“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
I was listening to a recent BBC Global News podcast that featured a segment on the troubles scientists are having with getting a wave of new blood to take up studies at universities. It was stated that many feel there is a general feeling of disinterest or even uneasiness about science or the scientific method in modern times. One could chalk this up to a problem in our school systems, but I think the problem runs deeper than that. Personally, I feel that scientists are starting do to a handful of things that are really putting folks off and ultimately causing a general distrust in science. Rather than trying to better lives and make discoveries, many top scientists are currently engaging in political feuds, in-fighting, and picking bad allies to champion their causes. But the real kicker is the antagonistic way in which many scientists or their fans treat religious people. This stuff angers people and it frankly does little to further the sciences, and ultimately breeds anti-intellectualism.
First and foremost, I know that the in-thing for all the “rebellious youths” to do right now is engage in hostile anti-religious rants and put down spiritual people, but should scientists be doing this as well? Some leaders in the field have stated that scientists need to gain allies, not pick fights for no reason, but that seems to fall of deaf ears. Shrouding themselves in the fetishized cape of a fictionalized version of Galileo, many scientists are ready to do battle with religion at the drop of a hat. With scientific funding getting slashed in this rough economy, is it really smart to antagonize five billion people that hold some sort of faith? There is no wonder some folks think that intellectuals are elitist, because most of the time a “let’s agree to disagree” viewpoint is off the table, everyone is gunning for the win.
In 2007 The Guardian, a popular UK newspaper, interviewed a number of scientists at a festival debate on religion and science. While most of the attendees where fairly hardline against religion. Martin Rees (A British Cosmologist) lays out an argument for non-aggression towards people of faith:
“If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important,” he said. “We need people like that as allies in dealing with extreme fundamentalism.”
This quote angered a number of the participants, especially Richard Dawkins, who thinks that religion is infinitely evil and causes all of the world’s ills. If you don’t know Dawkins, his forte happens to be evolutionary biology, and yet many would think that he is some sort of theologist as he spends almost all of his time ranting about, writing about, and lecturing about the ills of organized religion – especially Christianity. His antagonistic method has been cited as a detriment by his own peers many times, but this only seems to make him louder. I’m going to come right and say that I dislike Dawkins because of his attitude. He epitomizes the condescending nature that many spiritual people see in atheists, and frankly gives them a bad name. Rather than simply explaining his side of a debate, he often resorts to the same repugnant methods that Fox News pundits use to “win debates”. He insults faith, practitioner of said faith, refers to it as mythology or fairy tale, and compares the deity to Santa Claus etc. Eat your heart out Rush Limbaugh!
This outburst by Dawkins caused Lord Rees to retort:
“There are new kinds of extreme views that are separate from religion – there are many strange cults that I find potentially terrifying.” He cited the Raelian cult as an example, members of which believe that their leader came from outer space and are attempting to clone humans, saying: “They would say they are on the side of science. People like the Raelians show that we’re kidding ourselves if we think that a scientific education makes people rational.” […]“You can imagine eco-groups who imagine the world would be better off without human beings. We need to combat these new irrationalities and, in doing this we should seek allies wherever we can, and I think allies do include people who call themselves religious. We should strive for peaceful co-existence with the mainstream religions.”
This is an amazing point that gets overlooked with all the grandstanding that usually goes on with this discussion – Many scientists try to make it seem like the only thing that can harm the scientific method is religion, as if the two institutions are dualistic and mutually exclusive entities. Problem being that this view voids acknowledging that there are scientists out there far too into pseudo-science and agenda based science (Eugenics for instance) that it harms their very own causes. I know that some will argue that this “bad science” will get wiped out by peer review and other scholars, but that isn’t what happens; this bad science lives on in the uneducated masses. These “scientists” will usually go out and meet actual breathing people and teach them fringe ideas via TV shows, books, personal appearances etc. They don’t submit their work to peer reviewed journals because that isn’t their audience. I bet that more people know the name of someone like Giogrio A. Tsoukalos over Brian Cox by tenfold.
I’m not excusing extreme religious fundamentalists by pointing out a flaw with a science cult, but I think that we should separate religious people here. On one side we have normal everyday people that may attend church, or sing in a choir etc. Many of these people don’t discount evolution, like science, and are completely sane. There are even (GASP!) scientists that adhere to a religion out there! This group should not be attacked at every turn simply because they aren’t atheists or agnostics, and could be an ally of science. On the other hand we have groups like “Young Earth Creationists“(They believe the earth is only a few thousand years old) that do things like try to re-write history so that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together.
