NOMA, sexism and PZ Myers

The current spat in the "atheist movement" is a cause for some glee in certain theistic quarters, with suggestions that if a reconciliation of the "schism" (currently exemplified between "new atheist" blogger PZ Myers and atheist YouTuber Thunderf00t) cannot be achieved, then the "movement" is doomed.

This, I think, misunderstands the nature of the split. The "atheist movement" was never a cohesive body, and likely never will be. Some Christians are suggesting that the movement's leaders need to make a stand, issue some decrees and whip the dissenters into line, or else the movement will fragment and disintegrate. But atheism as a movement has never been integrated. There's no doctrinal dogma to which atheists are required to subscribe, no articles of faith. The only thing that all atheists have in common is a disbelief in gods. Beyond that, they are as disparate as any random collection of individuals. That such a group could even begin to consider itself a "movement" is, to put it charitably, optimistic.

There are no atheist leaders, just some atheists who tend to be more vocal than others. It is in the nature of freethought not to take things on authority alone, so any calls for prominent atheists to grab the movement by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it will be for the most part ignored. Atheism will not fragment as a result of this latest hoo-hah because it's already fragmented, by definition.

The current controversy over sexism in the skeptical/atheist movement is, as far as I can see, merely an extension of the well established conflict over non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). With regard to potential incompatibilities between religion and science we have two factions: on the one hand those who claim that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible — and the source of a great many problems in today's culture — and on the other those who claim that it's possible to find an accommodation between science and religion because they deal with different realms of enquiry. Atheists on each side of the NOMA debate will be forever opposed, because each side has a different way of dealing with religion. Arch-accomodationists will take a pragmatic approach to working with theists, on the basis that theism doesn't deal with scientific matters. Extreme anti-accommodationists will simply refuse to work with theists on scientific matters on the basis that theism does deal with scientific matters, but in an unscientific way.

In the sexism debate, views divide down the middle in a manner similar to the NOMA split. On one side are those who say that sexism is a problem that needs to be addressed (by, for instance, talking openly about it rather than sweeping it under the rug, and by implementing clearly stated harassment policies wherever these might be appropriate), and on the other are those who say that though sexism certainly exists, it isn't a particular problem in skepticism/atheism — any more than elsewhere — and that the current disagreement is a molehill that has blown up into a raging volcano.

I've no idea if what I'm about to write will alienate some of my readers, but I feel I must be open about my own biases on these matters.

Taking NOMA first, though I can see the value of making nice with theists in order to get things done (and because they are people — and therefore deserving of respect and consideration), I see no merit in pretending that science and religion are compatible when even a superficial examination shows they are anything but.

Second, on the question of sexism in general and the problem of sexual harassment at skeptic/atheist events in particular, some women have reported that there is a problem. Are we to ignore this? Certainly not. As a man I don't experience the types of unwelcome attention that are being reported (and have been reported in "the movement" for over a year now) so I can only go by the reports. The fact that some other women have said that in their experience it isn't a problem is insufficient reason for not doing anything.

It seems to me that in both the NOMA debate and the discussions (I use the term advisedly) about sexual harassment, PZ Myers has got it right. His stand on this and other matters speaks of an intellectual integrity that is to be admired rather than dismissed. His uncompromising attitude may well alienate many, but that's because he will not accommodate. Often I find his views quite unpalatable, but as far as I'm aware he always gives his reasons, and I find I usually agree with them.

(I hearby declare that you may unsubscribe/unfollow/block me now.)

It's that man again — the Craig "itch"

Regular readers of this blog (and listeners to Skepticule Extra) will know that I have an oscillating attitude to William Lane Craig. No sooner have I concluded that he has nothing new to tell me and therefore I can forthwith ignore him, than I find myself irresistibly scratching at something he's said, knowing that it's wrong without being able to put my finger on precisely why. But I think Thunderf00t has nailed it:

http://youtu.be/4u6Mz21jTaA


Being a confident speaker will go a long, long way towards convincing people that what you say is true. If you behave in a way that says loudly and clearly that of course what you say is true, many people will believe you by default. But with Craig there is always that niggling doubt that his approach to his various arguments for the existence of God rests on something not just unsound but profoundly silly. This video exposes that doubt and parades it for all to see.

The Comfort zone of a fundagelical Christian

Well, it happened. Ray Comfort was on the Atheist Experience last Sunday. I listened to the podcast, and it was one of the fastest hours I can remember.



