Pat is right. I am in this fight so excellent science can continue to be excellent science. I am in this fight to ensure that fundamentalists (and anyone else for that matter) cannot use the authority and armed force of government to cause a person to violate their own system of conscience and belief.
Personally, I think this notion of a persistent historical war between science and religion---with religion as the persistent loser and science as the inevitable sum victor is utter nonsense. My anthropology background pretty much assures me that both religion in some form and science are going to be around for many more thousands of years. Human beings need belief systems. It is a major trait of our species as a whole and has been ever sense we were gifted with the capacity to imagine and conceptualize. We all believe something, and we always will. Atheism is a belief system. Agnosticism is a belief system. Humanism is a belief system. Christianity is a belief system. University of Tennessee football is a belief system. It's just who we are. There is no sense in running from it. At some point, we just need to stop and say, "Hey, it's okay to be human. I believe this..."
Paragraph one was fine, AC. But good grief, the whole second half of that second paragraph was painfully bad.
Superb post. As always.
Read your original comment.
"Those, like Moran, who want to divide the movement to defend science education—and in the process hand ultra-right fundamentalists an undeserved victory—"simply are not on the same team and are not working [toward, RSR] the same goal," says Brayton."
I am surprised that you're unable to detect the hypocrisy and the irony in that comment. You have just declared that those who divide the movement to defend science education are handing the creationists a victory...in posts in which you and Ed divide the movement. And you don't just divide it -- you guys declare us evil atheists (to distinguish my "team" from your "team" of the saintly atheists) disturbing, dangerous, appalling, and vile, and that we are leading you to certain defeat (a point on which I strongly disagree, obviously -- I think your strategy has a demonstrated history of failure). Along the way you completely mischaracterize the goals of people like Moran and Dawkins and me, in order to further your goal of propagandizing against a subgroup you don't like.
Who is dividing the movement? You and Ed are, by your own plain admission. Who is handing the creationists a victory? You and Ed are, by your own definition.
More to the point, if you get the facts of evolution into schools only by abandoning the unflinching commitment to reason that discovered those facts, you have won nothing. The scientific method, the epistemological commitment to evidence and understanding the real world, is essential; any particular findings of that method will fall out as a consequence.
It isn't necessary to push evolution per se in schools. Teach critical thinking and a commitment to reason, and people will be able to see for themselves how flimsy the creationist arguments are. Presenting the facts is useful, but if you can't overcome the students' prior conditioning to reject the facts and cling to the Bible, then you won't get anywhere.
As for art, while its *metaphorical* value is considerable, anyone who believes that art is "about truth" in a literal sense - that there actually is a Superman or that da Vinci really was part of a conspiracy to conceal the descendents of Jesus - has serious mental problems, right up there with the people who believe that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead. Really, the main differences between Superman and Jesus are that Superman was invented more recently so we still know the details of his invention, and no armies ever marched under the banner of the S.
PZ, you write "I think your strategy has a demonstrated history of failure."
What evidence, exactly, convinces you that the strategy followed in Kansas, Ohio, Dover, Cobb County, El Tejon, Rio Rancho and elsewhere has a "demonstrated history of failure"?
What example can you cite of the success of the strategy advocated by you, Dawkins, and Moran?
The problem is that your own fundamentalist ideology is blinding you to reality.
You've never been able tell our friends from our enemies, and now you can't distinguish between victory and defeat, either.
What evidence, exactly, convinces you that the strategy followed in Kansas, Ohio, Dover, Cobb County, El Tejon, Rio Rancho and elsewhere has a "demonstrated history of failure"?
You'll have to help me out here. I could have sworn that the decisive factor involved in all of the above cases was pointing out the DIFFERENCES between religion and science and then exposing ID/creationism/"equal treatment"/etc as nothing more then religion in disguise. I don't remember seeing anything in any of them about "rifts" among non-believers. Matter of fact I think the only time that atheists were even mentioned in any of the above cases was when the fundamentalists would go off on hysterical tirades about "godless evolution" and then accuse everybody and his grandmother of being an atheist.
