Ecklund’s still at it

February 7, 2011 • 7:18 am

Elaine Ecklund is making more hay out of her Templeton-funded research than I would have thought possible.   Author of the book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, she has spent her post-publication time distorting her findings as loudly and as often as possible, and spinning them to claim that they show the need for a consilience of science and faith.  Templeton could not have gotten more bang for their bucks.

Her latest piece, “Science on Faith“, is in The Chronicle of Higher Education. (It’s behind a paywall but I got it from the library.)  Once again Ecklund emphasizes the many scientists who “identify with a religious label,” (these, of course, include atheists like Jason Rosenhouse and me!), and who “see themselves as spiritual.”  After cannily making her readers think that many atheist-scientists are actually “spiritual” folk, only a hairsbreadth from accepting Jebus, she reaches her familiar point: university scientists need to talk more about religion in and out of the classroom:

Talking with these scientists, I have found that many of them simply don’t know what to do when their students bring up issues related to religion. Academic scientists want models that involve more than just asking students to compartmentalize their thinking. . .

According to my findings, a sizable minority of natural and social scientists—about 20 percent, some religious and some not—now think that although the scientific method ought to be value-neutral, religion can meaningfully intersect with the implications of their research and the education of their students. A scientist’s faith might motivate her to fight global warming, for example, or to decline research grants from sources that support nuclear proliferation.

Or, one might add, call into question the modern theory of evolution, cast doubt on global warming, or, in the case of Francis Collins, go around lecturing that human morality is not an evolved or secular phenomenon, but ironclad proof of God’s existence.  Of course, Ecklund never mentions the possibility that a scientist’s faith could lead her to activities that are not quite as congenial to liberals as battling global warming.

Having established the dire state of disparity between science and faith in universities, Ecklund then tells us scientists what we must do.  She has three prescriptions:

1.  Learn moar religion. As Ecklund says,

First, academic scientists must acknowledge religious diversity. While scientists have an elaborate vocabulary for the subjects they deal with in their own fields and subfields, those without a religious identity (more than 50 percent) have limited experience, knowledge, or interaction with religion and religious people. (Thirteen percent of scientists were raised with no religious tradition, and those who were raised in religious homes were mreligious in name only.)

Scientists need to understand that different religious traditions intersect with science in distinct ways. Just as not all biologists study the same biological systems, not all religious people have the same beliefs or apply their beliefs in the same way. (For example, many Christians have no problem accepting evolution, while certain Christian groups reject it.)

Academic scientists have a particular intellectual responsibility—in the face of public conflict between religion and science, as well as because of the increasing diversity of their own student populations—to deepen their understanding of religion.

Well, of course many of us have other claims on our time, but I am doing this, Dr. Ecklund!  But not for the reasons you think!

2.  Get rid of our pervasive scientism!

Second, we need to acknowledge the limits of science. Scientists should be willing to discuss what science is and what it is not, which is very much in keeping with Gould’s idea of nonoverlapping magisteria. Philosophers of science and scientists themselves have discussed what they call scientism, a disciplinary imperialism that leads scientists to explicitly or implicitly assert that science is the only valid way toward knowledge, and that it can be used to interpret all other forms of knowledge.

Scientists who want their colleagues to do more to advance the public transmission of science—particularly those who think their colleagues are already doing a poor job in this regard—mention rejecting a form of scientism that has no room for meaning and morality.

Yeah, I’m really going to take up a lot of classroom time discussing this one!  And doesn’t Ecklund know that some people see “science” as more broadly construed, as one species of rationality—a rationality that can also apply to those other unspecified “ways of knowing?”  And others, like Same Harris, see the very roots of morality—and its applications—buried deep in science.  Finally, Dr. Ecklund, is it really a slur on university science teaching that we “leave no room for meaning and morality”?  As humans, we do have codes or morality, and do find meaning in our life (much of which is involves studying the universe). Our job, though, is not to foist our personal beliefs on our students, but to teach science. Let the philosophy department teach students how to think critically about these other things!

Some day I’m going to make a list of accommodationist code words, and what they really mean.  “Nuanced” is one, and now “scientism” is another.

