PZ Myers, renowned atheist, God-hater and evilutionist, getting involved in a religious war.

It’s still a couple of months before this years cephalopodmas, but already my hopes are raised that this may be the year the Great Cthulhu stirs from his ancient slumber to consume us all. See; he sends forth his minions from the depths to strike fear into the very hearts of men.

One thing I’m not clear on though; is it still an octopus? ;)

PZ posts a picture of a cephalopod every Friday and, given my obsession with the order, it’s a constant battle for me not just to mirror those posts every week, but I resist; after all, if people really want to see pictures of cephalopods every Friday, they probably already read his site.

This week I just couldn’t resist though. Just look at him:

This might just be as cute as the cephalokitten. And I don’t say that lightly.

Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have been scammed into giving interviews for a creationist propaganda movie. When they were approached, the movie was apparently titled Crossroads, and had the following synopsis

It’s been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.

Now that the movie is ready for release we discover that it’s actually titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and that it’s the usual religious attack on science, combined with the now familiar claim that the only reason anyone believes in “Darwinism” is that there’s some secret police force rooting out the dissenters and ruining their careers before they can speak out:

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

What’s the betting that their claim to not just represent one side of the story isn’t entirely accurate? The way they got interviews with at least two of their enemies doesn’t exactly demonstrate a commitment to the truth.

PZ expresses surprise that they felt the need to lie to him to get the interview; after all, he’s not exactly known for being shy about arguing with the faithful. I’m tempted to suggest that the creationists, and especially their well oiled PR machine, have got so used to lying whenever science is so much as mentioned, that they just forgot there was any other way to communicate. Actually, though, I suspect they had good reasons to lie. PZ might have been willing to show up if he’d known the real reason for the interview, but he’d also have been much less willing to be led in the interview, much more on his guard and much less likely to accidentally say something that could be used to make him look bad. But quite aside from that, I just don’t think PZ was their main event. It’s no insult to the man – regular readers will know I have nothing but respect for him – but to the creationists he’s a bonus item; they were after Dawkins, who’s well known for not debating, or giving interviews to creationists.

It’ll be interesting to see what the movie’s like; I doubt it’ll get a cinema release in the UK, but I’m sure I’ll manage to track it down somehow. I don’t hold out any hope that any of the scientists’ interviews will have been used complete, and the underhand method they used to to get them doesn’t allow me to believe that even the spirit of what they said will be left intact, but it might at least be good comedy to see just how terribly their words have been twisted.

I don’t often disagree with him, but I thought PZ overreacted a bit to this article at the Guardian. All it really seems to be saying is that Atheism is becoming a cultural phenomena in much the same way that some religions have in the last 20 years, which while so obvious as to not need saying, is actually true. As far as I can see there is no suggestion that atheism is a religion in any technical sense or that it has no more claim to rationality than one; the discussion is restricted to analysing it as sociological phenomena (or actually suggesting that such analysis should be done.) Of course atheists are a diverse, independent lot, and don’t like to be lumped together as a “movement” if they can help it (I certainly don’t consider myself to be part of one,) but it is undeniable that certain atheists (Dawkins included) are trying to get the “message” out, and in doing so, they’re bound to attract this kind of comparison with religious people doing the same thing, even though the “message” in question doesn’t bear comparison in the same way.

So while, I thought the article was fairly harmless, and even slightly interesting, the comments were a different matter. The very first one is… well, hard to describe; it’s like a brain dump of someone who’s desperate to believe in something, anything beyond the materialistic worldview, but doesn’t really understand the arguments, so he just spews out as many as he can fit in a single comment, in the hope that one of them is convincing. Needless to say, he doesn’t succeed. Normally, I try to avoid fisking because it makes me feel nit-picky; I’d rather address the substance of someone’s argument or position, than hope that knocking enough little holes in it will have the same effect. But, in this case, I honestly, don’t think there is any substance to the argument, so I’m going to just go ahead and deal with the points one by one as they were spewed out onto the page.

