tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3288547570224213287..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Praise the Lord for Matt NisbetRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30389861523493203562009-05-31T03:50:34.334+10:002009-05-31T03:50:34.334+10:00Can you imagine the fireworks if the NAS position ...Can you imagine the fireworks if the NAS position on religion was simply limited to what science actually says about religious claims?<br /><br />That the historicity of Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed; the existence of gods, an afterlife, the power of prayer, or the human soul are all rendered implausible by modern science?<br /><br />I guess we can only imagine.gingerbakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17733990028859147672009-04-01T09:52:00.000+11:002009-04-01T09:52:00.000+11:00Note that rx7ward's comment is addressed to Matt, ...Note that rx7ward's comment is addressed to Matt, not to me (since there was some confusion earlier on the thread).Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43681622575201187292009-04-01T09:35:00.000+11:002009-04-01T09:35:00.000+11:00Just wanted to say I do love well-written sarcasm....Just wanted to say I do love well-written sarcasm.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343991979774985022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-33705298966463508082009-04-01T05:51:00.000+11:002009-04-01T05:51:00.000+11:00The key word here is "respect". If respect means "...The key word here is "respect". If respect means "I'll let you poison my kids with religious nonsense", than I don't and I don't have to respect religions. If "respect" means in search for "truth", you as an individual bow before religious nonsense, again there is no reason for me to "respect" your behaviour more than I show "respect" to an "alchemist" or to an "astrologist".Ergun Coruhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14599942073095772399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48173723134353265262009-04-01T02:08:00.000+11:002009-04-01T02:08:00.000+11:00As a working biologist, who must constantly "prove...As a working biologist, who must constantly "prove" the value of my work to get grants to do basic research on dementia, I'm sick of accommodationists like Nesbit. I'm sick and tired of being told that I should leave the defense and promulgation of scientific values to "communications experts" who use the platform for their own aggrandizement.<BR/><BR/>Considering that such discussions have concrete repercussions on the long-term viability prospects of our species and our planet, stances such as Nesbit's are little short of immoral.Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipnivan.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18413528548314213962009-04-01T02:01:00.000+11:002009-04-01T02:01:00.000+11:00"how they used public opinion data and evidence--a..."how they used public opinion data and evidence--actually listening to their audience--before trying to communicate with them about a complex and sometimes controversial area of science"<BR/><BR/>This quoted comment of yours, and your article, seem to imply that the NAS is endorsing the use of false information to entice religious believers into an acceptance of science. This comment of yours in particular seems to be advocating the use of people's prejudices against them. How is this ethical?rx7wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08759251856286455060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-70233296139668728092009-04-01T01:27:00.000+11:002009-04-01T01:27:00.000+11:00Matt, the problem is that, in my reasonably well-i...Matt, the problem is that, in my reasonably well-informed opinion, religion and science are NOT compatible - at least not in any simple sense. Some religious doctrines are plainly incompatible with well-established science. Others are very difficult to reconcile with science. Those that retreat from any tension with science tend to have little substance (and to bear little resemblance to popular and traditional theology).<BR/><BR/>Obviously, many scientists and philosophers disagree with me. But many agree, and they are quite entitled to say so. It is simply wrong for an organisation like the NAS to take a position on such a controversial philosophical issue.<BR/><BR/>I realise, of course, that the NAS has taken such a position for a long time now. Obviously my post was satirical, but my readers can see for themselves the actual details of your own post. Be those details as they may, the stance adopted by the NAS can only be explained as having been adopted for public relations reasons. I find it unethical that such a body would take such a stance on such a controversial matter for such a reason.<BR/><BR/>This is compounded by the extraordinary lengths that it has recently gone to, on your own account, to emphasise and elaborate this position, in order to make its stance more palatable to the American public. <BR/><BR/>Here we have a professional organisation expending great efforts to market a highly controversial philosophical view (one that, again, I consider false or at best massively simplistic), and basing its decision on market research that a changed emphasis would be helpful for PR purposes. In doing so, it enlisted Francisco Ayala - a scientist whose views about the relationship between evolution and religion are open to powerful criticisms and are, once again, highly controversial - to give it advice.<BR/><BR/>I stand by the view that even if we try to state more precisely what has happened here, it is an abuse of the position of the NAS to take sides on such a controversial matter for such a political reason. The decision in 2008 to put renewed emphasis on this message of "full compatibility" merely compounds the abuse.<BR/><BR/>Given that I see the NAS as having acted unethically (and, yes, for some time now ... though to a lesser extent), I am flabbergasted that it is Dawkins whom you accuse of acting unethically.