Mark over at blogfish set off a firestorm of posts and comments this morning with his commentary on Carl Safina's arctic cruise with evangelical christians. Most of the resultant commentary wasn't specifically on account of Mark's post, but rather his closing challenge, So you stone-throwers determined to "defeat" religion and expunge "superstition" from our culture. Go ahead and shout about why nobody cares about science in the US if you want, but if you really want to change things (instead of just hearing yourselves rant), then go learn from Carl Safina about changing the world.I'm not gonna jump into the fray here given that I have nothing to say on the subject that hasn't already been contributed via the comments on either blogfish, Pharyngula, or other blogs.
I must however admit some agreement with Greg Laden's analysis over on Evolution. There's a certain undertone of bitterness to Mark's challenge. I'm probably overly nuancing the few words he uses in the challenge, but there's a pronounced sting I detect. Ladin characterizes it as "the sort of rhetoric we hear from, say, homeschoolers that feel threatened by people like me (and others) who ask questions about home schooling. He sounds like Randy Weaver symps decrying the oppression of people who just want to be left alone by Jack Booted Thugs flying in on Black Helicopters issued by the UN."
I'm not going to go that far.
But maybe the sting is just borne of frustration? On the rare occasions Mark has jumped into the religion issue (most recently under the topic of framing) he's called for an accomodationist--what Dawkins would call the Neville Chamberlain--position. He seems genuinely perturbed by Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ, and other (as he calls) "stone throwers" for attempting to shatter the cathedral windows. Mark, instead, seems to see the grandeur of the architecture and the value of "community" that edifice appears to create. If I'm reading him right, he doesn't want to disband the existing religious communities or even dust the superstitious cobwebs from their heads. I think he'd rather just co-opt their fervor for conservation (and political?) gains.
Having now read Safina and Mark's posts, I'm not convinced that Safina is necessarily a master "framer". I see evidence of a patient man committed to maintaining open communication to achieve conservation. I suppose that if that's what Safina and Mark are talking about by framing, then more power to them. Though there is potential danger here as well, and I think PZ sums it up succinctly (albeit while getting in one more dig),
While getting the imams … I mean, evangelical priests to support you now is a shortcut to achieving a specific goal, it's going to bite you in the ass in the long run when you discover you've vested your scientific authority, as well as moral authority, in a group of unqualified leaders who make decisions on the basis of poetry in an old book.Where I certainly agree with Mark and Safina is that we should always be open to discuss ideas, even when we disagree. I'm proud to say that the conservation world has been taking active steps as of late to do just that. I've recently joined the newly formed (and still forming) Religion and Conservation Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology. Open to any member of the SCB with an interest and focus in the topic, the group has some ambitious goals and calls for growing cooperation between science and religion in addressing environmental issues.
As a conservationist familiar with the lack of capacity to achieve our goals, I'm open to new recruits. Provided scientific authority doesn't need to take a backseat to religious authority, perhaps the working group is a first step to building trust and dialogue. I hope that the goal of a healthy planet is not solely the domain of the theist or the secularist. It should be a human goal.
3 comments:
Great comments on this debate.
My post was somewhat tongue in cheek, in attitude, but of course very serious in intent.
I don't see a way to appease on the basic facts of science. For instance, an approach suggested by someone early on in this discussion, and that I see teachers and others doing all the time, is to simply say "OK, Evolution is the real deal, but really, we can't talk about origins of life. We scientists just can't really address that issue." ... thus leaving that open to question, and "allowing" people to figure that god simply started it all, presumably with some sort of plan in mind.
Another approach, again found in classrooms too often, is to leave human evolution out of the discussion, allowing for people to figure evolution applies to "plants and animals" but not to humans.
These are all simply forms of tossing some of our colleagues (and in the case of human evolution, that includes me) to the lions to save the rest.
Not acceptable.
I also feel very strongly that this entire aproach of blaming scientists for being bad communicators is unfounded (prove it!) and demonstrably wrong. Yes, there are many crappy communicators in science, but more than any other profession (other than preaching, I suppose!) science has generated a large number of famous, high profile, widely read and liked, scientists. And they interest people in science, and they have moral messages.
Etc. (don't get me started!)
Anyway, as I said, nice post.
The whole thing has just gotten out of hand. It sounds more like boys having a pissing contest to me at this point. The thing is, if everyone would calm down and not be so anxious to get in the next jab, they are pretty much all saying the same thing.
welcome to the fray.
Dorid: I agree that when it comes down to it, Nisbet and Mooney and I, and PZ to boot, disagree on relatively litte, and when we sit down to talk about this next week or so, that is what we will probably find. But it is not the case that there are no important differences here. There are some very different things being said.
Personally, I think this mainly stems from a culturally ingrained reaction to religion and religiosity that hampers clear thinking in our society.
Post a Comment