My interview about faith versus fact on KPCC, Southern California Public Radio, has now been archived here (click on “Listen to this story” below the picture). It’s 18 minutes long and, as usual, I can’t bear to listen to it.
But I do know that both the interviewer, Larry Mantle, as well as all of the questioners, were hostile, and Mantle wanted to concentrate solely on the benefits of morality that derived from religion. That’s his call, of course, but I didn’t consider him a very even-handed interviewer So be it: I’m used to this kind of hostility, for it’s what you get when you try to take the security blanket of faith out of people’s hands.
I did look at the comments though. Many of them are also hostile, but remember that this is conservative southern California. I was, though, heartened by several people who agreed with me. A selection of comments:
That’s ME he’s talking about! Seriously, “fundamentalist scientist”? At least I don’t call for the murder of those who aren’t scientists, or those who have left science.
One caller unwisely told me there was no evidence for evolution. I simply referred him to Why Evolution is True.
The old trope of eugenics is still being offered up as evidence that science itself does bad things. My response, which I stole from Steve Pinker, is that that’s about as useful as blaming architecture for the Nazi gas chambers.
“fundamentalist scientist”
This doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me, the fundamentals of science are pretty sound.
My thought exactly.
Being a fundamentalist is only bad when the fundamentals are bad, like religion.
If only scientists and science teachers had the same access to childhood indoctrination privileges that the monotheist faiths have used to great advantage for centuries.
Childhood indoctrination into science is better know by its other name – education.
Have you contemplated one or more solutions to this state of affairs which you might care to offer here for consideration?
“conservative southern California
Funny, but here in the South, “Californian” is synonymous with “liberal”. Even though I know better, it’s still surprising to me when I run into attitudes from its citizens that’s no more progressive than what I live with. Even the local California expats I know are a mixed bag.
Well your generalization is correct on the scale of the entire state (its predictably liberal, at least in terms of politics). But its a big state, and the “small pocket” of conservatives in southern California and the central valley is more than 3 million people. To put that in perspective, California’s “small community” of conservatives is about the size of Iowa.
Hmmm…since you come from the south, maybe a southern analogy would be better. The CA conservative ‘minority’ is about the size of the entire state of Mississippi.
A 2005 study ranking America’s most liberal and conservative cities found a lot of BOTH in California. Four CA towns wound up in the top 20 liberal cities, and five CA towns wound up in the top 20 conservative cities. http://americancityandcounty.com/administration/study-ranks-americas-most-liberal-and-conservative-cities
Coastal California except for Orange County is quite liberal. The San Joaquin Valley is very conservative, especially Bakersfield and Fresno. The Sacramento Valley north of it is marginally more liberal.
The two most recent US Presidents with a California background were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Nixon being the lifelong native Californian. However, Republican Prez candidates have not taken California since 1988. Both Democrat Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have been in office since 1992.
California gets much of its liberal image from being the home of the movie industry, the great gay Mecca-San Francisco, the Berkeley Free Speech movement, the environmental Green movement, the ’60s Summer of Love, and perhaps the software industry (which definitely attracts liberals more than other high-tech industries- but I’m not sure how well this is generally known.)
Interesting….at first glance, it seems that liberal cities tend to be big cities and conservative cities tend to be very small towns.
One of the most conservative towns is spitting distance from me…..Olive Branch, MS. I’m fortunately just over the state border into TN. Based on the three towns of that list that I’ve visited, I’m inclined to think they’re all pretty red neck.
It’s hard to accept that this is still a reality, people seriously thinking that evolution is wrong, “just a theory” or worse, somehow part of a conspiracy. . .
“It’s hard to accept that this is still a reality, people seriously thinking that evolution is wrong, “just a theory” or worse, somehow part of a conspiracy. . .”
Yeah evolution is so obviously true to me that I find it to be true intuitively. Because of that it seems to me that the only honest position a theist could have is that it obviously appears to be true, but I don’t accept it because the bible says otherwise.
Yeah, all the apes got together and conspired to make us;-)
‘more radical than ISIS’
Well I am glad finds science to be above ISIS.
‘doug in torrance’, that is. Never use ” to enclose text
Professor Coyne did a nice job as always. Some listeners, I think, need to be reminded that there are religions that are not “faith based”. I believe that Professor Coyne’s remarks are directed primarily to the problem that “faith” introduces.
High five to you for accepting to go on the program! It’s easy to discuss this topic with those who agree, it’s much more challenging to discuss with those with a closed mind. While this talk may not deconvert anyone, it does plant a seed in those who have their doubts. Someone planted a seed in my head not long ago…and I am now an atheist.