It looks to me like all they are doing is trying to pander to more moderate religionists by falsely painting one segment of the non-believing community as the "bad" atheists so they can try and contrast themselves as the "good" atheists.
All of this nonsense about a "split" in non-believers is just so much baloney. Ed and Pat are in danger of jumping the shark if they keep pushing this silliness.
"In your eagerness to attack faith, it seems clear you haven't fully thought through the philosophical implications of your position"
Are you for real?
Do you even have a clue?
PZ wrote
You have just declared that those who divide the movement to defend science education are handing the creationists a victory...in posts in which you and Ed divide the movement. And you don't just divide it -- you guys declare us evil atheists (to distinguish my "team" from your "team" of the saintly atheists) disturbing, dangerous, appalling, and vile, and that we are leading you to certain defeat (a point on which I strongly disagree, obviously -- I think your strategy has a demonstrated history of failure). (Italics added)The italicized claim is flabbergasting for its sheer ignorance. For six years the strongest advocates of honest science in the public schools on the Ohio State Board of Education were Christians -- theistic evolutionists, if you will -- who risked their re-election success (and one was defeated in 2004 because of it), the persistent calumnies of the Disco Institute, and substantial personal animosity directed at them by some of their constituents, to defend honest science. Without them, Ohio's state science standards and benchmarks and model curricula would have been polluted by Wells's crap science, and the Ohio Graduation Test, written to the benchmarks, would have required teaching Wells's crap. Without those theists on the State Board, the Ohio State Board would still be the Disco Institutes's main instrument for the subversion of science education.
Boosterz wrote
You'll have to help me out here. I could have sworn that the decisive factor involved in all of the above cases was pointing out the DIFFERENCES between religion and science and then exposing ID/creationism/"equal treatment"/etc as nothing more then religion in disguise.It's a pity neither PZ nor Boosterz were actually involved in those battles. The decisive factor in Ohio was spending years -- literally years -- building and nurturing alliances with theists on the Board and in the state who believed strongly in teaching honest science. The same was true of the battle in my local school district three years ago.
I get pretty damned sick of purists and idealists, who have not themselves fought the battles on the ground, pontificating about strategy and tactics. Until they've earned their spurs in the field I'm not much inclined to listen to their grandiose posturing. And I'll be blunt: preaching from a blog, however eloquently, is not earning one's spurs on the ground. To use PZ's phrase, had "those [like him] who divide the movement to defend science education" controlled the strategy and tactics in Ohio we would have lost miserably. PZ is a lucid writer on science, but in politics he's dangerously ignorant.
I believe the strategy you advocate will lead us to certain defeat.
May I ask why?
You're doing the same thing now, RBH.
Who said we shouldn't work with theists? Not me. Who said atheists have to go it alone? Not me. The only ones who are advocating openly sticking the knife in any subset of the evolution side are these resentful middle-of-the-roaders who want to get rid of the people who openly disbelieve in religion.
And I repeat: your strategy is a losing one. I really don't understand why you think courting theists by stifling the non-belief of a significant number of the scientists who are the core of your side is a victory. Why aren't these theists supporting science because it is good in itself? Is there something wrong with these Christian supporters, that if they thought there were atheists in the woodpile they'd run to the creationist side instead?
That's exactly what I mean by losing. You've got no widely based citizen support, you've got to constantly fuss over politicians to convince them to do what is right -- you constantly leap to this top down approach that doesn't change the underlying cultural debate in the slightest.
I know it's what has to be done now, and it's good that you're doing it. But while you're busy keeping the apparatus of the state from being used to snuff out science, you better think in the long term about changing the terms of the argument, too. And just sucking up to the biases of an overwhelmingly religious culture doesn't do that -- it perpetuates the problem.
There really are two battles going on here in the same direction, and while there are some things in common, the goals are not identical.
