The Scientifi American website has articles on the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. My students might be interested in a debate over how to present science to people of faith [Should Science Speak to Faith?]. The debate is between Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Here's a teaser ...
Krauss: Both you and I have devoted a substantial fraction of our time to trying to get people excited about science, while also attempting to explain the bases of our current respective scientific understandings of the universe. So it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion. I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place? I suspect that I want to concentrate more on the first issue, and you want to concentrate more on the second.
I say this because if one is looking to teach people, then it seems clear to me that one needs to reach out to them, to understand where they are coming from, if one is going to seduce them into thinking about science. I often tell teachers, for example, that the biggest mistake any of them can make is to assume that their students are interested in what they are about to say. Teaching is seduction. Telling people, on the other hand, that their deepest beliefs are simply silly—even if they are—and that they should therefore listen to us to learn the truth ultimately defeats subsequent pedagogy. Having said that, if instead the primary purpose in discussing this subject is to put religion in its proper context, then perhaps it is useful to shock people into questioning their beliefs.
Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions. I agree with you that teaching is seduction, and it could well be bad strategy to alienate your audience before you even start. Maybe I could improve my seduction technique. But nobody admires a dishonest seducer, and I wonder how far you are prepared to go in “reaching out.” Presumably you wouldn’t reach out to a Flat Earther. Nor, perhaps, to a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But perhaps you would reach out to an Old Earth Creationist who thinks God started the whole thing off and then intervened from time to time to help evolution over the difficult jumps. The difference between us is quantitative, only. You are prepared to reach out a little further than I am, but I suspect not all that much further.
...
Dawkins: I like your clarification of what you mean by reaching out. But let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.
13 comments :
Dawkins is a simple asshole. That he does not care about putting peopel off does not mena the insanity he bleats must be the turuth or as he himself ungraciously puts it, "sober statements of fact". What he said IS bigoted and that he describes it as "sober fact" is even more telling about his particular brand of dogmatic arrogance and bigotry.
"ignorant" will depend (on what). Some creationists may actually have a good scientific carrer (example: Behe)
"Stupid" is not the case. Most creationsits have normally functioning brains. Same goes for "insane"
Turns out dishonesty, the one thing dumb old Dawkins does not wnat to think about, is usually the case; i rinciple creationists are dishonest becuase they critcize a body of knowledge they hardly know anything about; something in their back of their head knows it. They're dishonest: they do not recognize they have an exclusively religious motivation
To Sanders:
I agree that often Dawkins hammers it too hard, but at least the discussion gets a good airing and more people are aware of this social debate.
On the issue of "seduction" vs "the straight goods" - in psychology (operant conditioning) positive reinforcement is effective even if the reward frequency is infrequent or random, whereas positive/negative punishment is only effective if applied regularly and consistently.
It follows that an approach that emphasizes the value of science and rationality has a greater potential effect than an approach that criticises religion.
Lim, Sanders, I respectfully disagree.
I don't think Dawkins hammers it too hard, and Sanders, I certainly think he is far-removed from being a simple asshole.
Even without hearing his polite demeanor when he is quoted in print, I find that he is being direct, but he is always polite: there is no ad hominem attack in his approach, simply an appeal to reason.
I contend that we need a variety of approaches to get the scientific and the atheist worldviews to be more popular, and Richard Dawkins has done more for each in popular culture than pretty much anyone else I could name, with the possible exception of Sagan.
Go Dawkins!
Glendon, it is hard for me to respectfully disagree with Sanders. He has this obsession, you see. He doesn't waste an opportunity to slam either Dawkins or PZ Myers.
Instead of illuminating the issues, he just comes off looking like the type of person he accuses Dawkins of being.
Don't point to the sty in Dawkins eye, Sanders.
I say "simple" in that it's plain what motivates Dawkins. Maybe "major" asshole is better?
Calling people stupid or insane and then calling THAT a "sober statement of fact" ...sorry. That's just being a MAJOR asshole. If you can't see that, well, good luck
Just as a matter of information, as the dicussion took place in 2007, Prof. Krauss is now at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.
Sanders, he didnt call them stupid or insane.
He called them ignorant, stupid, insane or dishonest.
Is there some other category he forgot?
"but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact"
Notice:"know in your heart"
Is this language a trivial detail? Or does it reflect that Dawkin's atheism is degenerating into quasireligion?
Last time I checked, sober statements of fact are not precisely the kind of think you need to know "in the heart"
The funny thing is that Dawkins fans have lost all capacity to criticize his silly bleatings. They think saying things like that is just GENIUS. hahaha
Dawkins: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Yes, he does hammer his point hard. But he didn't say that a person was ignorant AND stupid AND insane. He said that usually people fall into one of these three camps, and it's hard to disagree with this. Probably the reality is that the majority of non-evolutionists at least fall into the ignorant camp (and that would include Behe who is probably wilfully ignorant).
And you only have to spend a couple of hours browsing Uncommon Descent or one of the many O'Leary Blogs to realize that mixed in with all of this ignorance is a ton of stupidity. For our insanity category we only have to look at the likes of Kent Hovind and probably Ken Ham too...
"Should science speak to faith?" - lets reword that into a different question, but one that may throw some light on the debate (hopefully): "Should Christians speak to Muslims?". Or how about "Should NASCAR racers speak to Buddhists?"
However you rate the positions for Truth, or truth, (and I am definitely pro science and pro rationality) people who think differently about their lives are much more likely to resist change than acknowledge that there may be the slightest possibility that they hold an unreasonable or unfounded opinion.
Some people value the comfort of social conformity, some value the rigour of rational thought, many people just like routine, ritual, and 'spirituality' however it is delivered.
I'm firmly of the opinion that science will someday show why people like these things... but I regard arguing with the godstruck to be like bailing a boat - it needs to be done to stop us sinking but it is only addressing the immediate problem. The long term problems of unreasonable faith will only be fixed by doing better and better science and working out some of the answers to the 'why?' questions.
Glendon says:
"Lim, Sanders, I respectfully disagree.
I don't think Dawkins hammers it too hard, and Sanders, I certainly think he is far-removed from being a simple asshole.
Even without hearing his polite demeanor when he is quoted in print, I find that he is being direct, but he is always polite: there is no ad hominem attack in his approach, simply an appeal to reason."
I understand Dawkins' overall approach, and he says what needs to be said, though I feel that sometimes he can be too forceful.
For example, check out this Stanford public discussion between Dawkins and Krauss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mop9GzJomoM) at around the 1 minute mark - I'm not sure how effective that statement is for promoting science and rationality to religious individuals.
Being ignorant does not in itself produce evolution-denialism. There are tons of "ignorant" people that are not evolution-deniers; that is, it's perfectly OK to be ignorant if you are honest to yourself and to others about your ignorance.
To say evolution is false without knowing anything about it REQUIRES dishonesty. Simply being ignorant is never the complete explanation.
Remember the guy with a geology PhD on fossil mosasaurs?
He was not ignorant, he ws plain dishonest, unsincere, and deceitful, writing down stuff in his thesis that he did not actually believe in.
Post a Comment