With the good reviews come the bad, and although I had predicted that Faith versus Fact would be uniformly panned by believers, a science journalist—John Horgan—has gone after it in both the Wall Street Journal (sadly, the article, “Preaching to the converted,” is behind a paywall) as well as in in his Scientific American blog, where he couldn’t resist giving a precis his WSJ review (his piece at SA is “Book by biologist Jerry Coyne goes too far in denouncing religion, defending science.” I’m not going to respond to Horgan’s review in detail: he notes that, as is the case, we’ve bickered before in the blogosphere (mostly about free will), and I don’t propose to extend the bickering. His main point is in the first paragraphs:
I’ve never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted. What’s the point? Why bother bashing believers in ghosts, homeopathy and Allah or non-believers in global warming, childhood vaccines and evolution in ways that cannot persuade but only annoy those who don’t pre-agree with you?
This question kept coming to mind as I read “Faith vs. Fact,” the latest in a seemingly endless series of books that berate religious believers for their foolishness. Biologist Jerry Coyne reveals early on that his goal is to enlist more people in his anti-religion crusade. He was disappointed that his previous book, “Why Evolution Is True,” a tutorial on Darwinian theory, failed to vanquish creationism. What Americans need, Mr. Coyne decided, is “not just an education in facts, but a de-education in faith.” His shrill, self-righteous diatribe is more likely to hurt his cause than help it.
Well, I deny that the book is shrill and self-righteous. What Horgan clearly dislikes most is that I don’t snuggle up sufficiently closely to faith, or admit its benefits. Further, neither I nor the other New Atheist books are “preaching to the converted,” but talking to those who are on the fence, or haven’t thought through the issue of how religion and science relate to each other.
And, of course, does anybody criticize the religious books (ALL OF THEM!) that really do “preach to the converted”? Has that ever been used as a criticism of Alvin Plantinga, John Haught, John Polkinghorne, et al.? If so, I haven’t seen it. After all, where does the metaphor of “preaching to the converted” come from?
Curiously, Horgan was once an opponent of the accommodation of science and religion—he wrote an admirably critical piece on Edge about taking money from the Templeton Foundation—but seems to have changed his tune about the issue. The Edge piece contains, for instance, Horgan’s recommendation for the Templeton Foundation:
“First, the foundation should state clearly that it is not committed to any particular conclusion of the science-religion dialogue, and that one possible conclusion is that religion — at least in its traditional, supernatural manifestations — is not compatible with science. To demonstrate its open-mindedness, the foundation should award the Templeton Prize to an opponent of religion, such as Steven Weinberg or Richard Dawkins.”
It’s a pity that Horgan now considers such conclusions as “shrill and self-righteous”! For surely The God Delusion is more extreme in its criticisms than Faith versus Fact.
*******
Over at ScienceNews, science journalist Bruce Bower goes after the book in his review “‘Faith versus Fact’ takes aim at religion.” Here I have a few things to say because Bower’s review seems ill-informed, either because he didn’t really read the book very carefully or is commited to a pro-faith agenda. A few quotes and my reaction:
Coyne, a veteran of battles with creationists, says science generates evidence-based knowledge while religious faith consists of unverifiable, supernatural convictions. His book joins those of Richard Dawkins and other “new atheists,” who regard religious faith as delusional and religious believers as dangerously intolerant toward nonbelievers and inconvenient scientific findings.
Never in the book do I even come close to saying that religious faith is delusional or that all religious believers are “dangerously intolerant toward nonbelievers and inconvenient scientific findings.” I avoided hot-button words like “delusional,” and in fact use the term only once: to refer to how believers in some faiths regard believers in other faiths! And even Bower must admit that many religionists, like creationists or extreme Muslims, are intolerant toward nonbelievers (for crying out loud, look at ISIS or the laws of Saudi Arabia) or toward “inconvenient scientific findings” (viz., Christian Scientists and creationists).
More:
[Coyne] ends by arguing for a worldwide turn to secular, European-style social democracies. In these nonreligious societies forged from a wide range of cultures and political systems, Coyne predicts, opposition would recede to evolutionary theory, scientific reports of human-caused global warming, childhood vaccinations and assisted dying. People would be happier without God, he says. But his scenario rides more on faith than fact.
