A lot of people sent me links to that really dope Insane Clown Posse video where they expressed wonder at how magnets work and cussed out the scientists for lying to them, but I ignored you all, because when I said “dope”, I meant it literally. It was a pair of poseurs exposing their ignorance.
Don’t go looking for it. It’s just too awful. Instead, appreciate this lovely parody from Saturday Night Live.
I showed you that video of an octopus stealing a camera, now here’s one of an octopus trying to snatch a crescent wrench. Unfortunately, he is punished horribly.
Man, cuttlefish are brutal.
(embed code is buggy — here’s a link if it doesn’t load)
It’s a month gone, but now ABC has a summary (and you can go straight to the MP3 here).
The Huffington Post now has a post up from some guy named Rory Fitzgerald reacting to the suggestion that the Pope be arrested for crimes and conspiracies of his organization by urging that Richard Dawkins be arrested for “atheist crimes”…such as those committed by the Nazis and Stalinists. I had no idea that Adolf Hitler was a member of the Richard Dawkins Foundation! You learn something new every day.
But, you know, he’s right. If RDF staffers were running a child-porn ring, and Dawkins was moaning “Oh, this will ruin the reputation of my foundation, I must do what I can to hide these crimes,” then yes, I would agree: arrest Richard Dawkins! No excuses!
Reality interferes, however. Such a crime has not been committed. I know Dawkins well enough that he would be outraged by such wickedness, and that his wrath would fall on the perpetrators, not the whistle-blowers. It’s all very, very silly. In fact, there’s more absurdity there than I can possibly dissect — it’s like an awesome concatenation of every stereotype and ill-founded damning claim about atheists ever made. I thought about linking to it, but the stupid was simply to intense for me, especially as my time is limited as I’m about to brave Chicago traffic again.
So go read Jerry Coyne for his take.
Oh, and I know it’s very inside baseball, but when I saw that Fitzgerald thought Dawkins was a microbiologist, I practically did a spit-take. He’s not. He’s an evolutionary biologist trained as an ethologist. The amusing thing, too, is that I’ve often seen creationists do that — for some reason, they think “microbiologist” is some kind of special term for any biologist who studies the fiddly little details of evolutionary mechanisms, instead of a specific branch of biology that studies the dominant form of life on the planet. (Hint: not people).
We had a fun evening on Friday—a crowd of a few hundred people sat down to consider the problem of a morality at the University of Chicago. At the front of the room we had Bob Bossie (a very liberal Catholic), Sunsara Taylor (a very articulate Communist) and me to make a few opening remarks and open the floodgates of questions from the audience. It was interesting and thoughtful, and nothing at all like this incredible session on Fox News.
Let me emphasize that Bob was not that crazy priest in the video, declaring that godlessness meant the death of hope and the decline of your money making ability, that socialism and secularism were a failure, and capitalism was the only economic philosophy that could possibly lead to morality. That is, Bob was not freaking insane. He does believe in God, but his God seems to be a superfluous entity bobbing on top of a core of very humanist values, and when he talked about what he really cared about, it was communities of people.
Taylor’s position was very similar in a lot of ways — that we need to change the world through liberation of the oppressed, and the way to do that was through revolutionary Communism. In her case, though, the philosophical justification wasn’t at all superfluous — Communism was the best strategy for bringing about change. We had a little set of questions we’d worked out before the event, and she had the advantage of us all in providing the most coherent answers to them…I just don’t think she’s entirely right. I don’t like the idea of a revolution led by a vanguard, I’m more of an evolution driven by the education and inspiration of the masses kind of guy.
Here are the answers to our guiding questions that I gave (sort of) in my opening remarks.
1. Can science provide a morality to change the world?
NO.
Science merely describes what is, not what should be, and it also takes a rather universal view: science as science takes no sides on matters relevant to a particular species, and would not say that an ape is more important than a mouse is more important than a rock. Don’t ask science to tell you what to do when making some fine-grained moral decision, because that is not what science is good at.
What science is, is a policeman of the truth. What it’s very good at is telling you when a moral decision is being made badly, in opposition to the facts. If you try to claim that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, science can provide you a long list of animals that practice homosexuality freely, naturally, and with no ill consequences. If you try to claim that abortion is bad because it has horrible physiological consequences to pregnant women, science will provide you with the evidence that it does no such thing, and also that childbirth is far more physiologically debilitating.
