On debating the worthwhile 7 Aug 2009 Sean at Cosmic Variance has a really good essay on what we should do as part of normalising non-belief is engage serious people, rather than the creationists. He has a nice matrix, and suggests that we should engage worthy opponents, not the (which is not what Sean says) batshit crazies. Philosophy Politics Religion Science
Australian stuff Unbelievers aren’t quite human, part 2 29 Nov 2010 Cardinal Fang, exemplar of all that is moral, has declared that people without faith have ”nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss”, and “people without religion… are frightened by the future”. “”Australian society will become increasingly coarse and uncaring … if Christian principles are excluded from public… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Travel Diary 11: Notre Dame 3 Nov 2009 This conference is turning out to be interesting, in a kind of weird way. I am very much the agnostic in the Catholic lion’s den, but so far the lions haven’t so much as looked my way hungrily. I did have an interesting discussion tonight with Simon Conway Morris, and… Read More
Administrative Travel Diary 13: Berkeley talk 6 Nov 2009 Well, yet again I have utterly utterly failed to embarrass my university by making an idiot of myself in public. In short, the talk (on the Essentialism Myth) to the Vertebrate Zoology crowd at Berkeley went very well I am told. I believe them because instead of sending me on… Read More
I agree wholeheartedly with Sean on this one. But it should be noted that recently, when Jerry Coyne did just what Sean is suggesting–wrote a well-argued, thoughtful negative review of books by Ken Miller and Carl Giberson–he was immediately attacked by Barbara Forrest and Chris Mooney for his lack of “civility”. According to some mindsets, it’s always wrong to make a case for unbelief. And I do think there’s also a place for ridicule and mockery. Even the craziest ideas can take on a false appearance of legitimacy and slip into the mainstream if people aren’t wary of them. A lot of it just has to do with how these ideas are perceived. Ridiculing truly insane beliefs–birthers, creationists, holocaust deniers, etc.–ensures that these people won’t be able to adopt a false mantel of legitimacy without actually earning it.
An excellent post, and I think Sean is right on the money. I couldn’t have said it better so I’ll just second that.
I don’t know if you need to engage the creationist movement per se, but the natural theology that underlies it is one of the, if not thee most popular reasons for belief that people will offer when attempting to explain why their theism is justified. You have to engage that if you want to challenge their views. But the case is even more problematic here. Creationism oft acts as a microcosm for what goes on in apologetics in general. Indeed, virtually every attempt at theistic justification can be viewed as a “creationism” of its true native field. The moral argument is just as ridiculous to ethics as the biological design argument is to biology.
For what it is worth, I don’t think Hugh Ross is making less sophisticated arguments than St. Augustine. Hey, he has the benefit of time on his side. They’re both crackpots in modern terms. I don’t see why one should be treated as a serious, worthy (if dead) opponent and the other as a joke. Well, I think I do see the difference. St. Augustine has the benefit of developing a reputation as an important figure in the history of thought. That air of seriousness is what’s carrying the day here. But that’s ultimately superficial.