3.  We should talk more about science and religion. Ecklund’s explanation here is really funny:

The third stage is a willingness of scientists who are religious to talk publicly about the connections between their own faith and their work as scientists. These “boundary pioneers,” as I call them, can show students that it is possible, under certain conditions, to view science and religion as compatible. And they can provide colleagues with a model for how to discuss the ways in which science and religion interact. These individuals must be well-respected scientists, yet outgoing and savvy enough to connect with nonscientists.

Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, is the most recognized example of a boundary pioneer, among others who are less well known.

When you read stuff like this, you begin to suspect that Ecklund is either blinded by the infusion of Templeton cash or is completely disingenuous.  For what makes her think that those of us who follow her advice are going to promote a harmony between science and faith?  Collins may be one “boundary pioneer,” but what on earth makes Ecklund believe that when more rational scientists learn about faith and begin discussing it, they’re all going to show that science and faith are compatible? What about those atheistic “boundary pioneers” like Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Victor Stenger—not to mention smaller fry like me? If a student came to me outside of class and asked for my honest opinion about faith and science, I’d tell him, in a civil fashion, that the two areas are completely incompatible, and then explain why.

After all, what would happen if America’s leading scientists started broadcasting their views about science and faith?  Remember these data, published a while back in Nature by Edward Larson and Larry Witham:

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

And, as that link shows, the atheism of NAS scientists has grown steadily since 1914.  Ecklund should be careful what she asks for.

Egg number two!

February 6, 2011 • 2:43 pm

UPDATE:  Mother Eagle is now nomming her fish, and as she stood up to eat I got a good screenshot of the eggs:

_______________________

Over at EagleCam, the female has laid egg number two!  (Thanks to reader TrineBM for alerting me.)  The poor girl looks exhausted, and dad seems to have brought her a postpartum fish.  You can see what looks like one on the left side of the nest, but she’s too worn out to nom it!

The website will undoubtedly post a video of this event, and I’ll put it up when it appears.

This pair has, I believe, laid three eggs each of the last two years, and fledged all six chicks successfully.

A sure sign we’re winning

February 6, 2011 • 10:10 am

Today’s Telegraph reports that, in a study endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglican clergy have been instructed to go after Gnu Atheists:

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as “a social problem” and says the next five years are set to be a period of “exceptional challenge”.

It expresses concern that Christians are facing hostility at work and says the Church could lose its place at the centre of public life unless it challenges attempts to marginalise religious belief. . .

. . .”One of the paradoxes of recent times has been the increasing secularisation of society and attempts to marginalise religion alongside an increasing interest in spiritual issues and in the social and cultural implications of religious faith,” says the report, called Challenges for the New Quinquennium.

The Church must be “explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem,” it says.

“This is partly about taking on the ‘new atheism’.”

I expect that Eric MacDonald will have something to say about this.

h/t: Raymond

The AAAS sells out to Christians

February 6, 2011 • 6:30 am

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion . . The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith. These are irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet. —Neil deGrasse Tyson

If you’re a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), perhaps the most important scientific association in this country and publisher of the prestigious journal Science, you should know where your dues are going.  According to Alan I. Lesher, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of Science, they’re going to support accommodationism.  (Let me hedge this a bit: I’m not 100% sure that what I’m about to describe is supported by membership dues, but the project is certainly supported and promoted by the AAAS.)  Let this post be a lesson to those who claim that scientific organizations don’t promote accommodationism.

We’ve already seen Leshner posting science-and-faith-are-pals sentiments on HuffPo (aka Accommodationism Central), and he’s just done it again with a post called “Exploring the middle ground between science and religion.”  What’s not new here is Leshner’s usual call for harmony between science and faith:

Discussions about science and religion too often resemble one team lining up against the other. In this country, the science-religion interaction can be as aggressive as NFL football. Sometimes, however, a few serious players come onto the field and refuse to take a side. This disrupts the polarized conflict, and it reminds us that the scientific and religious communities are not opposing teams, and do share common interests and concerns.