One is a battle for science, the other is a battle for anti-supernaturalism. The common ground shared is definitely against the creationists.
The problem comes in that there are two rather noble goals (in my opinion) here. To battle for science and science education per se, you need everyone to pull together, and that includes working with reasonable theists. In Ken Miller's case, for example, his ID-debunking sessions are nothing short of brilliant. AmeriChristian brings up constantly excellent points on RSR.
I WILL rally behind that cause.
The other battle is the 'further' battle against supernaturalism, where PZ, Dawkins, Sam Harris and others find themselves. They've looked at the fundamentalist movement and seen that the philosophy of NOT pulling punches has allowed fundamentalism to grow beyond any reasonable person's expectations. They've seen folks go on Larry King Live and say publicly and seemingly without fear of contradiction that atheists live without any moral guidance, or morals.
As an atheist, I will ALSO rally behind that cause.
You can get good biology educators that believe in UFOs. On Red State Rabble, I would guess that all in all, that's fine. PZ, because it's a fight against supernaturalism, would probably blow a left nut.
If it helps to look at this in a slightly different way, if you were to reflect this in a mirror, RSR's camp's opposite would be the Intelligent Design movement, and PZ's camp's opposite would be Fundamentalists in general.
I know *I'm* in a bit of a bind, because I actually believe strongly in both Pat's positions and PZ's positions.
Pat's because of science education advocacy, and because I respect anyone who works in the field, and that includes all of the theists working towards that common cause.
PZ's because of atheist advocacy (not just because Americans by and large would never vote for one, but the very badly-informed reasons WHY) and a belief that supernatural beliefs, and I would include religion in that, are too-easily taken advantage of by those who take its reins for money, power, adulation, hatemongering and/or to manufacture reality out of whole cloth, and because some beliefs actively lead people to harm others, harm themselves (even witness Haggard), harm our future (environmental concerns, genetic research).
To me, they're different fights, and I think more people can get on the science and science education bandwagon.
I can see where some of the friction comes from. I've seen some of Millers' justifications for reconciling his beliefs in science and religion, and they strike me as somewhat odd, being the skeptic I am. PZ and Dawkins and the like will pick up on those often hard-to-justify-or-phrase justifications (or "rationalizations", as they can fairly be called, though most educated folks
I don't care about atheism or theism "winning" any battles against each other.
What I care about is Kansas students being taught modern science in tax-supported public schools.
That depends, on large part, on (a) what the voters think is real science; and (b) how they see that as valuable to teach in K-12 schools.
In many ways, the DI people have won the public opinion skirmishes surrounding the teaching of evolution by telling moderate theists that they cannot simultaneously accept the fact of evolution and believe in God.
The Wedge is a very effective strategy for dividing the faithful and staging a broad-based attack, not only on evolution, but also on science in general.
SO: Those who fall into the Wedge's trap by loudly proclaiming that religion and science are incompatible are actually making points for the DI. Brilliant, no?
AND: Those who refuse to accept the Wedge assertion, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, who rightly separate acceptance of science and belief in God will win the day.
When atheists realize that attacks on religion per se are alienating the very folks who would likely be receptive to education about the nature and value of science (moderate persons of faith -- not fundamentalists -- most of them are beyond our ability to persuade), then perhaps they will put aside their personal vendettas against religion in favor of actually winning hearts and minds to science.
Hey, if you guys want to fight fundamentalists tooth and nail about the Bible, feel free to indulge. But your personal battle is completely irrelevant to the promotion of modern science in public schools. Plenty of theistic evolutionists are on "our" side vis-a-vis teaching modern science in schools. Why not cultivate them by not insulting their deeply held religious beliefs? They are not the problem.
Jeez, JZ and RSR, I feel like grabbing you two by the scruff of your respective necks and holding you up a arms' length. Cool it!!
The fight in Kansas is PRIMARILY between groups WITHIN the Christian faith. One group wants to meddle with science for the sake of their religion, one group wants to quash that practice of meddling, for the sake of both science AND religion.