<BR/><BR/>An individual philosopher, scientist, theologian, or anyone else is quite entitled, legally or morally, to put his or her views on the relationship between religion and science. I have no problem with Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala doing it, and I had no problem with Stephen Jay Gould doing it. I have no problem with Alister McGrath doing it if it comes to that. You don't need to be a philosopher - scientists and theologians are welcome to take part in the debate. But there likewise should be no objection to Dawkins having his say on the issue. Each of these individuals represents only himself. None purports to put an official view on behalf of others.<BR/><BR/>When you set aside the satirical style that I chose on this occasion, Matt, the main thrust of my comment is that you have totally misunderstood where you should be laying ethical blame. It certainly should not be with Dawkins.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you might take this critique of you position into account when you revise your book chapter. I fear, however, that you are, by now, so committed to your crusade against Dawkins that both this comment and my more frivolously-worded original post will fall on deaf ears.<BR/><BR/>It's up to you how you respond the criticism that you're receiving from me and others. Obviously, you're free to believe and say what you like, but I do urge you to give this serious thought.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>RussellRussell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46469887554220456732009-04-01T01:21:00.000+11:002009-04-01T01:21:00.000+11:00Excellent post Doctor Doctor. However, just wait t...Excellent post Doctor Doctor. However, just wait to see 'the must give religion respect' line being quote mined by creotards and concern trolls in 3..2..1.. :)John Phillips, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80548584437127178812009-04-01T00:29:00.000+11:002009-04-01T00:29:00.000+11:00Russell,Market research was not used to decide the...Russell,<BR/>Market research was not used to decide the position of the NAS, nor the 20 professional scientific organizations in the editorial at FASEB that endorsed the themes in the booklet. These organizations have had a long standing position on science and religion that has emphasized compatibility. The audience research indicated that emphasizing this long standing position was an effective way to communicate about evolution.<BR/><BR/>I suggest taking a look at what NAS staffers wrote in an article at Life Sciences Education about how they used public opinion data and evidence--actually listening to their audience--before trying to communicate with them about a complex and sometimes controversial area of science.<BR/><BR/>http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/20?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Pope&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCITMatthew Nisbetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80788903781269672552009-04-01T00:05:00.000+11:002009-04-01T00:05:00.000+11:00I'm honoured to see that Jerry Coyne has now poste...I'm honoured to see that Jerry Coyne has now posted on this over on his blog:<BR/><BR/>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/russell-blackford-goes-after-faithscience-compatibility/Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73984591311081863812009-03-31T23:56:00.000+11:002009-03-31T23:56:00.000+11:00Nice post. Perhaps we, as rationalists, should be ...Nice post. Perhaps we, as rationalists, should be nicer to those desperate for a slice of respect, without having to do all that 'earning' nonsense. <BR/><BR/>I sometimes feel like I'm being unethical when arguing with the religiously-hampered, as it can seem like swatting a fly with a coconut.<BR/><BR/>Fun though.The Juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10051844634899994750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59320758404095661382009-03-31T23:52:00.000+11:002009-03-31T23:52:00.000+11:00"You want a religious person to answer in the way ..."You want a religious person to answer in the way you expect him to answer, so as to confirm your stereotype. "<BR/><BR/>David, I take your point and I'll correct my response. Believers don't think that religious belief is special and above criticism; they think that THEIR religious belief is special and above criticism. My response was based on discussions with many religious people, including some family members, every single one of whom thought any criticism was 'disrespectful'. So if I'm seeing a stereotype it's because every believer I've met fits it :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61819254268568101452009-03-31T22:56:00.000+11:002009-03-31T22:56:00.000+11:00ES,Thanks, and you might be surprised. As in all t...ES,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, and you might be surprised. As in all things it is the fringe that makes the most noise.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48644818610839468302009-03-31T22:51:00.001+11:002009-03-31T22:51:00.001+11:00Anonymous "No star to Heddle for answering Evolvin...Anonymous <BR/><BR/>"<I>No star to Heddle for answering Evolving Squid's questions in such a way as to suggest ES is being petty when he (Heddle) knows perfectly well that a huge number, if not the vast majority, of believers DO think that religious belief is special and above criticism.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I see. It is not that you want a religious person such as myself to answer. (And such an anomaly I am, being a conservative Baptist in the American south!) You want a religious person to answer in the <I>way you expect him to answer</I>, so as to confirm your stereotype. It would have been easier if EvolvingSquid made that clear! But that's fine--now I get the rules.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24405569100624920452009-03-31T22:51:00.000+11:002009-03-31T22:51:00.000+11:00Definitely good answers heddle. I wish more relig...Definitely good answers heddle. I wish more religious folk thought as you do!Evolving Squidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652337040136033626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73682678271390668182009-03-31T22:41:00.000+11:002009-03-31T22:41:00.000+11:00WELL DONE!I was getting quite frustrated until I d...WELL DONE!