Myers is a biologist and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, but he's better known as the author of Pharyngula, one of the most popular blogs on the internet. Saturday, he posted his statement to the audience at the panel discussion, and it's really something.
Here's an excerpt:
We have been treading water for 50 years. In one sense, that's a very good thing: better to stay afloat in one place than to sink, and I am deeply appreciative of organizations like the NCSE that have kept us bobbing at the surface all this time, and please don't ever stop. But isn't it also about time we learned a new stroke and actually made some progress towards the shore? Shouldn't we move beyond just reacting to every assault by Idiot America on science education, and honestly look at the root causes of this chronic malignancy and do something about it?
The sea our country is drowning in is a raging religiosity, wave after wave of ignorant arguments and ideological absurdities pushed by tired dogma and fervent and frustrated fanatics. We keep hearing that the answer is to find the still waters of a more moderate faith, but I'm sorry, I don't feel like drowning there either.
There is an answer, and it's on display right here in this room. The solution, the only longterm solution, is the sanity of secularism. The lesser struggles to keep silly stickers off our textbooks or to keep pseudoscientific BS like intelligent design out of our classrooms are important, but they are endless chores -- at some point we just have to stop pandering to the ideological noise that spawns these unending tasks and cut right to the source: religion.
That's where the Gnu Atheists get their confrontational reputation. We're fed up with fighting off the symptoms. We need to address the disease. And if you're one of those people trying to defend superstition and quivering in fear at the idea of taking on a majority that believes in foolishness, urging us to continue slapping bandages on the blight of faith, well then, you're part of the problem and we'll probably do something utterly dreadful, like be rude to you or write some cutting sarcastic essay to mock your position. That is our métier, after all.
There is another motive for our confrontational ways, and it has to do with values. We talk a lot about values in this country, so I kind of hate to use the word -- it's been tainted by the religious right, which howls about "Christian values" every time the subject of civil rights for gays or equal rights for women or universal health care or improving the plight of the poor come up -- True Christian values are agin' those things, after all. But the Gnu Atheists have values, too, and premiere among them is truth. And that makes us uncivil and rude, because we challenge the truth of religion.
Religion provides solace to millions, we are told, it makes them happy, and it's mostly harmless.
"But is it true?", we ask, as if it matters.
The religious are the majority, we hear over and over again, and we need to be pragmatic and diplomatic in dealing with them.
"But is what they believe true?", we ask, and "What do we gain by compromising on reality?"
Religion isn't the problem, they claim, it's only the extremists and zealots and weirdos. The majority of believers are moderates and even share some values with us.
"But is a moderate superstition true?", we repeat, and "How can a myth be made more true if its proponents are simply calmer in stating it?"
I mean, it's nice and all that most Christians aren't out chanting "God Hates Fags" and are a little embarrassed when some yokel whines that he didn't come from no monkey, but they still go out and quietly vote against gay and lesbian rights, and they still sit at home while their school boards set fire to good science.
It's all about the truth, people. And all the evidence is crystal clear right now: the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Evolution is a real, and it is a process built on raw chance driven by the brutal engines of selection, and there is no sign of a loving, personal god, but only billions of years of pitiless winnowing without any direction other than short-term survival and reproduction. It's not pretty, it's not consoling, it doesn't sanctify virginity, or tell you that god really loves your foreskin, but it's got one soaring virtue that trumps all the others: it's true.
Great stuff, isn't it? See why Pharyngula is so popular? I don't always agree with Myers, but there's not much I can disagree with here, or in the rest of his statement, either. If you expect him to pussyfoot around about this stuff, you don't know PZ Myers.
Atheists have no dogma and no elected or appointed leaders. We don't always agree among ourselves (why should we?), and we're rarely shy about expressing our opinions. This particular disagreement, confrontation vs. accommodation, is currently a hot issue in our community - probably the hot issue, in fact.
One side argues that anger and ridicule aren't going to persuade anyone, and that, unless we respect religious belief, we might lose allies in such important issues as science education and the separation of church and state. After all, the vast majority of Americans are religious believers, and equating science with atheism is likely to turn them away from science. They often argue that the so-called "new atheists" have done more harm than good.
The other side argues that being polite hasn't done much good, either. Heck, 150 years after Darwin, only 40% of Americans even accept evolution, the foundation of modern biology. If ridicule doesn't help, neither does gentle persuasion, apparently. The "new atheists" are at least getting noticed, which is more than could be said for the "old atheists." And their passion is infectious. (BTW, "gnu atheists" is just a way of poking fun at the whole idea of "new" atheists.)
