Framing
I’m listening to the PZ-Mooney Point of Inquiry. I expect to be highly irritated, since everyone says Jennifer Michael Hecht forgot to be the interviewer and instead acted as a third party to the debate, and took Mooney’s side.
Update: Uh, yeah. Ten minutes in and she just starts arguing away as if she’s a participant and not the interviwer. A few minutes later she just plain interrupts PZ to say what she wants to say – the interviewer! She reminds me of Alex Tsakiris.
I really enjoyed her book Doubt: A History… and I wanted to ask Hecht to be on my radio show “Atheists Talk” – until I heard her on “Speaking of Faith” with Krista Tippett. Hecht was rather disappointing in her personal assessment of the New Atheists on that show, and so I am not surprised that she took Mooney’s side.
She’s driving me nuts. She is the interviewer, not one of the participants!
Oh, fark – PZ made a key point and either he could have expanded on it or Mooney could have responded but no, Hecht burst in and is now going on and on and on and on and on – saying nothing. What a train wreck!
I listened to that yesterday and just found it boring, and the lady was slightly annoying.Where’s the vid to the panel discussion?
This is actually an epidemic at conferences I attend, and indeed on podcasts and shows like this. Being a moderator is a skill. One of the worst things a moderator can do, in my view, is jump in to the debate—because when she or he does, that means NO ONE is moderating. Bad form.
Hecht is incompetent as an interviewer, and also expressed some rather strange views about moderate religion. Someone should have to keep on insisting that they are an atheist that much.
[…] Benson over at Butterflies and Wheels writes about the latest Point of Inquiry episode featuring a debate between Chris Mooney and P.Z. […]
Sorry, meant “not have to keep on..”
At the end, Mooney is the only one acting as a moderator and starts to wrap things up and segue to closing statements. To top it all off, Hecht actually delivers a closing position speech! She takes the position that the Gnu Atheists are too strident and rude while being the one interrupting others and making both PZ and Mooney look like calm, reasonable individuals trying to squeak out points in between her diatribes. What a show.
More straw-men from the accommodationists. This subject fascinates me, but I wonder if any of what we’re saying is getting through to these folk. I feel that they are simply reacting emotionally and cannot get past their gut-reaction against confrontations of all sorts, even necessary ones.
The whole moderator-becoming-a-participant kinda reminds me of the Sam Harris/Michael Shermer v. Deepak Chopra/ Jean Houston debate on Nightline. In fairness, it was nowhere near as bad and sorta understandable. Chopra was speaking his usual spiritual quantum nonsense and Houston wasn’t even on topic, so their side was doing REALLY badly. Even theists deserve to have somebody semi-coherent and/or on topic representing them.
Having thought about this podcast for a while I think I have found it to be useful in defining an aspect thinking common to the accomodationists.
I think a quote from Heck at about 39 minutes into the podcast illustrates the point.
“…when I talk to people, I find that very smart people who agree with science, though they don’t worship it, they realize the vast amount of nonsense it generates and perhaps more appropriately, I should say, the way that it’s covered in the news allows for science to stand for a kind of, umm, just an awful lot of nonsense that’s all about the value judgments that go into the kind of science that’s done…”
To me, this indicates that Heck views ‘science’ as something akin to a political party. It’s a ‘side’ to be on in a debate or contest. It can produce a lot of ‘nonsense’ but overall we must grit our teeth and stick to this side – but she wishes that we could appreciate the good, nuanced, poetic parts of the other side.