If you want to claim that homosexuals should be stoned to death because the Bible says so, science will tell you yep, that’s what it says, and further, we’ll point out that the Abrahamic religions seem to be part of a culturally successful and relatively stable matrix. “Science”, if we’re imagining it as some institutional entity in the world, really doesn’t care — there is no grand objective morality, no goal or purpose to life other than survival over multiple generations, and it could dispassionately conclude that many cultures with moral rules that we might personally consider abhorrent can be viable.
However, I would suggest that science would also concede that we as a species ought to support a particular moral philosophy, not because it is objectively superior, but because it is subjectively the proper emphasis of humanity…and that philosophy is humanism. In the same way, of course, we’d also suggest that cephalopods would ideally follow the precepts of cephalopodism.
So don’t look to science for a moral philosophy: look to humanism. Humanism says that we should strive to maximize the long-term welfare and happiness of humans; that we should look to ourselves, not to imaginary beings in the sky or to the imperatives written down in old books, to aspire to something better, something more coherent and successful at promoting our existence on the planet.
Science wouldn’t disagree. But it would be a kind of passive agreement that says, sure, nothing in that idea is in violation of reality, go for it. It would also be egging the cephalopods on, though.
2. Are science, religion, and communism complementary, conflictual or mutually exclusive of one another?
Science and religion are definitely in conflict. Again, science is only acting as a policeman, though: it’s firing up the sirens and flashing lights to pull over the priests and tell them that claiming authority on the basis of an imaginary man in the sky is fallacious and discredits your entire paradigm. Rethink the basis of your beliefs, and maybe we can get along.
I think science and communism are also in conflict, but perhaps less dramatically so. There, we have to point out an empirical problem, that communist societies haven’t fared so well. The concession I would have to make is that communism is a young philosophy, unlike religion, so it can be excused to some degree for being at the start of the learning curve. I find it a little hard to excuse some of the human costs of communism, but then science also has had human costs.
But science isn’t a moral philosophy. I’ve proposed humanism as our tool; are communism and religion in conflict with that? And that’s where the answer gets murkier, because more progressive versions of those philosophies all seem to converge on humanism, anyway. The quest for social justice is a humanist ideal, and it’s also front and center in communism and liberal religion; you can be either of those and also be a humanist. I wouldn’t exactly call them complementary, but I would call them compatible.
3. How will we motivate people, and with what moral paradigm to change the world?
As I’ve said repeatedly, science doesn’t provide a morality. What it does provide, and what I optimistically and subjectively think will motivate people, is that it provides rigor and a path to the truth of the world. I know, I could be cynical and suggest that what people really want is delusions, distractions, and reassurances to help them hide away from reality — but what I’ve noticed is that people who accept reality seem to be better able to deal with it, and are often happier and more content. And further, they are better prepared to change the actual world, rather than burying themselves deeper in their fantasies.
All three of us disagreed on many things…but trust me, this wasn’t Fox News. It wasn’t a coterie of flaming idiots, for one thing.
Let’s pile on Phil Plait! He’s arguing against the whole “let’s bring the Pope to justice” idea. I will summarize his objections very briefly:
This is not necessarily a skeptical cause, unless they bring a supernatural defense to bear.
Need more tact: “We don’t always need warriors. Sometimes we need diplomats.”
We’re outnumbered and would be pissing off 75 million Catholics.
What do you know…I mostly disagree with all of those points.
It is a skeptical cause. The whole problem arises from the self-righteousness of an organization that believes its authority comes from a supernatural source. There is an assumption of privilege by the Catholic church that they believe justifies a cover-up (not the child rape; that’s deplored as un-Christian, fair enough, but there is a belief that the sanctity of the church must not be questioned.) It should be fair game for a skeptical organization to take on.
That said, though, there is a ton of crazy out there, everywhere. It is entirely reasonable for a given skeptical organization to excuse themselves from this fight — we don’t expect everyone to fight every scrap of woo out there, all at once. However, do not hinder a group that wants to reasonably engage the Catholics by suggesting that this is not appropriate for skeptics. It is.
