Slanted Viewpoint

The following is a slightly edited copy of feedback I sent to NPR earlier this week. It’s probably a bit more harsh than they deserved. But I felt I needed to do some shaking here.

“I was truly disappointed in your coverage of the Florida evolution bill issue today. Even the title of your piece, ‘Bill in Fla. Lets Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives,’ is a distortion.

The truth is that no bill is needed to allow teaching of alternatives to evolution. Schools are already allowed to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, just as they are allowed to do so for any other theory in science.

What they are not allowed to do is teach religion in the guise of science. That is what this law is really all about. It is the latest attempt by the proponents of creationism to shoehorn the teaching of creationism in science classes. The more neutral sounding language is simply designed to circumvent the latest legal rulings against such teaching. Your report never really makes this clear.

Instead, your report makes the issue sound more like a “he said, she said” debate between Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans on the side of academic freedom.

To describe this bill as advocating academic freedom, is like describing a bill that weakens anti-pollution regulations as a “Clean Skies Act.” It’s just double-speak. This is an anti-evolution bill, plain and simple.

Similarly, your report mentions the Discovery Institute as a source of support for the Florida legislation, but fails to mention that this same Institute was on the losing side of the Dover, PA trial that strongly ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Indeed, the Discovery Institute spokesman quoted in your report acknowledges that the wording of the Florida legislation was in part based on model language provided by the Institute.

Your report mentions Ben Stein’s new movie (Expelled), but fails to mention that it has received near unanimous condemnation for its promotion of knowingly false and inaccurate information. The New York Times, for example, called it “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” There is an entire Web site, Expelled Exposed, that exposes the many falsehoods in this movie.

While citing Ben Stein and his film, and quoting a person from the Discovery Institute, your report offered no statements from scientists or experts of any sort on the other side of this controversy.

In the end, your report comes off as a shameful example of ignoring the facts, and promoting the legitimacy of discredited views, apparently in a sheepish attempt to give yourself an appearance of neutrality.”

I recently browsed through a book titled I Don’t Believe in Atheists. As I have not actually read the book cover-to-cover, I won’t attempt to review it here — or even give my opinion of it.

I will say that one of the general points seemingly made in the book is similar to one I have seen made many times before: Strong advocates of atheism (such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are characterized as every bit as much extremists as the religious fundamentalists on the other side of the fence. Indeed, atheism itself winds up being equated to just another “faith” — and therefore no more worthy of support than any other faith.

The argument that atheism itself is just another type of religion has been more than adequately rebutted elsewhere (although, as with creationist arguments, that won’t prevent it from going away). So I won’t bother with answering that here.

However, I do want to address the idea that atheists and fundamentalists represent the two extremes on a spectrum — with the implication that more reasonable minds should prefer to seek some more rational middle ground.

Normally, I am a strong advocate of the “middle ground.” Take almost any controversy — and you will almost certainly find that the most extreme advocates for either side have pushed the argument too far. A middle ground is a more sensible approach and, thankfully, often becomes the dominant view. For example, consider arguments over the concept of instinct. One side may say that there are no such things as instincts, that all behavior is learned. The other side may claim that all behavior ultimately emerges from innate patterns, that learning plays at best a minor role in behavior. The truth, almost assuredly, lies somewhere in between.

Still, there are “either-or” propositions for which there is no middle ground. Either the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. There is no compromise position here. Either O.J. killed his wife or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this matter. The only ambiguity comes from the public not knowing with 100% certainty what O.J. actually did, not with any ambiguity in his actions.

And so it is with God. Either God exists or he doesn’t. If God exists, the atheists are wrong. If God does not exist, all the theist religions of the world are wrong. There is no safe middle ground to be found. Trying to find some compromise here is simply a waste of time.

We can perhaps agree that, in the absence of 100% proof in either direction, some degree of tolerance should be maintained for both positions. But that’s about it.