Well, I do give evidence that for this claim, including the strong correlation between secularism and acceptance of evolution (both within and among countries), the religiously-based opposition to vaccination and assisted dying (this is undeniable: Catholics have long lobbied against assisted dying), and some evidence that religion has prompted some people to deny global warming. Further, I challenge Bower to show me where in the book I say, or even imply, that “people would be happier without God”. What I say is that people can be happy without God, and that godless societies don’t have to be dysfunctional. None of this is based on faith: look at Scandinavia, whose general well-being and comparatively moral governments are not a matter of “faith”.
More:
Coyne makes debatable points about both science and religion. While science contains powerful accepted knowledge, he underplays the importance of discoveries that increase uncertainty about what’s known.
This is science-dissing, pure and simple. (Criticizing science and emphasizing its limits are, for many, ways to promoting religion, as though tearing down the former builds up the latter.) Throughout the book I emphasize that scientific conclusions are provisional, and that many earlier conclusions regarded as sound (like the immobility of continents) have shown to be wrong. Further, discoveries that cast doubt on what is know do represent scientific progress, for they help dispel error—and that’s progress. But I deny absolutely that, as a whole, science has not generally led to an increased understanding of nature. Does Mr. Bower abjure the canon of science-based medicine?
Here are my “debatable” points about religion:
Coyne portrays religion as a byproduct of an evolved human tendency to mistake inanimate objects for living things. But researchers who study small-scale societies suspect that religion has flourished throughout human evolution partly because it deepens individuals’ commitment to their communities.
Religion doesn’t churn out science-worthy evidence, as Coyne argues. But the author doesn’t come to grips with faith’s deep evolutionary roots. If religion is irrational, it should have been eradicated through natural selection among Stone Age folk. Coyne’s book will irk religious friends and foes of science alike. And that’s a fact.
This is complete hogwash. I summarize several theories about how religion originated, including evolved ones, one that piggyback on evolved tendencies, Boyer’s “agency” theory, group selection, and so on. And I conclude that, since we weren’t there, the origins of religion are irrecoverably lost in the past. Further, Bower’s claim that researchers in general see religion as a result of individual (or even group) selection to promote group welfare is simply wrong: researchers are still groping to understand why religion either evolved genetically (I know of no “religiosity genes”) or culturally. It’s statements like the first paragraph above that lead me to conclude that Bower didn’t read the book with any care.
Finally, in the last paragraph Bower argues that irrationality in the form of religion would have reduced reproductive output (implying that it’s is genetic), and therefore should have disappeared. Conclusion: religion is rational. Both the genetic and reproductive-output claims are dubious at best. Further, Bower is mistaking “rationality” for “usefulness”.
Irrationality in any endeavor or philosophy will disappear through natural selection only to the extent that a). it has a genetic basis and b). “irrationality” genes reduce reproductive output. If this were invariably the case, no irrationality would remain in our species. But of course there is. To name a few forms, we have homeopathy, our tendency to view ourselves as better than we are, conspiracy theories, climate-change denialism, and so on. In my book I quote Steve Pinker on the issue of whether human beliefs are rational or supportable:
Members of our species commonly believe, among other things, that objects are naturally at rest unless pushed, that a severed tetherball will fly off in a spiral trajectory, that a bright young activist is more likely to be a feminist bankteller than a bankteller, that they themselves are above average in every desirable trait, that they saw the Kennedy assassination on live television, that fortune and misfortune are caused by the intentions of bribable gods and spirits, and that powdered rhinoceros horn is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. The idea that our minds are designed for truth does not sit well with such facts.
Does Bower deny that irrationality persists in our species? If it does, why is it still with us?
*******
There’s also a new review of FvF in World Religion News, but, curiously, it renders no verdict, merely recounting a few things I said in the book.
h/t: John
Preaching to the converted?
Surely Horgan can’t be unaware that the population of fence-sitters is considerable. I was in a confused no-man’s-land for some time before I came across the arguments from the famous Gnus and found them convincing.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if “don’t argue, it’s useless” is cover for “don’t argue, I’m afraid you might win and thus put me in the minority.”