What is new—and depressing—is Leshner’s announcement that the AAAS annual meeting, to be held February 17-21 in Washington D.C., is having a symposium on “Evangelicals, Science, and Policy,” designed to harmonize evangelical Christianity with science, thereby drawing that subset of Jebus-lovers into our fold (but not asking them to give up their antiscientific superstitions):

Evangelical Christians constitute approximately 30 percent of the U.S. population, and their influence on public policy is considerable. As a community with major concerns regarding science, ethics, and national priorities, its impact on science policy has been particularly significant, as in the case of stem cell research. Around such controversial issues, communication between science and evangelical Christianity has been hampered by limited appreciation of both the scientific facts and each others’ concerns. On the other hand, new models of positive engagement between these communities around global issues such as climate change is encouraging awareness and leading to science policies that benefit both science and society as a whole. As science progresses in other disciplines, evangelicals will continue to play a significant role, but their positions on many of these issues have not yet been fully formed. The opportunity thus exists to anticipate concerns and to develop a positive understanding that will benefit scientific advancement.

(A grammatical plaint: when did “advancement” replace “advance”?  The longer word is pompous and grating.)

Who is speaking at this symposium? Certainly not anybody opposed to accommodationism.  We have James McCarthy of Harvard speaking on evangelicals and environmentalism.  His abstract includes this:

What resulted from discussions launched by Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment and the National Association of Evangelicals (which represents 45,000 local churches) was a remarkably productive exchange of views about the power of partnership between our communities.  Stewardship for the whole of the Creation was clearly a shared goal.  Although we approach this topic from different perspectives a mutual respect for these differences allows us to see that we have a great deal in common.  We have resolved to deploy jointly, whenever possible, our respective resources to address climate change.

“Creation”?  (Note that its capitalization implies divinity.) Is that what we biologists are trying to preserve?  Note, as well, the call for “mutual respect for . . . differences”, i.e., lay off the evangelicals about Jesus. I am not opposed to working with evangelicals for environmental causes, but why on earth do I have to respect their crazy beliefs?

We also have neuroscientist William Newsome of Stanford—described by Leshner as “a devout Christian”—speaking about neuroscience and Christianity. I was at first heartened when I read this part of his abstract:

On such issues [the question of free will and neuronal determination of behavior], resolutely reductionist accounts of behavior will no doubt create conflict with Christianity and other major religious traditions as well. Mainstream Christian thought, for example, postulates the existence of an immortal soul, related to but potentially independent of the physical body, which comprises the most profound essence of personhood.

Indeed, here is a real conflict.  One simply can’t comport the findings of modern neuroscience with the concept of a soul.  Here’s a chance to highlight a genuine impasse between religion and science. But this is an opportunity missed, for  Newsome will harmonize them!:

Is it at all conceivable that these notions can engage constructively?  [JAC: NO!] Can another round of conflict between religious and scientific communities be headed off, or at least steered in directions that are open and curious rather than dogmatic and destructive?  I hope to suggest ways in which both religious and scientific communities can move beyond their own “fundamentalist” tendencies toward a more nuanced conversation concerning human personhood and related social and policy issues such as criminal responsibility, cognitive enhancement, and end-of-life concerns.

There’s that word “nuanced” again. Run away fast when you see it. In this context it’s always a synonym for “obfuscatory.”

Leshner lauds Newsome’s lack of scientism:

A lauded researcher, Newsome says he feels “it doesn’t serve a religion or its adherents to deny the contributions of science.” On the other hand, Newsome says his religion allows him to look at science critically and to consider aspects of life that may not lend themselves to the scientific method. For instance, intuition and commitment without proof may be more appropriate, not only in matters of faith, but also when deciding where to live, whom to marry, or how to proceed in the face of tragedy.

Well, those questions may not be resolvable by hard science per se, but they’re certainly amenable to reason and evidence.  And why is religion a better way to approach them than, say, inspecting the entrails of slaughtered goats or consulting one’s horoscope?  And surely issues of evidence come into play when deciding where to live or whom to marry—unless you’re a Hindu or fundamentalist Mormon and have to marry someone chosen by others. Remember the list that Charles Darwin made about the pros and cons of getting married? Well, that’s a bit “geeky” (LOL!), but we all go through a similar process when contemplating marriage or a move.

The third speaker is James Childress from the University of Virginia, whose topic, “Evangelical Christians and stem cell policy,” has no abstract (perhaps wisely!).

