So, how should science relate to religion in teaching?

A friend has pointed out that, as Lawrence Krauss says, insisting that science leads to an atheistic worldview is going to make some people resist the teaching of science, particularly evolution.

The answer is to keep science and religion separate in schools (which is what the NCSE is campaigning for anyway).  Science teachers need say nothing at all about religion.  There is no need to promote any view about the compatibility or otherwise of science and religion.  Not promoting compatibility does not mean that the only alternative is to actively promote incompatibility.  It isn't.  A silence on the matter (and referring any questions about this to a religion teacher) is not evasion - it is acting according to the very standards that we expect of others.

Regarding evolution and biology, it is often said that evolution and the origin of life are separate issues - you can deal with questions about one without avoiding the other.  This is convenient as we know almost nothing about the origin of life.  Or we did.  I think this is a cop-out.  There is no magic point at which evolution 'switches on'.  Fortunately, there are now some very convincing ideas about how life could have got started.  The key term to look up here is 'RNA World'.  The idea is that polymers of the nucleic acid RNA, which can be used to store information, could have been the earliest form of life, catalysing their own reproduction from simpler units.  We have seen such catalysis in the laboratory.  We have even seen reproducing RNA evolve in the laboratory to overcome the effects of chemicals that poison reproduction.  The problem has been how the initial long strands of RNA formed.  Now we have models.  There are environments in the early Earth that we think could have easily led to the formation of unimaginable numbers of RNA polymers, such as within ice sheets.  It would not be at all unlikely that some of that number would catalyze their own reproduction.  And then, life is started.  There are many further steps that need to be explained.  How DNA got involved (perhaps as a more stable 'backup store' for RNA sequences?) and how the protein coding system arose.  But at the current pace of research, feasible models for these may turn up in the near future. So, we need not be afraid of raising the issue of the origin of life.   But, I would suggest, what we do is simply to describe the wonder of it all.  Let creationists draw their own conclusions!  

There is still much debate around about whether or not it is sensible to promote science as compatible with religion in order to help deal with religious objections to the teaching of evolution.

I have discussed in previous posts about why I disagree with the view that science and theistic religion aren't compatible.  I think there is a different reason why promoting this compatibility is a waste of time.  I have hinted about this before, but I think it should be made explicit.

Those who object to the teaching of evolution in schools are creationists.  They don't object to evolution because they don't think it can't somehow be made compatible with religion.  The reason they object to evolution is very simple - it is amoral.  Creationists don't mess about with funny ideas like God working at the quantum level to fiddle with mutations invisibly, or that humans had to arise somehow in a multiverse of infinite worlds (these are serious suggestions by theistic biologists).  No, creationists are honest, and realise that evolution just won't work for Christianity if you believe the Bible.  Evolution means that we are just atoms.  It means that there was no biblical Fall.  There is no place in evolution for God-given morality.  Start teaching kids evolution, and they will forget the Bible.  They could turn out gay and think that a woman has rights to her own body.  

No amount of explaining how it is still possible to believe in God and in Natural Selection helps.   Without a Fall, there was no Sin of Adam.  The Resurrection was pointless.  The foundation of Christianity vanishes. 

Creationists realise the power of evolution.  It destroys theistic morality.   The possible compatibility of evolution with some kind of religion isn't the problem.  The problem is evolution itself.

What is it for? I scan through 100 new tweets - for what?

It's like a comedian who only says one-liners.  Unless they are very good, it gets irritating quickly.

Community is conversation, not text messages.

Listening to D-list celebrities have an on-line party is dull.

Some people are just too much.  That means you John Holmes!  There is also only so much Stephen Fry one can deal with in one day, m'dears.

I'm dull.  I can't come up with a quip every hour, or even anything even remotely interesting every day.

It's so boring I can't think of anything else - see?

Take your partners...

Let's see who is paired up.

The extreme left sees "oppressed" Islamic faith groups, packed full of immigrants from countries crushed by the West.  Of darker skin, the groups are the target of racists.  They must comfort and protect them.  They forgive these group's cultural excesses.  These are understandable side-effects of circumstance.  Their culture must, instead, be preserved.  It is all they have.  It is their identity. They are allies against the empire-building white Christian capitalists. The beliefs of the faith group are everything they hate - inequality for women, repression of gays - but there have to be sacrifices for the greater good, the historic victory against Western imperialism.

