Come out ye gifted kings and queens and hear my sad complaint

Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world... Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation... The shame is... that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven...?

St Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.

I will be trying to encourage my students to see evolution and religion as compatible and this struck me as a very sensible argument. Unfortunately quoting Doctors of the Church only works on Catholics, who already believe in evolution (since Vatican II).

Darwin's Rottweiler

After the last post I started looking around the net at Richard Dawkins' latest offerings. He released a doco earlier this year called The Root of All Evil? about how religious dogmatism and irrational faith lead to all sorts of terrible things. Best of all, it's downloadable in two parts. (But, be warned, they're almost 320 MB each.)

Watching it makes me understand why it is Ruse is so critical of Dawkins' approach. It's not just his plummy accent, the condescention is mainly in his choice of words. Some choice examples:

If you have the delusion that you're Napoleon, it must be a fairly lonely feeling because nobody else agrees with you.... But these people here [at Lourdes], thousands of people, all have exactly the same delusion.

The god of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic-cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide.

Are you telling me that the only reason why you don't steal and rape and murder is because you're frightened of God?

But the best bit is when a slimy American preacher tells him to stop being so arrogant -- they're both as bad as each other in that scene!

One of his best points is about the indoctrination of children. He questions why people refer to children as being Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim when we would see a phrase like "Tory child" as ridiculous because it's so obvious that children are too young to make up their minds about these things. He even asks an Hassidic Rabbi "Why should children be victims [sic.] of the particular tradition in which they happen to be born?" This had occurred to me before when I wondered what would happen to a Hispanic man named Jesus (or Emmanuel) who became an atheist (even if he converted to Protestantism it could seem a little blasphemous). Personally, I'd like to see this name reclaimed -- if I had a son born on 25th December I'd definitely call him Jesus!

One point that is sure to raise the most hackles is his comparison of Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein. I don't see how anyone could defend Moses' genocide of the Midianites but I'd be curious to hear how one might try to explain such an action without recourse to out and out racism.

So I recommend you all go and download it (but do it at uni or somewhere without a download limit). While it does look like the sort of thing that Compass would run eventually, more than likely Richard Alston would intercept it, realise that it could loose him Steve Fielding's support, and lean on Janet Albrechtson to have it pulled.

Theological Culture-Shock?

I've been doing some reading in preparation for this Evolution/Creationism class and am starting to understand some of the more subtle differences in attitudes between the various scholars. The creationist Phillip Johnson makes a point of talking up his productive professional interactions with Michael Ruse. Ruse testified at the 1981 Arkansas Trial when most other philosophers felt it unnecessary to explain the self-evident fact that Creation Science is not a science. Since then, possibly because of his debates with Johnson, he has started acknowledging the metaphysical foundations upon which science stands. Of course this is not unusual for a philosopher, but it is very rare to hear in the context of evolution where the assumptions are quite small (no supernatural) compared to philosophy of physics (apparently space and time are discrete and some effects have no cause).

Earlier this year he had an email argument with Daniel Dennett in which he criticises both Dennett and Richard Dawkins for "knee-jerk atheism". As well as being experts on evolution, Dennett and Dawkins have each written books on atheism, which Ruse feels "are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design".

I then realised that this is why Dawkins ("Darwin's Rottweiler") and even Dennett (whom I know Lisa admires) are not on the syllabus for this class. And the more I think about it, the more I suspect that this is a Anglo-American dichotomy of styles. I think Dennett is a bit of an exception and Ruse (despite being Canadian) is closer to the American style passivation. Dawkins, as a rule, doesn't debate creationists because he considers that to be giving them the "oxygen of respectability". That tactic would probably work fine in England (or most western countries) where creationists are in such a minority but in the USA there's such a high proportion of creationists that evolution and atheism are already too strongly associated together. Perhaps it's the fact that the separation of church and state is enshrined in their constitution. (They worship the constitution! Any educated American can tell you what most of the amendments are and the different ways in which they are being construed. Much more than I could tell you about Australia's constitution.) Now, I like having that whole separation thing written down and all but maybe enshrining it is what makes so many Americans incompatibilists when it comes to science and religion.

