Wesley Elsberry is taking a sabbatical from the creo-evo wars to do research…real stuff having nothing to do with the foolishness of the IDists, and learning something new about science. Good idea!
(Creationists shouldn’t rest too easy, though, lots of us will be taking up the slack.)
How about a little philosophical help from the past. Mr. Russell fires an early round in the war on ignorance.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html
Ooh, research! Maybe Wes can get ahold of some of that Discovery Institute research funding…
Sabbatical. What an interesting word. It reminds me of … well .. of Sabbath!
Or Shabbat.
Nance
Bro. Bartleby,
‘sabbatical’ ought well remind you of ‘sabbath’, as they both come from the same Hebrew word (which Nance has rendered in something closer to its original form). I’m sorry to have to tell you, though, that however sacred the Jewish sabbath might be to observers, there’s nothing at all sacred about the word itself, which is the very prosaic ‘seventh’ (day, for the day of rest; year, one supposes, for academicians given time off to do their own thang).
Real science trumps pseudo-science and ideology any day.
Good move Wesley!
I wish Wes the best.
That I do so from another site may indicate to some the fact that I believe he needs such a break, since he has become (another opinion, with the zero value of any other) rather… I don’t know a word/expression that won’t sound insulting… “full of himself”?
I believe his own tendencies are egged on by an unusually narrow-minded following of the like-minded: people who talk about science in the “my dad can beat up your dad” juvenile sense, and think that knowledge of their own field makes them experts in areas they clearly have very little experience, much less knowledge, in (less “important” areas like culture and art).
Anyway, bitching aside, I’m very glad he has carried this torch so well and so long.
I thank him for it, and for much pleasure until fairly recently.
I again wish him to enjoy doing real research, which is what real scientists do, and most enjoy doing (so I have read.)
Merry Boxing Day, from where I stand.
That does sound like a bad trait, and one I should try to repair. Can I have an example or two of URLs of posts of mine that exhibit these bad tendencies?
Ah, the demands for links. Not only an effective general defense against others’ claims, but devastatingly so against subjective and perceptual claims.
Unless, of course, the audience recognizes the tactic.
Whoa! Touchy! Like I said, best to get back to what you really do care about, Dr. Elsberry!
And not even a little nod to the open complements I left, nor the sincere good wishes – I absolutely do NOT want you to abandon your work against Creationism or anything else, you must know.
Links? I’m neither a web wizard nor have the time to slog through your old posts – perhaps it was even my own fevered imagination (that rating of Bob Cigar’s [sic]album – like claiming Leonard B. to be the superior of Ludwig Van – as the finest was a nasty knock indeed, but we all have our eccentricities after all; and I recall that I lost a bit of basic respect for you when you posted an attack of Dawkin’s TGD before getting the facts straight) that had me abandon my bookmarking of your site, though I very occasionally dropped in – and what’s the point, really.
Shucks, I really thought my most here no more than “just another asshole’s opinion” and would be water off’n that proverbial duck’s back if you ever even heard about it. But here you are, frankly making an embarrassment of yourself (and embarrassing me). Really I did.
I’m sorry to say I’m disappointed, but I still wish you well. Our disagreements are philosophical, and therefore not really very important, since I’m nobody special at all.
A Happy Boxing Day to you all!
A reminder from Sam Harris on atheism.
10 myths–and 10 Truths–About Atheism
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1/
Others have probably already seen this, but Enjoy these Cthulhu Carols! Perfect for celebrating the Eve of the Flying Sphagetti Monster.
I previously posted on Americans’ belief in angels.
At this link, we can see that they also overwhelmingly believe in god, miracles, heaven and hell, etc.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618
Ah, the demands for links. Not only an effective general defense against others’ claims, but devastatingly so against subjective and perceptual claims.
IMO it’s a perfectly valid request, even in the context of a purely subjective complaint. For a complaint to be acted on, there must be some way of checking its validity. One necessary step in this process is a point of reference – a minimal example, if you will.