In general, I'm firmly on Myers' side of things. But what does that really mean? All of us strongly support freedom of religion and the strict separation of church and state. You have the right to believe whatever you want. You don't, however, have the right to demand that I respect those beliefs. I don't. I respect your right to hold them, but that's a completely different thing.
None of us, "new" atheists or old, disrupt church services or picket funerals. We don't push atheism on the elderly as they lay dying, or tell grieving parents how stupid they are to find solace anywhere they can get it. We don't even go door to door as atheist missionaries. When you think about it, we're all pretty much - pardon the expression - choirboys.
But we "confrontational" atheists insist that we have as much right to our opinions as you do to yours. And we have the right to express those opinions, too. We're not going to stay in the closet. (Surely, that's something we've all learned from the gay community, haven't we? You've got to be out in the open if you ever hope for equal rights.)
I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that I disagree with you. But why should they be? My feelings aren't hurt when you disagree with me. And why should religion automatically get my respect, especially when the reverse is never true. We get presidents claiming that atheists aren't patriots and probably can't even be considered citizens. Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had said that about any other religious minority?
I'm always pleased to have religious allies when working on other issues, such as maintaining America's separation of church and state. We don't agree about everything? So what? I don't agree with anyone about everything. Why should our disagreement about religion make any difference at all? The fact is, no matter what your belief, you're in a minority in this world. Every religion - and every form of non-belief, too - is a minority position.
But just as I don't expect you to stay in the closet about your religious beliefs, to avoid offending me, I claim the same freedom for myself. I'm not a second-class citizen. I have the same rights as you. If you expect me to stay quiet, well, why should I?
And yes, I think that religious belief is just superstition. It's just wishful thinking. You may firmly believe in your religion, but that belief would be just as firm about some other religion if you'd been born in another place or another time. The vast majority of believers were raised in their belief. That's why different beliefs are prominent in different parts of the world. Yes, your religion is simply an accident of birth.
Science, on the other hand, is about evidence. You don't see a different science in Iran and yet another in India. The scientific consensus is worldwide. There's disagreement, yes. And scientists being human beings, you can find individuals with almost any beliefs. But as more and more evidence is accumulated, science tends toward greater and greater consensus.
That's because any scientist can see the evidence for himself, even perform the experiment for himself. It's not just dogma written in an ancient text. You can test scientific claims for yourself (well, scientists can, since these things often require equipment and some education). You can examine and critique research methods. Science is not about faith. You get the same results whether you believe in it or not.
And when you reject science because it contradicts your religious faith, I can't respect that. Rejecting reality for fantasy is simply not worthy of my respect. Yes, I understand that you want to believe, but when you're wrong, you're wrong. Accept that you made a mistake and move on. Why should I respect anything else?
I respect you, of course, as a human being, with rights equal to my own. But I don't have to respect your beliefs, any more than I have to respect your actions. Even then, there's a time and place for everything. If I'm a missionary, I'm a lot less intrusive than most. You have the right to your privacy, too. But you don't have the right to never see or hear an atheist.
I've been an atheist all my life, as far as I can remember, but when I was a child, I never knew another nonbeliever. If there were any in my community, they kept themselves hidden. But when I grew older, I was astonished to learn of prominent atheists and agnostics in the 19th Century (not to mention presidents who didn't believe in a personal god). People like Robert G. Ingersoll were quite prominent in the Golden Age of Freethought.
So what happened? I don't know. Race relations in America were also better in the last quarter of the 19th Century than later in the 20th. Did two world wars and the Great Depression put a premium on conformity? At any rate, the so-called "new atheists" certainly seem to have revived things these days. I can hardly look on that as being a mistake.
And besides, there's plenty of room for different tactics. If you want to be respectful of religion, to curtail your criticism, to use gentle persuasion in an attempt to change minds, be my guest. In fact, I wish you well. And who knows? Maybe a "good cop, bad cop" routine will work the best of all. :)
Posts
8 comments:
I go to church but I'm also for gay rights and believe in evolution.
I don't know if Myers was just joking or really thinks that everyone that goes to church is a fundamentalist.
No, of course he doesn't, John. But opposition to these things is always based in religion. (So-called "Intelligent Design," which used to be called "Creation Science," and before that, "Creationism," is simply a continuation of the never-ending struggle to get religion in public schools.)