What irks me about all this are two things.  The first is the complete omission of contrasting anti-accommodationist views.  There is a huge subset of AAAS members who don’t feel that science and faith are in harmony—indeed, that they are in dire conflict.  Those views never get represented at these meetings.  You will never see a AAAS symposium on “The incompatibility of science and faith,” with scientist-speakers like Richard Dawkins or Victor Stenger. (What a lovely thing that would be!).  The AAAS chooses to present only one view, as if it represented a majority of its members.  What about the many of us who feel that the best thing for science—and humanity as a whole—is not respectful dialogue with evangelical Christians, but the eradication of evangelical Christianity?*  (See footnote.)

This one-sided treatment of faith is particularly galling because Leshner pretends to be inclusive:

Acknowledging the diversity of views within both the scientific and religious communities and “encouraging respectful dialogue with insight into different perspectives,” as recommended by the director of the American Scientific Affiliation Randy Isaac, throws off a polarized contest in which “there’s so much heat that people aren’t listening to each other.”

That’s a laugh!  Where is the atheist “perspective”?  The AAAS would rather do anything than acknowledge the important view that science and religion are implacable foes.  Which brings me to the second irk.  Have a look at what members of the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of Christian scientists (note the small “s”), are asked to affirm.  Their first two “planks” are these:

  1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
  2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.

In case you don’t know these creeds, the Nicene says the following:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And the Apostles’ Creed:

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

11. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

God, Jesus as the son of God, the virginity of Mary, the Resurrection, sin and its absolution, heaven, Judgment Day, eternal life after death—none of these are in harmony with modern science.  Nor, indeed, is the idea that a group of scientists have to swear to a ludicrous set of beliefs for which there is no evidence. This is what we’re supposed to respect?  Why is this stuff part of a national scientific meeting?  And if it has to be, where is the other side?

In the end, Leshner sees this “dialogue” as a productive:

That’s certainly a good thing. Such conflict is likely to produce few winners. In fact, considering the serious issues facing us at this moment in history, we all stand to lose.

No—here are the real losers: abortion doctors who are shot by evangelical Christians, women forced to bear unwanted babies because abortion is seen as sinful, gays who are either marginalized or demonized because evangelicals consider their thoughts and behaviors as sinful, children who are terrorized—and infused with lifelong guilt—by the concepts of sin and hell, women who must accept their status as a second-class gender. Even believers like Francis Collins, surely on the liberal end of the evangelical Christian spectrum, hold profoundly antiscientific beliefs.  Collins, for example, can’t see how morality could have either evolved or developed in society unless it was a creation of God, and considers the “Moral Law” as profound evidence for the existence of God.  To anyone working in anthropology or neuroscience, that claim is simply embarrassing!

The sooner that religion goes away, the sooner these ills will abate.  “Dialoguing” with evangelical Christians (and granted, not all of them hold the beliefs I’ve just mentioned) only enables superstition—a superstition that, one would think, would be resolutely opposed by a scientific organization like the AAAS.  Remember that Leshner is the CEO of that organization and the executive publisher of one of the world’s two most prestigious scientific journals.

____________

*For the many people who have misinterpreted (willfully of otherwise) what I meant by the “eradication of evangelical Christianity”, it is this:  I hope for the eventual disappearance of this faith, not by banning it or persecuting or killing its adherents, but through reasoned argument that changes minds (or affects minds not made up) over time.  Anyone who has followed this website will understand that.

UPDATE:  P. Z. also discusses this over at Pharyngula, but offers a constructive proposal for a secular symposium.  And Nick Matzke, of course, is over there in the comments, kvetching about the horrid Gnus.

Interspecies love

February 5, 2011 • 10:57 am

The huge publicity about the evidence for mating between “modern” Homo sapiens and Neandertals shows me that people are fascinated with inter-specific (or inter-subspecific) love.  After all, isn’t that what King Kong was about?  Sunday’s New York Times reviews another Kongish book, The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore,by Benjamin Hale.