When you think of the great and varied minds possessed by the like of Plato, Augustine, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Newton, Picasso, Einstein, and then you compare them with the shrill and ‘aggressive’ voice of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion you cant help thinking of a poor man’s Mr Spock: the cold absence of intuition; the dictatorship of a crude intellect over the greater arts of consciousness.

Ah - the old ad-hominem attack; “I don’t like his tone of voice, therefore he must be wrong. Or at least unenlightened. Or, well, somehow inferior to actual clever people.” And then a criticism of Dawkin’s use of reason to answer hard questions. What’s so wrong with the absence of intuition? Why on earth would we expect intuition to be of any use at all in determining the nature of the universe. People can’t even accurately predict the trajectory of projectiles with intuition alone, so let’s not pretend that it’s some sort of panacea to our understanding of the Universe. Oh, and “the greater arts of consciousness”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Really? Because if you’re suggesting that there’s a better way to understand how the universe functions than rational thought and scientific exploration, then you’d better have more to back it up than some fancy, arm-wavy turn of phrase.

The intuitive genius contained in the like of the Inuit, Kalahari Bushmen, the Cogi of South America - the great Native American elder Fools Crow (now sadly deceased). If Richard Dawkins were to look with more scientific neutrality at this phenomena, and not approach received religion with his pre-judged half way house understanding of the greater phenomena behind it, he might settle for that less extreme position of agnosticism pending further exploration.

“Intuitive genius”? More ambiguous arm-waving. Yes, the cultures he lists have amazing survival skills in very challenging environments, but those skills are only “intuitive” in so far as they’re not scientific; they’re still learned skills. Baby Bushmen don’t spring from the womb miraculously able to track animals in ways that first-world minds find utterly incomprehensible, they learn to do it, because their entire culture is built around those skills. Now, tell me why we should assume that because someone has learned to be a phenomenal tracker, we should give extra weight to their views on the universe? Did they discover electricity? EM radiation? Get to the moon? Does their “intuitive genius” grant them the ability to treat tuberculosis? No. These people are undoubtedly very skilled, but those skills give them precisely no insight into the nature of the Universe.

I’m not going to go into that “less extreme position of agnosticism pending further exploration” argument again. Look through the last couple of week’s archives. Suffice it to say, there’s no reason to believe in God, so I don’t believe in God, so I’m an atheist. Show me evidence, and I might change my mind.

60% of cutting edge scientists persist in failing to categorise themselves as atheist at all. Where 40% might choose to follow his lead, another 40% confess to a faith not at all at odds with the finding of physics, bio-chemistry or cosmology. This ratio remains largely unchallenged over the past 100 years. The conclusion from science is clear; in no way can it be said it debunks the ‘spiritual’ mind.

“Lots of clever people believe it, so it must be true.” You really call that an argument?

In fact there are significant problems with any such claim, and they spring first and foremost from cosmology: take the small but unavoidable matter of the cosmic constant and the uncannily prescient anthropic principles.

Backwards thinking. Of course we’re a “good fit” to the Universe, we arose and evolved within it. To argue that the Universe must have been designed to give rise to us, presupposes that we were the desired result, to then argue that we must have been the desired result because the Universe is designed for us is circular reasoning.

And not least from bio-chemistry - we have yet to successfully computer model the emergence of life on Earth from their initial building blocks without some form of ‘informative inflation’ hypothesis.

God of the Gaps. Do you promise that when we do successfully computer model the emergence of life on Earth from their initial building blocks, you’ll shut up? Or do you plan on finding something else we can’t yet explain scientifically?

This posits an equally mysterious ‘self organisation’ as the only means for matter to overcome the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in order to kick start evolution. Indeed this is not unlike Plato’s ideal ‘desiring’ some kind of ‘replication’ of potential form.

It’s been said before; if you think abiogenesis violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that heat will not flow from colder body to a hotter one. How does that have anything to do with the origin of life?

