First off, before I get to the exchange between Dr. Novella and me that I mentioned in
yesterday's post, let me remind everyone that
Science-Base Medicine (SBM) and
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) are
being sued for no good reason. If you care at all about free speech and our ability as free thinkers to criticize charlatans without going bankrupt hiring enough lawyers to defend
a right which should be inarguable, if not inalienable, you (yes,
YOU) should go over to the donation site and help in whatever large or small way you can to send a clear message to those who would abuse our legal system in this manner.
Secondly, this blog entry will relate to climate change only indirectly, and mostly will deal with
Pope Francis' recent statements about evolution.
Finally, before diving in below, you should probably go over to the SGU archives, and listen to
show #486 in order to understand the full context of what was behind my decision to contact. The discussion should be fairly easy to follow, if you choose not to do that, however.
OK, now that all the little lectors have met their caveats, and the caveats their lectors, or whatever, here goes...
After listening to the linked episode above, I wrote the SGU crew the following message on Monday of last week (Nov. 3rd).
Category: Feedback
Subject: Handy bit of absolution for the Pope (and others)
Message: Hey, guys, big fan. Just wanna pick a nit here, however…
At about 36:20 of last week's show (#486), during the evolution discussion, Steve provides an interesting bit of apology for Pope Francis.
"Some people are saying, 'Yeah, but he's still saying God created man.' Of course he is; he's the goddamn Pope!"
I'm just wondering what other beliefs he espouses, without providing convincing evidence, are equally unassailable, such as, geez, I don't know…exorcisms, which Evan thankfully brought up shortly thereafter. Why was this met with derision instead of animated defense? Why did no one on the show say, "Of course he believes exorcisms work! He's the goddamn pope?"
And why stop with the Pope? Doesn't opening the door for baseless assertions like this allow us to now say things similar to "Of course he believes in quantum healing; he's goddamn Deepak Chopra!"
As an atheist, I think we have a classic case of special pleading here, or, if not an argument from authority, selective excuse-making for authority. That's all I'm saying.
Still love the show to pieces, and sorry to insist on fully picking this nit.
To which Dr. Novella responded...
Planet Evans,
Thanks for writing. I don't agree with your assessment, however. I was not making an argument from authority or special pleading. I was also not defending belief in god or the supernatural, by anyone. My point was simply - what do you expect?
To take that a bit further, this is a common discussion we get into in skeptical circles. The question is - how do we respond to situations in which a person or institution is moderating their supernatural or unscientific beliefs? For example, what should our attitude be toward "evidence-based chiropractors?" Should we advocate for the profession being more scientific, or take the uncompromising line that nothing short of eradication is acceptable?
Same for religion. We are all atheists. I have very strongly held philosophical reasons for being an atheist and a naturalist. That is what I advocate. However, does this mean we cannot acknowledge when a mainstream religion moves toward a less crazy version of religion? Is it OK to say, "well, if you are going to believe in God, at least don't deny science. At least try to accommodate your faith to existing provable science."
This is not the same thing as defending faith.
My point was, it is OK to approve of the Pope saying that the church does not deny science without pointing out that he still advocates belief in God. Of course he does. The former is the difference between fundamentalist crazy religion and contextual less crazy religion, the latter is the difference between religion and no religion. If you are holding out for the Pope to say there is no God, then any incremental improvement in the church would mean nothing.
Exorcism is different. That is a harmful medieval practice. It is also often performed on people who have mental illness, and in practice is a denial of mental illness and even neuroscience.
I hope this clarifies what was said.
Cheers,
Steve
Like a knucklehead, I didn't check my email until a week later, at which point I replied...
Dr. Novella,
Thank you for responding. I honestly did not expect it, so I haven't bothered to check my email for about a week now. BIG MISTAKE on my part. With all the responsibilities you must have, both personally and professionally, where the heck do you find the time? :) It is greatly appreciated that you do, however.
