Using highly abrasive language
The twins are back with a vengeance. They are worse than ever. It is as if they have swallowed some terrible slow-acting Kool-aid that is dissolving their brains in tiny increments. Where will they be by October?! Curled on the floor drooling?
It’s the same old thing, only worse – the sequiturs more non, the rhetoric more cranked up and deceptive, the petulance and finger-pointing more brazen.
…assault on their faith…straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness…in-your-face atheist touting evolution…unending polarization around evolution and religion…
Pause to note that Mooney and Kirshenbaum themselves are working energetically and overtime to foster and increase the very ‘unending polarization’ they complain of.
…no tolerating nonscientific beliefs…attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language…moderate scientists…the hallowed institutions of American science…politically, spiritually and practically they see no need to fight…regularly blasted for it by the New Atheists…the atheist biologist Jerry Coyne has drawn much attention by assaulting the center’s Faith Project…Coyne is once again following the lead of Dawkins…denounces the NCSE…
Then they finish up by giving in inaccurate account of Charles Darwin’s reply to Edward Aveling then telling us (‘the New Atheists’) we ‘ought to deeply consider’ the difference between Darwin and Dawkins. ?! Why ought we? We don’t belong to the church of either one of them. We know how to think all by ourselves without any training wheels. Mooney and Kirshenbaum cannot say as much.
Update: I’m still banned from commenting on their site. Last time they just left my comments in ‘moderation’ forever, but this time they’ve simply deleted them (after first trapping them in moderation). They’re a sleazy pair.
I can’t figure out why they banned you. I mean, I’ve been somewhat abrasive on their blog, albeit mainly to the regular posters and not the bloggers (I even got a post into moderation and posted today referring to The Intersection as an echo chamber). But I did point out in several older threads that Mooney was being dishonest/inconsistent/dodging criticism, same as you.
Perhaps Mooney did it while in a huff a couple weeks back and can’t back off on it (we know once he takes a position he closes off all potential to openly admit he was wrong, and you probably wouldn’t be quiet about him to let it stay a private thing). It is sad, though.
While you are correct that Darwin’s quote is irrelevant, they left out the next sentence, which sheds light on Darwin’s motivation.
Their quote: “Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science.”
They left out: “I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.”
What’s most amazing – unbelievable, really – that they’re telling Dawkins:
a. Don’t be a confrontational New Atheist. Stick to communicating Science. Go back to what you do as a scientist and stop commenting on religion.
b. Don’t write a book communicating science, especially not about evolution, the field for which you’re world-famous.
What the hell am I missing? It’s crystal clear their hatred of Dawkins has blinded them to their own illogic. Nothing is acceptable to M&K except Dawkins shutting up and retiring to the Home for Aging Atheists.
Oh, and their treacly, cliched writing style drives me berserk. It’s an endless stream of “consider deeply,” and “strongly held,” and “powerfully argued,” and “held dear,” and “compellingly stated.”
For the same reason I prefer real butter over margarine, I like The Real Thing in my prose. Not a synthetic simulacrum, disguising its inadequacy by throwing in trace amounts of Real Dairy Whey or Really Powerful Adverbs (TM).
What’s even more pathetic is that they will now pose as instructors in science communication, when apparently they can’t put together even a coherent newspaper article. And they have the nerve to say that Dawkins’s upcoming book will be “be championed by many scientists … ensur[ing] Dawkins another literary success”. In stark contrast to the Two Stooges, Dawkins can actually write.
It is baffling, Peter. What’s the name of that syndrome where the incompetent can’t recognize their own incompetence?
Yeah, Dawkins can write . I think he’s one of the most gifted prose stylists we have. Part of that gift is the substance that informs the style. I knew nothing about evolution or the scientific method 10 years ago, having gotten none of it in my liberal arts education. Dawkins’s popular treatments of evolution were so well-crafted, with such apt and accessible analogies, they awoke my mind. Since then, my recreational reading has consisted mainly of non-fiction, with a heavy emphasis on popular science (cosmology, biology, physics). If it weren’t for picking up Dawkins’s Climbing Mount Improbable I might never have gotten the education in science (and the pleasure of it) I now have. No, I’m no expert in anything, but I’m far better informed than the average layman (many who comment here could probably say the same).
Ophelia (and others), you’ve just got to read the op-ed Mooney did for Slate in 2001, criticizing the PBS miniseries Evolution for (wait for it…) going too easy on religion!