When someone lumps all religious people into the latter category we have a problem. This antagonistic method by some scientists and atheists has really began to make “people of faith” see religion as the opposite of science as well, and if that is what someone is lead to believe, they will push back. The aforementioned “normal” religious people are starting to really shift towards the other extreme due to their life being questioned. Some are getting special textbooks that are completely false (and more religious) for their kids, and others are starting to attribute things like the 2012 “endtimes” scenario to “stupid scientists” rather than where it actually came from (crackpot new-agers). One would think that these people would just be Fred Phelps-like loud minority, but the truth is they are getting some big backers. When people with large amounts of power and influence can say stuff like the following, we have an issue:
“President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob.”
People will hear words like this, and think “educated people are elitists” and “they want to take away my church”, and if there is anything that we have learned recently with gun control in the news, is that you don’t want to piss off misled Christians.
Scientists need to really step back and fight their battles better. Before they can even attempt to change religious people’s minds, they need to battle fringe science. I feel that this will give them a better leg to stand on instead of allowing things like a fake documentary on “mermaids “ washing up on shore getting more press than the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle. And in saying that I leave you with a quote from Peter Higgs himself on the issue:
“What [Richard] Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. “Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”
Related articles
- Higgs Boson Scientist Peter Higgs Criticizes Richard Dawkins Over Anti-religious ‘Fundamentalism’ (consciouslifenews.com)
- Dawkins on Religion (topdocumentaryfilms.com)
- Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious ‘fundamentalism’ (guardian.co.uk)
- Higgs boson theorist criticizes Richard Dawkins over anti-religious ‘fundamentalism’ (rawstory.com)
- Peter Higgs, the Boson Man, takes out after Richard Dawkins for the usual reasons (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
- Richard Dawkins versus Mehdi Hasan: a confrontation about faith (thewordpressghost.wordpress.com)
- Peter Higgs, of the Higgs-Boson, Doesn’t Like Richard Dawkins’ Style (patheos.com)
- An embarrassing fundamentalist – Peter Higgs’ scathing verdict on Richard Dawkins (scotsman.com)
- Why I Am Not an Atheist (bigthink.com)
myatheistlife
January 14, 2013 at 10:09 am
Accommodation does not work. It never has. You need only look at the history of the church to know this. Suggesting that we talk to the religious in the way that the religious want others to talk to them is nothing short of surrender. All those supposed moderate believers are nothing but passive supporters of the fundamentalist believers. There is nothing mild about them. When a person lies to your face they never tell you that they are lying.
Stop denigrating the truth by attacking a person or persons. Start listening to the message. Isn’t that what believers say? The message is that science and religion are NOT compatible. The message is that religion is belief in superstition and magic and that it is false. Go ahead, attack what you feel are fundamentalist scientists… it does not change the message. Religion is wrong. No god exists and all that think one does are hampering society and the progress of the human species. Period. No argument. Whether the moderate believer actively denies rights to others or not, they support those that do. Go ahead, tell me where the believer’s tithes go. We would all like to know.
Accommodation will not work, will not be tolerated. Deal with the message, then we can talk. Quit thinking that attacking one or several atheists will defeat the message. It won’t. Wake up.
spdk1
January 14, 2013 at 10:36 am
whoa there! you assume I am a fundamentalist christian obviously, and that’s fine (but wrong). I’m sorry but this rant of yours is slightly over the top, I’m not sure if you’re yelling at me personally or are mad about the topic I chose to comment on. Like I said in my blog post, I have no problem with atheists, or scientists I am saying that “pseudo-science” and “fringe theories” are worse problems to science than religion, and are making people stupid. More people thought that there was going to be some sort of catastrophe in 2012 than there should have been, this crap is just as bad as fundamentalism. A post like the above, dripping with anger, is exactly what I was talking about and what I don’t like about the religion vs. science debate. I wouldn’t mind debating further, but please refrain from whatever that was.
myatheistlife
January 15, 2013 at 3:04 am
Let me try to be more clear:
Whether you like the debate or not, it is happening. Ignoring it or asking for it to be more calm is not effective. As you wish to advise scientists to choose the battles more wisely etc. perhaps you could stop thinking that putting your head in the sand will make it go away. While you try to assign this to pseudo-science, that is not what you have talked about and your words do not lead the reader to think this. Whether you want to continue a conversation or not, you’ll have to think about how you can justify calling end of the world thinkers as fringe science. It’s religious and spiritual nut jobs saying that stuff. Science and science minded people have been refuting these end of the world claims for years. You ask that we not mix all theists into the same punch bowl but try to do the very same thing with nut jobs and scientists… I cannot fathom why.