However, understand that much of science is based on evidence for things we cannot see. No one has actually visited a black hole. Almost no one (maybe no one really) has seen an atom. We cannot actually view gravity. Yet most people (at least virtually all rational people) believe that these things exist. We don’t consider such beliefs to be based on faith — but rather the result of the preponderance of scientific evidence. Atheists simply ask that a belief in God be established in the same way. Given that no such preponderance of evidence exists, rejecting the idea of God makes more sense.

Or, to turn it around (and as I have said before in other postings), we don’t assume something is likely to be true simply because we can’t prove with 100% certainty that it’s not true. Otherwise, we would have to say that it is plausible that little green men live on Mars. And so it is with God. The fact that existence of God cannot be disproved with 100% certainty, does not make it likely that God exists.

In the end, atheists wind up discarding a belief in God following the same logic that leads science to discard a belief in men on Mars or support a belief in atomic theory. This is not an “extremist” position and there is no need to seek a middle ground for retreat.

Scientific truth is not determined by a popular opinion. it wouldn’t matter if 99% of the American public believed that the sun revolved around the earth—instead of the other way around. Such poll results would have absolutely no effect on the behavior of the sun and the earth.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, despite the distortions you may have read elsewhere, evolution is an established scientific fact. It is as much of a fact as gravity, or black holes, or atoms and molecules.

Have you actually seen gravity? How do you know it really exists? Couldn’t the reason we feel the apparent pull of gravity be due instead to some supernatural force that we don’t understand? How do you know that atoms truly exist and, more importantly, that atoms behave the way scientists say they do? On what basis do you accept the idea that black holes, whatever they may be exactly, exist in outer space?

My guess is that the overall answer to such questions is that, when it comes to such matters, you accept the consensus reached by the scientists that work in these fields. You may not understand the physics of gravity or atoms or black holes. But that does not lead you to dispute their existence. In fact, it is largely because of your lack of understanding, because you have not made the effort to study the facts yourself, that you defer to the experts who have done so.

The truth of a scientific theory also doesn’t depend upon whether or not you are pleased with its conclusions. You may not be happy to discover that you can get HIV from having unprotected sex. You may be irritated to learn that you cannot cure severe depression simply by telling a person to “Cheer up;” medication may be required to help the person. But your unhappiness and irritation does not change anything.

All of this applies in the same way to evolution. You may be offended by the idea that humans are descended from apes. You may find it difficult to understand how the process of natural selection could account for the range of species on the planet today. But such offense and incomprehension has no bearing on the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Unfortunately, although the above logic is indisputable, people somehow are willing to make an exception for evolution. The same person that would never think of denying the scientific evidence that links HIV to AIDS or that supports the existence of black holes in outer space—has no problem making such an assertion about evolution.

The data in this regard are staggering. According to recent Gallup polls, close to 50% of all people surveyed say that they “do not believe in evolution.” This is consistent with similar surveys taken over the past several years. I am sure that much of the reason for this, aside from what I have already said, is that people view evolution as in conflict with their religious beliefs. Forced to make a choice, they go with religion.

For the scientific community, such poll results are equivalent to finding out that 50% of the American public does not believe in gravity. On the one hand, the poll results are a depressing statement about the state of scientific education in our country. On the other hand, it has no bearing as to whether or not gravity really exists.

Scientific assertions based on ignorance of the relevant science (how many people that say that they don’t believe in evolution have actually studied the evidence?) or on religious prejudices is not a particularly effective way to get to the truth. It doesn’t work for deciding on the veracity of gravity, black holes, atoms, or AIDS. And it doesn’t work for evolution.

Last Friday, I went to hear Gordy Slack talk about his new book: The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything (Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA.). He has a charming, friendly speaking style that happily carries over to the book. I have just finished the book and I highly recommend it—both for its inside (if not in depth) look at this important trial as well as for its personal touches (especially Gordy’s struggles with his father, an “Ivy League liberal intellectual” experimental psychologist who “converted” to a “neo-creationist” born-again Christian when Gordy was nineteen).