Larry Mantle wanted to be a minister.
“So how come that he became a broadcaster?
He laughed and said, “Because the ministry was not a good fit for me. In fact, I started as a Biblical studies major at then SCC, now Vanguard, and I realized that for me, my faith is a very non-intellectual experience and whenever I try and make it intellectual it doesn’t work for me. I’m a person who relates to the rest of the world through my intellect. And what was different for me and what was compelling about my experience and relationship with Christ was that it was something very different. So then, here I was going to a Christian liberal arts college, trying to make it an intellectual thing and it didn’t work for me.
“It was sort of like all the things my friends in public school saying about it not making any sense intellectually and I couldn’t do it in a way that made sense as ministry. But, anyway, I switched to psychology and got my degree in that. I started at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena because I still hadn’t given up on this idea that I wanted to go into the ministry. And again, at Fuller, I realized that I couldn’t make my faith work in an intellectual basis.
“It is a simple faith. It is something that I can’t even put into words. It is relational, not intellectual. So at Fuller I just realized that this really doesn’t work for me. And I’d always loved radio as an only child I carried my radio with me wherever I went. So I ended up devoting myself to exploring this career in radio.”
http://www.sloppynoodle.com/wp/why-larry-mantle-gave-up-the-ministry-to-become-a-broadcasting-leading-man/
Steven Pinker is wonderful. He’s the reason I know about this blog.
He has wonderful hair too. 😉
So I’ve heard 😉
Steve Pinker’s had a huge influence on my thinking this summer. The clarity and precision he brings to issues is like a beckon of light being lit in my head and a sigh of relief and sanity. His review article of Jerry’s Faith and Fact and retweeting of some these posts got my attention. Now I’m hooked. Jerry’s blog is the best forum I’ve encountered for engaging intellectually on current topics.
Here here.
“sigh of relief and sanity.”
A great description.
Jerry you did a great job. Clear, straight forward and to the point. It’s amazing how many people are still in the dark ages when it comes to faith….
uh, an “ex-scientist” is what, exactly?
Retired perhaps?
What I found interesting (and totally awesome) was how succinctly and effectively you answered the rapid-fire series of questions. I have to believe anyone listening with a willingness to focus would have come away much better informed on these issues. Even some of the religious listeners. In just 18 minutes.
About to listen to the show, but just noticed, in reading about it on the website, that in your book you “brand” intellectuals as accomodationists. Brand? Really? Seems to me to be a pretty good term for it, and you call them that. But branding? Ouch! You can be so MEAN! Haha. Wow. Couldn’t even make it to the video before some journalist wants to rile people up over nothing.
Charles Finney and John Wesley were big on preaching in open air revival meetings for hours on end and both just didn’t care if folks came and left. They didn’t call into radio shows!!!
I went to a Southern Baptist tent revival the summer of 1975. It was held on the grounds of one of the local PUBLIC high schools (my alma mater). At my tender age it didn’t occur to me to wonder about state/church separation issues. Perhaps they rented the ground from the school board. Not a little whooping and bible-thumping and -waving and assorted gesticulations and atmospherics and seemingly individuals striving to transport themselves above and beyond this world. Not sure why I went, except a chum asked me to. I was not persuaded, as by that time I had been “afflicted” with the first microbes of skepticism. (Well, actually, I had been “persuaded” (“COERCED”?) at age nine at a So. Baptist-sponsored camp.)
Ah, to have had this mind and experience and perspective in my teen self.
Dear Jerry:
You can be forgiven for not understanding the nature of Larry Mantle’s style of interview. KPPC has been my “go-to” NPR station for over 20 years and I have heard hundreds of Larry’s interviews. What you encountered was average. He does not do “home-run-derby” interviews, serving up soft pitches to be blasted out of the park.
He is neither right-wing nor noticeably religious: it’s tough to characterize his viewpoints. His questioning did not sound hostile to me – but challenging. He has a broad and opinionated audience, and questions from opposing callers are frequently allowed on. If the guest has his ‘stuff’ together, he can handily disabuse callers of their notions. This – you may disagree – is actually a favor to the guest, allowing him to address real questions – however well or poorly stated – that are in the minds of real listeners.
I felt you were a little flat-footed – surprised, perhaps, or tired – at the start, but then hit your stride by about 1/4th the way through the show. I doubt that converts were made, but I think you’ll sell some books because of the show. I consider Larry to be one of the best and the most even-handed interviewers I’ve ever heard. In a large city like L.A., his show is the best forum you could have found.