To go point by point, more or less as a summary is not good enough. Don’t take it personal. If I seem to be attacking, it is your ideas, not your person. I do not know what you personally hold to be true … only the words you’ve written. The pronouns make shortcuts at times.. which then sometimes prove to be more problematic and useful.
“…Rather than trying to better lives and make discoveries, many top scientists are currently engaging in political feuds, in-fighting, and picking bad allies to champion their causes. But the real kicker is the antagonistic way in which many scientists or their fans treat religious people. This stuff angers people and it frankly does little to further the sciences, and ultimately breeds anti-intellectualism.”
While you may have a point on this there are other considerations: What effect does religious driven politics have on science endeavors? If religionists wants to think religion/faith is compatible with science, why does the truth seem to them as brutal frontal assaults? There is no way to add more fertilizer to anti-intellectualism – religion has done a fine job of that for thousands of years. To make a valid claim such as yours you would need to show that science is doing more in this effort than religion has been doing all along.
“First and foremost, I know that the in-thing for all the “rebellious youths” to do right now is engage in hostile anti-religious rants and put down spiritual people, but should scientists be doing this as well? ”
I find this statement offensive. I am neither rebellious or youthful. I am not alone. I am, however, tired of the religious folk pushing for theocracy where they should not be. Do you think that MLK was a ‘rebellious youth’? I don’t. If spiritualism is stunting the growth and progress of society by hampering science, yes, scientists should be engaged in the debate, and doing what is necessary to be heard.
“Some leaders in the field have stated that scientists need to gain allies, not pick fights for no reason…”
This statement assumes that the arguments have no reason. I doubt that, but there are no explicit examples to go by here.
“Shrouding themselves in the fetishized cape of a fictionalized version of Galileo”
This characterization is hardly needed to convey the information so it can only be that you wish to denigrate your subject here. This is not addressing the issue but instead it is explicitly engaging in the very tactics that you seem to not like.
“With scientific funding getting slashed in this rough economy, is it really smart to antagonize five billion people that hold some sort of faith?”
Yes, they should be quiet and do as they are told and not rock the boat, because mob rules are in effect. There is no point in telling the truth to a mob of religious bigots, right?
“There is no wonder some folks think that intellectuals are elitist, because most of the time a “let’s agree to disagree” viewpoint is off the table, everyone is gunning for the win.”
When did it become sound advice to let people make up their own version of the truth? I’m fairly certain that the law holds that there is only one version of the truth. Arguing against it with votes and money does not make your version better than the actual truth. When it comes to scientific truth, there is only one … there is no ‘agree to disagree’ on gravity, physics, biology, evolution etc. There is truth/fact and wrong/lie.
==In 2007 The Guardian… “If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important,” he said. “We need people like that as allies in dealing with extreme fundamentalism.”==
The word hostile is a relative word. There are no scientists advocating the stoning of religious people for working on the Sabbath. There are no scientific efforts afoot to deprive GLBTQ individuals of equal rights. It is very easy to see that religion is hostile to segments of society and their persecution complex is in full bloom on this particular point – claiming that they are being persecuted and oppressed by the truth and the facts.
“…. Rather than simply explaining his side of a debate, he often resorts to the same repugnant methods that Fox News pundits use to “win debates”. He insults faith, practitioner of said faith, refers to it as mythology or fairy tale, and compares the deity to Santa Claus etc. Eat your heart out Rush Limbaugh!”
What does Fox news know about the public that you are missing? Sound bites. He is playing the media in the same way that the media plays the public. You wish to fault him for that when his job is to get attention and point people to science, to get the conversation going and keep it going. Oh noes, he got people talking, he’s going to hell for that! He’s not calm and subservient like religion wants him to be, OMG!
Making a claim that Raelians are on the side of science is a straw man. There are no scientists who supported their claims. Yet, here you are making such bogus claims as if this has any value other than creating a sound bite for the anti-intellectuals to sink their teeth into. You may not have made the claim, but you use it to support your theory. Not an effective move.
“…We should strive for peaceful co-existence with the mainstream religions.”
And one could ask why? They never sought peaceful co-existence with anyone else. That ship already sailed and mainstream religion has failed. Miserably.
No scientist of worth is claiming that there are no bad scientists. The peer review method itself was devised to prevent such people from gaining influence through bad science. The scientific community has dealt with this for a very long time and have worked to weed out the crackpots from any kind of influence on society. That the uneducated masses buy into it is exactly why Dawkins et al are working to take the lime light away from bad science and all you can do is criticize because you don’t like the effects. boo hoo
Again, you attempt slander by using the term science cult, intending all the bad stigma it implies.