When used like this, “preaching to the converted” is really just an Argument from STFU.
Yes. Or, less PC, an argument from, “Shut up and go sit quietly at the back of the bus where your kind belongs.”
b&
Yes, your version does capture the arrogance better.
“Don’t argue, it’s useless” is one of the mantras of the Little People Argument — and as I recall Horgan is an agnostic. People who believe in God, homeopathy, or anything at all which is wrong or mistaken in a particularly supernatural, faith-based way NEED their belief and can’t handle the truth.
They don’t care. I don’t care. Nobody ought to care about other people’s beliefs so the only people Jerry’s book can reach are the small minority which already believes it’s okay to argue about things like religion, or alternative medicine, or ghosts, and so forth.
sub
I’m reminded of the quip whose origins and exact phrasing I’ve forgotten but that I’m sure somebody else remembers about how drunks are also happy. If happiness is the goal, all efforts should be devoted to discovering a real-world soma. That that’s generally regarded as a nightmare should put to rest any questions about the validity of the personal happiness argument for theistic belief.
Indeed, my general review of the book is that, as far as substance goes, there’s nothing significant I couldn’t have written myself had I done the same research and other hard work you did…but that I wouldn’t have even pretended to pull the punches you obviously (to me) did. If you’re “strident,” I must be comic book Satan incarnate.
Not that that conclusion would come as a surprise to any regulars here….
b&
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” -George Bernard Shaw, Androdes and the Lion, Preface (1916)
Yes, that’s the one. Thanks!
b&
* Androcles
“I wouldn’t have even pretended to pull the punches you obviously (to me) did. If you’re ‘strident,’ I must be comic book Satan incarnate.”
Funny.
I don’t know if it will get me anywhere, but I’m working on a book on this subject that is deliberately strident, but in a manner that’s more like a cross between Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation” and Bill Maher (somewhat akin to my first book, actually). “You want strident? I’ll give you strident” is the implied motto. I don’t know if I’ll be able to sell my scorched-Earth take on religion to a publisher (it’ll be a breezy book of about 40,000 words), but I do hope to catch the eye of some intrepid publisher. The book is gonna be fun!
Yes, that does sound like fun! If nothing else, you’ll have to get a copy to Professor Ceiling Cat.
I, too, could imagine writing a no-holds-barred critique of religion…but, not only do I very much doubt it’d get published, I’ve got much more pressing projects to keep me occupied.
Maybe someday, but certainly not soon.
b&
You could practice your arguments at Choice In Dying.
Heh. I’ve been studiously resisting participation. I no longer seem to have the patience for it. Thank you for your efforts there. But I fear they are futile.
Like you, I thought Jerry went out of his way to be fair to believers without, of course, mucking about with faith’s rump. (I can never remember whether he refers to osculating or oscillating.)
But then I don’t think of you as some sort of devil either, so perhaps I’m just a bad judge.
(Osculating. “Osculating the rump” is high-falutin-ese for “kissing ass”.
I imagined it was something along the lines of “pulling the cheeks apart and …”.
Greek kiss, is what you’re thinking of.
That has particular poignancy right now.
Those who osculate tend to oscillate. There’s some correlation there I haven’t fixed down; but it’s there.
That’s why I can never remember, and also because autocorrect always wants to change osculate to oscillate, so it makes me doubt myself. 🙂
I think this is how one oscillates the rump of faith. Much preferred, in my opinion, than osculation.
b&
That was a real treat! I’ve always loved it. 🙂
Oscillating – like going from one cheek to the other?
Isn’t it odd that World Religious News review was much more neutral and without opinion that either of the other reviews. There is nothing worse in a book review than putting words in the book that are not there.
It reminds me of a boss I had once who’s name was Tom and was not well liked. The saying by many of us was — if I want your opinion, I’ll ask Tom.
Your book is not a preach to the converted. As well as being a great analysis, the book is, and will continue to be, a valuable resource for adults from 18-80 who may be trying to make sense of their childhood religious indoctrination. “Faith vs. Fact” will help them realize they were victims.
I’m currently reading FvF. I’m not finding it to be “shrill and self-righteous”.
Oy.
