Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
by Greg Mayer
At the new Hall of Human Origins at the USNM on the Mall in Washington D.C., you can have a photograph of your face merged with the reconstruction of a Neanderthal, to see what you would have looked like as an early human. Jerry’s there now, and here’s Jerry’s photo. I’m not sure I can detect any real differences.
Jerry will be posting about the exhibit later (as will I, as promised).
by Matthew Cobb
Over at The Guardian, Martin Robbins has an excellent piece taking apart science journalism on the web, highlighting the lazy habits that some of us can fall into. I hope none of the posts on WEIT fall into this category, but I suspect we may occasionally have erred… Here’s an example:
In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of “scare quotes” to ensure that it’s clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.
In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research “challenges”.
If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.
This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like “the scientists say” to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.
In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won’t provide a link because either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can’t be bothered, or c) the journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually published.
The commenters then join in the game, with some fairly droll remarks taking apart the habits of blog commenters. Read and enjoy – and join in1
As one commenter points out, Robbins seems to have taken as his starting point this very sharp piece from UK satirist and Guardian writer, Charlie Brooker, on how journalists present news items:
I don’t usually accept “challenges” to read this or that religious or philosophical tome, all guaranteed to remove the scales from my eyes, but this one merits mention.
Besides the many comments prompted by the CfI post, I received several private emails. One came from a philosopher whose identity I’ll keep confidential. The person wrote me arguing that the very best arguments for the existence of God come not from theology but from the analytical philosophy of religion. He/she also recommends two books that give the best a.p. arguments for God. With the philosopher’s permission, I’m posting excerpts of the email in hopes that people will either read these books or comment here if they’ve already read them:
Further on in the post you say that you have tried to keep up with theology, but have found only obfuscation where the arguments for God's existence are concerned. I have my own beefs with modern theology, but my point here is just that this is the wrong place to look for interesting arguments for God's existence! (Theologians, after all, tend to *presuppose* God's existence, working out more detailed understandings of the world fed by that presupposition. That is their job.) So what's the right place? Analytical philosophy of religion. I find a surprising ignorance among many today who comment about God concerning this source of sophisticated argumentation about God's existence. I have my beefs with many analytical philosophers of religion, too, who are believers and whose philosophizing is most fundamentally motivated not by a love of understanding but by a love of God. However it's just a fact that this believing sub-group, fired by its religious loyalties and a newfound intellectual toughmindedness, has in the last few decades managed to produce more impressive arguments for God's existence, and for the rationality of theistic belief (which some are saying can be defended without arguments for God's existence), than have ever been seen before. There are some extremely smart people in this group. I'm not saying any of their arguments is *successful*, all things considered. But no inquiry into belief in God can get anywhere close to the level of sophistication readers of your book are enabled to achieve without engaging these arguments seriously. . .
So who should you be reading? I'd suggest Richard Swinburne's *The Existence of God,* for one. (And really *read* it, instead of taking your lead from those who say they have done so but who may be uncomprehending or poorly motivated. I have been amazed to find, from misinterpretations of my own work by believers, how badly many people read. As serious intellectuals, I suggest that we should repay evil with good here!) Another, quite different, work is William P. Alston's *Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience.* These two are probably good enough for a start. Either work may well irritate you or leave you dissatisfied in various ways. But I predict that if you approach it with an open mind, it won't elicit the sort of commentary that other believers' works have occasioned in your posts. Instead, I expect you will manage more respect -- thereby achieving (in my opinion at least!) a deeper respectability.
So, I guess I’ll be reading these in the fullness of time. I suspect, however, that even if we find better arguments for the existence of God, we won’t see good arguments for the truth of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other specific faith. I’ll add that, as a scientist, I’m dubious that any argument for God’s existence can be convincing without some empirical evidence. After all, even the assertions of theoretical physics require empirical confirmation.
by Greg Mayer
In an earlier post, I’d noted that I was unable to see the new Hall of Human Origins exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History when it opened in March. As promised at the time, I was able to see it this summer, and will provide a review here soon. But in addition to seeing the human evolution exhibit, I also stopped at the gift shop, and am happy to report that WEIT is not only for sale, it is a Curators’ Choice!
