Ted Landau on Apple, politics, evolution, movies & whatever
Religion
(Atheist) Signs for Our Times
Dec 16th
In a New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof expresses hope that a new crop of books, with titles like “The Case for God,” will lead to a truce in the “religious wars.” This is just one of several articles I have read recently — that all seem to suggest that prominent atheists (such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) represent a form of intolerance that is equal to those of religious fundamentalists at the opposite extreme. What we need to find, so the argument goes, is some middle compromise.
I have already stated my general opposition to this viewpoint. I won’t repeat all of those arguments here. I will, however, point out one particular dismay: Although the “truce” articles pay lip service to the need for accommodations by “both sides,” the onus of responsibility always seems to fall on the atheists. It’s as if they are saying: “Things were going so well before people like Dawkins came along to upset the apple cart. Can’t we just return to the civility we used to have?”
First off, unless you ignore the inflammatory statements made over the years by religious extremists, it can hardly be said that things were civil before Richard Dawkins arrived on the scene. To the contrary, any superficial appearance of civility was only because religion has had the playing field to itself, fending off criticism by claiming that it should be immune to critique. The “new atheists” did not create the current controversy. Rather, they are simply the ones to be outspoken in pointing out that there is another possibility to consider (a bit like the child who shouts “the emperor has no clothes”). If one believes that God does not exist, then it follows that all religions are wrong and are based on a myth. It is not intolerant to point out this implication, any more than it is intolerant to point out that humans are the product of evolution.
All of this, however, is not the primary reason for my blog entry today. Rather, it is something more specific. On December 2, a New York Times article described a new advertising campaign for atheism. It features signs on buses and trains with statements such as “No god? … No problem!” and “Be good for goodness’ sake.” A major sponsor of the campaign is the American Humanist Association.
In a letter to the editor, Edd Doerr (a former head of the American Humanist Association) wrote that he was “embarrassed” by the campaign. He argued that we should avoid the divisiveness resulting from these ads and instead focus on those things we (atheists and religious believers) hold in common, such as “peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice…” He described the signs as “name-calling and invective.”
Whew! I was both saddened and angry to see this letter. To me, it captures almost everything that is wrong with the current criticism. To have it written by someone within the humanist movement was especially disheartening.
First of all, to suggest that these signs represent “name-calling and invective” is almost libelous. They are incredibly tame, especially compared to the true invective that is often directed toward atheists. “Be good for goodness’ sake”? Where is the invective in this? If atheists are not to be “allowed” to express their views even in these mild terms, in what form can we express our views? Or, to turn it around, should any signs promoting a religious belief, no matter how mild, be banned as well?
But let’s put all that aside. Suppose we accept the idea, however wrong, that these signs are provocative and hostile in some way. Does this mean that these signs are necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. When it comes to making progress against discrimination, being provocative has often been a requirement.
Where would African Americans be today if Rosa Parks had quietly sat in the back of the bus? Or if Martin Luther King had never staged a sit-in? Where would women’s rights be today if not for the provocations of people such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinham — women who were criticized as “strident” in expressing their beliefs?
The actions of such people may not be the only ingredients necessary to move the country forward. Conciliation will also be needed. But without these actions to lead the way, there will be no movement at all.
As such, these signs represent a mild and relatively polite form of political activism. If nothing else, they help make it more acceptable for atheists to be open about their beliefs and will ultimately lead to greater tolerance of such beliefs (see this Wikipedia page for a discussion of discrimination against atheists). We may actually already be seeing the beginnings of this shift. As pointed out in the above-cited NYT article, there is a “growing number of nonbelievers. Fifteen percent of Americans identified themselves as having ‘no religion’ in a 2008, up from 8 percent in 1990…”
Sorry Edd, but it is the rest of us who should be embarrassed by you. Your letter represents the sort of frightened head-in-the-sand attitude that, if followed a half-century ago, would have resulted in blacks still drinking from separate water fountains today. As an atheist, I am proud of these signs. I also look forward to the day when they are no longer needed.
Nicholas Wade on Evolution: Strike Two
Nov 19th
A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. The review, written by Nicholas Wade, had a very troubling slant. In what I view as its most grievous error, Wade contended that Dawkins “doesn’t know what a theory is,” In saying this, Wade gave support to the discredited view that “evolution is only a theory” and thus easily dismissed. Frankly, I expected better from the New York Times.
This isn’t just my opinion. The Times initially posted two Letters to the Editor from eminent scientists, both critical of the review. Adding that they received an “unusually large number” of letters “from readers who identified themselves as scientists or philosophers,” the Times posted a further collection of letters — all critical.
Apparently, this was not enough to convince the Times to itself be a bit more critical in evaluating Mr. Wade’s writing. He was back again with a Week-in-Review column titled “The Evolution of the God Gene.” Here he makes at least three very questionable assertions.
First is the claim that the ubiquity of religion in human culture suggests that there may be a gene for religion, favored by natural selection. Hence the title of the column. A gene that directly codes for a belief in God is almost certainly a gross over-simplification of how genetics and evolution works — even if there were some overall truth to Wade’s assertion.
But it gets worse. Wade next asserts that the presumed presence of a God gene implies that religion has a “constructive role” in society and should thus be viewed “favorably.” This logic runs counter to a wealth of literature that correctly points out that just because something may be favored by natural selection does not mean that we should view it as “good.”
For example, there is research that suggests a genetic evolutionary basis for human infidelity and even rape. There is certainly not a consensus of agreement on this matter. But even among those who support the viewpoint, no one would argue that this means human societies should promote infidelity or rape. Nor does it mean that humans should not consciously work to override what, in our present society, is a negative evolutionary inheritance. More generally for any trait, even if it was useful in our evolutionary past, this does not mean it remains so today. This extends to any supposed “God gene” as well.
Finally, Wade’s assertions move from the distorted and incorrect to the truly absurd. He correctly notes that a supposed evolutionary basis for religion would “neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods.” The problem is that the rest of the article implies that this point is largely irrelevant. That is, he argues that, if religion has the “benefits” he proposes, we should support religion even if its most fundamental assertion is false.
I’m sorry. To travel from what is at best a questionable premise to a conclusion that we should all close our eyes and support a belief even if it has no more veracity than a fairy tale — borders on the ridiculous.
Once again, I am a bit mystified that the New York Times saw fit to publish this article, which now amounts to “strike two” for Wade. Maybe, one more and he’s out.
As for Wade himself, he has just published a book titled “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.” I’m guessing that the God Gene column amounts to a summary of and promotion for his book.
NPR flunks evolution
May 1st
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.”
Gallup poll and evolution folly
Aug 29th
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.