As related by reviewer Christopher Beha, the plot seems bizarre.  The narrator, Bruno Littlemore, isn’t human:

Specifically, he is a chimpanzee, raised in the primate house at the Lincoln Park Zoo and then, after his unusual intelligence is discovered, in the University of Chicago’s Behavioral Biology Laboratory. There he learns the ways and eventually the words of Homo sapiens, beginning with the nod, the head shake and the wave. “With these three signs,” Bruno notes, “you can say to anyone yes, no, harm, no harm, hello and goodbye. Add to these the smile, the frown and the finger point, and you’re practically already in basic-human-social-interaction business.”

At our university!  The genius ape falls in love with his keeper, primatologist Lydia Littlemore, which begins a tempestuous affair that includes sexual congress between woman and chimp.  Apparently, though, salaciousness is not the point here:

And the depictions of interspecies love are certainly discomfiting, but not for the reasons you might imagine. Ultimately, the point of these scenes is not to shock us but to ask what fundamentally makes us human, what differences inhere between a creature like Lydia and a creature like Bruno that disqualify the latter from the full range of human affection. In a twist that sounds heavy-handed when summarized but is expertly managed, Lydia suffers an illness that leaves her helpless and aphasic, reduced to her animal self, making the differences between the two seem even more superficial, and their need for each other even more moving.

Well, maybe.  Despite Beha’s positive review, I’m not running to the bookstore for this one.

In fact, Hale’s novel is so stuffed with allusions high and low, so rich with philosophical and literary interest, that a reviewer risks making it sound ponderous or unwelcoming. So let’s get this out of the way: “The Evolution of Bruno Littlemore” is an absolute pleasure. Much of its pleasure comes from the book’s voice. “You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style,” Humbert tells us, and Bruno certainly obliges.

Perhaps someone who’s read this book can report back.

Darwin Day talk

February 5, 2011 • 8:26 am

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, and every year biologists—and the enlightened public—celebrate “Darwin Day” on or near that day.  Next Thursday, on February 10, I’m giving the keynote address for Darwin Day at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater.  It’s at 6:30 p.m. at the Timmerman Auditorium, and the topic is, of course, evolution—and why so many Americans oppose it.  Drop by if you’re in the area.

I haven’t found any public announcement of the talk (those dudes at Whitewater are LAX!), so this is the only information I have.

The Darwin Day website has a list of this week’s events throughout the U.S. Just type in your zip code and see what’s happening near you. (The Whitewater event is not listed there, either.)

Caturday felid: Special treat!

February 5, 2011 • 5:56 am

When I did my three-year postdoc in Davis, California, I was bored and kitteh-less, for our apartment complex didn’t allow pets.  Since I read the San Francisco Chronicle, I had dreams of opening a cafe called “Coffee, Kitty, and Chronicle.”  The idea would be to run a relaxed and friendly place where people could come, drink good coffee, and read the papers, all the while petting or playing with the many cats that would roam freely on the premises.

Alas, such establishments are verboten in America, for the combination of food and animals is considered unsanitary.  (The enlightened French, however, think otherwise: I’ve often seen dogs sitting on the banquettes in French bistros.)

Not long ago, though, I discovered that my dream of a cat café had become reality in one country: Japan.  For in that land there are more than a hundred neko cafes (“neko” is Japanese for “cat”), where customers can relax, have coffee and noms, and play with cats that live in the café.  What a great idea (since it was once mine)!

And, looking up the locations of these cafés, I discovered there was a particularly LOLzy one in Yokohama, which happens to be the home town of blogger Yokohamamama, our Official Resident Correspondent in Japan.  (You’ve probably seen her comments on this site.)  Ever since I learned of the presence of the Neko Cafe Leon in Yokohama, where the official manager is a double-mutant cat named Leon (a Scottish fold with dwarf legs), I’ve been hectoring Yokohamamama to visit it and file a report.

She has now done so, and you can read her awesome post, “An afternoon at the Neko Cafe Leon,” on her site.  It’s full of pictures, videos, and descriptions about what it’s like to visit such a place.  Although a visit is not cheap, it sounds wonderful.  Be sure to watch both videos, which include manager Leon the Mutant Cat (the Japanese seem to have a penchant for mutant felids) and Yokohamamama’s kids playing with the nekos.  There’s even a photo of the resident Ceiling Cat!

Go over to the post and have many LOLz.  And do leave your comments and questions there, not here, as Yokohamamama is very good about answering readers’ questions.

Enjoy!