Horgan used to have some well considered points. Obviously he can’t think longer than the pablum now. Sad.
Perhaps Templeton has bought his contract.
This is not true. You go to great length to discuss how NOMA fails and to point out that faith also includes convictions about the natural world that are, at least in principle, testable. It happens that in most cases, those convictions turn out to be testably wrong.
This is indeed laughable. Would anyone seriously claim we are less certain about the causes of disease than we were 100 years ago? That we are less certain about what powers suns or the age of the universe? I think the only way to interpret the discovery of things like dark matter and energy (greater “uncertainties”) is that science has taken us from a position in those fields of ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ to a position of ‘we at least know what we don’t know.’
And on the 1st quote, what struck me about the definition of religion is that it was both right and wrong. It is a right definition of religion to atheists (though too broad). But it is a weaker argument, I think, to define religion in an ad hominen way. It is much better to define religion in a way that would be agreeable to the holders of religion. Then you can bring out the sharp curvy knives and gut it with logic and evidence if that is what you want.
Hmm, perhaps, but I think that the religious really need to be slapped in the face occasionally so they are made aware of how vile their beliefs are to most other people (including other religious people).
I concede that that may not always be a good way to win arguments, but the arguments cannot always be won with all people.
Various approaches have different successes at different times. I mean, if religious people really did believe and behave as if their beliefs were a personal matter, and kept them to themselves and outside of the public sphere, then most of the goals of new atheists might be met without having to deconvert the whole world. If we sowed enough doubt in their minds maybe they’d go away and leave everybody else alone.
Except that wasn’t what the book was primarily about. Its about the incompatibility of faith and science.
JAC does discuss (and judge) the withholding of medical attention to children by religious parents. That’s about as close as he comes to what you describe. Even there, however, his points are focused on the fact that (i) these beliefs are incompatible with modern scientific medical understanding, and (ii) government policy gives a special dispensation to religious followers they would never consider humane or ethical to give to other parents. IOW, again the focus is on the incompatibilities between the systems.
I can’t help but see this a something of an own goal. Is Bowers seriously offering an evolutionary-advantage defense of religion as a counter-point to your argument that it (they) doesn’t appear to be testably true or produce knowledge?
If we concede his point for sake of argument, accommodationism still loses. So, his argument is that its a useful fiction. Okay…that’s still a type of fiction, right?
And a rather condescending one
Bowers is also avoiding the unpleasant fact that a significant way religion has deepened “individuals’ commitment to their communities” has been through fear, intimidation and outright violence.
Now who said the church lost its best argument when it stopped killing people?
“he underplays the importance of discoveries that increase uncertainty about what’s known.”
That is especially baffling. Does he mean that science demoted the certainty that God created the universe and life to the relatively less certain position that we have today? If so, then give me uncertainty any day.
Prof. Coyne shouldn’t feel too bad being bad mouthed by Horgan. He also wrote a biography of the Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray GellMann which was so negative that the two were no longer on speaking terms after the book came out. Prof. Coyne is in excellent company!
Having read Faith vs. Fact, I can say that is not shrill or self-righteous. I wouldn’t even call it strident, though it is certainly uncompromising. This sounds like what Horgan objects to. If it isn’t valid to criticize religion in this way, if it must be done while murmuring platitudes, then it seems like criticism of religion must be invalid in general, at least for Horgan.
+1.
Fiiting. Seems Horgan moves in odd circles.
I sometimes think that accomodationists have a template in their heads for what a gnu atheist book really says:
“In this book the atheist calls religious people stupid, over and over. The writer thinks all problems are caused by religion and that if religion were gone then the world would be perfect. They can’t imagine any value or benefit for anything which doesn’t follow their cold, narrow view of reality and want everyone else to be like them. The entire book reads like it was written by a Christian fundamentalist — but from the other side! Ha ha!”
There. Now they don’t have to actually read anything by gnu atheists.
Bingo!
Christ on a stick. I don’t know how people like these two reviewers look at themselves in the mirror after lying and abusing the meaning of words like that. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Indeed. And strident? To me, anyway, that has connotations of “in the face of logical evidence to the contrary.” If any are strident they are the legions of creationaries who, even now after we’ve passed the sesquicentennial of Origins, and as evidence has continued to heap onto that side, continue to use the same shopworn, simplistic arguments against the evidence for evolution.
