Mooney’s accomodationism is destroying the new atheists progress in trying to place the world’s imaginery friends on the shelf next to Santa.  Mooney, shut yer yapper!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

From the article “Defenders of the Faith”:

...consider the words of the Dalai Lama: “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.”

Fine, if most religious folk adopted this principle, then the “knew atheists” would happily shut-up.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”... their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs.” OK, but the head of the NIH does not do science, he/she has an influence on science POLICY. If a scientist is just “doing science” properly, we might never need to know his/her religious foibles, but Collins has gone out of his way to make sure we all know about his beliefs. Besides, how scientific is it to partition off a part of your mind, and not allow it to be touched by science?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think we who are labeled “the new atheist movement” need to be a bit smarter and more accommodating in the attempt to reach new goals and promote science. Mr Collins will probably help to promote evolution amongst believers around the world, it’s seems to me quite obvious.

Dawkins new book seems like a disappointment if you hope it will help people accept evolution. “We” suffer from to much in-group behavior when we need to be as rational as we claim to be. And rational i being pragmatic about our message. We time and again fail to do this and it hinders our cause. And it makes us look bully’s and fundamentalist - even if we don’t agree.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Let’s substitute some other religious scientists for Collins and see how this plays itself out—

How about a nuclear physicist in Iran who wants to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons to help speed the coming of the 12th Imman—obviously we should be supporting them too right Chris?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“It’s not just Collins; consider the words of the Dalai Lama: “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.”“

Buddhism is non-theistic, rational, and not in conflict with science.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Alabasterocean

“Evolution is God’s way of giving upgrades” (Stephen Colbert Interview, December 7, 2006)

Is this the scientist that you want to be promoting evolution around the world?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

People need to hear the truth that Genesis is just a story, an ancient myth. I have less concern about the wooly concepts of a higher power or purpose to the universe than I do with creationists and IDers (creationists in sheep’s clothing). I grew up in one of those wooly-catholic homes and I never had a problem with understanding and accepting scientific facts. Is Collins going to spend his time spouting religious ideas or is he just going to talk about science? If he just talks about science and supports legitimate science as the position calls for than I think its fine. To say he has no place in science because of his religious beliefs is a bit prejudice, as long as he doesn’t use those beliefs to deceive or mislead the public.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is becoming clear that the Hall of Shame is going to have to expand.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This article goes to show one thing…
the (thoughtful) believers will continue to broaden their use of religion to accommodate science.  Nauseating!! hehe

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dawkins new book seems like a disappointment if you hope it will help people accept evolution.

If all the science books in the world won’t do it, then why would anyone even imagine that Dawkins’ editorializing would?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...science contradicts religion…” NO NO NO, science is just science. RELIGION contradicts science!!! Religion makes many scientific claims, science makes no religious claim.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mordacious1

“Evolution is God’s way of giving upgrades”

-Absolutely not. And I am quite nauseated by explanatory metaphor’s that have ideological implications/references. On the other hand I do think that arguments like this do make a lot of impact in America where a majority of the population feels evolution can’t be true because of scripture (God).  I don’t like it but I do know some tiny things about rhetoric, persuasion and communication. If you like to persuade someone you need to be pragmatic, not stubborn and to forth right.

For example, if you like to persuade, or inform, a 15th century peasant about evolution you try to do that inside his own discourse and worldview. Later on you take the worldview out of the equation. This is being pragmatic and persuasive in my view.

Homostoicus

-As you can read above I view the problem of science and non science as a pragmatic one. Dawkins writes a book about evolution and this is to me a perfect opportunity to persuade and inform a lot of people and critics about good clean science. But when I read an article that this book is quite hard on the people if should try to persuade I get disappointed. The best way to promote science is to talk science - not take easy point’s on behalf of the people we need to persuade. This is bad persuasion if the aim is to inform the people who don’t take evolution to be true. Richard doesn’t need to (and should never) compromise the facts, but it would be efficient and maybe smart to compromise in the field of rhetoric.

The main problem that I see in the contemporary debates has the kind of character flaw I outline above. I would never try to stop or correct Hitchens or Dawkins in their preferred choice of debating style, which I enjoy almost too much, but the “new atheist” discourse and tactic can’t be at its best and most efficient if this is the dominant kind of profile.
Do you ever contemplate on the problem that many debates and critics focus on the problems of the “new atheist” hard lined discourse and attitudes?

It’s a kind of super ad hominen, a black hole that swallows the questions and the critique at hand, drawing attention away from more important matters. The main points get lost in talk and attitudes towards the movement itself and not the issue. 