Don’t get too close to your irony meter; it may explode.
(H/t Screechy Monkey, commenting on Jerry Coyne’s blog)
…And I should now add that there’s a little more to the story, as pointed out by tomh (@ 42), Icthyic (@ 44), and Screechy Monkey him/herself (@ 45), commenting on Pharyngula.
It seems to me that the Mooney theory of science education can be summed up thus:
“Don’t insult other people, you stupid fucking asshole!”
The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Thanks Wes! I thought it had to be something more technical that Generalized Assholery.
Touting evolution? They actually said Dawkins was touting evolution?
I’ll all in favour of being polite, but I want that on a T-shirt.
Yeah, I loved that “touting evolution” bit.
Rieux, I know, someone else flagged up the Slate piece weeks ago, or maybe it was several people. And Mooney did a post admitting he’d changed his mind – a rare moment when he actually took in something his critics said.
ooooh. . .”beshitted”. . .I LOVE that! Google for “schadenfreude pie,” Jennifer. That’s some mmm, mmm, good sweet satisfaction, that is.
I know, it is so annoying that one mass media outlet after another picks up their petulant aggressive thought-free kack. But this is Amurrika and they’re offering A New Way to Pee On Atheists – so they’re a hot ticket.
So, Dawkins book explaining evolution will never be read by anti-evolutionists. I admit that sounds like a reasonable assertion. I wonder what kind of book anti-evolutionists and other people who despise science/scientists would read? Maybe a book that points out how horrible and bad and basically evil scientists are? Maybe a book like Unscientific America?
M&K are only acting like udder morons and assholes for one reason that makes sense to me: royalties and the hope for another 15 minutes of fame.
Ha! Good old Geoffrey.
@JoshS:
schadenfreude pie-LOL! Of course it has to be dark and bitter.
@Wes–well done, taking the literary high road. I must admit that my first thought about schadenfreude pie was the Stephen King novel “Thinner”.
@Ophelia:
Amazing. I hadn’t really thought about this, but it makes complete sense. The next step will be to move their blog from Discover to BioLogos….or maybe Ray Comfort’s den of inanity. *shudder*
My considered critique of the latest op-ed’s treatment of Prof. Myers can be found on the following diagram:
(If image doesn’t show up/isn’t allowed, copy/paste url)
Science IS an assault on faith. That’s one of its best points.
(This is from The Intersection.) Strangely, while Chapter 8 takes up only 12 pages, it is the subject of those 12 pages that M&K have emphasised almost exclusively in their many op-ed pieces since their book was published. Of course, part of this is due to the response of atheists to their book. But, when large newspapers and magazines (LA Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, Time) publish hysterical pieces on the science-atheism-religion question, more is going on than meets the eye.
In their Globe piece M&K write:
The ‘public’ they have in mind is the anti-evolutionist public, the ones who, as they say in the LA Times, are unlikely to read a book by Dawkins. Intuitively, however, this doesn’t make sense. Dawkins is a great communicator. Many of his books on evolution are accessible to the lay public, and have, in fact, been widely read. And there are lots of other great science communicators. I haven’t yet read Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True, but if he writes as clearly in his book as he does on his blog, it is clearly an example of a research scientist reaching out to the public. The shelves groan with the weight of all the books written by scientists for non-scientists.
This is not the problem, and it seems bizarre even to suggest that it is. So, starting with the scientists (M&K’s answer – see the tile of their Globe article) simply won’t do. Nor can the problem be the public endorsement of atheism by a small group of scientists. Nor is it plausibly their aggressive or abrasive style. As Jerry Coyne says, the ‘new atheists’ have only been around for five years; scientific illiteracy has been around much longer – and M&K acknowledge this.
So, what’s up? The answer, I think, is simple. The problem, however, is dangerous. As a BBC article puts it, “The very nature of religion has come into question during the noughties.” It was bound to happen. For a long time God has been hiding in the gaps. Now, it seems, there are only two ways for religion to go, and no places for God to hide. It can either disappear into a cloud of unknowing, and emphasise a tame – religion is all about love and compassion – kind of religiousness, relegating belief to a kind of hazy fringe around humanistic practice; or it can simply stop the clock, and defend bronze or early iron age world views. There are a few who still linger uneasily in the region between these two poles. Like Francis Collins, they try to live in both worlds at once, and Sam Harris has shown us how awkward this is.