As PCC has repeadedly shown, the motivation against evolution is faith. The only recourse is to go after the root.
From my possibly limited US perspective, these people were steadily vanishing until Ronald Reagan came along and gave them a spot at the table.
Ach, preaching to the converted again. In other words, Horgan couldn’t find anything wrong in the book, but still wanted to criticize it anyway.
And when atheists *don’t* preach to the converted, they’re accused of proselytizing just like fundamentalists. Really, the only choices allowed are to either be religious, or to be neutral and not have any opinions at all about religion, (except when telling atheists to pipe down — no neutrality or reason or respect is required there).
Worse than that, I’m afraid.
When it comes right down to it, the only truly acceptable speech from an atheist is the Sinner’s Prayer or local equivalent.
b&
No, I think plenty of religious people would be pleased by an atheist humbly admitting that they lack faith, but respect and appreciate it in others. For many believers on the liberal side, that sort of thing coming from an atheist is even more gratifying than a conversion.
Here, the fault with the “preaching to the converted” argument is this:
If we secularists DON’T “preach,” regularly, then we allow the illogicals to present all of the background noise (_their_ “preaching to the converted AND unconverted”). At some point, this background noise will be powerful enough to overwhelm and drown out _any_ countervailing themes and become desperately dangerous.
Yep, and also Jerry’s point in the article is well made — how often do preachers get criticized for preaching to the converted?
Ultimately it’s a PR move to pretend that no one is influenced by people like Dawkins, Hitch and our host (no pun intended).
Jerry, sir, you are a man of many talents and a keen intelligence and I admire how you are able to counter accusers and doubters with brilliantly clear rejoinders on where, how, or why they have come up short on the subject at hand. I thoroughly enjoy these occasions because, while it’s obvious that a corrective response or statement is required, it’s usually not clear to me how one should, or could, be formed, so I look forward with some excitement to how you will do just that. And you always do. I like to think I’ve learned a a bit from how you confront with clarity.
Hey, don’t ignore the commenters.
Any commenters I’ve ignored were not on purpose. I’m not sure to what you’re referring, which is the second clue that I’m clueless.
Horgan, take a look at the score:
Science – millions of advances for our species
Religion – 0
‘Seemingly endless’? No, endless. There will be no end to books that berate religious belief. Some advice: if you are bored or tired or this stuff you do not have to read it. That’s what some religious people choose to do.
I couldn’t tell. I wasn’t able to get past the horrible typesetting. Its almost mesmerizing in its badness.
They also described Jerry as a “full-pledged” scientist.
“Full-pledged”?
LOL.
OK, you two made me go have a look at the article. My gawd it’s poorly written!
Maybe to differentiate him from “partially-pledged” scientists such as Francis Collins and Don Page?
That is to say; he is shiny! 🙂
(furniture polish)
That John Horgan used the word “shrill” in his review indicates severe unoriginality and an anti-atheist bias, and signals that there is no point in looking further at what he has to say.
This seems a good diagnosis. After all, what’s with not even finding a synonym for “shrill”? Why does that word keep getting used?
It’s from the religitard “talking points” list.
Because “shrill”, in any context apart from speaking of atheist writers, means “having the quality of a high-pitched, annoying sound”, which makes me chuckle. Having actually heard what Jerry’s voice sounds like, I would bet money that he couldn’t manage “shrill” if he tried.
This “preaching to the converted” canard is just so strange. As we know it was heavily lobbed at all Four Horsemen, and yet clearly New Atheism made a huge impact on the public, and plenty of people have cited their works in their de-conversion. (And Jerry has had impact no doubt).
If you have a strong thesis, you argue for it, to get the thesis on the table. How else do you get heard, keeping quiet?
To these critics, how do you not come off as preaching to the converted? Are you supposed to just water down the actual thesis, make lying concessions here and there to those who disagree, to not hurt feelings? What?
Yes, that’s the same thing I was wondering. What exactly do they think the viable alternative is? Where has it worked?
So an honest, straight, clear analysis is off the table: it’s too annoying. How then do we change their minds?
