There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism; I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.
Competition with the Soviet Union had various effects. The teaching of evolution, I believe, only became integrated in the U.S. public education system after the USSR launched ‘sputnik’ in 1959 and a panic developed among the U.S. ruling class over the quality of science education. More broadly speaking, the New Deal itself was implemented consciously as an antidote to the spread of pro-communist attitudes among U.S. workers, and expressed in growing labor militancy and communist-led unions during the Great Depression.
In my view the all out-attacks on the legacy of the New Deal we’ve seen under both Clinton and Bush, the renewed attacks on teaching evolution and the general encouragement of religious credulity among the population can certainly be seen as byproducts of the destruction of the USSR.
That said, the ‘new atheism’ appears to be 1. a widely-felt response, to 8 years of creeping religiosity in all areas of public life, and 2. an opportunity (under cover of general anti-religious sentiments) for certain elements of the liberal intelligentsia (Harris, Hitchens et al.) to rally ‘progressive’ support to the occupation of Iraq, Gitmo, torture, rendition and all other aspects of the racist ‘War on Terror’.
There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism; I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.
Competition with the Soviet Union had various effects. The teaching of evolution, I believe, only became integrated in the U.S. public education system after the USSR launched ‘sputnik’ in 1959 and a panic developed among the U.S. ruling class over the quality of science education. More broadly speaking, the New Deal itself was implemented consciously as an antidote to the spread of pro-communist attitudes among U.S. workers, and expressed in growing labor militancy and communist-led unions during the Great Depression.
In my view the all out-attacks on the legacy of the New Deal we’ve seen under both Clinton and Bush, the renewed attacks on teaching evolution and the general encouragement of religious credulity among the population can certainly be seen as byproducts of the destruction of the USSR.
That said, the ‘new atheism’ appears to be 1. a widely-felt response, to 8 years of creeping religiosity in all areas of public life, and 2. an opportunity (under cover of general anti-religious sentiments) for certain elements of the liberal intelligentsia (Harris, Hitchens et al.) to rally ‘progressive’ support to the occupation of Iraq, Gitmo, torture, rendition and all other aspects of the racist ‘War on Terror’.
Balak
I disagree -that’s not how I see it --- as I mentioned, I think there was a tendency to emphasize religion in response to the Soviet Union’s atheism, and this is reflected in the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge of allegience. I don’t think anyone could have successfully promoted atheism during the time of the Soviet Union because they would have been seen as unpatriotic. Science education in general was encouraged, however, especially aftet Sputnik and in the moon race. I disagree with attaching some sort of religious or anti-religous spin to the promotion of science at that time (certainly not as part of the Apollo program).
I also think Balak goes overboard with comments about a “ruling class"or “racist ‘War on Terror’ “.
Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist. Even if there are some worthwhile features of religion which are important to society, God doesn’t exist. You can be a Republican; you can support democracy in Iraq; God still doesn’t exist.
Well, Balak is sort of suggesting that the rise in ‘religiosity’ is a by-product of the passing of the Soviet Union, while I’m suggesting that the passing of the Soviet Union actually made it possible to bring up atheism in the US without being considered unpatriotic. Of course after 9/11 things changed further.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, Jackson. It does not appear at first blush that he would disagree with some of your statements, your opinion below could be seen as added to his views.
Jackson - 02 March 2008 06:06 PM
Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist.
But, this statement to me looks false (as a statement about the “new atheist"), IMHO. I say this first because as Dawkins and Stenger have proposed, the God question is a scientific question. As a scientific question I think it could be safely said it is highly unlikely that God exist (as Dawkins argues at length), but not the statement “God doesn’t exist” (though my opinion on this may be different). I point this out partly to reflect on the idea that I’ve not heard any of the “new atheist” say “God doesn’t exist”. I don’t think any of them think a God exist, but great effort has been made by Dawkins and Harris to keep this and other religious claims in the scientific realm. Also, it would appear to me that your statement misses a host of opinions that have been offered by Dennett, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens about religion in general, politics and the undo respect given to beliefs (even the broadsides Harris proposes about liberal and moderate religionist, which mirrors et. al opinions of Wilson, Atran, Haidt, etc.). It is a widely held opinion that if we stopped being so respectful towards religious beliefs they might just wither and die off. I think there is important differences and critiques of the “new atheist” opinions on these issues. But, even here we find a strained disagreement about at what level do we place the goal.
