If only everyone knew as much as I do
I’m thoroughly tired of attempting to get a straight answer out of Chris Mooney, so I’ll drop the subject, but I just want to note that he has an annoying habit of attributing ignorance to people who disagree with him. He did it a month ago in his first reply to Jerry Coyne:
I guess you could say I’ve changed my view; certainly I’ve changed my emphasis. A lot more reading in philosophy and history has moved me toward a more accomodationist position. So has simple pragmatism; I don’t see what is to be gained by flailing indiscriminately against religion, other than a continuation of the culture wars. That’s especially so when those who flail against religion do so in philosophically or historically unsophisticated ways…
But that didn’t work out all that well, because some philosophers hove into view to tell him that his ways were not all that philosophically sophisticated either, though they didn’t put it that rudely. They did however say that his cherished distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is not as simple or as self-evident or as orthodox as he seems to think. So he’s gone to his fall-back position.
I’m growing increasingly convinced that the lack of historical awareness is an important factor in fanning the flames of science-religion conflict.
Not his lack of historical awareness, naturally, only that of people who disagree with him.
Then he tells us a story that he got out of a book, by way of demonstrating his historical awareness. The thought that the book might be wrong, or debatable, seems not to have occurred to him – yet he doesn’t hesitate to patronize everyone else.
Well that’s communication for you.
If only Chris had thought for a few minutes before writing his original post criticizing Jerry Coyne, he would have realized no single strategy exists for increasing the understanding and acceptance of evolution. Even though the Catholic Church has officially endorsed evolution, a recent Pew survey found only 58% of Catholics in the US accept human evolution – perhaps because the Church waffles on things like souls and minds and spirits and what not. Like everyone else commenting on this topic I don’t have any hard evidence, but if you want someone to accept something you can’t dither. You need to be up front that humans are a product of evolution just like every other organism and even though we are unique, we are no more unique than any other species. All of this current god-talk, no matter what role Christianity played in the rise of western science, just provides people with enough wiggle room to deny our evolutionary and ecological heritage.
Christ Mooney says:
One might call this his ‘fall down’ position. Of course, there was a lot of data gathered by amateurs in holy orders seeking to discern God’s handiwork in creation. They had lots of free time, when they could safely ignore the cure of souls and attend to things more thrilling. My bedtime reading lately is Bishop Butler’s Analogy of Religion, and practically every page is a paean to God’s excellent workmanship and governance.
Since Darwin was himself preparing for ordination, it is possible to think of his enquiries as driven by faith as well; but this would surely be an odd way to put it. It may even be that the protestant reformation contributed to the spirit of free enquiry. Subverting the power of the single church was clearly an important first step in the process of creating an ethos in which investigation would be unhampered by the idiocies of religious dogma. But to suggest that the outcome was something driven by faith is perhaps exaggerating the importance of religion itself to this process.
Mooney suggests that the data gathered by all these industrious clergy had to be seen through a new lens, when surely the truth is that they were, all unknowning, grinding the lenses, and would have been horrified had they known what the outcome would be. Religion did not inspire science, so much as to be no longer able to suppress it. Indeed, as most contemporary Christians would be quick to say, the religion of the 18th century was too deeply infected with the rationalism and materialism of the age to provide the basis for faith. It was the Wesley brothers and the evangelicals who returned faith to its sources in feeling ‘strangely warmed.’
The scientific God of Butler is not the god of the pope or the archbishop of canterbury, except when they want to convince us that religion had a great deal to do with the development of science. Ziauddin Sardar thinks that the enlightenment is rooted in Islam. Shall we believe him too?
Chris Mooney, like Matthew Nisbett, repeatedly displays the singularly self-destructive habit of being condescending and rude and alienating towards people whose opinion he’s trying to change on the subject of whether and how being honest about the obvious conflicts between science and faith is somehow rude or condescending or alienating. If there were any idea in his position worth advancing – which I sincerely doubt – it would be perpetually hobbled by his habit of shooting himself in the foot. Yet it is always *other* people who fail to understand some sophisticated philosophical or historical or political insight of his, and never his failure…
But unlike Nisbett, Chris Mooney is not a clueless twit tromping on toes left and right. He’s actually pretty smart, and makes many clear and cogent arguements on other subjects, and generally doesn’t piss off people who ought to be his allies – except on this subject. His utter inability to be convincing when discussing the faith/science conflict is another reason I think there’s no good idea lurking at the heart of it, hidden by confusion or poorly chosen rhetoric: Rather, I think he’s simply fixated on a bad idea due to some ideological blind spot – a blind spot he keeps displaying when he professes confusion or misunderstanding of extraordinarily clear and pointed criticisms of his position by Coyne, Blackford & others.