The extreme right sees strange Islamic cultures acted out by brown skins, fueling their hatred for difference.  No longer able to argue based on skin colour, they seek out some other way to mark the brown skins another way, and find religion.  The beliefs of the faith group are everything they admire - inequality for women, repression of gays - but there have to be sacrifices for the greater good, the historic victory against the dilution of race and culture.

And so the dance begins, in a hall of mirrors.  We see different aspects of each side, briefly.  One side is supporting conflict.  One side gives platforms for those who oppose gay rights.  One side supports faith.  Which side is it?  Who can see. 

Others join the dance.  A new voice says "all Muslims must share collective responsibility for the actions to the few".  Who says that?  Is it liberal atheists trying to highlight a culture of repression?" Or is it the far right, positioning some atheists as "Useful Idiots" whose anger can be harnessed to rouse the masses?  It is hard to see, as all is reflected and distorted. 

New dances start, around the same Islamic groups.  One such group has rules about clothing.  The exposure of women's faces is controlled (the burqa).  Opposing that is a group of 'liberals' who wants to introduce rules about clothing.  The exposure of women's faces is controlled (no burqas).  Another group wants to migrate to Western countries to encourage dissent, using Muslims for a war against the West.  No, they aren't the same as the far left, who want to encourage dissent and use Muslims for a war against the West.  They certainly aren't the same as those who want to ban all Muslim immigration, using Muslims in a battle against other Muslims.  There are those who declare the true meaning of Islam, and declare others to be traitors.  Are these Imams?  No, this time it is some atheists, who want a clear target to aim at.  It may seem confusing about who is whom.  That is not surprising.  It is a strange dance.  

Standing aside from the dance are those who see past the groups, past the cultures, past the skin colour and religions, through to the individuals.  Treat people as people and there is no dance, no compromise.  There is the conflict of ideas, not of people.

Watch out for the dances.  It is quite easy to see once you get used to the signs.

The Lockerbie release controversy gets more bizarre.

The FBI director is saying that the release of the man accused of the crime is an insult to those who had to investigate the disaster.

What?  I can understand the argument that feelings of victims should be considered, even though I am not comfortable with that.  But the policemen?  The investigators?  That seems bizarre to me.

The director also says it encourages other terrorists.  How?  By pointing out that if they carefully plan to have cancer they can reduce their eventual sentence by a month or two?

Some of the reasoning about this case seems to be rather weird.

I even have a problem with A.C. Grayling's analysis, which is that a decision about compassionate early release should depend on the confidence about the conviction.  I did not realise that those in prison each had a confidence rating.  I assumed that the point of a trial was to take evidence combined with uncertainty and produce a binary decision.  If there was reasonable doubt, there should be no conviction.

If it turns out that there was some connection between the release and business interests, then there really should be some questioning of what has happened.  But nothing I have heard up to now suggests any problem with the legal process, no matter what one's views of the result.

Discussions about whether someone like Francis Collins should have been promoted to a high scientific positions go on and on.

So, I thought I would make things simpler:

Religion is like booze. Some people have a little sip now and then, at home or with friends. Collins is different.

Collins turns up drunk at interviews. He says: "No, no.. lishen.. I shaw a wadderfall! I fell down and shaw it! I did! And I thought.. Oh God![hic]"

Show Collins some DNA, and hear him mutter... "Ish all wurds! Ish God's little teeeny words! Look! I can see em all! Aren they all preetty?"

Show Collins a stained glass window, and he yells "DNA! DNA! Is all DNA! Look - kinda round and shpirrally! Wheeeee!"

So, now, here we have Collins, trying not to sway too much, insisting that he really is sober while doing his work, this time.

There is a petition to have a government apology for the way that Alan Turing, the great scientists, mathematician and war hero, was treated.  His prosecution and persecution for his homosexuality led to his suicide at age 41.  This seems like a good idea, an indication that Turing was wronged.  Many good people are signing the petition.  But I can't.  I don't feel it sends the right message, and I don't think it honours Turing in the right way.  Let me try and explain what I think.

