I assume you’re all aware that, for the past several months, a huge effort has been underway to organize a presidential candidates’ debate on science issues. The email that I’ve reproduced below arrived in my box yesterday. It pisses me off for four reasons.
First, all of the presidential candidates have declined the invitation to debate science matters next week. Second, the candidates have decided that their time would be better spent debating faith and values rather than science. Third, I suspect that the candidates prefer to discuss faith rather than science because it’s a lot easier to bullshit about religion than about science. In order to discuss science, they would actually have to learn and know something and be able to speak articulately about it. On the other hand, religion and values, as they are generally discussed in the public sphere, will give the candidates plenty of opportunities to mouth empty platitudes and strike self-righteous poses without having to say anything substantive, or anything that can actually be demonstrated to be true, probable or false. Fourth, it shows that the candidates view pandering to the religious as a more viable electoral strategy than appealing to the rational. I hate to break your day, but all I can say is, read this and weep.
Clinton and Obama will debate faith but not scienceDear Chaplain,
I am sorry to send two emails in such short succession, but I thought you should know that after declining our invitation to debate science in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to attend “The Compassion Forum,” a forum of “wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues.” CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the “presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues” at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m. You can read more here.
Perhaps among the moral issues discussed should be whether they have a moral obligation to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters. Is there a larger moral imperative? How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families? Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet but 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There’s biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there’s population and development and clean energy research, there’s food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and securing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues.
I would encourage you to write letters to the editor, emails to the campaigns, and blog postings pointing this out. And if you can, support our ongoing effort to turn this country around.
Shawn Lawrence Otto
I’m so disgusted, I don’t know whether to scream, cry or puke. Maybe I’ll do all three, in no particular order.
– the chaplain
Posted by Ric on April 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I’m sure they have practical political reasons for their decision to refuse to debate science issues.
The main one, of course, is that moral issues are easier for the great unwashed and washed masses. God lives in sky. Has big white beard. Knows everything. Do what he says. Life is good. No worries. Just don’t piss him off. Listen to Parsley and Hagee.
Science on the other hand, that requires actual knowledge, genuine thinking ability, understanding, maybe even some math. And it’s harder to engage in self-deception about science issues if you actually understand them.
Americans are genuinely ignorant about science. But on moral issues, ah yes, they are all geniuses and all have the right answer.
And today’s politicians have shown they are utterly ignorant of science, for the most part. There used to be an Office of Science and Technology, or something like that, that advised Congress on such matters. The Republicans killed it off in the 90s, most likely because its existence made it too hard for them to corrupt government agencies.
The big question is am I dizzy right now because of the blood pressure pill or because of the stupidity and idiocy I just wrote about here? Fuck it, I’m just gonna go lie down and watch a soccer game.
Posted by bullet on April 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm
You’re really surprised?
Posted by Kagehi on April 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm
And in 20 years China will have a Mars colony while *our* contribution will be 50% of the population of the US denying that it happened, and the other 90% insisting that if we combine yellow and purple in conjunction with Pluto, then pray really hard, a magic doorway will open letting us just “step” from one planet to the next.
Why the frack is the stupidity, failure at science and basic lack of logic **needed** to solve all those other problems effectively not the single biggest moral issue we face today? Because their church might piss off the makers of Expelled or something?
Are you sure there isn’t some way we can go back a few months and vote for Mickey Mouse or something?
Posted by the chaplain on April 9, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Ric: I hope your dizziness wasn’t caused by anything I said.
bullet: I’m not surprised at all – and that’s a large part of what pisses me off.
Kagehi: I think Mickey Mouse was elected twice – he goes by the initial “W.”
Posted by Dems Debate Bullshit, Pass on the Science | Irreligiosity on April 9, 2008 at 10:51 pm
[...] So check out his blog and read the post. Both are good stuff and worth your time. [...]
Posted by Compassion Forum « An Apostate’s Chapel on April 10, 2008 at 9:02 am
[...] I noted in yesterday’s post, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have agreed to attend a religious Compassion Forum that [...]
Posted by PhillyChief on April 10, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yeah it blows, but it’s completely expected. They do what’s in their best interests. Until atheists can raise a big enough collective stink, they’ll never see it worth it. Nevermind what’s right, it’s all about what’s personally best. To expect them (and perhaps anyone) to choose right over what’s personally best is wishful thinking and unrealistic.
Posted by Brendan on April 10, 2008 at 10:09 am
Nice line: … I suspect that the candidates prefer to discuss faith rather than science because it’s a lot easier to bullshit about religion than about science.
Sadly, I agree. However, this is reality, and it behooves those of us in the reality-based community to accept it for what it is. There are other, far better routes to changing the American mindset on science vs. religion than by listening to two Democrats agree on every issue. I’ve gone on at some length in this vein over at T. Ex’s place, if you want to hear more.