And even worse, the people who adhere to “the new atheists” (I hate the word “atheist” – and “new”!) is starting to grow into real in-group-mob behavior. Even towards it own adherents in some situations. This is bad for everyone. We are not a clan, not a fundamentalist religion, not a fascist party or even a coherent political point of view. We object ideas about Gods and some of us promote science and rationality. I just say, let’s be rational, let us try to be more persuasive and avoid useless in-group behavior and show some example of good manners and individuality.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

- Alabasterocean

My point was that books like TGD are not designed to convert, but to rally the faithful faithless like-minded.  They help us understand that the subject is no longer taboo.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“rally the like-minded”, sound terrible. Especially in the context of Dawkins writing that people who don’t adhere to evolution are comparable to holocaust deniers (I am talking about The Greatest Show on Earth). I hope Richard don’t reason like this, but you might be right, maybe he is. It might explain why I prefer Sam Harris way of deliberation.

I don’t like the “rally” part but I see extremely clear how it is useful in this world. People need to react, say “it’s enough”, but I do feel terrible if it means degrading people at the same time. I might be over sensitive- where do you draw the line when it comes to humans who think facts are a matter of opinion?

Hope I didn’t misinterpret to much. My point is that we should do what is most effective and avoid what we criticize other for. And keep mob behavior at a minimum.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why does it require two people to write such drivel? They need to read Dennett’s essay ” belief in belief”. Exposure to this type of material confirms my early decision to ban all such publications from my home and office.

The question here is - Why did the president nominate this particular scientist?  I think Obama is attempting to disarm a major part of his constituency, the religious community, with this nomination. He places a popular, well-known believer as head of the NIH, but will keep him on a short leash. Meanwhile he nominates a pro-choice judge for the Supreme Court and reestablishes science as the basis for decision making on a federal level. He is moving the country in a more scientific direction but doing so with the political mastery he is known for. Now, those on the far right of the political spectrum appear even more isolated.  Accepting Dr. Collins makes opponents of evolution appear on the fringe. Obama creates a large tent that includes most of American society and then moves them slowly towards our way of thinking.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation.”

That is ridiculous to omit a vast set of disciplines: astrology, palmistry, alchemy, wizardy, voodoo, and witchcraft to mention a few.

Surely they lead to the truth about God and creation as well?

Oh wait, you said science leads to truth about God and creation.

Can you explain how?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“That is ridiculous to omit a vast set of disciplines: astrology, palmistry, alchemy, wizardy, voodoo, and witchcraft to mention a few.”

This is funny. You should add nut-ball ideas and faiths to this list like scientology, creationists, heterophenomenology, and memetics. The scientific community has fight these unscientific delusions or we just end up philosophical zombies.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

One of the more interesting aspects of the article-and I think it to be a part of it’s basic thesis-is the following short paragraph:

‘if your religion holds that Genesis must be read literally then you are in direct conflict with scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the diversity of life on the planet, and so on. Yet if we consider religion more broadly—in its own considerable diversity—we find many sophisticated believers who’ve made a peace between their belief and the findings of modern science. It’s not just Collins; consider the words of the Dalai Lama: “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.”’

Is it being implied that good (moderate) Christians have already beat the Dalai Lama
to the punch by not taking Genesis literally?  But there’s a long way to go yet!  That’s just the start.  Why is it then that they’ve stopped short of saying that maybe this born of a virgin business or this ascension into the sky without the aid of a flying machine belief ought not to be taken seriously?  If even Collins could bravely (scientifically?) admit this we might be able to overlook the silliness of it simply because we would know that he is as well.  But he won’t.

I have in the past been guilty of giving religion a more poetic bent, a kind of metaphysical sheen.  But no more.  Religious statements are statements about the world and these statements don’t add up to facts in the world (which is why I think liberal-minded people then feel a need to talk in metaphysical nonsense).  If “sophisticated believers”  have “made a peace” between religion and science the way it’s implied in the article then what is stopping them from truly looking at scientific facts objectively.  I don’t doubt that they have “made peace” with the two (it might be argued they really have no choice if they are truly rational people) but the danger here is one I think Sam Harris has been pointing out ad nauseum:  These “sophisticated” people continue to give cover to the religious groups that actually do take something like Genesis literally.

Is a lack of Francis Collins’ on a certain government board really keeping these people on the fence?  To say that science must be a “broader, more inclusive category” seems to be akin to saying that Disney Land ought to have something more conducive for kids.  Science is inherently inclusive in that objective facts are discovered and refuted into a working synthesis while at the same time naturally and undogmatically exclusive in that you might, for example, believe that certain storms are whipped up in the Atlantic because the creator of the universe is angry about a particular behaviour.  That will not get you very far in a meteorology class.  Indeed the Collins choice might in fact be unpreventable but neither should the fight to question certain of his beliefs that are truly incompatible with science.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.