I’m supposed to be interviewed this morning about FvF on New York’s The Brian Lehrer show on WNYC (you can listen live at the link) between 11:20 and 11:40 New York time (10:20-10:40 Chicago time). Or, if you have an old-fashioned radio, turn your dial to 93.9 FM or 820 AM.
Here’s the show’s announcement, though I think he’s got wrong what “accommodationism” means:
Any chance of a download for us foreigners? 😛
It’s working for me just click on the links and see, should be on at around 16:20 gmt or 15:20 UTC
17:20 for people in the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, Vatican City etc. The link works just fine for me too.
For those who’ve missed it, go here and click on Listen for the Evolution segment. Hope it works for the ‘foreigners’. 🙂
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/
I can confirm it works.
Yes, he did get that wrong….you will fix him up at 10:20 central
Yeah, there are a lot of different definitions of “accomodationism” out there. I’ve even seen different ones being used in WEIT comments.
Accomodationists don’t say “creationism and evolution are both fine.” They say “religion and evolution are both fine as long as the religion stays away from creationism, which is wrong.”
A strong version of accomodationism might add that creationism is “okay” if the believers keep it to themselves. One of the hallmarks of an accomodationist mindset is the ease in which one flips from discussing matters of truth to considering how we can all get along.
Good luck with the interview! My guess is that you will be reaching a lot of indignant Liberal Christians and Spiritual-But-Not-Religious types who will simultaneously be outraged that your attack on faith didn’t just focus on the extremists and that your attack on faith DID just focus on the extremists, you never mentioned them, they’re so different.
Followed up of course with ‘can’t we all just get along — and drop the whole God debate thing?’
Answer: no.
The reason the answer is no (one practical reason) is that believers vote based on their religious ideas. And that affects everyone.
Oh yes, The comments along that line have already begun and they are the usual claptrap – and the interview is ten minutes away yet.
Judging by the embarrassing first comments at the WNYC link, I must presume that none of the commenters sounding off on the issue have actually read the book in question… Let’s hope that the interview with Jerry will prompt them to do so!
Tom: “There’s a big difference between fact and truth.”
(roll-eyes)
Yeah, thanks Tom. First, tell us about all the things that are false that are nevertheless true. Second, tell us about all the factual things that aren’t true. We’ll wait.
You remember the comic book ads for art school? This is my seminary admission test.
Things that aren’t “fact” but are nevertheless true: sunsets are beautiful. You can’t “prove” it objectively with science — but you can know it’s true through your own experience.
Now, consider “God exists” to be the same kind of belief as “sunsets are beautiful,” because God is the source of Beauty and that’s how we experience God.
Checkmate, athiests!
(Did I get into the seminary? I figure that answer at least qualifies me for entry into Anonymous Indignant But Smug Spiritual Person on the Internet status.)
“Things that aren’t “fact” but are nevertheless true: sunsets are beautiful. You can’t “prove” it objectively with science — but you can know it’s true through your own experience.”
Give neuroscientists some more time and they should be able to ‘prove’ by looking at one’s brain activity that he or she finds the sunset beautiful, or that one doesn’t feel anything when looking at it.
No, that’s not what they mean. They mean that the response to beauty is not compelled through study or learning.
Inherently subjective personal preferences and tastes aren’t “right” or “wrong” like beliefs concerning material objects or situations. If someone genuinely prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream, then no amount of brain scans and opinion polls would show that no, that’s a mistake: chocolate is objectively better so they must change their preference to chocolate and stop liking vanilla so much.
That’s more or less the category error they make with the god hypothesis. God is more like the ice cream than the enjoyment of the ice cream. But good luck trying to tease this distinction out of their blissful state of buzzing confusion when a lot of really smart people are making the same fallacy.
“No, that’s not what they mean. They mean that the response to beauty is not compelled through study or learning.”
The question is if there’s anything like inherent beauty at all, one person’s beauty is another’s meh…
That was so deep my waders are starting to fill with sewage.
A few of the commenters have not even read their own book, which in no way diminishes their certitude about what it says.