I think this is a fundamentally incorrect way to view science. Science is not a ‘side’. It is a method. Specifically it’s the method we use to determine whether an idea about the natural world is incorrect. The scientific method, applied correctly, never produces ‘nonsense’. It produces data that may or may not interest you, may or may not be ethical (lets hope it was ethical!) and may or may not be relevant to future studies. It is common within science to question points of order within a particular hypothesis, not to simply take sides or to destroy an existing theory or framework, but to make sure all the parts of that framework make sense – that’s how we make progress. I think this ‘scientific’, questioning approach is what the gnu atheists have brought to atheism over the past few years. In science it is expected that any aspect of a hypothesis can and will be questioned and evidence demanded if it is to be accepted. The sort of questioning attitude that is brought to bear on subjects like evolution and quantum mechanics is being turned to other questions such as religious claims. Hecht and Mooney’s point is that because someone like Ken Miller believes 99% of what PZ or Dawkins does it’s better if we ignore the 1% difference and concentrate on the Ray Comforts of this world who believe in just 50%. While possibly making sense in short term political terms this is really anathema to scientific thinking. As an analogy let me suggest James Watson. I probably believe 99% of what he does yet should ignore his statements on women or black people? Of course not! I reserve the right to challenge any statement that goes against the evidence, whatever the political power of the claimant. The same goes for religious claims.
I’m sorry but I can’t help but be suspicious about Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht’s atheism when they’re being funded by the Templeton Foundation. To me, this is a conflict of interest. Just like there is a conflict between religion and science. If taking money from dodgy foundations is accommodationism then perhaps we’ve a better idea about what type of person is an accommodationist.
“I’m an atheist but…”
What exactly is this type of atheist? Most atheists I know of, are either in the rational or scientific camp or in the emotionally anti-theist camp (I am both) but I’ve never seen these “I’m an atheist but…” types before. They seem more like agnostics to me–and you know how vague that term is.
Atheists can have all sorts of absurd delusions and beliefs, they can be confused or completely irrational. I don’t take those atheists seriously as intellectuals, especially when they attack Professor Dawkins with bad arguments and disguised personal attacks.
As far as I am concerned, accommodationism is irrational. So no surprise that accommodationists are just as irrational as believers who accept two contradictory ideas in their minds. And no surprise that their arguments are ad hominems, personal attacks and strawman arguments.
What Sigmund’s quoted passage from Hecht mostly demonstrates is the total chaos of her thinking. She babbles instead of talking, as if the aim is to gain momentum rather than making sense, so she seems to be just free associating. I feel as if I’ve been introduced to another idiot…
I thought I chose her most concise point!
I don’t mind her having a position. I do mind how she “framed” what new atheists do. I don’t think she got it right, and PZ actually explained it multiple times. That to me was the most frustrating. That she stepped out of a role isn’t a big deal, it could have enriched or bring more to the table. In the way she did bring some points, but the rigidity of her assumption about gnus really made it too much for me.
No, it is a big deal, not least because it meant there were two people arguing for one view and one arguing for another. It wasn’t billed as the three of them talking, it was billed as Myers and Mooney talking, with Hecht as moderator.
Hecht’s argument seems to be ‘you’re wrong because I don’t like your tone’. Which is not only irrational and a fallacy, but does not in any way describe PZ Meyers (in the Point of Inquiry discussion). He was speaking so eloquently, intelligently and rationally without any aggression, stridency or any rudeness.
Hecht says when asked about specifics about her problem with atheists:
“What I’m saying is that, there are people, many people, who, while–when I identify as an atheist–they say that they are not atheists, And they’re not atheists because–it’s not that they’re thinking anything about the anthropomorphic god, what they’re thinking about is the notion…well it’s not whatever, you asked for specifics, it seems very specific to say, ‘no anthropomorphic god’ but to say that they’re not sure how this world works. And, and, they see it as more complex than science is ever able to speak of it. So they don’t identify as agnostic, they don’t identify as religious, they don’t identify as atheist, but they are turned off by the tone of voice and the approach of the atheist. And, for me, I find myself–in conversation with them–moving more towards where they are. Because I think that it takes a more, amorphous, poetic kind of recognition that the whole thing is a little over-determined. In order for us to get to anything like a kind of truth that matches the world.”