Phil gets his modifiers wrong. We always need warriors, and we always need diplomats. Both have to be engaged. This is a conflict that has spurred a strong response by the “warrior” element of the skeptical community, but please note: every step of the way, what is being proposed is principled legal action. Not trial by combat. Not rampaging berserkers charging the Popemobile. Lawyers looking into justifiable legal options to address a great wrong being committed by a fabulously rich and arrogant organization.
We’re outnumbered? Crap, so what else is new, and when did we decide that what is proper and true will be decided by popular vote? The fewer men, the greater share of honor; let him depart who has no stomach for the fight; I would not be one who, in his old age, was unable to say that he’d stood for what was right, because he feared the host of those who defended what was wrong. Even if we lose (and I have no illusions that the Pope will actually be perp-walked back onto an airplane and sent away from England), I’m not afraid to support reasoned efforts for an issue of basic human decency.
It’s fine that Phil wants no part of this particular effort. Not every fight can be everyone’s fight. But I think the best position, the strongest position, the noblest stance, is to declare that no institution, whether it is the Catholic Church or the USA or the Girl Scouts, can declare itself exempt from the common rules that regulate human conduct in our culture, and even if we are overwhelmed by the opposition, we must at the very least speak out against the abuse of power…and that includes the privileges that religion has demanded for itself.
But put crowns for convoy into Phil’s purse — just leave his name off the rolls. There’s no dishonor in that, and no honor, either.
Can’t get enough ripping into the nonsense De Dora and Pigliucci are peddling? Then go read Ophelia Benson (always good advice) and Jerry Coyne. Coyne points out that if De Dora’s way of thinking were correct, than Darwin’s Origin would be banned from the science classroom. He also brings up this enlightening response to a question by De Dora:
Deen: “Are you saying that it’s OK to teach people that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but it’s wrong to teach them that the earth isn’t 6000 years old?”
De Dora: Yes. One imparts scientific knowledge. The other denies a religious idea. One is constitutional; the other is not. There is no reason for a high school biology teacher to get into denying specific religious ideas in a high school biology class.
Oh, right. That’s philosophical subtlety: pretend your students are morons who can’t see that those are two equivalent claims. We’re also supposed to pretend that the facts we teach have no implications or meaning: here, please, memorize this data for regurgitation on the tests. Don’t worry about what it all means, don’t look for integrating themes and explanations, don’t let your preconceptions be challenged. We aren’t allowed to do that in science.
That isn’t philosophy. That’s a philosophical abomination.
And some people wonder why I get so aggressive in my condemnations…
I’m in trouble now — I have drawn the ire of Massimo Pigliucci. I’d be chagrined if it weren’t such an ineffectual criticism that is mainly Pigliucci doing a little foot-shooting. I’ve also annoyed Ronald Lindsay of the CFI (as well as several other people associated with CFI), but his criticism is even feebler. Somehow, CFI has the idea that ferocious criticism of CFI staff is to be discouraged — because we are generally on the same side, we’re apparently supposed to be in solidarity on everything.
That’s not going to happen. I support the CFI; I criticize the CFI. I also support the NCSE; and I criticize the NCSE. If you’re on the side of science, reason, skepticism, etc., all the good stuff I value, that doesn’t mean you can expect me to complacently go along with everything you say (and vice versa, of course). The whole idea that advocates for critical thinking get an extra-special free pass from criticism with hearts and unicorns on it, just because we share common goals, is the antithesis of critical thought. Am I going to continue to be mean and cruel and judgmental against even my own allies? Hell, yes.
There’s a cliche that I hear all the time, and that I despise because it is so trite — organizing atheists is like herding cats. I die a little inside every time I hear it because it is so old, but also because it is inaccurate. Everyone seems to picture masses of willful domestic cats wanting to scurry off to play with yarn or chase down mice; it’s just not right. Organizing atheists is like herding lions, or at least ideally it should be. What we want is a community of fiercely independent, roaring, wrestling, arguing, fighting freethinkers; cross them, and you will get rhetorically mauled, and our battles are not about polite batting about with little kitty paws at issues, but should involve claws and fangs and uncompromising forcefulness. Everyone who is complaining that the harshness of the debate degrades the discourse, get stuffed; I think the call to weaken the vigor of the disagreement is the real degradation here.