You think there are good religious people, and perhaps there are but their support of religion promotes the bigotry and caustic harm that religion causes society. Finding allies is good, but not if it is at the cost of your integrity or truth. Science and religion are not compatible. Making a deal with religion is what many would call ‘selling out’ for Pax Romana rather than fight for truth.
Religious people should see science as opposite of their faith if they want their faith in the science classroom. Apparently you haven’t been watching the news. If nobody opposes religion in that ‘in your face’ kind of way they will secretively work to put religion in the science classroom and teach all manner of wrongness to kids, they will oppress people not like them, they will outlaw other religions. These ‘kind’ religious folk will listen to their pastor/priest and do as they are told if nobody gets on the news, in their face about how wrong the things their religion wants to do actually are.
Hello Uncle Tom – “President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob.”
Do you really have no clue that this has been going on long before the new atheism? Really? That kind of thing, that kind of politics is, in fact, what got new atheism started up and vocal.
“People will hear words like this, and think “educated people re elitists” and “they want to take away my church”, and if there is anything that we have learned recently with gun control in the news, is that you don’t want to piss off misled Christians.”
No, no… by all means, be quiet, don’t rock the boat. God forbid that we manage to get sensible societal change. Please, no, don’t piss off the Christians. They’re in charge, we must not upset them. Accomodationism does not work. period.
spdk1
January 15, 2013 at 6:05 am
Okay, you told me to “not take offense” and such, but it’s really hard to do that due to the insanely antagonistic way in which you communicate on this issue. I get it, you hate religion and want it abolished, but that’s not my view and yelling at me, calling me a bigot, and putting words in my mouth isn’t my idea of a fun discussion, especially for a new blog that I tossed up two days ago on Esotericism and gnosticism. I’m actually confused why you’re even looking at this blog, as I bet there are hundreds of christian blogs out there that you could be attacking, or atheist blogs you could be actually liking. I’m going to assume that you are a nice person, and I enjoy discussing things with people of a different viewpoint, but I WILL NOT resort to fighting nor should I have to endure it on here. That’s why I told you to “calm down”, if you won’t have the common decency to do that then I will end this conversation after this post.
You act as though there is no pseudo -science out there in your post. How about all those books about how Jupiter was going to explode when it got hit by a comet? How about the guy that created the 2012 Mayan apocalypse nonsense? How about Van Daniken and his ancient alien crap? I assume you live outside of America, but this stuff is becoming a HUGE problem here since uneducated people see it on the History Channel and other networks that have long since “sold out” and have begun airing sensationalist stuff in the place of facts. The mermaid thing I mentioned wasn’t a throwaway line, there was a program filmed in a fake documentary style on a channel called “animal planet” about scientists finding mermaids, and it caused a stir. I guess 4 million people watched it, and government agencies started getting calls about it. This is what scares me. There are more people that know about the ancient astronaut theory than the Higgs Boson, That was the whole point of this article.
I take offense in how you characterize me as attacking atheists, I did no such thing. I am apathetic as to what anybody’s religious beliefs are, but I do not like when people get loud and try to cram their views down my throat. This goes for religious types, and hardcore atheists alike. I lashed out at people like Richard Dawkin, but I plainly state that I cannot stand the man. I have never seen an interview, read an article, or looked at a book of his without getting angry. If it was someone like Brain Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, or even Bill Nye the Science Guy, I would be more likely to listen, as those three are educators and come across as nice people, Dawkins does nothing but stir the pot and yell at people, he is no better than Rush Limbaugh. You seem to be looking for examples of me taking sides in a science vs religion debate which I have not, I’m taking a third position.
You also use the quotes that I got from that BBC podcast and seem to be applying them to me, I didn’t say those things! I also didn’t cherry pick them like you imply. This entire blog post was about that Guardian article which was referenced in the podcast I listened to, this is the first paragraph up there. I wasn’t tailoring it to my argument, I was agreeing with BBC presenters and Martin Rees, maybe you should direct your vitriol to the BBC and Martin Rees rather than me.
Anywhoo, let’s just agree to disagree. I see that you feel science is being hampered the most by religion, and fringe science isn’t an issue, while I see the exact opposite view. Neither of us will budge on this, and all we are going to do is piss eachother off. I hope you have a great day and don’t think I’m angry, I’m just done arguing with you about this.