As readers of my previous blog entries on evolution and on atheism no doubt know, I have few if any kind words for proponents of Intelligent Design (or religion itself, for that matter). At its harshest level, my view is that such individuals are either ignorant, hypocritical, or in denial. That is, their absolute rejection of the evidence for evolution is either due to ignorance (they have never really fairly considered the evidence for the theory), hypocrisy (they knowingly choose to ignore the evidence because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs or because promoting ID is beneficial to some political goal) or denial (they unknowingly close the gates of their brains to any information that is contrary to their religious beliefs).

One of the values of Gordy’s book, for me personally, is the respect he shows to both sides of the debate. More specifically, it provides insights into the thinking of some of the more intellectually honest ID proponents (such as Phillip Johnson). I still believe they are completely wrong, but I can at least see that they are not ignorant and are sincere in their views (even if they continue to view ID as a means to ultimately wedge a religious God into science). Gordy’s patience with ID arguments, I might add, appears to grow less and less as the book progresses, as he details both his own objections and the flaws in the arguments exposed during the trial—as well as the deceit and lies given in defense of teaching ID in schools.

Yet, I also find a sadness in the positions of even the most sincere and honest of ID proponents. Because, from the descriptions in the book, it is clear that there is nothing I (or anyone else) could say to these individuals that would persuade them to change their views. It goes without saying that the same holds true, in spades, for the less intellectual and more dishonest of ID proponents. Given this realization, it seems almost pointless to even try. But I don’t wish to give up. I still hope that there are enough people who are not so far over to the creationist side of the fence that, over time, we can effect a shift in public opinion toward much greater support of evolution. I no longer believe, however, I will see this shift in my lifetime. It is a continuing irony that, as we move into the 21st century, there appears to be a resurgence in ideas whose origins emerged from our collective ignorance thousands of years ago.

Of course, I would be the first to admit that there is little, if anything, that ID proponents could say to me that would get me to change my views. So perhaps, one might argue, we are on different sides of the fence but otherwise no different. Perhaps. I remain convinced, however, that I would be willing to change my views in an instant if the evidence presented itself. What I resist is to make faith the basis for a shift in my views.

This point was made crystal clear to me in one passage from Gordy’s book. It relates to a point I made in a previous blog entry: It is not viable or rational to argue in favor of Intelligent Design (or more generally, a belief in God) based on the idea that a universe without God would imply a meaningless existence. Yet, that is exactly what Richard Thompson (chief counsel for the defense in the Dover trial) argues, when asked why this particular battle matters so much to him: “If you are nothing but an accident of nature, then nothing you do is dependent on objective truth. There is no life after death. There are no set moral codes…You’re just another piece of matter bouncing around…Even if a hundred million scientists say…we’re just purposeless beings,…the general public won’t buy it. And neither will I.” Thompson states all this as if it is self-evident and irrefutable evidence for why evolution cannot be true.

Of course, as I (and many many others) have argued, just because you may be dismayed at some truth, does not make it untrue. I may be sad at the prospect that I am going to die one day. But that sadness does not mean that I will, in fact, not die. Similarly, it may well be that life has no ultimate moral or spiritual meaning. However depressing such a thought might be, it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A failure to make this distinction is one of the continuing fallacies promoted by defenders of ID, and more generally of religion.

In my prior posting, I gave my initial reaction to the publication of several new books on atheism, especially A Letter to a Christian Nation (by Sam Harris) and The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins).

Interested in the reactions of others to these books, I read numerous online reviews. I was pleased to see that most have been quite positive. Still, even in many otherwise glowing reviews, a few common criticisms emerged. And while I certainly admit that there is room for criticisms (I even have a few myself), there are three related points that kept getting raised that I believe are largely irrelevant. Here’s why:

The book is preaching to the converted. That is, any theist that might benefit from a thoughtful reading of the book will either never pick it up or dismiss it out of hand shortly after beginning it.

To this criticism, I bluntly say: So what?

First of all, I largely agree with this criticism. It is almost certainly true for Dawkins’ book. Dawkins writes “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” I have a similar hope for his superb book, as the arguments in it are so compelling as to seem nearly impossible to refute. But still, I can hardly imagine Dawkins’ wish getting granted. Dawkins does not help this cause by his consistently disparaging tone towards believers and their religious beliefs (such as his comment about the debate between monotheism and polytheism: “Life is too short to bother with the distinction between one figment of the imagination and many”).