I identify with the group that is arguing for the sake of science. I stand with that group of Christians - even though I'm a secular humanist. The point we have in common is this: We all firmly believe that science and religion are not even about the same things, and so, they should not be overlapped in the classroom.
The choice here is a simple one: Stand with the people who wish to separate science and religion, or stand with the people who wish to mix them. But don't come striding into either group thinking you can hijack their solidarity in one idea, and rally them to a purpose that most of them would find ahborrent, and expect anything other than catcalls and rejection for your effort.
Because that's what you're doing here, JZ - walking in, a latecomer to the party, and saying "Good job, guys! Way to defend science! Now finish the job you started, and renounce your faith in God!"
You are not winning any friends, or furthering your cause, by doing that. You're just being an ass.
Doh - figures I'd run into the comment length limit 
*sigh* The misunderstandings are bound to compound here.
Science and religion can be considered separate in some ways, but both make overlapping claims on the way things are. Non-overlapping magisteria is not the case. If Jesus came back tomorrow and starting curing people of their cancer, who amongst the religious would step back and remember, "oh yes, non-overlapping magisteria"? Christians flock to sites of miracles for real-world proof of what they have been taught, in an odd way needing some concrete proof of things that they have been told to accept on faith.
Increasing skepticism and rationalism in general is my goal, not converting everyone to atheism. The past six years in particular lead one to despair of that goal, though.
I fully support Ken Miller as an educator and as a person of great integrity. This does not shield apologist ideas in his papers and books from critical analysis, nor should it, any more than I would give Roger Penrose (who I really like for his physics contributions) a pass for claiming that normal biology and physics are inadequate to explain consciousness.
You can support science in school and skeptical inquiry in general on the one hand, and raise awareness of atheism in the sort of in-your-face way that has ultimately been required of many misunderstood minorities on the other.
PZ flips between the two a lot. Please don't mistake one for the other, though I know it's hard to do over there sometimes 
For a most excellent reminder on the powers of misperception, and a wonderful little ice cube for the conversation, my all-time favourite Michael Shermer video.
The reverse audio component is spooky
The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion for purposes of the Constitution. If Darwinism becomes strongly associated with atheism, the courts may someday rule that teaching Darwinism in public-school science classes is a violation of the establishment clause.
Thank you for the Michael Shermer video! It was awesome!
Still haven't taken your thorazine I see.
Y'know, if Trollwank would just STFU, he and his mentally defective cohorts might just win in the aftermath of this little spat.
But Trollwank is just too clever for THAT. Thanks for providing refocus about the identity of the real enemy. Everyone knew they could count on you.
This is all quite interesting.
Surprising to even myself, I must say that I believe PZ is displaying a more honest approach in his fight.
The Ed Brayton supporters seem to be hiding behind science in hopes that it may eventually aid in their overall agenda to rid the world of their "supernatural" tendancies.
So one group is laying their cards on the table, honestly, while the other is ~using~ science as a means to get to the deeper issue, which is to do away with those dratted "Creationist fundamentalists" once and for all.
RSR, et al. are not only focused on how people of faith view issues relating to science, but how their faith affects their political positions as well. But, at the moment, science seems the best means of attack, as showing your atheist tendancies may open the eyes of many that you're just as religious as the next guy -- only difference is that your religion lacks a god. ("religion" being defined as faith-based belief system).
Yup, as an honest Christian YEC, I'd have to say that PZ's "team" displays an honest agenda, whereas the Brayton "team" seems to be shooting for the same goal, yet doing it underhandedly and hiding behind bad science to try to lure the theists into a godless society.
Hmmm....it's a pity you guys aren't reading some of the latest books coming out in support of ID instead of sitting here fighting amongst yourselves. You're fighting a losing battle, and the public is becoming more and more aware of what Intelligent Design is actually about.
After all the bogus information you've been feeding us over the last few years, many of us are searching out the answers on our own and realizing that what the DI offers has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with SCIENCE.