I didn't know what to expect, although I thought it likely, given the professionalism of the Atheist Experience hosts, that it would be a civilized affair. Ray is a decent chap, that's clear, though plainly misguided and lacking intellectual rigour when it comes to matters of science — especially biology. At one point he started in with his argument about male and female evolving separately; that he still proposes this as a refutation of evolution demonstrates that he has minimal grasp of what the theory of evolution actually states, and that he's willfully ignoring patient explanations offered to him in the past (P. Z. Myers', for example).

One problem the Axp has with a discussion like this, is that an hour is nowhere near long enough to address all the various nonsense that Ray continues to come out with over the years. Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser did a good job, but the show could easily have been three times as long and just as packed.

If I have reservations, these would be about the wider effect of a match like this. Though it was hugely entertaining, the show let Ray appear as pleasant but deluded — not as a raving fundagelical who actively promotes a hellfire and brimstone version of Christianity that he wants everyone else to adopt. Which of these portrayals is more likely to motivate active opposition? When two members of the Rational Response Squad debated Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron the latter were shown up as creationist loons. When Ray Comfort and Thunderf00t took part in a video-recorded discussion, Ray came over as sincere but disastrously wrong. And here on the Axp he seemed to be a regular guy with some wonky ideas about evolution and nature.

Whether this show motivates opposition to Ray's wrong-headed views or not, it's necessary to challenge such views wherever and whenever they threaten to impinge on people's rights, and on that score the Axp hosts continue to be supremely competent.

Why do people laugh at creationists?

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D



This is a selfish blog-post on my part. I simply wanted this series of Thunderf00t's videos in a convenient, easily accessible place.

Thoughts on the Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

After some ignominious shenanigans concerning his (surely not serious) request for a $100,000 honorarium (payable to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, no less), Ray Comfort took up Thunderf00t's offer of a recorded discussion. Here is the result - 90 minutes of YouTube video well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/p/762A731FA12BCB57

(via The Atheist Blogger, from whom I also nicked the playlist embed code)

Some random thoughts after viewing:

Ray Comfort doesn't understand evolution - this is clear from his failure to engage in the basic concepts. He says he doesn't believe evolution is true (elsewhere he repeatedly describes it as "a fairy tale for grownups"), but if he doesn't understand it he's attacking a straw man - whatever he thinks evolution is, rather than what it actually is.

Given what he's said (and published), this isn't surprising, but it raises an interesting parallel with his own reasons for believing in God. During his discussion with Thunderf00t he mentioned that there was much in the Bible that he didn't understand until he accepted Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Saviour. Relative to this he's previously stated that the evidence for the existence of God is available to everyone - all they need to do is do as he did: open their hearts to the Lord.

Atheists who have honestly tried this route, without the promised revelation, are told they're obviously doing it wrong. This is a self-fulfilling/defeating prophecy - just like the mediaeval dunking stool used to test witches. Any suspected witch who uses her craft to survive the test is proven guilty and shall not be suffered to live. If she drowns she was clearly innocent - no powers, no witch, and she will be set free to live her life in peace, unmolested. Unfortunately she's already dead.

With most atheists the "you're doing it wrong!" excuse understandably won't wash - it's a "heads I win/tails you lose" kind of reasoning.

Ray's argument in this part of the discussion also seemed equivalent (though with less sophistication) to the reasons given by theologians who object to Richard Dawkins' refutation of "simplistic" theism. A theologian will claim (with suitable snootiness) that the religion Dawkins attacks is "not my religion", and will then expound on some abstruse and intensely personal - but most importantly incomprehensible - faith (usually with profligate redefinition of terms), to the extent that the only other person who could share it is God. PZ Myers satirised this style of theology in his Courtier's Reply.

One could argue, however, that atheistic objections to theology are similar to creationists' simplistic objections to evolution. We complain that the likes of Ray Comfort have no real grasp of the principles of evolution, though they decry it as fictional. Conversely, many a theologian has complained that Richard Dawkins has no real grasp of theology, while at the same time he decries the subject as vacuous.

Of course, there is a crucial difference between the two disciplines. Evolution (by random genetic mutation and natural selection) is documented science that makes predictions (such as what we should expect to find in the fossil record) and so far its principles have not been disproved. In fact, each new discovery whether in genetics, paleontology or any other evolution-related field, has further confirmed evolutionary theory, to the extent that it is as near to a scientific fact as the theory of gravity. Theology, on the other hand, appears to be entirely made up. Theologians of a particular creed may agree on a core set of theological principles, but these result from consensus only, and cannot be falsified. This would be all fine and dandy for literary criticism, but for telling us anything at all about the real world, or the people in it, it's useless.

UPDATE 2009-08-02: A good summary of the discussion here:
Angry Astronomer: Ray Comfort vs. Thunderf00t