Furthermore, moderate and liberal believers actually support the worst elements of religious belief simply by agreeing with them that faith is a valid way to determine the truth. Suicide bombers and creationists alike operate on faith, not evidence. You may think they're wrong, but it's just your faith against their faith. You may disagree on the details, but you still think their way of thinking is valid.
I don't want to speak for Myers, but I say that faith is not a valid way of determining the truth. Even when you come up with the right answer, your method is wrong. (After all, students can guess the right answer to a math problem, but that's not a valid way to solve math problems in general. That's why they need to show their work on tests.)
Of course, religion must depend on faith, because the evidence simply isn't there to support it. Believers really have no choice, if they want to keep believing (and they do). True, they will eagerly accept any evidence that seems to support their existing beliefs, but not contrary evidence. So, inevitably, they must fall back on faith.
Almost all human beings really want to believe (understandably). Even scientists aren't immune to that, which is why some scientists are still believers. But to my mind, only evidence-based thinking is valid. (You can call it "reason," but it still must be backed up by evidence.)
Faith is just a way of believing what you've been told since you were a child (which is why it's different in different parts of the world). It's just a way of believing what you want to believe. When you rely on evidence, you can determine when you're wrong. With faith, you can't do that.
And since faith normally depends on ancient dogma, believers tend to hang on to outdated beliefs. Eventually, sure, liberal Christians start to ignore the worst parts of the Bible - the support of slavery, of killing witches and heretics, of genocide, of unabashed patriarchy - but somehow, they still maintain that faith is valid.
Well, fundamentalists seem to have more faith than you do. After all, they still believe even the loony stuff. They haven't been tempted by reason, by evidence-based thinking, which is the snake in your garden.
You know it's funny. A lot of the religious people I talk to tell me that they became more religious when they experienced something they felt like science couln't explain. I myself have never experience anything of this sort. Stuff like sudden healing of cancer or diseases, or visitations, messages from God.
I'm sure you'd consider folks like this to be mistaken. And like I said, I haven't expereinced anything I can't explain with science.
But they don't think they're being unsensible. They are sure they've expereinced something beyond science.
No doubt, John. But it's easy to fool yourself, especially when you really want to be fooled. After all, there's nothing necessarily supernatural about cancer remission or sudden healing of any disease. (Did any of them regrow an amputated limb? That at least would be notable.)
When people really want to believe, they'll overlook natural explanations. Sometimes, I talk to amateur gamblers, who seem to have the biggest bunch of superstitions in the world. Everything they think is significant isn't significant at all. Just the expected variation of random chance.
So yes, it's true that evidence-based thinking requires the ability to distinguish real evidence from coincidence and normal statistical distribution. And more importantly, it requires the desire to make that distinction, too.
Bill, I don't know what kind of atheist I am, but I feel trying to convince religious people not to believe in God is like PETA trying to convince dogs and cats they should be vegetarians.
I do think we're evolving away from superstition, but it's going to take a very long time. Did you see the recent three part documentary on PBS called God in America?
http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/
Religion is deeply programmed into people. I think atheism will just be another movement, and it will take time spread.
You may be right, Jim, but how do you explain the rapid secularization of Europe? Attitudes in Great Britain seem to be changing particularly fast, with the British Social Attitudes Survey showing only 25% of the population believing in God (although 50% still consider themselves Christians, apparently).
43% of British admit to having no religion, compared to 23% who say they're Church of England. But half of the later group NEVER attend church services. All of these figures have been changing drastically in recent decades.
I tend to think that non-belief must reach a certain level before it even seems like an option to most people. A handful of atheists and agnostics will just seem like oddities. But get enough of us out of the closet and people will start seeing non-belief as... normal.
PS. No, I didn't see that documentary.
Maybe we need to move to Europe Bill.
I find that figure of only 25% of people in Great Britain believing in God suspect. And I can understand people considering themselves Christians without believing in God, although it would be fascinating to come up with a concrete list of philosophical positions that people consider Christian.
If Europe is more rational about religion, does that mean they are more rational about ESP, UFOs, water witching, ghosts, past lives, etc?
Good question, Jim, but I don't know. I started to look at polls on these things, but I was finding wildly different numbers on different polls (that 1/3 or 1/2 of Americans believe in ghosts, for example).
This post at UK-Skeptics seems to indicate that things aren't perfect across the pond, either. But I'm not sure we can reliably compare poll numbers.
Well, maybe I'll look into it a little further some other time.
Post a Comment