The USNM (as the natural history museum is known to biologists) is one of the nation’s largest non-university research institutions specializing in evolutionary biology, and the curators are the professional scientific research staff of the museum, so it’s an honor to be singled out in this way (even though Neil Shubin’s book is up there too!).
Remember Polly, the kitten with “cat” written in her fur? (Go have a look if you haven’t seen her.) Polly’s owners have just posted on the thread to assure us that “cat” indeed appears in her natural fur: no Photoshopping involved.
I’m just waiting for some hyper-skeptic to claim that the post is bogus. (I have the email address, by the way.)
I really wish Collins had kept this to himself: over at The Washington Post’s “On Faith” site, Francis Collins explains why he is “Praying for my friend Christopher Hitchens”. It’s nice enough, as far as it goes, but Collins explains–as Hitchens already has–that “as the Director of the National Institutes of Health, I am in a position to be aware of new developments in the diagnosis”, and that gives him an edge in sussing out new treatments for Hitchens’s cancer.
Yes, it’s great of Collins to go to bat for a famous atheist. But why the public pronouncement in the Washington Post? It’s almost as if Collins wants people to see what a fine fellow he is. Such acts of magnanimity and generosity are best kept private, especially if they’ve already been reported by the recipient. It’s okay for Hitchens to write about it, since he’s documenting his treatment, but it’s best for the benefactor to remain silent.
But there’s another reason for the piece: Collins likes to use any excuse to do a little Jebus-touting:
Over these last few months, we have not talked directly about faith. He [Hitchens] knows that I am praying for him. But my prayer is not so much for a supernatural intervention – as a physician I have not seen evidence for such medical miracles in my own experience. Instead I pray for myself and for Christopher along the lines of James 1:5 – “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” And I then give thanks for the chance to share in a deepening friendship.
I’m not sure what this means, but I hope Collins isn’t praying for Hitch to see the light and ask God for wisdom.
UPDATE: Josh Slocum has unearthed this quote from Dr. Shook, which may be relevant to our discussion:
Belief in a god fails any minimal standard of ordinary rationality. Like the kind of rationality we expect from eighth-graders. Only common sense sanity, of the sort we normally expect from adults and even teenagers, is sufficient to show why God-belief is irrational.
At one time, it seems, Shook didn’t think that deep knowledge of sophisticated theology was absolutely essential in debating religion.
_______________________
Over at the Center for Inquiry, it looks like open season on atheists. First Mooney, then De Dora, then Ronald Lindsay (the president) and now John Shook, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, and Director of Education at the CfI—all have gone out of their way to criticize their atheist supporters for stridency, hostility, and ignorance. I’m not sure what’s going on over there—is this a covert policy or just coincidental buffoonery?—but the anti-atheist chorus has just swelled by one voice.
Shook has written an amazingly hostile and supercilious piece at HuffPo: “For atheists and believers, ignorance is no excuse.” If you’re a CfI supporter, go read it, if only to see where your money’s going.
Shook’s thesis is that believers and atheists alike—but mostly atheists— are profoundly ignorant of theology, making them unqualified for a chair at the debate table.
Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, and not much more about religion, and they seem proud of their ignorance.
This reputation is a little unfair, yet when they profess how they can’t comprehend God, atheists really mean it. To listen to the loudest atheists, you can hear the bewilderment. And they just can’t believe how a thing like religion could appeal to any intelligent person. . .
Astonished that intellectual defenses of religion are still maintained, many prominent atheists disparage theology. They either dismiss the subject as irrelevant, or, if they do bother to acknowledge it, slim refutations of outdated arguments for a medieval God seem enough. Atheists cheer on such bold leadership, but what is really being learned? Challenging religion’s immunity from criticism is one thing; perpetuating contempt for religion’s intellectual side is another. Too many followers only mimic the contempt, forgetting that you won’t effectively criticize what you would not understand. The “know-nothing” wing of the so-called New Atheism really lives up to that label. Nonbelievers reveling in their ignorance are an embarrassing betrayal of the freethought legacy.
