Religion, Science and the Attack of the Angry Atheists

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/angry-atheists_b_2716134.html

Max TegmarkPhysicist, MIT

Posted: 02/19/2013 8:58 am

I'd been warned. A friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, I'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old. We posted it anyway, and the vitriolic responses poured in as predicted. But to my amazement, most of them didn't come from religious people, but from angry atheists! I found this particularly remarkable since I'm not religious myself. I have three criticisms of these angry atheists:

1) They help religious fundamentalists:
A key point I wanted to make with our survey is that there are two interesting science-religion controversies: a) Between religion & atheism b) Between religious groups who do & don't attack science

Some forces pushing for creationism in US schools try to conflate the two so that they can pretend to represent the majority, and taunting religious groups that don't attack science can play into their hands. In contrast, I think that drawing attention to b) is the most effective way to weaken the anti-scientific fringe and improve the prospects for future generations.

Although 46% of Americans believe that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago according to a Gallup poll, our survey showed that merely 11% of Americans belong to a religion openly rejecting evolution or Big Bang cosmology, so the mainstream religions representing the majority can be a powerful ally against the anti-scientific fundamentalists.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. It's no wonder that some atheists are angry when people like Tegmark blast them...

with such ridiculous claims.

One HuffPo commenter has already nailed the response:

It's hard to believe the writer is not religious. Such pro-religion sophistry could have been written by some Churchy McGee from Kansas. Believers love to point out that science isn't pluperfect, so therefore it's no better than religion.

This "angry atheist" does not "advocate for replacing fundamentalism, superstition and intolerance by careful and thoughtful scientific discourse." For one thing, I am proudly, unabashedly intolerant of people who try to foist their religious beliefs on others, who try to supplant knowledge with faith.

That coupling of science and religion is utterly false. It is the bogus pro-religion premise that religion and science are adversaries on more or less equal footing battling for supremacy, the PC and Mac of human understanding—doing the same things, but on different platforms so to speak. Actually, they have virtually nothing in common. The eagerness to equate them is strictly a religious thing.

As much as I find fundamentalism and superstition revolting, I do not advocate for "replacing" them. Let anyone believe what they wish. I advocate for keeping them out of my life, out of public policy, out of classrooms, out of textbooks, out of everything except private religious circles.

I believe that the creeping ick of religious fear and superstition is dangerous. I am not willing to tolerate it even at the Thanksgiving table. You nutty uncles, be warned: we're not going to sit there quietly and take it anymore.

I understand that this is a perfect article for you, cbayer, so you can continue on your quest to scold and shame those evil atheists who dare to voice negative opinions about religion in publc. But it's a really ugly article that ends up trying to sow discord and alienate allies - in other words, it's carrying water for the Republican party, as you like to put it. Try displaying the same behavior you'd like to see in others.

[longship]

2. Hmm! More angry atheists?

I like Tegmark, but he's mistaken here. He is judging atheists by a selected subset of commenters. Of course, those disagreeing with a paper are more likely to leave comments. And those who are angered by a paper will likely respond in kind. So there is selection bias built into the process.

Even this post is an exemplar of that very thing. Nothing makes me more angry than to be labelled an angry atheist!!

[cbayer]

3. I think he makes a clear distinction and says he is speaking only to a subset.

In fact, I think he goes out of his way not to generalize here.

He's not talking to you.

[longship]

5. I know. As I wrote, I like the guy.

But what I wrote is also undoubtedly true. We see the same here at DU. Plus, it gave me a cheap excuse to post that it made me angry to be called an angry atheist.

[cbayer]

6. I know some people aren't going to get past the headline, but I

do hope some will read it.

Particularly this part:

All my ideas may be wrong, including those I've expressed here, and I don't mind if you criticize me. All I ask is that, before you do, you please read carefully what I've written, make an honest attempt to understand my point of view, and articulate your criticism carefully and thoughtfully. Otherwise you may be undermining your own ideals.

[cbayer]

4. Here is the link to the original article posted on DU last week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121869046

[Warren Stupidity]

7. 46 v 11

The author makes an incredible leap when he attempts to explain the gap between gallup's 46% creationist beliefs and his own survey's 11% number for american's belonging to religions that reject evolution.

"the mainstream religions representing the majority can be a powerful ally"

Did the author pay attention, for example, to the Republican Party presidential primaries? That alleged 11% has managed somehow to force their views into the mainstream of one of our two major political parties. Atheists did that? Really? That's the explanation?

[cbayer]

8. In his original article on this, he explains the gap as an epic failure in the educations system.

He makes this comparison:

Whereas 0 percent of Americans belong to religions arguing that the Sun revolves around Earth, Gallup reports that as many as 18 percent nonetheless believe in this theory that used to be popular during the Middle Ages.

More and more mainstream religious groups are formally embracing evolution and rejecting creationism. That's a good thing. Now they just need to get their flocks on board.

While Rick Perry, Santorum and Paul were open about their evolution denial, they didn't get very far. Those that moved on tended to take the more neutral "evolution guided by god's hand" position.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. umm Mittens pandered right into that mess as well.

Sure he stayed the fuck away from it in the GE, but not at all during the primaries. The "flock" is getting the message. And they are getting it from the pulpit even if "officially" their denomination does not stake out the crazy. Gallup is exposing the fact that roughly "the republican party demographic" is rabidly anti-science, and when they identify a poll question asking them to pick a side between science and anti-science, they choose anti. And again, those dreaded atheists aren't doing this to them. The hucksters, charlatans, and demagogists on the right are deliberately fueling these sentiments for a variety of reasons.

[cbayer]

11. Agree with your analysis of how this is going, but remain optimistic that it can (will) change.

The Texas School Board is a good example of how it can change when the general populace pushes back. They changed the make-up of the board and took away some of their control over textbooks.