Turing was gay, and was prosecuted and hounded because of this.  But so where thousands.  Thousands of lives were ruined, and many, many more had to be led in secret, or with their sexual and emotional lives repressed.  There was nothing special about Alan Turing in this regard.  He was an ordinary homosexual.

Turing was an extraordinary thinker.  He was a pioneer of computing, both in terms of theory and practical applications.  He was a mathematical genius, and philosopher.  The "Turing Test" for artificial intelligence has, although flawed, inspired generations.  He was a war hero, and without his code-breaking efforts the war against the Nazis would probably have been lost. 

There is no doubt that Turing and his work should be far more widely known.  But an apology seems to try to make Turing into a Gay Hero.  I feel this is like talking of Leonardo da Vinci as a famous 15th-century Italian Gay.

What is the apology for anyway?  It seems an odd thing.  Is it for a miscarriage of justice?  For picking out Turing as a special case of sexual perversion?  No. Turing's treatment was typical, and according to the understanding of psychology at the time.  Society changes.  Laws are adjusted.  Public opinion shifts.  That is how progress is made.  An apology just to an individual who was treated typically according to what was considered medically and appropriate at the time seems strange.  In this context, an apology seems something of a general insult to gay people:  Turing is selected because he was a "Good Gay", because the harassment went too far.  It is an apology for consequences of a policy, not for the policy itself.

A tribute to Turing should emphasize what was extraordinary about him, not what should have been considered ordinary.  I have heard good alternatives to an apology, including a posthumous knightood.  Perhaps that honour could be celebrated with a big ceremony.  It could start with an official embarrassed coughing and shuffling of feet.  That would do for me.

You just can't get away from religion and atheism these days.  But Marcus Brigstocke, a well-known UK comedian, seems to want to.  He really has got himself in a state about both religion and atheism.  He can't stand either.  In an interview on BBC7, he said the following - excuse any transcription errors, I may have not been concentrating as my jaw had dropped open so much it was resting on my keyboard:

"The new Dawkins-endorsed atheism is dogmatic, cruel, unfeeling, cold, and weirdly enough for someone so brilliant and clever and articulate, incredibly thoughtless." 

Well, Marcus, what a really clever and articulate and thoughtful statement.  Or perhaps not.  Dawkins' atheism is so very dogmatic that Richard says he just might believe in God given the right evidence.  If God popped up and said "Hi Richard, here is a universe I just made, want to take a look?", Richard would probably believe.  Richard clearly doesn't have that good old-fashioned solid dogmatism, does he.  It must be some wishy-washy middle-class dogmatism.  The kind that can't make up its mind whether or not to be actually dogmatic.  But never mind, because we can always go onto the cruelty.  The sheer cruelty of writing quite a funny book saying that God probably doesn't exist.  Probably.  Cruel, unfeeling, cold word, "probably", isn't it?   Keep saying it and it chills you to the bone.. "I probably want a cup of tea".  "I probably don't feel like going out tonight".  "There's probably no Santa Claus".  No, I have to stop there.  It's just too awful.

Also, it is weird, isn't it Marcus, for someone so brilliant and clever and articulate like Dawkins to be so very incredibly thoughtless.  So very thoughtless. Funny that this is when they say something you don't like.  It's rather like those little signs on the road that tell you how fast you can go.  But really good drivers in white vans don't need to read those signs, as their immense driving skills put them beyond the normal standards of road safety.  I am sure you think at the right speed, Marcus.  And wear a seatbelt.

Then in what is clearly meant to be a killer argument, you compare religion with alcohol.  People get angry and do silly things due to alcohol.  But wouldn't "The Beer Delusion" be a silly book.  What a laugh, eh?

But, oh dear.  Not such a brilliant, clever and articulate argument, is it?   We accept that booze kills.  We don't have old men in funny dresses and hats saying that all alcohol use, even heavy drinking, is harmless.  We don't have Madeline Bloody Bunting writing in the Guardian that being totally sloshed leads to good ethical thinking and reasoning.  We don't have cultures that pour booze into kids to the point of addiction, tell them truthfully that it will be hell if they try and give up, and argue over whether kids should be raised on establishment gin, or heretical vodka.  We don't want to have to listen to pub bores, who say "now looksh here.. never liked the gaysh, and I like my women atsh shome, in kitchens".  Do you get the message, Marcus? There is no need for "The Beer Delusion", as the argument has already been won.