So lots of stream-of-consciousness but very little coherency and lots of misinterpretations of the atheist. This seems to show that Hecht is confused about atheism and her own position, as well as confused about how the world works. Perhaps she needs to study a bit more science rather than attack people without any good reason. It is not intellectually coherent to say that someone is wrong because you don’t like their tone or what they say. It’s incredibly anti-intellectual and frankly stupid to make such an argument.
Chris Mooney spoke far more intelligently and coherently, but made exactly the same fallacies and arguments that Hecht made: “I don’t like the tone and therefore new atheism is wrong.”
I just kept zoning out whenever Hecht spoke.
Too bad they had to cut it short at the end, when she said she thought PZ might be wrong. When PZ challenged her to say exactly where the New Atheists were wrong and the nebulous believers were right, she just went back to saying it was all about tone. I wished PZ would have had time to grill her more there – it sounded like he was going to, but then Mooney stepped in.
About Mooney – did you notice that he granted PZ pretty much every point PZ made, and still came out on the same position he started with?
Deen said:”About Mooney – did you notice that he granted PZ pretty much every point PZ made, and still came out on the same position he started with?”
Mooney’s goals are different from PZ’s. For Mooney the ultimate aim is to rapidly increase the public acceptance of consensus scientific views of things like evolution, vaccination and climate change. I don’t think he has any great need that UNDERSTANDING if these points are increased, merely the acceptance of the scientific consensus position. He takes the view that the best way to rapidly increase the acceptance of the consensus position is to take a nicely-nicely friendly approach towards the public and to do that he needs a united front of non-threatening scientists. Having some scientists rocking the boat with vociferous criticism of religion makes it difficult for Mooney’s united friendly approach.
PZ’s aim is to change the underlying acceptance of supernaturalism within society so that the cause of many of the non-scientific objections to scientific positions are countered before they arise. The difference in the objectives means that Mooney can agree that PZs approach is correct for PZs objectives while at the same time sticking with his own plan. Unfortunately PZ needs to emphasize more the differing objectives if he really wants to counter Mooneys argument style.
Just thought I’d throw in a comment I made at Jerry’s place.
Hecht: “But it matters if you sound to most people like you are closed to any ideas that are not your own.”
For someone associated with a programme on “Inquiry”, this is a remarkably lazy thing to say. First, where is the evidence that it is “most people” who think this? I don’t buy it. Second, even if that were true, why—given that we’re talking only about the appearance of closed-mindedness—are we striving for the lowest common denominator here? Why aren’t we trying to be teachers about this and raise people’s game? Third, and perhaps most importantly, it is a sad fact that people will think you are closed-minded when all you do is point out that some opinions are better than others. That of course does not mean that only your opinion is allowed, but that you expect somebody’s opinion to be rational; just having a belief—to which you are perfectly entitled—doesn’t mean that your idea has progressed to the stage of an actual, thought-out opinion, which then, but only then, would deserve to be respected.
Or, in Mill’s words, in On Liberty:
I have come to the following conclusions about why accomodationism is bonkers.
1. Absolute Scepticism is incoherent, irrational and self-refuting. Some things fall outside the tool of doubt, such as reality.
2. Absolute Freethought is also incoherent when taken as an absolute, allow all thoughts equal value, such as irrational thoughts and unfree thinking.
3. Absolute open-mindedness is the mistaken idea that freethought and scepticism lead to allowing any opinion equal voice, that everyone should allow equal time to irrational ideas or beliefs.
4. Absolute tolerance leads to the same incoherent, irrational and self-refuting policy of becoming tolerant of intolerance, of being open-minded to close-mindedness, of being sceptical about science, truth and reason.
The accomodationist has unfortunately created for themselves a kind of postmodernist religious thinking based on a number of misunderstandings about what it means to be sceptical, a freethinker, open-mindedness and tolerant. They have taken these things as absolutes out of a misguided sense of absolute freedom, and have therefore become stuck in religious thinking and irrationality.
