link

Frankly, I think we're having a healthy--if sometimes quite passionate--discussion over all of this. To be clear: Nobody is saying anybody else ought to shut up or stop talking. (I could read this post in that way, but I will not; and PZ should not read our articles in that way either.)

Look, the big issue I see is mostly in things like the exchange above that I had with The Exterminator (not to pick on him/her). Saying that one must act as an atheist when doing science is just a big no-no in a culture where atheists are deemed to be the least trustworthy people in the country, even behind Muslims, which is saying a lot after 9/11. Let me stress again, that it doesn't undermine atheism or make you hide your thoughts in a closet to use different wording, like that one should follow the scientific method.

I recognize they're both busy people, but I think this question lies at the very heart of the debate they've stirred up, and it does not require a lengthy answer. One sentence or even one word would do. The longer it continues, the more their reluctance to address this leads me to conclude - much to my regret - that they are in fact advocating that atheists should sit down and shut up.

* Make a big stir by accusing some well meaning folks of screwing up

* Promise to solve the problem, if only some funders will cough up big bucks for research. Use copious buzzwords to describe the research you intend to conduct.

* Disappear from whence they came, without making any specific recommendations for what the target of their critique could do better.

Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet have followed the first two steps of this playbook to the letter. Let's hope they break the pattern and actually put forward some useful suggestions on how the scientific community can do a better job.

If not, start the clock ticking on their 15 minutes.

Eric
http://waterwordsthatwork.com

Now, to be clear, the reason I thought your language was imprecise was because I was attributing a more political (I suppose) meaning to the word. My fault, but I feel somewhat justified in that my definition, I think, more clearly holds to the original point to all this. I understand what you mean and I understand what you were getting at, but a lot of theists will not. Does it hurt you in any way to explain things differently? Do you feel that by doing so that you will be forced to hide your atheism in the closet? I hope that you can see my side of things now.

A-theist = no god. Nothing imprecise about it. That's the sense in which I'm using the word. I'm not asking for religionists to adopt a specific worldview, only to be without god in their science.

I understand that your argument is that it is science vs. religion, and in one context you are completely correct. That context is that the Creationists have been trying to frame the fight in that way. They want to be able to fight against scientific theories by making people choose either science or their god, because they feel that most people will choose god over science, and they are generally right, although as your historical example shows, they aren't always right. What I'm saying is that we should not allow them to employ this cheap rhetorical trick. When faced with this argument, I have no problem stating the truth, that science does not deal with god belief, and that Creationists need to actually disprove evolution through scientific means if they want to gain any traction. I don't see this as a circular argument, and I'm not sure why you do. If we can frame the debate around actually arguing evidence instead of cheap rhetorical tricks, they will be forced to try and produce actual science to back up their claims, which they can't do.

All I'm saying is that in a science of any kind, students and practitioners must take an atheistic viewpoint while engaged in scientific study, dialogue, research, or analysis.

I find this statement to be imprecise. Atheism, to me, is simply a statement that god belief has not been proven with rational means, and therefore there is no reason to believe in a god. I don't see it as necessary for science because I think that they are orthogonal ideas. Scientists should not try to shoehorn god into their experiments, but I don't see that as being the same as being atheistic. Following methodological naturalism, or the scientific method, is not the same as being atheistic in my mind, and framing the issue in this way is something that Mooney is cautioning us against.

I greatly appreciate Dawkins and the tireless efforts he makes on behalf of science and atheism. If there is one thing that I disagree with him on though, is that he makes statements at times to the effect that science disproves god. What I think he means is that science disproves literal, Biblical interpretations of god, but most people will not pick that up. I believe that this is the distinction that Mooney is trying to make. It doesn't mean that we should stay in the closet, and I surely would never advocate that. I'm just as sick as you of the constant ramming of Christianity down the throats of Americans. I know Mooney has in the past directly said that he doesn't wish atheists to go into the closet or to stop advocating atheism.

I guess the question is why we have to tie the two fights together. Why can't we ally ourselves with Ken Miller, Wesley Elsberry, Nick Matzke, etc (the second two are contributors to Panda's Thumb along with PZ Myers) on the issue of evolution? Why must we insist on atheism when dealing with a scientific issue? Why can't we simply argue the science when dealing with evolution and argue the religion when dealing with religion and rationality? Having a god belief doesn't preclude someone from accepting good science or doing good science, right? So, why should we tie atheism to science, which is exactly what the Creationists want?

Disclaimer: Please don't think any of this is a criticism of you or your blog in any way. I've put your blog in my favorites list because I think your writing is interesting and good.

Of course, I agree with you that science cannot disprove theism. But I'm not recommending that it try. You're putting words in my mouth, because that's not what I'm saying.

Here's my argument: The debate IS religion vs. science, whether you're talking about methodology or philosophy or both. You suggest: Let's make them [the creationists] try to actually disprove the science with scientific arguments. But your suggestion presupposes that they accept scientific arguments as valid -- which they DON'T. Your argument is circular here.

All I'm saying is that in a science of any kind, students and practitioners must take an atheistic viewpoint while engaged in scientific study, dialogue, research, or analysis. They don't actually have to be atheists, but they must act, at those times only, as if they are. That is, they should not have any preconceived notions, supernatural or otherwise. All scientific theories must be potentially falsifiable. And, of course, god isn't.

So, no, scientists don't have to disbelieve in god during any part of their lives other than during the time when they're "doing" science. When they are, they must suspend their belief in their deities and not resort to fanciful explanations, no matter how attractive. Students, even at the lowest levels, should be taught this. They're free to go home and worship any gods they choose. But they most decidedly may not bring god into their studies. They must act, at least for those moments devoted to science, as if they are atheists.

I understand that this concept makes many people uncomfortable, but there's a precedent showing that the religious right can overcome their fear of science, at least for those brief periods when their children are in the classroom. Let me throw a little history at you. During the so-called "space race" of the 1950s and '60s, America's religious fanatics, for the most part, put their opposition to evolution on hold. When they did argue against it, they did so outside the schoolhouse. Why? Because they recognized that the U.S. could not train young scientists if the kids' thoughts were constrained and limited by religious objections. So even the most conservative Christian groups accepted atheistic science in their mania to combat godless communism.

Why not insist that they do so again -- and forever?

As a fellow atheist, he is not asking you to be silent about your atheism.

I'd certainly like to believe that, but what's your evidence for it? Mooney and Nisbet say that Dawkins "reinforces and validates" religious fears about the moral implications of evolution. They say that criticism of religion will "backfire" when it reaches the public. Although it's hard to tell because they have so far failed to put forth any specific policy prescriptions, I find it very difficult to believe that they are saying something other than that atheists should go back into the closet.

He's asking you to separate the two battles and fight them as different issues.

I very strongly disagree. Look at this comment from their original editorial:

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism. (emphasis added)

Mooney and Nisbet claim that, even if Dawkins himself (and other atheists) try to fight these as separate battles, the public will not be able to tell the difference and it will still harm the effort to defend good science. Again, I really can't see what they're saying if not "Dawkins and other atheists should stop advocating atheism".