Dawkins and his fellow "horsemen" aren't "neigh-sayers" (sorry).  They don't want to stop people drinking in religion.  They only want to have a discussion.  To make people realise that there are problem believers like there are problem drinkers.  That excessive Godding in public should be as embarrassing as Kerry Katona on daytime TV.  Moderation in all things, Marcus.  Except for thinking.  You might need to try a bit more of that.

A really useful and fun talk by PZ Myers:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/08/pz-myers-at-secular-student-alliance.html

But, it left me with some questions...

Ridicule and humour can be useful in campaigns, but how can we measure whether or not the majority of the intended audience agree that someone has been ridiculed, and that we haven't simply make a joke that only we atheists are laughing it? One person's ridicule can appear to another to be cruelty.

PZ says that he and others did well in exposing 'Expelled'. But did they? I am not saying he did or not. But how do we know?

What I would like to see is studies about the effectiveness of blogs, of ridicule, of parodies and so on, to see if these things are finding their target; or are these all just a self-congratulatory exercise for atheists?  That what some people think of effective campaigning isn't really just "Vanity Campaigning" - little more than making a limited audience who already agree with the goals feel satisfied?

What I like about the atheist bus campaigns is that we can have some confidence that the message is being seen by the intended audience.

About religion.

While accusations of demands of censorship go back and forth between accommodationists and their opponents, I think something has been missed.  The main reason why the National Centre of Science Education in the USA should not say anything at all about religion, not even to do with its compatibility with science, is actually very simple.

It isn't because it will mislead people.  It isn't because religion is controversial.

It is because educating people about science should not be about insisting what is true, or providing a set of answers, but about teaching how scientists investigate the world, and how they have come to conclusions about major scientific matters which are at the core of our scientific understanding of the universe. Religion by its very nature is irrelevant to that. Discussion of religion simply shouldn't be part of the agenda of science education any more than discussion of literature should be part of it. Science education shouldn't even be about insisting that evolution is true (sorry Jerry Coyne!) but showing how the consensus opinion about evolution has been arrived at.

If asked "is religion compatible with science", an science educator should not say "yes".  They should not even say "no".  They should say "what do you think, and why?  Discuss!"

Opposites attract. 

Positive and negative charges, North and South poles.

This also works in some ways with people.

I know of people with strong views.  They read holy books, and take in every word.  They are sure of the interpretation of those words.  There is no doubt, no questioning.  The dogma is clear.  The teachings can't be questioned.  Anyone who does not accept the dogma, who does not follow the teachings, is not a true believer.  They are not entitled to call themselves followers of the faith.  Their voices can be ignored.  What matters is the core message, and the actions of those who accept it.

Such people are fundamentalists.  They believe that a faith is defined by the literal reading of the words of the holy books, and that only one interpretation of that reading is acceptable.

Fundamentalists are dogmatic.  They can be dangerous, as they can be beyond argument, and beyond reasoning.  They can encourage division and conflict.  They certainly don't help with integration of religious people into society.

I am sure this is a familiar situation.  What may surprise people is that I am not just talking about religious fundamentalists.  I have come across atheists who act in this way.  It is almost always towards Muslims. 

This is their view:  Islam is a unity.  It is not just a different kind of religion, it is a unique danger.  All Muslims share responsibility for the worst excesses of the minority who are violent fundamentalists.  If this view weren't strident enough, these atheists reject the views of any Muslims who criticise the fundamentalists as not being true Muslims.  So, it is self-fulfilling: the views of moderates are rejected until the definition of 'Muslim' includes only fundamentalists.

These atheists are attracted to the same views as those who one would think are their exact opposites - the fundamentalist believers.  Both share the same interpretation of religious texts.  Both are largely immovable in their views.  Both believe that those who don't accept literal readings of holy books aren't true members of the faith.

I believe these particular atheists are a problem for society, as they work to silence the voice of moderates, and to prevent integration.  They seek conflict, even if that conflict is only based on words.   

I have no hesitation in calling these people 'fundamentalist atheists'. 

A classic film is remade into one of the worst ever.

Read more...