But, this statement to me looks false (as a statement about the “new atheist"), IMHO. I say this first because as Dawkins and Stenger have proposed, the God question is a scientific question. As a scientific question I think it could be safely said it is highly unlikely that God exist (as Dawkins argues at length), but not the statement “God doesn’t exist”
I agree, the qualification makes the conclusion stronger, not weaker in respect to believers, simply because it leaves them in the position of having to supply even a mustard seed worth of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Another strong point of Nisbett’s argument (though insufficiently developed in the interview) is to point out the social/structural basis for growth of religiosity in U.S. society, the lack of economic security among broad layers of people that push them toward the false hope and comfort offered by belief in a ‘personal savior’ who can step in where there’s no socialized medicine, and the real - though limited - support provided by a ready-made social network in an atomized society. These points are rarely, if ever, touched by the ‘new atheism’ - underlining, in my opinion, its lack of a genuinely scientific approach to the question of religion (as opposed to gods).
I understand that D.J. plays the devil’s advocate, but it sounded even beyond the devil’s domain to ask; “so basically Matt, you’re saying, we need to solve all the world’s problems before we advance atheism, secular humanism etc.”. Perhaps that question comes out of the recognition that many who hear Nisbet will actually believe this and will in fact argue that idea.
Reductio ad absurdum- I cringed at that too.
Great guest, great topic.
Speaking of spurious arguments, what about the special pleading Dawkins and his like minded fellows employ presuming science somehow supports atheism? Duh, it’s about as scientific as intelligent design theory, meaning it takes philosophical liberties with science, but isn’t science. Philosophically, such arguments for atheism have more in common with traditional natural theology than modern science.
It’s important that science defenders like Nisbet step in to remind folks of this. At least I think it’s time for a reminder - I’m getting sick of trying to defend science against creationist encroachers while watching science’s defenders increasingly using the same gimmicks creationists use in order to pretend science proves there is a god, only using them instead to say science can prove atheism.
I have no problem with atheism. I’m an atheist, and maybe just one of only a rare few atheists out there that have never felt pressured to keep it in the closet, nor to make excuses for it. But those who pretend that arguments for God violate the Popperian creed while arguments against God do not are playing by their own weird set of rules, not science’s.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, Jackson. It does not appear at first blush that he would disagree with some of your statements, your opinion below could be seen as added to his views.
Jackson - 02 March 2008 06:06 PM
Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist.
Perhaps it would be better to say that in my opinion, the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and apologetic statement about reality and truth—and the lack of evidence for God’s existence.
But I also noted it is different things for different people.
Well, Balak is sort of suggesting that the rise in ‘religiosity’ is a by-product of the passing of the Soviet Union, while I’m suggesting that the passing of the Soviet Union actually made it possible to bring up atheism in the US without being considered unpatriotic. Of course after 9/11 things changed further.
I’ll have to back track a bit here. I would have responded to what you’re saying here, Jackson, as it pertained to my confusion over disagreement, but this was not possible do to the fact you have added this insight post my response. I must admit I still do not see a “disagreement”, but this is neither here nor there and could be just my over look. The rise in religiosity by Balak’s thesis does not seem to counter your proposal that the rise in atheism (or sense of freedom to express) in that they may share the same causal occurrence (all things being equal). It’s an interesting phenomenon and I share your view that atheism (secular humanism) was able to gain more ground after the cold war for the reasons you state. Here I would point to my old friends work, Austin Cline, who has been doing fantastic work over at about.com for many years now. HERE
I tend to agree with what he says here:
Austin -
Transforming anti-communism into anti-godlessness, though, required turning America even more against atheists, agnostics, liberal religious believers, and skeptics of various sorts. Religious doubters and skeptics were transformed into not just an enemy of religious institutions, but of political institutions as well — a Cold War legacy which continues to affect American politics today.
I have seen posters from this time that I would consider fairly grotesque that depicted god-less atheist as giant devils destroying towns and eating people.
The rise in religiosity in this country is also an interesting area to look at, as Balak does. I do not see the two theories as mutual exclusive. The ending of the cold war left a strange void (for a lack of better term at the moment) in identifying who our enemy was. With a certain level of relief suddenly came an increase in anxiety over what was to become of the dissolving Soviet empire. A great deal of the credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union and what was being witnessed at the end of the cold war was credited to Ronald Reagan’s administration which had a powerful ally in the religious right. At this time the religious right and the “moral majority” (and later with groups such as the Christian Coalition) were stroking politics as virtually never seen. As a cultural phenomenon I think I’m fairly safe to say that with these events, and of course others, we witnessed a renewed religiosity that, IMHO, was all to willing to capitalize on pubic fears.