Good luck to you, but I think your days are numbered.
An "honest Christian YEC"? That's like saying you're an honest flat-earther. Seeing mountains of evidence and ignoring it isn't an honest approach. Your last sentence, "what the DI offers has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with SCIENCE," demonstrates your lack of honesty nicely.
"Your last sentence, "what the DI offers has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with SCIENCE," demonstrates your lack of honesty nicely."
Ya think? What the theory of Intelligent Design offers are solid scientific facts. The science is just that -- science.
The implications that may or may not have on religion is what gets to you people more than ~anything~ else.
Your idea to wave off anything they have to say as merely a religious agenda is slowly starting to backfire on you.
Fortunately, people are much more literate than you give them credit for. The DI has sparked interest in many who have decided to look past the sirens blaring from the "scientific community", and check out the evidence for themselves.
The tide is changing, and if you're smart you'll stop with the "it's just a religious argument" agenda.
It won't work....unless you burn all the books refuting neo-Darwinism.
Hyrum, I feel for the horrible experiences your older relatives went through. You may or may not know, though, that Communists were no friends of evolutionary theory, and that people who believed openly in gene theory or evolution were sent to gulyags as enemies of the state.
Communism, Postmodernism, National Socialism, Anarchism and Neoconservatism (as espoused by Kristol et al.) are philosophies that I would also say are in defiance of reality. When you substitute ideals for evidence, and have people in authority try to make it happen, people be damned.
Pause before you cast aspersions on all atheists because of dogmatic, unscientific pricks like Lenin and Stalin.
To the extent that science *can* say something about religion, many religions make claims that are testable. So far as scientific endeavours have investigated, human virgin births appear to be impossible. If someone claimed to have had a virgin birth right now, should we simply accept that on faith? If we looked closer, would we not likely find that someone was trying to cover their shame, or that did not know what sex was? For the faithful, would it not be worth investigating whether it was true? Would people scream at scientists to stop trying to understand it, to preserve the magic instead of finding the small-t truth?
I used to enjoy friendly arguments with theistic folks online on the problems of evil, whether they would still be members of their current religion if they were born elsewhere, etc. When unprovable non-science sneaks into classrooms via the back door, held open by those who know exactly what they're doing, I suppose the stakes are unfortunately too high to pay nearly as much attention to the small, fun stuff 
Er, who is "JZ"???
Forthekids,
Fortunately, most of the people who read this blog know you're blowing smoke. The DI hasn't contributed one thing to science. They have no ongoing experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no ideas other than "God did it". The notion that the scientific establishment is wrong on this and the DI is right is laughable.
Try your lies somewhere else.
My My My.
I tend to some other interests for a few days and all Hell breaks lose. Ed Brayton, as
usual, is throwing accusations around trying to seem important. One of his more absurd statements is;
But some, like Larry Moran, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Gary Hurd and others, are involved in an entirely different battle. For them, it's not enough to protect science education from the attacks of some religious people; religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary.
First, I am flattered to be mentioned together with Moran, Myers and Dawkins, but it is totally inappropriate. I have at best a tiny fraction of the scientific accomplishments of these men, or their public influence. Brayton has never contributed to science or education and has comparatively little influence, so this is clearly a "division by zero" problem.
Nor have I ever considered it necessary to eliminate religion, regardless of means. I don't think that science can do this in any event. The only certain path to atheism I know of is to study theology.
Let me propose a simple analogy; the pro-science education effort is like a dog. There is the wagging tail at one end, and the bark and even teeth at the other. PZ, Dawkins and others are at the front. Pat, Nick and others are the friendly, inclusive wagging tail and Ed Brayton is the little part just below the wag. I'm the little flee whispering that if you don't want to divide forces, then ignore divicive people like Ed who demand that you have to be on "his" side and don't step in the mess he leaves on the floor.