Umm. . . I’m not so sure. True, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens write a bit more strongly than, say, Bertrand Russell, but their arguments are not that different.
In fact, Russell, whom accommodationists see as a “good” 20th century atheist, attacks the same theological arguments considered by the Four Horsemen. Have a look at his Why I am not a Christian. Or read Hitchens’s collection, A Portable Atheist. If you do, you’ll quickly discover that New Atheism is simply a modern-day continuation of a freethought legacy going back to Spinoza. What’s “new” is only this: our arguments are given much more popular attention than before—in books, in newspapers, and on video. Atheism has become, if not popular, at least respectable.
Now Shook also takes out after ignorant religionists, but still manages to pin their ignorance on atheists. The faithful are simply following our example!
But don’t worry, defenders of religion say, there’s no need to learn deep theology or debate God, thanks to dogmatic atheism’s bad example. Just stick with faith; after all, who can argue with faith? Believers reveling in their ignorance are an embarrassing betrayal of their religion’s theological legacy.
And he continues the now-familiar plaint that atheists haven’t kept pace with sophisticated theology:
Christian theology has come a long way since St. Thomas Aquinas. Under stress from modern science and Enlightenment philosophy, it has explored cosmological, ethical, emotional, and existential dimensions of religious life. Many kinds of theology have emerged, replacing a handful of traditional arguments for God with robust methods of defending religious viewpoints. There are philosophical atheists who have quietly and successfully kept pace. The discipline of atheology is quite capable of matching these theologies with its skeptical replies, so atheists need not be intimidated. Taking theology seriously enough to competently debate God should not be beneath atheism.
I’m not a theologian, but I try to keep up with modern theology—not the angels-on-pins stuff, but the new arguments for the existence of God. Besides Aquinas and Augustine the Hippo, I’ve read, among many others, Martin Marty, John Haught, Reinhold Neibuhr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Terry Eagleton, Karen Armstrong, and even the odious David Berlinski. And regarding the arguments for God, well, I haven’t found anything in 20th century theology except obfuscation: arguments so opaque and muddled that they’re not only undeserving of refutation, but hardly capable of it.
And I’m not the only one. Presumably people who have been on the inside—smart people like Dan Barker and Eric MacDonald—are up on modern theology, and they find nothing in it. Neither do most philosophers, who, I think, probably agree with Anthony Grayling but aren’t so vociferous.
It all comes down to the evidence for God and for divine beings. If there isn’t any, then we needn’t take theological arguments seriously—except, perhaps, as an exegesis of the fictional, like those who endlessly debated The Lord of the Rings. And modern theologians simply haven’t coughed up any new evidence for gods. Apophatic theology, for instance, is simply a sophisticated ploy to avoid having to adduce evidence. I beg the deeply educated Dr. Shook to steer me to some new proofs of God, since he neither produces nor alludes to any.
Why is Shook so exercised about this? Could it be because he’s flogging his new book?
I expand on these observations from the front lines of the God debates in my new book, The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists, Believers, and Everyone in Between. . . Everyone needs a better education on the current state of the God debates. If atheists are going to produce a rational worldview capable of replacing religion, they must take religion and theology more seriously. If believers are going to defend a sensible faith capable of advancing civilization, they must become fluent in their reasoned theologies.
Well, Dr. Shook, show me some new evidence for God, for the divinity of Jesus and Mohamed, for the existence of the Hindu pantheon and the afterlife, for the intercession of a celestial being in the world, and I’ll start paying attention to the finer points of theology.
Just a short felid post this morning as I’m on my way to D.C.
Like phorid flies, cats have developed a subtle form of mimicry. A French subspecies has evolved to resemble croissants, enabling them to hide in bakeries and enjoy the warmth of ovens. The mimicry is astonishingly precise.