Exactly. Even if it’s true that nicely-nicely persuades more people than more-bluntly does, I’m still not interested in persuasion of more people for its own sake. There are a lot of goals, a lot of projects, a lot of motives. Mooney just always wants to take it for granted that his goals are everyone else’s goals, and they’re not. Yes of course lots of people dislike more-blunt atheism, but on the other hand, lots of people like it. Why should I decide to try to please the first set of people instead of the second? Mooney seems to assume that it’s because the first group is 1) almost everyone and 2) all persuadable on global warming and evolution in the classroom provided gnu atheists stop being new. I see no reason to assume either of those things.
Not that I’m trying to please the second group, mind you. I’m not trying to please you bastards. Don’t go thinking that.
Ophelia,
I hadn’t noticed that you co-authored a book discussing all this called Why Truth Matters, how postmodernism has eroded reason. And so this is what accommodationism is all about. It’s the tyranny absolute freedom (nihilism) over reason. And so now it all makes sense. These people are possessed by nihilism and lack reason.
One thing that has always struck me about Mooney is that he really does think that he’s taking the political long view and looking at the big picture. I don’t think he has any idea just how parochial he looks with his obsession for getting on the right side of the current American public consciousness.
He seems to thinks hoi-polloi character cannot ever be changed, only persuaded occasionally to take the right side (i.e. his).
It’s a bleak view of humanity and not one which I think is well evidenced.
If Hecht should ever read this:
“What I am saying – what I think, I think, I I I I I” you’re the moderator! We don’t care. We really, really don’t care.
You. Are. The. Moderator.
You are supposed to moderate a discussion between Chris Mooney, and PZ Myers.Your views are irrelevant to us. It is not what we are tuning in for. We are tuning in for Chris Mooney vs PZ Myers.
You should move the conversation along if it gets stuck – and otherwise let the guests speak for themselves. When you have to speak, get to the point.
As to the debate, Myers won to my mind – he put across his views calmly and rationally, and there was nothing really to challenge him. Maybe because Hecht couldn’t shut her yap long enough to give Mooney the chance, I don’t know.
Go read the book!
It is excellent, as is OB’s latest, “Why Does God Hate Women ?”.
Oh, and another thing tell us you’re an atheist once – we’ll believe you – after that, you know, we got the message the first time. If you have no thoughts, don’t voice them.
I’m not sure that’s it. After all, he seems to acknowledge in the debate that PZ may have different goals. I just don’t think he considers other people’s goals to be as important as his. And he certainly still feels like the New Atheists are interfering with his goal, rather than providing a different way to achieve the same goal.
Egbert, yes – I tend to think truth matters. PZ kept all-but-quoting the title of the book in his opening statement on Friday, and I kept quietly cheering.
The other co-author is (I’m told) thinking of writing a book called Why Truth Doesn’t Matter! (He might be too busy with Why I Hate New Atheists though…)
It’s a hard thing because I think Mooney was drowned out by Hecht and her unrelenting attacks. Given that it was nominally his podcast and you could see how he was the one trying to inject structure and moderation his debate appearance suffered unfairly. PZ certainly beat Hecht but when was the last time you heard a moderator beating a participant?
I would, perhaps perversely, like to hear it repeated where Mooney and PZ are given a fair shake at putting forward their cases without the Hecht influence.
Tyro
That’s what I mean. Myers won, but it wasn’t really a win. Mooney’s thoughts – though I disagree with him – were coherent. He could have made a case if the sodding moderator hadn’t hijacked him dripping so much babble I thought I was going to drown.
I will certainly buy the book, but I have so many books on order on and such a backlog of books to get through…sigh. I’m glad that the territory has already been covered though. Sorry to hear about the other co-author Ophelia!
At least now I understand why there is a breakdown in communication and meaning. But how to re-establish rational discussion with nihilists? Perhaps the confusion that Hecht is facing is her psychological need for meaning, which she can no longer get from big bad science. Religion and poetry offer optimism and comfort in a pessimistic world. Of course, there is always the lure of materialistic money (from Templeton) that can provide meaning to nihilists. Cough.