"Forthekids": Your posts have to be the most laughable of all, just for their dewy-eyed earnestness. As was pointed out above, the DI has contributed SQUAT to science. Why? Because hypotheses have to be *predictive* to qualify as "science".
When Bill Dembski's ballyhooed design inference can correctly predict, say, which way the avian flu virus will mutate, maybe people will actually take him seriously. But it's all politics and PR, and will continue to be nothing but politics and PR. But if you expect the DI to actually dirty their hands with any concrete science...well, pack a lunch cuz' you're gonna be waitin' awhile.
These bright lights have had YEARS to produce research since they left the Wedge Document in the copier by mistake. Surely, we'd seem reams of peer-reviewed papers by now. But NO, their energy has gone into preying on the ignorance of people (you're evidently one of them) who think that a scientific theory is something that somebody just pulled out of their ear. That's not science, nor will it ever be.
Gravity is a "theory". Relativity is a "theory". Yet I'll wager that you accept both of those. Why? Because neither Newton nor Einstein challenges your notion that our species is God's pet project. And the cherry-picking is the most glaring and damning symptom of your side's dishonesty about "just wanting good science education for our kids". And you'll buy any pseudo-science that gives respectibility to your childish need to be the center of the Universe.
But you're right about one thing. People are often smarter than we give them credit for. And most parents genuinely want the best education for their kids. So if Joe Taxpayer is looking askance at anything, it's at the IDers whose thin veneer of "science" didn't stand up to public scrutiny in places like Dover and elsewhere. If anything, they're more than a little pissed-off at being made to look like marks.
Hear, hear, Gary.
I do think Larry Moran went too far with comments like this:
Public understanding of science will not be advanced by people like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller. They are subverting science in order to make it conform to their personal religious beliefs. (Which, by the way, conflict.) They are doing more harm to science than those who oppose it directly from the outside because the Theistic Evolutionists are subverting from within. It is sad that they are being supported by people who should know the difference between rationalism and superstition.
I may get "what Larry is getting at" in a purist sort of way, but I think he's dead wrong, in particular about Miller, and it's an extraordinarily divisive statement that denigrates those of us who don't think atheist is a precondition for science (Am I reading too much into his statement?)
I think PZ would make fun of Miller's apologist writings, but I couldn't foresee PZ holding that same sort of absolutist opinion. I think he's certainly made that clear before.
As to the certain path to atheism being theology, there are other ways to get there, but as for myself (Baptist Sunday School and reading the bible), my wife (encountering fundamentalists and reading the bible), and the creator of Babylon 5 (reading the bible twice), I'm inclined to agree.
cubiclegrrl:
That New York Times article was pretty telling:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
You can't even paint those three characters with the same brush. Lenin and even Trotzky were gentlemen compared to Stalin (even neoconservative intellectuals pay their respects to the former two). Stalin was a black-and-white ideologue with Orthodox Priest training and a Kim Jong-Il cult of self. He took the opiate of the masses and simply redirected it to the State, instead of Humanity. Karl Marx himself would have been utterly appalled.
Stalinism turned out to be a complete crock.
Are the Catholics gearing up for The Inquisition II? Are we simply to just reiterate back to you "Every time theists get the power, the next step is the torture chamber, the stake and 'repentance'?"
Looks nothing bloody LIKE the claims being "pushed" now.
Next stop: Gulags, brainwashing camps, and "re-education". That is the historical precedent.
Publius | 11.24.06 - 7:59 am | #
Every time atheists get the power, the next step is the Gulag, brainwashing camp, and "re-education".
Hyrum Claine | 11.24.06 - 5:12 pm | #
Psst!
Hey, Joe!
Over here!
Ya missed one!
"Hyrum Claine," indeed.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever one of these trolls starts throwing around the terms, "Gulag," "Nazi," "Hitler," "Stalin," and "Lenin," in relation to science, I get worried. Worried that someone who thinks like this is running around loose and training other trolls to think the same way.
I was thinking of a nice comfy rubber room.
