to learn why people think Dawkins' work on religion is a joke, surf the blog here, or just read a few non-fawning reviews by actual critics. (Try Allen Orr.) And, uh, thanks for the reading list.

John Farrell said...

JV, Bart Ehrman is hardly a standout on biblical criticsm, if that's your only source. Nice try. The presuppositions 'scholars' like Ehrman start with would sink an ocean liner.

jimvj said...

So please provide some concrete examples of where Dawkins does not reach the heights of the great theologians who have debated for centuries about how many angels can dance on a pin. I have not seen a single example. Not even in your - ad hominem laced - comment.

Also, please provide some refutation of the long list of obscenities, barbarities, and downright nonsense, provided by Dawkins and others (e.g. SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com website) in the so called "Holy Book" of Christians.

The strangest part of all the "sciencier" than thou expressed in your posts here, relative to PZ and Dawknis, is that you are proud to believe in the utter crap of a book of bronze age writings.

jimvj said...

Hey Farrell:
Nice dodge! You cannot refute what Ehrman says, can you! There is no remnant of the originals of any NT document. The largest scrap from the 2nd century is about the size of a postage stamp.
The principal founders of Christianity, Jesus & Paul, had no concept of a "Bible". The first "Bible" was defined to solidify the authority of the one sect that had gained the Roman emperor's ear.
There are well documented frauds in the copying of the NT. The last half of the Mark's (though who knows who wrote it) gospel is a latter addition, since Mark did not originally have any post-resurrection fables.
The famous story in which Jesus states "Let him without sin cast the first stone" is, in its entirety, a much later addition.

Face it. This is not a divine book. This was a way to grab for power, that was very successful in shoving Europe into the dark ages for many centuries.

John Farrell said...

JV,
Clearly you haven't even read Ehrman if you think his work justifies the "Bible is a post event fabrication" BS that Dawkins et al profess.

Here's Ben Witherington, who studied with Ehrman:
"As I remember Bruce Metzger saying once (who trained both Bart and myself in these matters) over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.

Take for example the arguments that Ehrman makes in Chapters 5ff. in this book. Does the absence of the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 somehow prove that the NT has no notion of three person in one God? Absolutely not. There are a whole variety of texts where such an idea is found (see e.g. Mt. 28). Furthermore, its not so much whether we have a 'formula' here and there, but whether the notion of the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Spirit are affirmed in various places in the NT along with the divinity of the Father. And in fact they are--- repeatedly so. Even our chronologically earliest NT documents, Paul's letters are perfectly clear on this point.

Take another example. Ehrman points to the fact that in Matthew's version of the ignorance saying (cf. Mk. 13.32 to Mt. 24.36) as some sort of proof that Jesus should not seen as divine, at least in Matthew's Gospel. We can debate the textual variants, but even if we include 'not even the Son' here which is certainly present in Mk. 13.32 it in no way proves that Matthew presents a merely human Jesus. The Emmanuel (God with us Christology) which we find at the beginning and end of this Gospel rules that notion out all together, as do various other texts in Matthew where Jesus presents himself as the Wisdom of God come in the flesh (see my forthcoming Matthew commentary)."

I have no problem with anyone who dismisses religion for reasons based on the evil that religious people have done. Quite the fashion these days. But please, if you're going to claim that Christianity is purely fabricated, back it up with something other than footstomping.

As for Dawkins, for starters, Thomas Nagle nicely pointed out the...um...deficiencies of his understanding of various philosophers and theologians. And Nagle's an atheist.

John Farrell said...

BTW, as for Dawkins' vaunted credentials as a science writer, physicist Stephen Barr sums him up nicely:

"To call it low-grade intellectual poodling would perhaps be too harsh; but it is certainly not high-grade.

"The first thing to note is Dawkins’ carelessness with facts. (This is especially strange in a man who so emphasizes the factuality of science, with its “testability, evidential support, precision, [and] quantifiability”). Here is a small sampler: speaking of neutrinos, he says that “on average one passes through you every second.” Actually many billions of neutrinos pass through you every second, a fact well known to science buffs. In explaining an evolutionary idea he states that a certain quantity “grows as a power function,” though any mathematically minded person would see that it grows exponentially. He attempts an elementary combinatoric calculation and gets it wrong. He discusses a well-known quantum phenomenon in terms that are incorrect. If one reads enough of Dawkins, one gets used to this sort of thing; in a previous book he showed that he did not know the difference between a cosmic ray and a gamma ray.

"It could be urged, in extenuation of such mistakes, that Dawkins is not a physicist or mathematician. Even so, one might have expected better of a man whose title at Oxford is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science."

Stephen Matheson said...

JV, thanks for stopping by. You're right that the bible contains a lot of evil, and you're right that my faith in its ability to reveal Christ is just plain crazy.

Re Dawkins, I don't know what else to say, except that those who fawn over The God Delusion are either the devotees of a certain kind of faith, or are extravagantly ignorant. At various times on the blog, I've cited reviews of TGD that explain why I don't consider it to be a work of any scholarly significance, and I've discussed it with (more thoughtful) commenters elsewhere. I hope you won't think I'm too rude when I say that I don't really care why you seek to defend him on that score, because I'm not that impressed by your contributions to the conversation so far.

In any case, my blog is about science, is aimed mostly at Christians, and not primarily about theology or faith. I've made it clear that I take my faith to be primary, and not as a conclusion that followed from a set of premises or observations. That you find this ludicrous is neither surprising to me nor particularly interesting to me. So thanks for sharing, and look me up if you're ever in Grand Rapids. The beer's on me.

jimvj said...

So if someone applies rational critieria to your belief system they are less thoughtful than those who agree that one should believe in the barbarous deity/history depicted in the Bible?

So long, and thanks for all the hypocrisy! Not!