This probably explains the nihilism in the mass media, and why politics has been subsumed by the dominance of the market. Somehow, rationality and science must be re-established with the masses, and their pessimism and paranoia stopped before authoritarians destroy truth and freedom.
Did he? I don’t remember that part. Anyway he never does in his writing – and in his opening statement on Friday, and in his questions later, he was always assuming – you know – there is an agreed goal that we all want to Help, and we all want what we do to Work in terms of that agreed goal. That’s why what he kept saying was so risible. “How does this Help?” “But I don’t see how it will Work.” Help what? Work at what? He just always assumes that’s already settled. His way.
I would really, REALLY like to meet the individual who was supposedly `baptized’ into atheism by Hecht but who then went back to being a theist because he/she read Richard Dawkins. What an ordeal!
Seriously, I need to meet him/her before others make him/her their favorite poster boy/girl.
Sigmund said:
Yes. THIS. The thing is, if PZ’s goals are fulfilled, then so are Mooney’s, by default — less fuzzy, supernatural, and otherwise mushy-headed thinking = more acceptance of clear scientific consensus. However, it will take at least a generation to fulfil that large goal. On the flip side, Mooney’s sub-goals can be fulfilled FAR more quickly than that, by doing exactly what he’s doing — playing up to the religious, and convincing them that a couple of items they don’t care much about anyway are not in conflict with their faith. The problem is that Mooney’s strategy, while possibly a good short-term strategy for achieving those limited sub-goals, actually makes PZ’s more over-arching goal HARDER in the long run, because Mooney is actively bolstering their faith rather than confronting it. So the next time these people reject a scientific discovery on the basis of faith conflict, Mooney will have to go back out and do the whole thing all over again, ad infitnitum.
So, sure, PZ’s goal is harder to achieve, and it takes longer. But it only has to be achieved ONCE. (It also has the not inconsequential by-product of making atheists less of a demonized minority.)Mooney’s goals have to be achieved an infinite number of times, on a case-by-case basis. (It also has the by-product of reinforcing the status quo.)
And that, to me, is the flaw in Accomodationist thinking.
What struck me, and annoyed me to no end, was Hecht’s condescension toward the faithful. I was expecting the argument that believers will be angry with frank atheism, and that this will make it difficult to engage them as allies, but she seemed to be making the case that they’ll feel threatened, and that this is somehow a problem. How dare PZ try to disenchant these folks, with their poetic outlook and all, from their fantasies. She really spoke of believers the way adults speak of children.
I do accept that Hecht is an authentic atheist, because she doesn’t seem to appreciate how many of those she regards as fragile flowers do, in fact, welcome a vigorous defense of naturalism that might, eventually, validate their skepticism.
I don’t think you can understate what a catastrophe this was. Hecht was a disaster as a moderator, and it wouldn’t have been much better had she been a regular part of the discussion. An utter mess, in a variety of ways. Mooney was amazing by comparison (which isn’t saying anything), but was still objectively bad. He would mischaracterize PZ, and then not respond meaningfully when PZ explained his position. Based on this performance, accommodation is: “be unequivocally nice to Ken Miller and Francis Collins … because I said so, ha ha.”
Even PZ came across poorly, since he sounded arrogant and condescending. Not his fault, since he was so ganged-up-on and Mooney/Hecht were so obnoxious and obtuse, but he nevertheless looks bad. Just garbage all around.
Another lash from Mistress Ophelia. Ooh, that hurts so good. Moar plz.
By the way, Josh Rosenau has once again goaded Jasen Rosenhouse into writing an excellent article on the topic of accommodationism. It’s a little long, but definitely worth reading.
JasenJasonThere was supposed to be a strikethrough on “Jasen” just above. This feature of the editor seems not to be working. (I am using Firefox, if that makes any difference.)