Experience also teaches that it's only a matter of time before a healthy number of paranoid cranks demonstrate that they're actually dangerous, in any or all of a number of incredibly disgusting ways.
It's only sound public policy to stay ahead of the curve, avoiding the inevitable negative repercussions when a loony is allowed to roam free of the usual methods of societal control.
Wake up and smell the Kool-Aid, Mr. Troll. There are transmitters in your fillings, and microdot cameras on your monitor. But don't worry.
Depending on what we catch you at, we can get you a nice billet with Ted Haggard, or maybe Dennis Rader, and you all can discuss biblical matters when you're not--y'know--
I know *I'm* in a bit of a bind, because I actually believe strongly in both Pat's positions and PZ's positions.
You said it, Ritchie. It seems that I missed the whole thing when this blew up, and looking it over now the argument between Pat and PZ is very painful for me.
I agree that the two fights (against ID-creationism, and against supernaturalism) are different battles. The latter is perhaps more personal for me. Speaking only for me, I'm pursuing a line of thought that I must follow to its end, because I think it may yield something entirely new, ideas that no one has thought of yet. I don't want to be labeled as being on someone's team as opposed to someone else's because of that.
And the 'puter tells me:
"Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added"
"Comment Successfully Posted"
Like life isn't confusing enough.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever one of these trolls starts throwing around the terms, "Gulag," "Nazi," "Hitler," "Stalin," and "Lenin," in relation to science, I get worried.
Liz, the usenet folks have a good term for this, called "
dang comment parser.
... a good term for this, called "Godwin's Law", which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
So don't worry, this is a known phenomenon.
The battle is between atheists and theists. Plainly, there is not room for both in positions of political power.
What an odd thing to say. Are there any atheists in positions of political power?
If you know about lots of them, you could win $1,000 in the Secular Coalition for America's "Find an Atheist, Humanist, Freethinker Elected Official" contest. They don't even have to be atheist per se, just non-theist.
Just saying
It is not a battle between theists and nontheists. It's a battle between smart people who are really smart and stupid people who just think they are smart.
Like I said in my comment on the KCFS boards, as soon as the so called moderate religonists in this country start speaking up and denouncing Falwell, Roberts, Kennedy, et. al. (and it's a long list), then maybe I can see room for critisizing PZ, Dawkins, Dennet, and the few others who are less than polite when it comes to critiquing religion in general.
Then again, I don't see why religion in general should be some kind of sacred cow (to mix religious metaphors...). Atheists aren't insulting all religionists when they criticize religion. It's the religionists who have for too long been riding that acred cow, and think that thier superstition is somehow above reproach. It's no more above reproach or critical analysis than astrology, and every single scientific hypothesis and/or theory. As sson as they make testable statements, someone is going to test them. If the religious ideas are found lacking, don't blame those that have done the testing.
It's the religious who can't separate criticism of their beliefs from criticism of themselves (or more accurately, somehow translating that criticism into wild insults). That is not the atheists' problem. It may not be the most politically correct (in the worst possible sense of the term), but why should peoples' free speech or opinions be withheld simply because some of those who are 'on our side' might take offense? Grow a thicker skin and determine where your priorities lay.
The religionists need to decide if it's more important to band together over religion regardless of dogmatic differences, and quash science, or band together behind the teaching of strong science regardless of wether some of us who support that also happen to be critical of their beliefs (but are still more than willing to work alongside them). If they fall into the former camp, good riddance.
TBC...
And for those cretinists who would equate criticising religion to trying to eliminate religious thought, I say get over yourselves. Look somewhere for your persecution complex to satisfy that inner martyr.
Would many of us atheists like to see religion go away? Sure. Damn straight. But I can't think of a single atheist I've met, IRL or on the internet, who would advocate actually outlawing religion, or somehow restriciting others personal (that's important) expression of religion. Go to church, pray yourself to sleep every night, whatever....just don't try to pass laws to push your particular flavor of god worship and beliefs on the rest of us.
Cheers.
Commenting by HaloScan