Robert from Queens: “What a jerk — and an ignoramus. G*d *didn’t* tell Abraham that killing his son was good — He told him (at least in the Torah/Hebrew Bible, which is the source of the incident this dumb guest is referring to) *not* to kill his son — that it *isn’t* good (contrary, apparently, to the reigning religions of the day).”
Apparently RfQ has not actually read Genesis 22, in which God does indeed tell Abraham to kill Isaac (verse 2) before the Big Reveal in verse 12: “I was just kidding!”
Dalton Gari from Flushing, Queens, NYC” “And by the way, it was Ismael who was offered up for sacrifice by Abraham and not Isaac; Isaac was not yet born.”
Well, DG claims to be an Associate Professor of Economics, emeritus, Qur’anic and Baha’i Economic Studies; which might explain why he is wrong; perhaps he got his version of the story from some other God-authored book.
It’s as if they are saying, I don’t believe my faith is really that bad!
The Koran says that Ismael was the intended sacrifice.
Supposedly Isaac was the ancestor of the Jews, and Ismael the ancestor of the Arabs, so each group makes their ancestor the star of the fable.
Just listened and Dr Coyne was impressive in his clarity. Great job. Refreshing to hear some intelligent discussion on the radio.
Yeah, what you said. I really enjoyed it too. 🙂
Nicely summarized position at the end of your interview, Jerry!
Lehrer played the NOMA card, and in his closing comment construed that your book was about “discrediting” religion. I liked the way you shifted his focus to science as a more reliable/defensible method for ascertaining truth about reality.
I listened in, Jerry was great, congratulations.
Just finished listening to the interview on the Brian Lehrer show and it was excellent. Jerry was able to cover many of the important issues and explained them all very clearly.
From 10:23 until 1042 central time. Explained Incompatibility, morality, the medical care issue and why Agnostic does not get it.
Also did very well with the “almost questions” by the call ins. First one was a Jewish person and guess who knows that subject. Also the question of Evil in the World was addressed by Jerry. Then Why are people religious was handled and finally asked — What is the goal of the book. To recognize faith is not the way and does not have the answers and that reason is the way.
I like the Nessie analogy. I also like:
“Pervasive respect for faith.”
I think this has been my favorite PCC interview yet.
sub
This was a great interview. The audio was clear, PCC wasn’t rushed, but was articulate, clear and to the point, and did a great job limiting the irritating free-ranging that tends to go on with audience/listeners’ questions.
I agree, though Jerry might have had come out as a tad ’militant’ to the average religious listener, who’s all too eager to play the tone card whenever faced with inconvenient facts about his or her faith.
Sorry but I did not hear militant at all.
If Mr. Rogers puts on his sweater and slippers, smiles sweetly at the audience, and in the most gentle, reassuring, friendly voice imaginable patiently explains why God is a hypothesis and faith is a vice, people will complain about the shrill, strident, militant gnu atheist they just listened to.
When they say “it’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it” do not be fooled: it’s what we’re saying.
Exactly right imo.
Nor did I.
One can only wonder if Jerry didn’t interrupt the waffling callers at some point, would they continue to waffle forever about how Judaism is perfectly compatible with science, etc? 🙂
I’ve decided that if someone is banging on, and it’s going to cut into other people’s question time, I will politely try to make them get to the point. After all, if I had let that Jewish person go on, there would have been only a single question! I love Q&A, and the more Qs the better.
I’m happy you did that.
I was surprised that Brian Lehrer wouldn’t chime in earlier urging the listeners of his show to come up with an actual question or succinct point for your consideration. For some reason he didn’t appear to object to their confused ramblings…
Jerry, my hero, hit it out of the park again! I wish the opposition would once in a while bring to the game some who were not so obviously third string players. Maybe it just has to be accepted that that’s all there is?
There simply are no good arguments against Jerry’s hypothesis imo. I think if there was one, someone would have come up with it by now – theist is not a synonym for uneducated and stupid.
I’m going to listen to this a little later accompanied by a cold beverage or two.
I love the fact that the Creationism puzzle pieces won’t even fit together with themselves without making stuff up and ignoring other bits. :p