I agree that a science-friendly church is much, much, much better than a science-phobic church, and that it is essentially absurd to expect the Pope to stop believing in God. Though I'm an atheist, I generally wouldn't even suggest this to your average religious Joe or Jo-Ann, unless my opinion on the matter is courted/requested. People are free to privately practice whatever beliefs and traditions they wish, in my mind (assuming no one gets seriously hurt). However, I think we still have a fundamental disagreement over the acceptability (or lack thereof) of the Pope - or any other respected public figure - openly and proudly making evidence-free assertions like "God created man" or that evolution and the "notion of Creation" do not conflict (I suppose Pope Francis uses "notion of Creation" to tiptoe around the more obvious incompatibility of evolution and creationism). Certainly, everyone has a right to express such nonsense, but I do indeed believe it is harmful to let it go unchallenged for many reasons, not least of which is the inherent discouragement of, if not outright hostility toward, critical thinking embodied by statements like the Pope's. And, if I can stack my soapbox a little higher here, I would further argue that religion and belief in supreme or supernatural beings is the Grandaddy of all pseudoscience, so if we are truly concerned with harmful, denial-laden practices like exorcism, it's probably best to admit and state what the root of the problem is rather than shrug our shoulders.
BTW, I'm one of those blowhard blogging critters (whac-a-troll.blogspot.com), and although it's predominantly a climate change blog, this exchange has relevance to a few posts I've made, including one about Bill Nye's recent "CBS This Morning" appearance. Would you mind if I posted these emails? Being that you sent your reply to me and not the world (i.e.: all four of my readers), I will certainly understand if you prefer that I do not, and I will respect your wishes.
Thanks again for responding, and, more importantly, for the SGU podcast!
Planet Evans
And finally this morning, Dr. Novella wrote back...
Planet Evans,
Feel free to publish them. My only final comment is that I agree, we should point out the role that faith plays in promoting pseudoscience and lack of critical thinking, and we do. This does not counter my main point, though, that we (at least some of us) should advocate for improved scientific and critical thinking all along the spectrum, and not just for pristine critical thinking atheism. Otherwise the vast majority of the world is unreachable. In a way it's like advocating teaching only advanced level post-graduate courses on science because they are the most accurate and complete, rather than teaching at a level appropriate to the student.
My approach has been to try to get people to advance one step further along the path to critical thinking. Then maybe they can take another step.
Regards,
Steve
Well, dear blog readers, who has the right of it here in your opinion? Should the Pope and other public figures be taken fully and relentlessly to task on each and every one of their unscientific statements, as I have suggested? Or is what Novella advocates (and Bill Nye, seemingly) — a more forgiving, incremental approach that allows leaders representing their somewhat biased and misinformed followers to draw lines in the sands of their cherished belief systems, past which even those who know better should not cross to criticize, until such time it is deemed appropriate — the better way to go? He brought up the convincing analogy of higher education. That is, what I argue for is essentially like asking college freshman to digest postgraduate-level lessons and/or produce masters or doctoral theses. Are there other ways you can imagine to bring my argument to a logical conclusion in order to weaken it?
Am I proposing a false dichotomy here? Should
both approaches be applied simultaneously by their respective proponents to achieve some maximum of cultural reform, as Novella hints at in that last message?
I posted this exchange, because I, like Novella, believe it touches upon a genuine matter of open disagreement and debate within the skeptical/rationalist/atheist communities. And I personally feel it can have troubling implications for serious issues which rely on public understanding and acceptance of science like climate change. If you've followed along closely here at whac-a-troll, you know
where I generally stand on such matters, though I must admit to the occasional
quandary, or
second thought about being such an implacable jerk, which every now and then make me see things pretty much exactly as Novella does. However, I keep coming back to the fact that
we've run out of time for the kid glove treatment, and therefore the conclusions of scientific consensus must be defended at all costs, and leaders like the Pope, who should be old and wise enough to know better, must be rebuked unflinchingly at each and every turn, especially when they make
tired arguments even theologians frown upon.