Speak in warm and cuddly deepities which allow people to hear what they want to hear and think we’ve all been in agreement the whole time? Sympathetically reassure the believers that yes, it does sound wonderful, we totally understand why they might decide to stick with it? Start off with points of agreement and hope they don’t start drifting their attention away when we start to sneak in the important stuff? Announce with great fanfare that we’re going to agree to disagree and move to another topic? I mean, we mustn’t bash.
Unless we’re going after atheists. It’s a compliment, really. He thinks we can take it. And so we can and do — on a regular basis.
In some ways its a back-handed compliment. If he really thinks that only atheists are reading Jerry’s book (as well as authors such as Hitchens and Dawkins), well then there’s a lot more atheists in the world than we would’ve otherwise counted, aren’t there?
On my experience this sort of review is par for the course when taking a particular stand. The word ‘shrill’ is the give-away: it’s emotive.
I get similar in my own professional work where I’ve taken a stand against a particular academic historical interpretation, here in New Zealand, one whose advocates appear to uphold not just as an abstract idea, but as a validation of their personal self-worth (rendering their approach, in a psychological sense, effectively akin to a religion). The circus performance as these people have avenged themselves for my daring to query their ‘faith’ has ranged from our top history academic exploding into anger and swearing on national radio merely when my name was mentioned by the interviewer, to ‘wrong at every turn’ worth denial book reviews, filled with hostile and derogatory fantasies about my supposed character – flat out lies that present me as so incompetent you’d think I couldn’t even sit the right way round on a toilet seat. None has addressed the abstract arguments; and none of those performing this way have ever had the guts to introduce themselves to me or discuss their problem – it’s all done by cowering, maliciously and gutlessly, behind the pretense of their academic posts, through book reviews and so forth.
It’s been kind of flattering to be the target of such attention from the most senior academics in New Zealand, but I haven’t tried to engage it apart from one time when the guy was being blatantly defamatory. The point being that I don’t think this sort of conduct is worth engaging unless it’s clear that actual financial or reputational damage has been done: one’s work stands on its own merits and to dispute people who attack it merely gives their behaviour a credibility it usually doesn’t deserve.
Yes, I think using the word “shrill” is shrill.
“…that present me as so incompetent you’d think I couldn’t even sit the right way round on a toilet seat…”
That really made me laugh. Can I use it?
Sure 🙂
As long as the toilet paper is the right way round, nothing else matters 😉
Take a page from Iain Banks. When The Wasp Factory garnered a bunch of horrible personal reviews, he chose to put them in the frontspiece of the book instead of the ‘good’ reviews. I believe it actually increased sales. So take those juicy radio quotes and nasty reviews and put them in the frontspiece of your second edition, you might find it sells even better. And its a good way of flouting your critics.
I have to admit, it drew me in. When you read in the book itself that critics have labeled it horrible, disgusting, etc… it just makes you want to know what all the fuss is about.
True! The practical problem I’ve had has been that this same crowd made sure I was shut out of the public funded opportunities they administered. I couldn’t even equitably apply for university jobs in their territory. And there was at least one direct effort to limit my access to publishers. All of which suggests powerful motives by those doing it – principally a small but noisy group who all know each other – but I can only guess as to what thst motive is because none of those involved has ever had the guts to approach me in person.
One can read Horgan’s review in the Wall Street Journal (for free) by going through Google. Just type into the search engine:
“Preaching to the converted” Wall Street Journal
Then click on the link for Wall Street Journal.
I must admit thinking the professor’s work almost bent over for religion all the way to Chapter 5. Then, as must be done with a fine work of non-fiction he finishes strong.
Maybe this guy just skimmed the last chapter and, therefore, missed every point.
Phew! Having read this with a few drinks in me I thought for a minute Bruce Bawer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/While_Europe_Slept had turned on us…
“shrill” seems to be secret code for “makes me uncomfortable”.
Or triggers their cognitive dissonance…
shrill: having lots of well-developed and cogent arguments that painfully defy my every attempt to blithely dismiss them with thrice-warmed-over william-lane-craig-grade sophistry
Oh, come on. I’m nothing like a biologist but even I know that natural selection doesn’t root out *every* little behavior that might possibly turn out to have deleterious consequences given the right circumstances. Most of us still have to battle our urges to splurge on unhealthy food.