<BR/><BR/>I was getting quite frustrated until I discovered that it was sarcastic :)RonBrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00865095009548611553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55017170283433520952009-03-31T22:36:00.000+11:002009-03-31T22:36:00.000+11:00A Gold Star to Hank Bones for realising his mistak...A Gold Star to Hank Bones for realising his mistake and accepting criticism with good humour.<BR/><BR/>No star to Heddle for answering Evolving Squid's questions in such a way as to suggest ES is being petty when he (Heddle) knows perfectly well that a huge number, if not the vast majority, of believers DO think that religious belief is special and above criticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26576231517207002822009-03-31T20:57:00.000+11:002009-03-31T20:57:00.000+11:00Excellent blog.Comment by Heddle: good answers. No...Excellent blog.<BR/><BR/>Comment by Heddle: good answers. No doubt you will be standing up for the right to blaspheme on September 30th.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90864048718720888162009-03-31T20:39:00.000+11:002009-03-31T20:39:00.000+11:00EvolvingSquid:"It goes without saying, I hope, tha...EvolvingSquid:<BR/><I>"It goes without saying, I hope, that my questions are intended for religious people, which means it may not get answered here."</I><BR/><BR/>I am a very religious person, as some who posted comments here can attest. I'd like to take a shot at Evolving Squid's questions since he said they were intended for religious people.<BR/><BR/>Q1: Why is religious faith special?<BR/><BR/>A: It's not. It is a matter of personal choice.<BR/><BR/>Q2: Why is religious faith not required to EARN respect, as we teach our children and generally expect of everyone else in society?<BR/><BR/>A: It <I>is</I> required to earn respect.<BR/><BR/>Q3: By what special providence is religous faith set on this pedestal above other beliefs?<BR/><BR/>A: None. It is <I>not</I> set on a pedestal above other beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Q4: Why can a religious belief not be criticized like any other belief?<BR/><BR/>A: It can be and often is. Aren’t you doing it?<BR/><BR/>Q5: Why do the religious feel they are owed respect?<BR/><BR/>A: We don't—just respect our right to practice our religion. You do not have to like us personally or avoid criticizing our beliefs. In fact, go for it! (Request: Try to be clever though—try to be more like Bertrand Russell and less like Richard Dawkins—it makes the criticism more interesting. But of course you are not <I>obligated</I> to be smart in your criticism. That is, you too must earn respect.)<BR/><BR/>Q6: Why do the religious feel they should not have to earn respect?<BR/><BR/>A: Is there some difference between "EARN respect" (Q2) and "earn respect" (Q6)? Because I think you already asked this. I'll repeat my answer: we do have to earn respect.<BR/><BR/>Q7: Just how far does the blanket pronouncement on respect for religious belief extend?<BR/><BR/>A: There is no blanket pronouncement on respect for religious belief. You are not required to respect my beliefs. My beliefs in fact predict that you won't respect my beliefs. I don't give a rat's ass that you don't respect my beliefs.heddlehttp://helives.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34203384989436615962009-03-31T19:46:00.000+11:002009-03-31T19:46:00.000+11:00Well done, Dr. Dr. Russell. Enjoyed the snark gre...Well done, Dr. Dr. Russell. Enjoyed the snark greatly. Bisous.<BR/><BR/>Nisbet is an liability to the field of Communications.Logicelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-23314435896849523062009-03-31T19:44:00.000+11:002009-03-31T19:44:00.000+11:00Excellent evisceration, Mr. Blackford.On Nisbet's...Excellent evisceration, Mr. Blackford.<BR/><BR/>On Nisbet's blog, several people pointed out the recent intrusion of a particular religious figure -- *cough*Pope*cough* -- in regards to the efficacy of condoms in preventing AIDS. This, of course has the real-world potential of human death as a result of such meddling. <BR/><BR/>Yet, Nisbet's position brands scientists who speak out against such frankly evil pseudoscience as "immoral" because they're not placating the scientifically illiterate masses. <BR/><BR/>I imagine Nisbet might have advised Galileo to say (apocryphally) "Well, maybe it [the Earth] *doesn't* move and the Biblical Joshua's "miracle" in stopping the SUN from "moving" was just a matter of relative truth and we'd all have been better served by playing to the polls." <BR/><BR/>Nisbet is a genuinely deserving target since, ultimately, he's arguing that dishonesty is of greater ethical/moral value.deadman_932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28856906663646959022009-03-31T18:32:00.000+11:002009-03-31T18:32:00.000+11:00Nisbet's concerned; I'm concerned. I'm lecturing t...Nisbet's concerned; <I>I'm</I> concerned. I'm lecturing today on excitation-contraction coupling in skeletal muscle and I am unfamiliar with any market research that might shed light on what narratives to which I might inadvertantly be giving resonance. And I don't have time to convene a focus group! Can anybody help? Ozzy?Sven DiMIlonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18642262839115293182009-03-31T17:39:00.000+11:002009-03-31T17:39:00.000+11:00A PhD and pharyngulation,all in one day,wow !!I al...A PhD and pharyngulation,all in one day,wow !!<BR/><BR/>I also notice from your well written post that Nisbet is concerned.clinteasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36968924594829084452009-03-31T16:55:00.000+11:002009-03-31T16:55:00.000+11:00Okay, I've read the new E. Squad comment. So you w...Okay, I've read the new E. Squad comment. So you were just playing along, yes?Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12007562709894572532009-03-31T16:53:00.000+11:002009-03-31T16:53:00.000+11:00Um, Evolving Squid ... er, I'm just wondering whet...Um, Evolving Squid ... er, I'm just wondering whether you read the whole post.<BR/><BR/>I thought I was laying on the sarcasm a bit too thick, if anything. I suppose I should be relieved at the confusion I've caused a couple of people ... I must have been more subtle than I thought.<BR/><BR/>Can I step back into character now, or do I need to explain? ...Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.com