Strikethrough never works on this system.
It works for me, but I guess only for me.
In all honesty, this is the first episode of Point of Inquiry I’ve listened to since D.J. Grothe left. And I really enjoyed the discussion. There’s been a lot of animosity out there on the Web, and I’m especially glad these two were able to sit down for some reasonable dialogue. I think they both presented their cases well, and that such discussion benefits us all. In fact, the conversation has left me in one of this situations where I feel like, “the more I learn, the less I know …”
As for Jennifer Michael Hecht: I know her, and she does have some views on science with which I disagree. But she’s written a couple great books and given a few great talks for the Center for Inquiry in New York City. Yet she was supposed to be a moderator, and she did seem a bit too active here.
I nearly hurled my MacBook to the floor when Hecht blathered “Many people…are not sure how this world works, but they see it as more complex than science is ever able to speak of it”
Oh, the noxious bullshit! As I am wont to inform my students and teeny-tiny blog audience at every turn, pretty much everything in biology (and really science in general) turns out to be vastly more complex than we can even imagine before we begin to study it. New data comes in every single day, and with every piece of the puzzle we realize how much MORE there is to know. One satisfying answer can generate a dozen new questions. To hear my beautiful enigmatic love so clumsily and erroneously characterized as that which defines the world as unsatisfyingly uncomplicated was indescribably galling.
On the bright side, I now know that it is possible for Chris Mooney to NOT sound like the most grating and insipid person in the conversation, so, that’s something learned, eh?
Jen, yes, it is – that was my first reaction when listening to the session on Friday: Mooney sounded persuasive (not in a pejorative sense). He talks a lot better than he writes. In that sense he’s better at “communication” than I’d been giving him credit for. (You probably just meant Hecht sounded even worse! But I do give Mooney credit for some good speaking qualities.)
But Michael – perversely, I’m not entirely glad that PZ and Mooney were able to sit down for this particular reasonable dialogue, because it was so incomplete and therefore misleading. No one would know from listening, for instance, what a ridiculous display of pique M and K made in the book whenever they mentioned PZ. As for Hecht – she was more than a bit too active, and worse, she was incoherent. Excited motor-mouth rambling babble does not a good podcast make.
Yes, you’re right on both counts. I have to admit that every other time I’ve heard him speak in the past couple of years I was so irritated by something he’d recently written that I couldn’t really appreciate the nuances of his oral communication skills. I must learn to let go of these grudges, lest they obscure the view from the Overton window :)
“I would really, REALLY like to meet the individual who was supposedly `baptized’ into atheism by Hecht but who then went back to being a theist because he/she read Richard Dawkins. What an ordeal!”
I think his name is Tom Johnson.
His pseudonym, you mean.
@Ophelia, you wrote:
I thought their conversation was generally clear and productive — well, at least when PZ and Mooney were allowed to speak — but I haven’t read M and K’s book, so I can’t address that. But, why wouldn’t PZ bring up those sorts of claims? Or did he in the panel discussion, which I didn’t see? I know they had a time limit for the podcast (which wasn’t entirely helped by the moderator …)
Also, I had no clue JMH was involved with Templeton. I can’t find much else on the web other than she was a research fellow in 2008 and gave a few lectures. Anyone have more?
Michael, well that was just it – both the panel and the podcast were way too cramped to get into that kind of thing. I don’t know that PZ would have wanted to anyway, but the way things were set up, it just wasn’t possible to do more than scratch the surface.
I know if I had a chance to talk to Mooney face to face, I would ask him (for the hundredth time) how he thinks Jerry Coyne should have written “Seeing is Believing” differently. I would really like to know.
(Of course I would also like to ask him a few other things, of a slightly more personal nature – like why he banned me when one of his commenters was repeatedly calling me a liar. But that’s another story. :- ))
I agree with you that their conversation was clear and productive though. I did think Chris did a good job. He had the grace to laugh at jokes aimed at him, for one thing.