I suppose I should emphasize that what I am referring to with religiosity is mainly a more vocal, political and influential organizing. I should also add that my opinion on atheist gaining ground is more to the point where breathing room developed in that the connection of the god-less feared Soviet communist and atheism was/is becoming meaningless. Of course this I think is a slow process given the propaganda used in these efforts and the age of the population through the process. Also, the rise of the religious right had been building before the collapse of the Soviet Union and there were direct reactions to what was happening by such people as Paul Kurtz. It is my understanding that the Council for Secular Humanism mainly found it’s impetus for organizing to confront the “moral majority”. We are of course still faced with notions such as the U.S. is (should be) a religious country at it’s core and that atheist (secular humanist etc.) lack morals (or to become “atheist” is to hold no moral foundation).
On the other side of the equation as outlined by M above, it is useful to recall that the racist “War on Terror” itself had its roots in the Cold War against the former USSR.
Though it moves a bit away from the initial topic, I found this quotation in a fascinating online following the history of an Afghan-American family:
[B]efore 9/11 all American administrations–Republican and Democratic alike–had encouraged Muslim reaction as a weapon against “godless Communism.” John Foster Dulles’ Cold War manual War or Peace (1950) articulated that policy: ”The religions of the East are deeply rooted and have many precious values. Their spiritual beliefs cannot be reconciled with Communist atheism and materialism. That creates a common bond between us, and our task is to find it and develop it.”
If there was no conflict between science and religion we would not be having a debate about how science must be “framed” especially for religious believers in order to allow them to accept it. If religious believers are only going to accept the findings of science on the condition that they can be “framed” (forged in my opinion) to not contradict irrational beliefs for bad reasons, then whatever else we can get them to accept hardly has any value anyway. As I see it there really is a zero-sum conflict between religion and science, and it is not simply just about evolution vs. creationism or even naturalism vs. supernaturalism. The deeper conflict as i see it is not between different conclusions at all, but different ways of reaching conclusions - in short: right vs. wrong reasons to believe. Wrong reasons are reasons that don’t discriminate between true and false propositions, such as authority, tradition, revelation, old habit, wishful thinking, a “gutfeeling” etc. Those who believe in God have no choice but to rely on wrong reasons (that’s what “faith” means) because no other reasons are available. Never mind arguments such as these. Excuses to believe are not the same as reasons to believe and rationalization is not the same as rationality.
I often hear the argument that we should refrain from being too openly critical of religious faith to avoid alienating the believers and get a chance to “promote scientific literacy” and “teach critical thinking”, but real scientific literacy and real critical thinking must necessarliy also include a realization that this kind of reasons are invalid. And if that message don’t get accross, then whatever else you might be able to concey, is not scientific literacy or critical thinking. If someone denies this, then we mean different things by “scientific literacy” and “critical thinking”. And whatever they mean by these terms, i am not sure i think it is worth teaching at all. I see the harmful and antiscientific effects of religion as mere accidental side-effects of belief for the wrong reasons. What the likes of Nisbet are in effect saying is “Just keep all the wrong reasons as long as it doesn’t happen to lead to any conclusions that contradict specific scientific truths”. What annoys me the most about their approach is the way they implicitly admit that real scientific truth, critical thinking, rationality and intellectual honesty has to come second to stategy and politics. Furthermore we already know that the strategy they are advocating doesn’t work for the simple reason that it is basically what we have been doing all along and it has been the mother of all failiures. As Dawkins put it at AAI 2007:
We seem to be having an impact that decades of niceness has not.
The message i get from the likes of Nisbet is “Get back in the closet and return to the approach that has already failed in the past.”
...And i used to be such a nice person :(
[ Edited: 08 March 2008 05:04 AM by Hume's Razor ]
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”
I went back and listened through the whole podcast twice. There are a few points where I disagree with Nisbet and because they are unrelated, I’ll put them in separate posts.
The first one, probably the least important, is I found Nisbet’s advocating Barack Obama to be inappropriate. I thought D.J. did a good job responding to those comments.