Eric: It seems to me that science and rational enquiry have been on two divergent trajectories in the West cf the Islamic East.
In the latter, it got off to a good start (on the way saving most of the classical literature of the West) but then went into decline, probably due to the rise of Islamic clericalism.
In the West from about the 9th C on, Christian scholarship fashioned enough of a critical method to lay the basis for the Reformation, which in turn allowed science to sail as close as it liked to the wind as far as clerical disapproval went. Mendel and Darwin make an interesting contrast in this respect.
As for the rest of it, in my view all religion is ultimately ancestor worship. That it is, and unto that it shall return.
As for Mooney’s “I don’t see what is to be gained by flailing indiscriminately against religion, other than a continuation of the culture wars”, I am inclined to agree with him. Far more is to be gained by flailing at it with discrimination.
Oh, not *another* eejit adopting Freud’s arrogant stance:”Those who don’t agree with me have simply failed to understand what I’m saying, and need to go away to get cleverer, so that when they come back they’ll agree that I’m right and utterly glorious” (might have paraphrased a little there, working from memory – from Siggy Fraud’s introduction to the “New Introductory Lectures”)
Ho, and indeed, Hum.
Ah ha – I understand better now. Jerry Coyne has just sent me the SEED summary of Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s new book:
“…explaining the disconnect between scientists and the public. This time the onus is on not just on obfuscating and interfering conservatives, but largely on scientists themselves. By talking down to the misinformed-and outright insulting the religious-scientists, they argue, [they] do more harm than good in their quest to enshrine reason in American politics and culture. While the authors’ call for more friendly and magnanimous champions of science is far from a radical conclusion, it duly highlights the Sagan-and Gould-shaped holes we have in our current scientific discourse.”
Oh, yuk! Ew, ew, ew. More ‘friendly’ for godsake – as if we’re all four years old and need to be cuddled.
But if that’s what the book is, that explains why he’s so obstinate about all this. He can’t very well be persuaded otherwise now, when it’s the argument of the book!
Maybe a practicing scientist should review this book… but would s/he be bored into a coma?
Wow! That’s all I’ll say for the moment.
Given the message of “The Demon-Haunted World” they can’t mean Carl Sagan. Perhaps they mean Francoise Sagan? “To jealousy, nothing is more frightful than laughter.”
I’ve read the relevant chapter of the book now. It certainly explains Mooney’s refusal to change his mind or even appear to notice opposing arguments. In addition, it’s miserable stuff.
More later.
What I am wondering is why he dumped his bashing of Coyne onto Barbara Forrest as if it were her idea when he had already written a book slamming scientists for criticizing religion.
Here are three sentences from an excerpt on Chris’ promotional website http://www.unscientificamerica.com:
“And then there’s religion, the source of perhaps the single deepest fissure in the science-society relationship. Surveys overwhelmingly show that Americans care a great deal about faith; many scientists, by contrast, couldn’t care less. There’s nothing wrong with that, except that some scientists and science supporters have been driven to the point of outright combativeness by the so-called New Atheist movement, led by Sam Harris, Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, and others.”
First they used the passive voice in the third sentence and then I have to ask “what does it mean?” Who are these “some scientists and science supporters” and who or what are they combating? Are they fighting “new atheists” or are they fighting religious believers? Are they defending science or their lack of religion?
Well quite. The chapter starts by rebuking PZ at length then moves smoothly on to claiming that there is this New Atheism which is run by Harris Dawkins Hitchens and Dennett and that it is very wicked and doing terrible damage.
It’s just about that carefully argued.
More soon.
I haven’t read the book yet ($25 is high for reading rehashed retreads) but the blurb discloses a contradiction. Mooney et al vocally clamor to be spokespeople for science and scientists. Yet in this book he takes the position that scientists are partly responsible for scientific illiteracy and public distrust of science by not being better educators/communicators.
Leaving aside the question of how many hats Mooney would require scientists to wear (and wear well: do research; teach; write grants; speak and write to the public), how does this square with his framing philosophy?
Mooney sent me a copy – which was kind, but if he thought I would have good things to say about it…well I’m sorry, but at least when it comes to chapter 8, I don’t.
The glaring irony is the same as that with Nisbet – Mooney clamors to be a science communicator but he’s strikingly bad at communication. Anthony McCarthy and John Kwok agree with him, but who else does?!