However, this criticism implies that there is some hypothetical book that could have been written that would somehow surmount this difficulty and convince a large segment of theists to change their world view. I seriously doubt that. Arguments against a belief in God have been out there for hundreds of years with little effect overall. As I pointed out in my previous posting, religious belief systems are designed specifically to prevent their rejection by believers. Some people may manage to overcome this, but it won’t be easy.

If there is any hope for a shift here, it will be a generational one, heralded by a change in how our children are taught. Now that I think of it, perhaps that is why fundamentalists are so strongly against the teaching of evolution in our schools. And this is almost certainly the basis for what is depicted in the new film Jesus Camp. But I digress.

Making matters worse, this hardly seems like the right moment in history to expect any sort of major change to occur in the country’s attitude towards atheism. Here in the U.S., we live in a time when religion, especially fundamentalist religion, has greater influence on our political landscape that ever before.

As an analogy, I think back to the months before we invaded Iraq. I was among the very tiny minority that was speaking out against the idea of a “preemptive war,” attending rallies and writing letters to the editor protesting the impending war. However, I believe that there was nothing that I nor anyone else could have written at the time that would have had a significant effect. The aftermath of 9/11 was still too close, the Bush administration was too willing to present faulty intelligence as fact and to raise of the specter of nightmare nuclear scenarios, and the press was too busy searching for its missing spine.

Still, you have to start somewhere. Even if you know your voice will hardly be heard at first, you have to hope that if you speak the truth long enough, hard enough, and convincingly enough that eventually, the tenure of the times will change, and your voice will fall on more receptive ears. That has finally happened with the war in Iraq. Hopefully, it will someday lead to widespread support for atheism.

Finally, even if a book could be written that would satisfy the cited criticism, it doesn’t mean that Dawkins should have written it. That would be like saying that Michael Moore should make movies that get his point across but in a way that doesn’t annoy conservatives. Yes, it would be great if someone made such a movie. But there is room for and value in Michael Moore’s approach as well as others.

The book is a polemic. It is critical to the point of being nasty and insulting. This is not the way to win converts. You don’t change the mind of someone who disagrees with you by insulting them.

This is almost a corollary of the first criticism. So perhaps all I need say here is re-read what I just wrote. But let me go a bit further.

There is certainly substance to this criticism. Even a title such as “The God Delusion” starts off on a combative note. But, as Dawkins and Harris both point out, religion has gotten off too easy here for far too long. The level of “respect” expected when discussing religious beliefs, no matter how bizarre they may be, far exceeds what would be expected in any other area of discourse. Perhaps it is time to loosen this restraint.

If nothing else, the result of the approach of these books is to bring attention to themselves and the questions they raise. I doubt whether this would have happened with a more “polite” book.

The book isn’t really saying anything new or original.

Again, rather than debate whether this criticism is true or not, I once again reply: Even if it is true, so what?

It’s not as if every one in the country has been repeatedly exposed to these arguments. It’s not as if these ideas have been thoroughly debunked and proven to be false. Quite the contrary.

So, if someone can take worthwhile concepts, even if the someone is not the originator of the concepts, and present them in a new and thought-provoking way, in a way that can be more easily understood by a general audience, in a format that is more easily accessible than obscure journal articles, in a manner that garners national attention, starts a discussion as to the merits of these ideas, and perhaps ever so slowly changes the opinions of at least a few people, then I say: “Fantastic.”

To take another example, how many years after the Civil War was it necessary to argue that African Americans were not getting the civil rights they deserved? How many times was it important to say the same things over and over again? What would have happened to the civil rights movement if, back in the 1950’s, the country said, “We’ve heard all this before” and protesters replied, “Oh, okay, sorry about that” and went away? For one thing, I doubt we would have seen the successes that occurred in the 1960’s.

The modern defense of atheism is only in its earliest stages. If it takes repetition to make a dent in the public’s awareness, then so be it. If it will still take many years before the repetition has an effect, so be it. We are in this for the long haul. As the saying goes, all journeys begin with the first step.