For example, I could claim that Dawkins appeared timid towards Christians. If queried on this, I could draw attention to the following quote:
“So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.”
I could say that the number of caveats Dawkins adds to his comments to me indicates a certain amount of timidity towards religion. People could then point out to me that no, in fact this is merely good practice in any situation that could be construed as a debate – to the extent that religious nuts are always poring over Dawkins’ words looking for weakness, it is necessary that he be very precise. My complaint might be accurate (for me at least), but adapting to it would do Dawkins more harm than good.
Equally I could (conceivably) find some area of Dawkins’ work in which a complaint held up under this sort of scrutiny, in which case Dawkins might even want to change his style. But there is absolutely no way to make this judgement – no way a complaint can be considered remotely useful – without a sample of prose to check that complaint against. I imagine that’s what Wes was after when he asked for a link.
I’ve not really seen a proper creation sequence for the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet.
Does anyone feel impelled to reveal having found one?
Rather than 7 days, I guess it took seven recipe steps?
I am even now preparing for the commerative ‘Sprinkling of the Parmesan.’
Now, did His Noodliness make his own sauce or did he use the canned stuff? (I guess it would depend on whether he was in a rush or not.)
I think that you’ve confused me with someone else. As far as I can recall, I’ve never expressed a preference, publicly or privately, concerning the relative musical merit of Bernstein and Beethoven, though each used piano, thus meeting my Maxim of Minimal Musical Merit. I’ve never heard of Bob Cigar before. Nor have I said anything anywhere about Dawkin’s “The God Delusion”. I’ll defer that until I’ve read it.
I guess that getting facts straight would be a point to consider.
I’m afraid goddogtired has confused you with me, Wes; I dare say that I should be flattered by the comparison and you insulted. I am the one who said that Bob Seger’s Live Bullet was the finest album of the rock era. I think that the “attack” on Dawkins’ book that he imagines me to have made refers to this post , but his characterization of it is quite inaccurate. Not only did I not attack the book before getting the facts straight, but I asked my readers who had the book to post one particular section because I’d seen it referred to somewhere else and wanted to make sure that I did have my facts straight before criticizing one particular claim (I have never “attacked” the book because I have not read it, nor do I plan to; I did, however, criticize Dawkins for one particular claim in it, and rightly so). It turns out that Dawkins had cited and attempted to defend, somewhat meekly, the ridiculous claims from Christopher Hitchens that Thomas Jefferson might have been a closet atheist and repeated them (see this post for more information). Along the way, Dawkins engages in the very thing that we so often criticize the religious right for doing – quote mining. And highly dishonest quote mining, I might add. Here is a direct quote from this particular section of the book:
I pointed out, correctly, that this last quote from Adams is incredibly out of context. Here is what John Adams really said in his letter to Jefferson:
Clearly, a highly dishonest quote from Adams that makes his opinion appear to be the opposite of what it actually was. When creationists and Christian Nation apologists do this sort of thing, we blast them to hell for it; it’s no less dishonest or absurd for someone on our side to do it. If that is what goddogtired characterizes as an “attack” on the book without “getting the facts straight”, then guilty as charged. The evidence, however, suggests that his characterization is as dishonest, even if it were not falsely attributed to Wes rather than me, as Dawkins’ misquote of Adams. And if correctly condemning out of context quotations from our side as well as the other side makes him stop reading my blog, all I can say is “good riddance.”
That’s what I took Wesley’s request as, too. If you’re going to criticize someone, providing a basis for the criticism and a criterion for what you consider improvement is a lot fairer than just insisting they guess what you think they did wrong, and then continue to guess whether or not in your judgment they’ve remedied it.
It seems that Jefferson may not believe in god but believes religion itself is a good thing.
Seems still possible for Jefferson to not believe in god.