I did not find this interview to be hostile either. I think he asked tough questions that required further justification of the points, but I think that’s how interviewers should be, and if Larry Mantle would do this with a person who just wrote a religious book as well, that’s how it should be.
I thought the interviewer was excellent, too. I didn’t pick up any overt hostility, but he didn’t give Jerry softball questions, either.
Thanks for the comments. Yes, I may still be overly sensitive about “hardball” questions. If Mantle is just as tough on believers as he was on me, I’d be satisfied!
The first caller asked, “Do you believe in men?” I’m still trying to parse what that can possibly mean. Surely, it’s not meant in the strict literal sense in asking whether men exist. The only thing I can come up with is he means it in the sense of whether we believe men are equipped to “save humanity” which smuggles an implied religious premise in that humanity is in need of saving. And, then of course, the caller is conflating different meanings of belief in this case, the first being whether one believes in the existence of a verifiable entity and the second being whether we believe in someone’s ability to do something; i.e. confidence. This is the same game people play with the different meanings of faith.
On the extreme YEC right they think its a home run argument against evolution to point out that the second human sex would’ve had to evolve from the first human sex in a single generation, otherwise the species would’ve died out.
Yes, I know; its so stupid it beggars the mind. But “do you believe in men” could have been an attempt to make this argument. I.e., “men could not have evolved from women in a single generation. So if you believe in men, you know evolution is wrong. Checkmate!”
I actually recall hearing this argument now. A man and woman would have to evolve together separately to mate and carry on the line. It’s complete ignorance and pretty ridiculous to even think this is what evolution suggests.
I did look at the comments though. Many of them are also hostile, but remember that this is conservative southern California
As a native Angeleno who grew up and went to school in Tinseltown, Southern California is a lot less conservative then it was back when I lived there a million years ago. Heck, even Orange County, formally a bastion of right wing nuttiness,has a Democratic Congressperson or 2.
Off to a good start — great start on your part, Jerry. I’ll see if the questions turn from probing to preaching….
b&
I’m hearing some unmistrakable echoes of my own position on morality. Woo-hoo! Don’t know if you got that from me or not, but I loved hearing it.
b&
One caller asked that if we evolved, then why is there only one sentient species on Earth? Didn’t we kill all the Neanderthals? Aren’t we trying to kill each other in competition for resources? If there were another species like us, I’m pretty sure we would be at each other’s throats.
This makes me want to teach a parrot to say “Why is there only one sentient species on Earth?”
This is also assuming that cave find in Africa wasn’t another sentient species or that none of our recent evolutionary ancestors were sentient. Hell, can we really even say no other animals are sentient now given the hard problem of consciousness. There is very likely no easily distinguishable line where a creature crosses into sentience.
Oh that architecture remark is priceless. I will have to remember that one myself. That Pinker comes up with some good stuff sometimes. 🙂
Susan Jacoby has a similar gift.
Ah! I loved this interview. Jerry does a great job of responding to naysayers and doubters. That is so much more entertaining than interviews where the audience already sees reason. Thank you for posting it.
Here here 🙂
Okay, there I was stifling myself when Ken replied to you with what’s supposed to be “Hear, Hear” and now you are doing it back.
I can’t tell if you are teasing or genuinely imitating him.
I was nodding and raising a wine glass in agreement. Endearingly, I had not noticed the typo on either occasion – and now enjoy knowing that its outbreak has come under containment. Thanks for the observation 🙂
Also, in retrospect, I like ‘here here’.
Abandoning prescription in favor of connection works for me; playfulness trumped the rules without me having to think about it.
Incidentally, Ken, is this webpage yours (http://www.kenelliott.com/index.html)?
If so, stunning!
It is not. It’s a coincidence on the names, and I do dabble some in artwork, but nothing as good as Mr. Elliott’s from Colorado. I’m envious of his talent, but probably even more jealous of his neighborhood. I’ve always loved the mountains of Colorado.
Hey Ken,
That’s kind of a relief to hear, actually! His art’s so pretty, I was thinking a trip to Colorado for a lesson should be in my future. Wheh. I’m off the hook for now.
I noticed the raptor above your name and thought it was moving (pun intended). I can imagine being blown backwards like that. What kind of bird is it? Afraid to ask if it’s yours, but it is breath-taking. And I couldn’t replicate it – not even with lessons.
It’s an eagle, but I don’t know specifically which one. It is mine, though, drawn with black pens using a stippling technique. I love the raptors and intend on drawing more. There have been dozens of great photos posted on WEIT, many of them of the red tailed hawk, which is a gorgeous bird.
I didn’t think Larry Mantle was hostile. He was asking challenging questions, which is what a journalist is supposed to do.