But back to Pigliucci. I am deeply underwhelmed. His entire complaint is about goddamned tone; he even advises me to look up rational thoughtful discourse in the dictionary, as if I should be swayed by bloodless definitions. He also trots out dictionary definitions of some of the insulting terms I used, as I was unaware of their meaning, or needed some reminder that they were perhaps a bit excessive. Nope. I knew what they meant and meant what I said. De Dora was foolish, stupid, lacking in strength of character, and indulging in masturbatory sloppiness while contributing to the cause of the enemies of reason. I’m not backing down because Pigliucci has a dictionary.
What this is actually about is that De Dora is a personal friend of Pigliucci’s, a contributor to his blog, and he is part of the administration at CFI. We apparently are supposed to be nice to such connected people. Sorry, but you don’t get to be stupid because you have friends in high places. Pigliucci seems to understand this, because he feels free to insult me (or perhaps my friends aren’t quite high enough), and it undermines his whole argument; it is silly to make a high-minded complaint that I used insulting words against a friend while using plenty of insults against me…which is fine, by the way, it just means that his principled argument about tone and form is a load of horsepuckey.
So forget the whole complaint about tone. Let’s deal with the substance. This is where we differ, and where I think De Dora is an idiot. This is all about a dunderheaded creationist complaining about a textbook that called his superstition a “myth”. Here’s the full quote from the book, Tobin and Dusheck’s Asking About Life(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll):
In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for “equal time” for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the “equal-time” bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.
And to put it in perspective, that was a small part of a two page section of the text that summarizes the legal history of efforts to keep creationism out of the public schools. It is not a book that condemns Christianity, carries on a crusade to abolish religion, or calls believers delusional; it is moderate, entirely polite in tone (praise Jesus! It meets the most important criterion of the faitheists!), and plainly describes an entirely relevant legal and social issue for biologists in non-judgmental terms. It does use the accurate, factual term “myth” for what creationists are peddling, and that’s as harsh as it gets. It is exactly what the less rude proponents of evolution teaching should want.
But no. All it takes is one indignant creationist (One! Who doesn’t even get any headway with the local schoolboard!) to complain, and what kind of support does a reasonable and polite statement in a textbook get from the intellectual cowards — a phrase I use in complete awareness of the meaning of each word, thank you very much — who want to run away from any conflict? De Dora whines, ‘well, he has a point’. Pigliucci makes a worthless complaint about knowing our epistemological boundaries, implying that the statement of fact in Tobin and Dusheck is a violation of the separation of church and state. On one side, a creationist who is offended that a science textbook is not sufficiently deferential towards his superstition; on the other, science, which refutes his claims at every step, and a textbook which lists court cases and says that creationism is a myth. In the middle, De Dora and Pigliucci, siding with the creationist.
If a science teacher can’t even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we’re doomed. If the effect of biology on society can’t even be mentioned in a textbook, then the relevance of the science is being sacrificed on the altar of religious submission. Getting enmired in these pointless philosophical “subtleties” when the facts are staring you in the face is a recipe for the further gutting of science education in this country.
We don’t need to teach atheism in the science classroom — and I’ve said often enough that I don’t, and don’t endorse such activities — but we do need to be forthright about the conclusions of science. We cannot give religion so much unwarranted privilege that it is treated as a special category, in which the pronouncements of faith may not be contradicted at all, in even the mildest, politest manner, by a science teacher…but this is precisely what De Dora and Pigliucci are advocating when they rush to support a young-earth creationist who objects to any discussion of the social context of evolutionary biology. I guarantee you that Kurt Zimmerman was not exercising subtle thinking and thoughtfully contemplating the inappropriateness of a specific epistomological issue in his kid’s textbook. He was being an ignorant ass, nothing more.
I’m afraid Michael De Dora is not fighting the same battles I am. I read a number of his articles, and his biggest concern seems to be running away from any confrontation, making excuses for the other side, and suggesting that the people in the front lines who are smacking around our opponents are making way too much noise. He’s not on my side at all, but seems to be helping the other guys far more. And suggesting that I shouldn’t treat him as a nuisance and a collaborator with nonsense because he’s somebody’s friend is not going to hold me back at all.
This video focuses mostly on some bipedal chordate, but he’s happy enough about cephalopods that it makes it all OK.