Steve C wrote:
Not unless we are to disbelieve Jefferson’s own words. He certainly did not believe in the Christian conception of god, but he just as certainly did believe in God and he emphatically rejected atheism. Indeed, his primary opposition to Calvinism was that it was so absurd that it would lead people to atheism rather than to what he considered a more rational conception of God (whether he was right about that conception of god is irrelevant, of course).
Um. . . I just started reading The God Delusion. Santa brought it. :)
I’m into the 2nd chapter — just reading the “was Jefferson an atheist” bit (me: who cares, the point being what sort of government was set up, not what individuals believed, but never mind. . . ) — and I have a question.
Does this book get better? I have been enjoying slowly making my way through Dawkins’ “Ancestor’s Tale.” Yes, slowly and in between other things. And for me, a non-scientist, not an easy read. But I’ve been enjoying it. It hangs together.
This new one though — ugh. It’s all choppy and meandering seeming. . .
An encouraging word anyone? :)
Nance
Given that the criticisms were of someone else’s work, I must regretfully assume that the compliments likewise do not refer to anything I did.
I also got the impression of choppiness, as though a string of separate essays were strung together. At any rate, it’s not as bad as the critics have made it out to be; and you should probably slog on, since the book is so frequently discussed.
Caledonian said:
Ah, the demands for links. Not only an effective general defense against others’ claims, but devastatingly so against subjective and perceptual claims.
Unless, of course, the audience recognizes the tactic.
As demonstrated in the discussion above, it’s also so devastatingly effective against us getting the source wrong or misquoting them. So very effective, in fact, that we should impose the ‘give us a link’ requirement upon ourselves before we address the world. Those who think ‘it’s too much bother’ haven’t yet met google desktop search. They pay me nothing, btw.
The ‘floating desktop search toolbar’ is prima facie only an incremental improvement above window’s search. Comparable to the difference between networking computers versus handing floppy disks from independant computer to computer.
But in terms of ease of use it’s the difference between wish and work. It’s caviare among fish eggs. And using it will help save us from some embarrassments due to mistakes, misquotes, and misunderstandings. As long, of course, as we remember to check our facts.
An encouraging word anyone? :)
Get the audio version. He and Lalla Ward do a great job with the reading. She’s especially good.
“Creationists shouldn’t rest too easy, though, lots of us will be taking up the slack.”
Really? Are you going to to work for the NCSE, an organization whose tactics (not deliberately alienating the religious out of a desire to spread atheism over the defense of evolution) you clearly despise? Are you going to take up the slack like that?
No. You’re going to continue to heap scorn on people like Wes or Ken Miller, or Genie Scott, or Francis Collins who are sympathetic to religious faith and have done more for good science than you ever have. It amazes me that you have the gall to congratulate Wes at the same time that you take every opportunity to slip the knife into the backs of people just like him.
Bravo.
How…peculiar. I do not despise the NCSE, a group I have praised and linked to numerous times over the history of this blog. I like Elsberry and Miller and Scott (as for Collins…well, his offenses against reason in his last book are so excessive that I find it hard to look at him charitably any more). I criticize various people regularly, however. That’s not ever going to change, nor should it.
I do happen to despise people who think the only way to truth is lockstep obedience to one particular path, and believe that having common goals means we have to suspend all disagreement. What are you, some kind of rabid Commie?
Prof. Myers,
I had to read your last paragraph several times before I think I understood what you meant. Did you mean “I do happen to despise people who think the only way to truth is lockstep obedience to one particular path, and who believe that having common goals means we have to suspend all disagreement.”? At first, I thought you were saying that you believe we have to suspend disagreement with those with whom we have common goals.
Suspending disagreement is bad, mmm-kay? If we aren’t fighting and clawing and stabbing at each other along the way, we aren’t doing the right thing.
I agree with PZ that that criticism of others on our own side who stray needs to be done. As demonstrated earlier, though, the targeting of the criticism needs to be accurate. I’m willing to take my lumps for things that I get wrong, but I don’t care to take lumps for stuff I had nothing to do with.