In terms of Tegmark's remarks about atheists in this regard, I don't read it as blaming atheists. He merely points out that "taunting religious groups that don't attack science can play into their (the fundamentalists) hands."

[skepticscott]

12. More and more?

More and more mainstream religious groups are formally embracing evolution and rejecting creationism.

Be honest...you just made that up out of thin air, didn't you? Because it's what you want to be true and what you WANT to post..so it must BE true. All fuzzy-wuzzy about "mainstream religion", I know. But I'll bet you can't name 5 mainstream religious groups that have formally embraced religion and rejected creationism in the past year..or 5.... don't forget to link to their formal announcements. And take note, ye lurkers...no information to back up the claim will be forthcoming.

And frankly, "epic failure in the education system" is a pretty weasely way to put it. A deliberate undermining of the education system by religious believers whose whacked-out notions are threatened by the truth would be a better place to start. But hey, that's no reason for an atheist to be "angry", now is it?

[pinto]

14. Sorry to step in here, yet why the hell do these discussions become so personal?

Actually, I'm not sorry to step in. Differences of opinion, debate, discussions, etc are one thing. But personalizing it is another. Jesus in a hand basket, can't we keep it civil?

[skepticscott]

17. I questioned the veracity of something cbayer posted

and asked her to back it up with facts (which of course she can't). That's one of the things that happens on a public discussion board, ya know? It's part of getting at the truth and weeding out falsehood and inaccuracy, which is, ya know, sorta what this should be about. And yet people like you seem to regard every such attempt as a "personal attack" or "bigotry".

But if you're really interested in being the civility police for the forum, there's a lot you're ignoring...so perhaps we should start pointing it out to you. We wouldn't want to think that this is selective enforcement, now would we?

[trotsky]

18. I encourage you to ask the same question of cbayer.

Perhaps when she stops throwing around inflammatory accusations like vocal atheists are somehow "carrying water for the Republican party," and stops admonishing others for being disrespectful toward believers while she calls creationists "dumbasses," she can help end the acrimony.

Insults and hypocrisy aren't a good foundation for discussion, wouldn't you agree?

cbayer, let's keep things civil. Stop insulting others by lumping them with Republicans. Stop arrogantly criticizing others for behavior that you do yourself.

[trotsky]

9. It's a pattern we've seen in this group time and again.

When confronted with the powerlessness and irrelevance of liberal believers in the political sphere, rather than engage in any kind of self-reflection or analysis to find out why, the first impulse is to seek out someone to blame. E.g., "It's the media!"

For cbayer, and many like her, atheists are another, more convenient target. Despite lacking any evidence whatsoever that somehow a tiny number of anonymous Internet commenters are capable of defeating an alleged multi-million-strong group of people in real life, they relentlessly attack vocal atheists as the root of the problem, even going so far as to allege said atheists are "carrying water" for Republicans.

It's pretty sad and scary.

[Jim__]

13. Thanks for posting this.

I definitely agree with Tegmark on the limitations of human knowledge, scientific or otherwise:

If I've learned anything as a physicist, it's how little we know with certainty. In terms of the ultimate nature of reality, we scientists are ontologically ignorant. ...

Let's compare the ontological views of Niels Bohr to those of a moderate and tolerant religious person. At least one of them is incorrect, since Bohr was an atheist. Perhaps neither is correct. But who's to say that the former is clearly superior to the latter, which should be ridiculed and taunted? Personally, I'd bet good money against the Copenhagen Interpretation, but it would be absurd if I couldn't be friends with those believing its ontology and unite with them in the quest to make our planet a better place.

Awareness of our own ignorance should keep us from mocking the ignorance of others.

[cbayer]

21. They will laugh at what we currently consider scientific fact in 1,000 years.

And perhaps there will be some scientific evidence of things like god, though I doubt it.

The key, imo, is to keep an open mind and never take the position that you have the final answer, whether it be in a scientific or religious arena.

[NaturalHigh]

15. Thoughtful article.

[struggle4progress]

16. The graphic at HuffPo has errors: for example, it claims Lutherans believe there is conflict

between their faith and the science of origins, giving as reference the MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins

If you actually go to the MIT survey you will find, under the heading Lutheran mainline the subheading Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), with the statement "There is no inherent conflict between scientific findings and the understanding of God as creator, redeemer, and sanctifier"

The Missouri and Wisconsins synods (LCMS and WELS) are listed under the separate section for Lutheran evangelical

About 4.1 million Americans belong to the ELCA, about 2.3 million to the LCMS, and about 0.4 million to WELS: that is, about 60% of US Lutherans are associated with the ELCA

Although ELCA, LCMS, and WELS all describe themselves are "Lutheran," they have rather different views. The LCMS and WELS might be accurately described as rightwing conservative, being (for example) biblical literalists and creationists. While the ELCA ordains women, neither LCMS nor WELS do, and WELS further denies women any vote in local congregations

[Jim__]

19. Which graphic do you think is wrong?

The graphic from the survey seems to agree with the graphic at HuffPo. I can't embed the HuffPo graphic, but this is the graphic from the survey:



Under both the ELCA and the Lutheran Evangelical there is also a category for Other which has Insufficient Information. The total lutheran percentage (mainline and evangelical) is about 4.6%, 2.0% mainline, 1.6% evangelical, and 1% other (adding the other listed under each category). That seems to be fairly accurately represented in the graphic that I'm looking at.

[struggle4progress]

20. The large circular graphic labelled "Is There A Conflict Between Faith And Origins Science?"

Pehaps I misread it: it may actually intend to represent the split between ELCA on the on hand and LCMS/WELS on the other. But ELCA, LCMS, and WELS are essentially different denominations, even though all call themselves "Lutheran"