Since CFI found it appropriate to include Nisbet’s remarks, it probably is appropriate to respond to them. First, Obama does not actually have a significant record of working cooperatively and compromising with those who don’t hold liberal views. He is not looking to find a compromise resolution to the Iraq issue or any other issue which is important and divisive. His record is one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. I think folks are projecting some sort of wish fulfullment onto Obama which he will have great difficulty living up to. I think wish fulfillment shows up as one reason people are religious (i.e. they wish that their loved ones and themselves persisted after death) and for this reason it’s ironic to see nontheists supporting Obama. I am reminded of the McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis campaigns with very good and experienced men who had no chance of winning.
OK this was a small part of the podcast and I’ll separate this vent from other comments.
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”
The podcast only presented Nisbet’s side, and D.J. did not get him to comment on whether there might be some points of his critics which had some validity.
If you Google “Nisbet” “AAAS” you will find other commentary on this panel discussion.
[ Larry Moran of Dept Biochemistry Univ Toronto in sandwalk blog] back in Sept 2007 voiced concerns about how this panel discussion was being organized—who was ‘invited’, how it was being ‘framed’, etc.
Here is part of Nisbet’s note to the moderator:
Professor Goldston,
I have just read Matt Nisbet’s blog article on the upcoming AAAS meeting in Boston.
As I’m sure you know, Nisbet has some very strong views on this issue and he is known to be a vocal opponent of athiests like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. He has attacked the positions of many atheist scientist bloggers such as PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse, and me. He refers to this group as the “New Atheists,” a term that is widely perceived as misleading at best, and offensive at worst.
Nisbet believes that scientists should spin their scientific messages in a way that avoids upsetting religious people and religious groups. That point of view has been hotly contested in the blogosphere. Many of us believe that this is a fundamentally dishonest way for scientists to behave. We believe that science should not be deliberately “framed” by the personal beliefs of scientists whether they are atheists - as are the majority of scientists - or Christians, or whatever.
We believe that science should be presented as uncompromised pure science and that it is wrong for scientists to consciously alter their message in order to appease religious citizens who might be offended by hearing the scientific truth.
Nisbet seemed to try to invoke Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould as examples of scientists willing to build bridges and work collaboratively with religionists toward common goals. However—I never thought of Gould has someone who modified his opinions to make them more palatable to religious beliefs.
1. Science is a method and atheism is a conclusion. That makes it very hard for me to equate the two. Are you going to accuse everyone of thinking science and atheism are the same now?
2. The panel is about “Communicating Science in a Religious America”, you’ve stacked it with religion-friendly panelists, you’re going to be presenting a paper on the “New Atheism”, and the first paragraph of the panel description talks about religion in every sentence. But yeah, it’s only about science communication, and the “New Atheist Noise Machine” wasn’t even on your mind when you thought about putting it together. How disingenuous can you get, Matt?
And I know it’s not about promoting atheism, nor would I expect it to be. It’s clearly about promoting religion, though.
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”
Part of what Nisbet brings up reminds me of a classic Scientific American article by Cialdini on the “Science of Persuasion”.
[Cialdini identified 6 ‘tools of persuasion” which are commonly used to convince others]:
1. Reciprocation—if they are slightly in your debt (even if you just included stickers in your fund-raising letter) it helps.
2. Commitment and Consistency—they want to be reassured that what they are doing is consistent with their values
3. “Social Proof”—do others agree.
4. Liking—familiarity, similarity,and physical attractiveness count.
5. Authority—Strong pressure to comply with authority, including titles like M.D.or Ph.D., but also an article in Science or New York Times
6. Scarcity - Also linked to worries about the negative aspects of not being persuaded ("call in the next 15 minutes to receive an extra gift...")
To the extent that scientists are trying to persuade non-scientists of SOMETHING, the communication needs to make use of rules like these. If the challenge is to persuasively communicate science to individuals wearing the blinders of religion, each of these points can and should be tailored to the audience. Nisbet gets a lot of grief from scientists on “framing” science but what he is describing is as “reality-based” as the science itself. What he is NOT good at is “framing” his point in a way that scientists find it appealing.
When Dawkins suggests the “OUT” campaign --he is using these factors:
(3) social proof—many people question Biblical literacy or whether there is evidence of God’s existence.
(4) liking-- someone like Douglas Adams or Julia Sweeney is immensely likeable and adds to the credibility.
(5) authority—looking to increase the number of respected people;
An example of where Nisbet uses these factors is to assert “many religions” don’t have a problem with evolution. This uses points (3) and (5)—the argument isn’t really persuasive to a non religionist but this could be helpful to a religionist.
Cialdini is a great example here, Jackson. Very highly regarded writing on this sort of rhetoric or marketing—his book Influence makes very interesting reading.
