tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post8267483397094273281..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Wilkinson critique of framingLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-6653260667271920462007-09-20T09:17:00.000-07:002007-09-20T09:17:00.000-07:00I addressed Dawkins specifically in terms of the s...I addressed Dawkins specifically in terms of the seat he holds at Oxford, that is certainly within the bounds of fairness. Since he and his close associate, Dennett constantly couch their atheist polemics in terms of the promotion of science - and I'll say in passing, a person could reasonably think that in their case "science" means evolutionary psychology - the effect of the period of Dawkins' greatest prominence on the promotion of the public understanding of science is highly relevant. And it's pretty dismal. I'll forgo some ironic points I'd usually make here about the nature of Dawkins and Dennett's own science. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Hitchens you might be able to separate the alleged motive of upholding a scientific view of the universe since that doesn't seem to figure in his diatribes. But I don't think you can in people who make that the basis of their promotion of atheism. Even Harris seems to have the upholding of among his other stated motives, though in his case it is certainly not one that seems to entirely meet with the approval of other atheist fundamentalists of a scientistic bent. His use of stereotypes, vicarious blame and bigotry would seem to be his primary focus. <BR/><BR/>Whether or not the political effects of the promotions of all the above will be an increased acceptance of atheism as a civil rights issue, is far from certain. I take my lessons from the late sixties and the slowing and eventual back slide of progress in civil rights took hold. I have every faith that was due to the success that the enemies of civil rights had in putting a threatening and hostile face on the movement for justice. Often with the help of those whose egos were larger than their ideals. <BR/><BR/>Under the present Supreme Court, the separation of church and state is certainly endangered and the use of public schools to promote creationism is more likely. As science and liberalism has been successfully promoted as the enemy of the religious majority by the enemies of science and liberalism, the job of the reactionaries has been made easier. At least that's how I see it.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-68144249096947337272007-09-20T08:57:00.000-07:002007-09-20T08:57:00.000-07:00I don't think the goal of the "new atheism" books ...I don't think the goal of the "new atheism" books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett is to promote the public understanding of science, but rather to promote critical thinking about and scientific investigation of religious belief and religious claims.<BR/><BR/>I'll make the same point I made in the comments on the Matt Nisbet framing article--there's no contradiction in wanting to promote this *and* to promote public understanding of science through the work of religious scientists who claim there is no contradiction between science and religion. I support both approaches. <BR/><BR/>My personal position is that you certainly can hold religious views that do not conflict with science, but I think you have to empty the religious belief of all empirical content that conflicts with science, resulting in a liberal form of belief that has very little resemblance to traditional religious views. And I think that as time goes by, more and more of the religious belief will be similarly forced to give way. Conservative religious believers appear to think the same thing, and so they see liberal religious belief as a greater threat to their way of thinking than atheism.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-83066673299523366512007-09-20T08:28:00.000-07:002007-09-20T08:28:00.000-07:00Anyone who comes up with the idea that "General Be...Anyone who comes up with the idea that "General Betrayus" (which I agree with entirely but thinks there were probably better ways to do it) and then goes on National Public Radio (Republican Promoting DC based media) to explain the brilliant science behind it is pretty clueless about how the real media works for Move On to be listening to. But then, Move On gave them an interview too. Here's an idea, if you come up with something like this, you don't make the media campaign the story. <BR/><BR/>The Shermer point about Dawkins depends on what outcome you want. If you want to get attention for atheist fundamentalism (and make a lot of enemies) well, he does that. If you want to promote the public understanding of science, look at the numbers of people who accept evolutionary science for the period of his greatest prominence. For people understanding science, the empirical evidence is that the Dawkins way is an abject failure.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.com