It appears that Mooney and Nisbet have provoked the hornets' nest since publishing their Washington Post op-ed. I had some initial commentary, but in retrospect (and with a good nights sleep under my belt) it doesn't capture the fullness of my thoughts. And instead of a long addendum to that post, I figured I would write a new one, building on the comments of other bloggers.
First, there is the chili fondue Kris, who has to ask (along with everyone else) whether Nisbet and Mooney have "lost it". Here's the meat:
I know this is not a science paper, or even an opinion piece in a science magazine, but basing you whole premise on some undocumented postulate is exactly what science is not about. Dawkins is a best-selling author, and The God Delusion has been on the top 10 NY Times bestseller list, and Dawkins was chosen (by readers) as the Reader's Digest Author of the Year (British Book Awards). So he is obviously doing something right with The God Delusion.
Also, seen from the outside, it seems like Dawkins (and Harris, Dennet etc.) has managed to change the whole US debate about religion, arguing that religious claims must be evaluated in the light of science, or be disregarded. In other words, Dawkins (and others) have changed the debate in the US so religious people must make positive claims in defense of the their religion, rather than dismiss science when it doesn't fit the religion. How does that help the adversaries of evolution? The hard-core fundamentalists cannot be convinced of evolution, and no matter how you phrase it, they won't be convinced. The moderates on the other hand, can be convinced, but they need to hear that there is another side - something they didn't until people like Dawkins came along.
I would have to ultimately agree. If we follow John Wilkins and take the meaning of "framing" at face value (that is, to set the terms of the debate), then Dawkins is probably the single best "framer" we've seen on the pro-evolution side within the last decade or so. All throughout the 1990's and early 2000's, mainstream news publications would constantly print stories telling the tale of the glorious reconciliation of science with religion. Now the far more sobering critiques of religion not only by Dawkins, but by other noted atheists like Stenger, Dennett, Weinburg, Harris, Grayling, Hitchens, etc. don the pages of those same publications. I doubt that in 1999 anyone would have expected to see an aged man with an Oxbridge accent boldly proclaim this on television: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” From the footage of his talk at Randolf-Macon Women's College.
Bora has his own take, which is essentially that Nisbet and Mooney are talking about short term framing while Dawkins is engaging in framing for the long haul. I think that this may be an overly generous interpretation of their thesis, but I nonetheless see some validity to it. Except I would add that the two sets of frames (i.e., both Dawkins' and the "religion and science can get along" one) can be seen as mutually complementary in the public discourse. After all, the frame on the part of the ID folks has been "design theorists as Galilean martyrs versus academic Darwinists, teach the controversy!". What you will notice is that the choice is constricted and binary, giving people a choice either to believe in fairness or good science. Now we can shift the frame to "science friendly theists versus militant atheists", which would make the choice between feel good, get along nonsense and rationality. That would, at the very least, further suffocate the purely anti-science forces (like the Disco Inst.) out of the discourse.
In the end, I maintain the position I have always had, which is that there is room for multiple approaches in the public discourse (because otherwise, it would simply be a monologue). There is certainly room for the conciliatory theists and secularists, or the Joseph Priestly's of out time. However, there is also room for the Diderots, the d"Holbach's and the Voltaires, or the militant atheists. I still think Mooney and Nisbet's piece in the WaPo was silly, but they are certainly free to advocate their accomodationist position. I, however, will not stop my intellectual assault on religion, and nor do I suspect (or hope) that people like PZ, Larry and Dawkins will do anything similar.
|