So in a sense when Richard Dawkins strays from his personal remit of minimalist ‘science populariser’ onto the time honoured territory of metaphysics it is faintly reminiscent of that Edward Woodward character in 70’s horror classic The Wicker Man. Like Sergeant Neil Howie, Richard Dawkins fairly blunders around the realm of intuition totally oblivious to what is taking place around him. While there may be no unsavoury resolution implied there is perhaps a strong implication of Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man, to paraphrase: ‘something is happening there, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Spock.’

Or, to paraphrase in a slightly different way; “There’s more to life than you know, and you look foolish for not seeing it, but I’m not going to give you any specifics, because if you can’t already see it, you’re too foolish to understand anyway.” Or, to put it another way; “The Emperors new clothes sure do look nice.”

PS: For anyone who has read Dawkin’s The God Delusion, in the spirit of fair play, might do well to also read Alistaire McGrath’s more measured reply The Dawkin’s Delusion.

Read it. Thought it was a load of unconvincing drivel, that amounted to nothing more than “You’re not a unicornologist, so you can’t tell me there’s no such thing as unicorns, and anyway, you can’t prove there’s no such thing as unicorns, so stop not believing in them.”

Actually, having just been through that again, I notice a lot of use of the word “intuition.” That smacks of post-modernism and their ridiculous “other ways of knowing”. I guess I should never have expected anything sensible.

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

“Moderate” believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

“Moderate” atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

“Militant” atheists: “Oh for pity’s sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?”

(props to Stephen Wells.)

Originally posted at The Primate Diaries, and linked to from Pharyngua.

PZ has stepped up to the plate, with a numbered list of Christianity’s sins against science. The one that sticks in my throat the most from his list (although they all more or less get to me,) is his number 1, theft:

Atheists know this one on a daily basis: Tornado demolishes home, tearful survivor comes before news cameras and “thanks God” that she was spared. Football player scores goal, drops to knees and praises god for his touchdown. Cancer patient goes into remission, lies in bed surrounded by his expensive, highly trained medical team, calls it a miracle. What religion does is steal human accomplishment and bestows it on a fickle imaginary being. Modern medicine is not a product of religion, it’s the highly refined outcome of years of empirical science, yet people still babble about miracles and prayers.

It’s not so much a sin against science as it is a sin against humanity. Sure medical science is an area of human achievement that is often appropriated by the religious as a miracle, but it’s far from the only one; works of art, strength of will, even basic kindness are frequently spoken of as though they come directly from God rather than the actual person or people involved in the act. A corollary to this is a sin that PZ missed (presumably because it doesn’t really apply to science):

guilt: Not only does religion take credit for all of it’s adherents successes, but it pushes all the responsibility for their failures right back onto them (not forgetting the failures of their all ancestors, ever). How many sportsmen do you hear criticising God for not giving them the skill or determination to score a winning goal when they’ve lost? How many down-and-outs curse God for not turning their life around and giving them the drive to make something of themselves? None. Of all the features of Christianity, it’s that utterly unequal (and after the fact) apportioning of blame and credit that angers me the most.

As a (somewhat) aside, Mike The Mad Biologist has an interesting point by point response to PZ from the perspective of his own beliefs, which is well worth a look. I do, however want to take issue with his example of “good faith”:

Most movements that have led to profound change were not forgone conclusions, and require incredible faith – that is, an irrational belief that right would will out in the face of extensive oppression – to sustain them (e.g., the civil rights movement). In retrospect, many such movements appear inevitable, but it certainly didn’t look that way to those engaged in those movements at the time. So, some ‘faiths’ are not bad.

If change was not a foregone conclusion - and I’m inclined to agree - if it didn’t look inevitable at the time, then I don’t see how you can talk about those people as having faith that right would out. It seems to me that they had was hope that they could overcome the odds and a conviction that it was worth putting it all on the line in the attempt. In fact surely, if they had faith that right would out, then they’d have been less inclined to make a stand; why risk everything when you have faith that things will turn out OK? No - what those embattled agents of social change had is the opposite of faith: they had the knowledge that things wouldn’t just turn out alright, and that it takes the voice and the actions and the sacrifice - sometimes the ultimate sacrifice - of people of conviction to even stand a chance of changing the world for the better.