M&K think that’s a reasonable place to be, and do not seem even to have glimpsed the underlying cultural crisis that is in progress. The danger lies in the fact that the religious, backed into a cultural corner, may respond unpredictably and even violently. Of course, they have already done so. In this situation, the idea that critical, scientific reason should play the compatibility card is, I think, not only dishonest; it is seriously and dangerously mistaken.
This is not a problem of communication; it is a cultural crisis. When 50 Rabbis can beat the bounds of Israel in a jet aircraft, praying and blowing shofars, what is necessary, after we have stopped laughing, is clarity, not condescension. What M&K do not realise, and what, perhaps, none of us realise to the extent necessary, is that what we are undergoing is a historical transformation of consciousness as significant as anything that took place in the period that Karl Jaspers’ calls the Axial Age. The only appropriate response to this is resolute honesty, and a steady refusal to tamper with the evidence.
“The ‘public’ they have in mind is the anti-evolutionist public”
One of the many ways they oversimplify what they try to discuss is that they talk about ‘the public’ as if it were a monolith, and thus talk about what ‘scientists’ (another monolith) have to say to this monolithic public in order not to frighten ‘it’ (actually millions of ‘them’s) away. This alone is enough to guarantee that their suggestions are, at best, worthless.
“The danger lies in the fact that the religious, backed into a cultural corner, may respond unpredictably and even violently.”
Precisely – and the truly weird thing about M and K is that they are doing everything they can to heighten religious rage at atheism.
“What’s most amazing – unbelievable, really – that they’re telling Dawkins:
a. Don’t be a confrontational New Atheist. Stick to communicating Science. Go back to what you do as a scientist and stop commenting on religion.
b. Don’t write a book communicating science, especially not about evolution, the field for which you’re world-famous.
What the hell am I missing? It’s crystal clear their hatred of Dawkins has blinded them to their own illogic. Nothing is acceptable to M&K except Dawkins shutting up and retiring to the Home for Aging Atheists. “
No, what they want is for him to write a very specific kind of book: one where he communicates science, except for when a clear-eyed reading of the facts might possibly make a religious person feel uncomfortable. Those particular bits of science need to have the edges sanded off.
If M&K were writing parenting books, they would advocate dealing with a spoiled child by capitulating to all his demands and giving him extra candy on the side.
dzd: “If M&K were writing parenting books, they would advocate dealing with a spoiled child by capitulating to all his demands and giving him extra candy on the side.”
After I stopped laughing out loud, I realized that you have actually identified something profound about the placatheist* position, dzd. Just as only non-parents could possibly give such awful parenting advice, only someone completely ignorant of reality on the ground in science and education and actually dealing with the “public” they so blithely refer to could possibly be so profoundly mistaken about the real nature of the problem of science/reason communication and its possible solutions. I invite the Colgate Twins to try to teach a class called “Logic & Critical Thinking” to a combination of religious fundamentalists and wealthy white teenagers whose extraordinary level of sociocultural privilege is completely invisible to them – or worse, students who fall into both categories. They might learn a little something about exactly how difficult it is to get even the simplest reason-and-evidence-based message across to an audience simply not interested in hearing it, even when one is placed in a position of considerable authority and power over said audience (by being the instructor and handing out grades). Being nice and accommodating is exactly the LEAST USEFUL METHOD POSSIBLE! You have to shake them up and confront them with facts and questions that they can’t evade or resolve without stepping outside their narrow little world view. You don’t educate anyone by mollycoddling their prejudices, you have to vigorously shake them out of their preconceived attitudes and unsupported opinions.
I begin to suspect that the problem here is M&K’s own narrowness of experience: They simply *are* the privileged upper-class white kids who’ve never really dealt with people profoundly different from themselves in a substantial way, and so are just completely clueless about who they are or how they see the world. But M&K can’t be let off the hook for their ignorance because it is so bloody willful and arrogant: To return to dzd’s brilliant analogy, some people choose not to have children – and there’s nothing wrong with that choice. But when those people who choose not to have children still feel free to give parenting advice, they not only give awful advice, they come off as clueless asshats – because they are.
*I actually think Jerry Coyne chose the wrong winner: ‘Placatheists’ is much more cynical and cutting and dismissive than ‘faitheists,’ but also ultimately more truthful.
Good stuff.