Posted by the chaplain on April 10, 2008 at 10:56 am
Phillychief and Brendan:
You’re both correct about the political realities at play here. The thing is, Hillary and Obama are pandering for a block of votes they’ll never get. It’s one thing to blow off the science debate – I expected that. It’s quite another thing to be the only two participants in a “values” forum just days before a Democratic party primary. Do they expect their performance at this forum to significantly influence Democratic voters in a few days? I’d understand if the party’s nominee were participating in this forum in a general election. He or she would have no choice, as disgusting as that reality is. But Hillary and Obama have little to gain by participating in this forum at this time.
Posted by Victor Kulkosky on April 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I’d like to make a plea to escape from this dialectical trap: Science vs. Religion, either Science or Religion. The two DO NOT need to be at war. I can’t be the only person in the nation who knows people who hold sincere religious beliefs and respect science, including me. Science reveals the HOW of the Universe; religion deals with the WHY. Science and religion need to stay off each other’s turf, except, as in some of the issues mentioned above, both have something at stake.
One example: The Dalai Lama recently (I mean in the past year or two) said that if science establishes things that are contrary to Buddhist beliefs, Buddhism should drop those beliefs. Another example: Einstein held religious beliefs (more or less of the Deist variety, as I understand them) and was a dedicated scientist.
As to the candidates’ refusal to debate scientific issues, I’m sure it’s a political calculation: It doesn’t get you elected to talk about science. Apparently, the scientific community lacks sufficient political influence. Also, I’m afraid scientific prinicples keep many scientists from getting too deep into the political fray, except when funding is in play.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com
Posted by The Exterminator on April 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’d like to make a plea to escape from this dialectical trap: Science vs. Religion, either Science or Religion. The two DO NOT need to be at war.
You’re correct that specific details of science and religion do not necessarily conflict. However, a person who accepts any supernatural claims on faith is not using the scientific method as far as that particular claim is concerned. A scientist who doesn’t ask for evidence when it comes to making scientific decisions is no scientist; he or she is a witch-doctor. So using a god as an explanation for WHY, or causation, is just as ridiculous as using a god as an explanation for HOW. Your distinction doesn’t hold up.
Posted by the chaplain on April 11, 2008 at 8:29 am
Victor, thanks for joining the conversation. You said, “Science and religion need to stay off each other’s turf, except, as in some of the issues mentioned above, both have something at stake.”
These are precisely the points at which your claim that “The two DO NOT need to be at war” breaks down. In matters in which both science and religion have something at stake, which camp’s claims take priority? How is that priority determined and justified? Gould’s well-intentioned notion of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) does not account for those occasions on which religion and science inevitably conflict, occasions on which they make competing claims about the same natural or historical phenomena. Gould, a very intelligent man, made an error when he sought to eradicate such conflicts by pretending they don’t exist. They do exist, and they don’t disappear simply because we wish they would.
I like the example you cited of the Dalai Lama’s position: “…if science establishes things that are contrary to Buddhist beliefs, Buddhism should drop those beliefs.” I agree with his position. If Buddhism were the only religion in the world, then science and religion could and would live together amicably. Unfortunately, many adherents of many other religions disagree with the Dalai Lama and me. They believe that if their holy books or traditional teachings contradict scientific claims, then their scriptures and traditions take precedence and scientific claims must be rejected.
As long as adherents on both sides of this issue remained entrenched in those contradictory positions, conflicts are inevitable. Conflicts between religion and science are not going to disappear any time soon. The history of the past several hundred years has shown that science always wins these battles and religion either digs in and fights to its own inevitable death or deterioration into irrelevance, or regroups and revises its position to comport with science.
Posted by Brendan on April 11, 2008 at 11:10 am
T. Chap:
I don’t agree that Obama and Clinton “are pandering for a block of votes they’ll never get.” There are, in fact, leftist evangelicals. There are also many evangelicals who have become disenchanted with the GOP and/or who have decided that issues like taking care of the poor and the environment are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage.
Also, it’s not just the evangelicals. There are plenty of moderate religious types who, sad as it is to us, need some reassurance that the person for whom they’ll vote “shares their values.”
Due to the general stupidity and pigheadedness of many voters, this is going to be a close election. I think Obama or Clinton could pick up some votes just by reassuring people that they’re not completely opposed to people of faith. We don’t like that, and we wish we could have a candidate who would dismiss such notions, but the fact remains, you can’t govern if you don’t win. There are a lot of people who just don’t make the rational voting decision based on the GOP’s deplorable foreign and economic policies, and you’ve got to try to get some of these people by other means.
Posted by the chaplain on April 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Brendan:
I actually don’t mind candidates assuring believers, particularly moderates and liberals (who tend to be easy to get along with on most matters), that their values won’t be trampled in the dust. Nor do I wish for a candidate who would dismiss such matters, because candidates have to represent all of us, believers and nonbelievers alike. I just wish the current crop of candidates would pay a little more attention to people other than Christians. There are more of us out here than they may realize.
Posted by Atheist Numbers vs. Evangelical Clout « An Apostate’s Chapel on June 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm
[...] who are used to being led like sheep, are well-organized, vocal and disproportionately influential in American [...]