Pfffft.
To take the analogy further, he ignores the possibility that it’s a disease. Smallpox wasn’t much use to humans (and yet we have managed to eradicate it in the wild). But maybe that relies too much on Dawkins’ concept of memes, which after all cannot possibly be correct because it comes from That Man.
It also suffers from the same problem as Pascal’s wager. Tell the Christian “if Hinduism was irrational, it should’ve…” Tell the Muslim “if Judaism was irrational….” See if they buy that logic.
Nope, they won’t. The argument seems to only hold water when it’s the viewer’s own personal beliefs being defended.
Indeed.
I’m sure there are many extant behaviors which Bower himself would unhesitatingly deem irrational. Why hasn’t natural selection eliminated those?
He also doesn’t seem to understand the idea of emergent phenomena. Religion could (and likely is, imo) be the result of interaction between several lower-level behaviors that are retained because they are somewhat useful: agency detection, credulity, fear of death, etc.
I’m surprised he went with “shrill” instead of “Spock.” “Shrill” has been the word since like 1992.
When I hear or read the words “strident” and “shrill” these days I immediately think I am listening to or reading someone throwing a childish insult while trying to sound grown-up, mature. The words have lost value through overuse and reflect badly on the user (they are just repeating someone else’s insults).
As for the book, one of the great disappointments came when I discovered it wasn’t about seabirds, and there were no pictures; no maps, diagrams or illustrations. Furthermore the plot and character development, while at times better than I’ve experienced in G.R.R. Martin’s books, are sadly lacking.
But seriously, I thought the book was well written with the good prose displayed on this blwebsiteg, and argued with a pretty mild style compared to Dawkins or Hitchens. I found the arguments well deployed and convincing (although I am probably biased, like everybody else).
If I had one serious criticism it would be that the material was unsurprising. I found little in it that was new to me, but that would be expected after reading this website for a couple of years.
See — preaching to the converted! .)
Of course there’ll be push back. It’s tough being told one’s beloved person has feet of clay.
Intellectual honesty is priceless in today’s confusing and complicated world, but the deluded would still rather you break it to them gently or stfu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vLJJyD0pE
(Brenda Lee song)
“I’ve never understood the appeal of preaching to the converted. What’s the point? … only annoy those who don’t pre-agree with you?” The man is deadly wrong. Sam Harris has recently interviewed (podcast in his site) Megan Phelps-Roper, granddaughter of Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. As everybody can see in the net, the woman used to show signs with “God hates fags”, “Thanks God for dead soldiers” etc… .In the interview she said clearly that pointing to contradictions in theological conundrums (here specifically the problem of stoning homosexuals once their act is known and advising repent as suggested by some interpretation of the adulterous woman’s parable in john 8. In the podcast 16:10) started her process of self-questioning and lately left to a deconversion.
The other important point in the interview is to see how wrong people like Reza Aslan are regarding these issues (podcast at 11:20, for example, to see how the literalistic view influences the moral ideas and behaviors)…
Isn’t Horgan the “End of Science” guy from a while back?
I’m not a big fan of Michael Moore, but he said something rather clever when accused of preaching to the choir. What he was really doing, he explained, was giving the choir something to sing.
I don’ think Moore meant he was telling people what to think. Rather, he was expanding their frame of knowledge and giving them a tool to be used against those who would deny the validity of their thought.
It’s ironic that Horgan is defending one of the main motivators for doing harm to other people. He fails to see that a believe in free will is almost required for thinking that someone deserves to be harmed or killed.
I think that explains nicely why his “End of war”-book is quite useless.
“In his recent book Faith vs. Fact, Jerry Coyne has enumerated several instances proving that religion and science can never co-exist.”
Either I missed Jerry’s point or the writer at World Religion News did not read Jerry’s book carefully. Jerry never said that science and religion can’t co-exist. Obviously they do. He said they are incompatible. Is this not altogether different?
Well as the old song goes, “You ain’t been doing nothing if they haven’t called you shrill”.
Mmmmm, all those book reviews just make me want to read it even more. WEIT was great too.