Add to this the fact that the stigma of atheism is far greater in the US than most other Protestant countries e.g. George H. W. Bush is reported to have said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

As unpleasant and offensive as I find those attitudes, deep down I'm secretly looking forward to meeting one of those rednecks (just not in my class, please!) so I can test the bounds of my cultural tolerance. It would also give me something interesting to write home about!

More Evolution, Religion and Society

I've been giving more thought to this class I'll be helping to teach as the professor has been discussing it with me and the other AI recently. I'm impressed with how dedicated she is to good paedagogy. Most interesting is this anonymous survey she's planning to give out first class:

1. In high school, I was taught evolutionary biology
(a) not at all
(b) for less than 1 week
(c) for about 1 week
(d) for more than 1 week

2. In high school, I was taught some form of creationism alongside evolution in my biology class
(a) true
(b) false
(c) true, but the creationism was taught only as a false theory

3. To what extent are religious beliefs about the origins of life compatible with evolutionary science, which concerns the diversity of life on earth (the tree of life)?
(a) compatible
(b) not sure
(c) incompatible

4. Circle the answer that best completes this statement:
“The amount and quality of the evidence supporting evolutionary science is ____”
(a) excellent
(b) good
(c) fair
(d) poor
(e) nonexistent

5. Circle the answer that best completes this statement:
“The amount and quality of the evidence supporting the supernatural creation of separate species is ____”
(a) excellent
(b) good
(c) fair
(d) poor
(e) nonexistent

6. This question asks you about whether evolution should be taught in high school. Please circle the view that most closely corresponds to your own.
(a)Evolution is as wellsupported as most other science we are taught in high school
(b)There are serious problems with evolutionary science, but we should be taught it anyway
(c)There are such serious problems with evolutionary science that it should not be taught in high school

I freaked out when I saw #2. I forgot that all the unsuccessful attempts to get creationism into schools has been in public schools, there are probably plenty of religious private schools already teaching it. (Which means that there should probably be a fourth option "True, but evolution was only taught as a false theory". I dare not suggest such a response!) Apparently, in past years the class has been divided roughly 50/50 between evolution and creation. I find that so hard to fathom coming from people looking for an education, which is why I suggested question #3, in the hope of bringing a little moderation and dialogue to the debate.

Still, this whole thing worries me plenty. That's not to say I'm not looking forward to it, really I am! It's just a little unsure of how to deal with fundamentalists; I think I understand Christianity quite well but there's something about fundamentalism that I just find it difficult to empathise with. I think I'll have to try to follow Lisa's lead. She says that she likes to be completely upfront with the students, she even makes a point of telling them that, even though she originally trained as a biologist, her brother is a creationist and she respects that perspective.

When I first came here (1 year ago now) the orientation people emphasised that culture shock occurs. I haven't really had too much, almost none so far. But being told that it's ok to feel that way is something I've remembered, like I'm reserving the right not to understand. I think this is what I've been saving it for.

Oh, and I had a look at the class list today. I have two classes of 29 students, one of whom is surnamed "Bridgewater"!

Terry Hicks for Australian Father of the Year

Terry Hicks has been nominated for Australian Father of the Year. Nominated by the ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, no less.

I can't think of anyone who puts more time and effort to helping his children. Trying to get just a fair trial for David has consumed this man's life since 2002; no part-time father he! I'm sure all the previous winners were good fathers to their children, but looking at a list of people like Steve Waugh, Slim Dusty, Kamahl, Ken Done etc. I doubt that they were nominated for that reason.

Of course Philip Ruddock has condemned this as politicising. But how can anyone say that after John Howard won in 1997 (not to mention Malcolm Fraser in '76, John Kerr in '74, Billy McMahon in '71 and Bob Menzies in '64)!? And Miranda Devine thinks that his son's alleged actions (there's been no trial) automatically make Terry a bad father, no matter how much love he shows. The rabid right wing tend to forget that he's not trying to defend a guilty son, just trying to get him a fair trial and humane treatment until the verdict comes in. It's a sad thing when demanding Geneva Convention rights becomes a political issue!

Unfortunately the result is not voted on publicly, it's by a panel. Let's hope they don't have too many celebrities nominated this year.

One Book...

Lara has tagged me.

1. One book that changed your life:
Bertrand Russell,Why I Am Not a Christian.
This is easily the book that has had the most impact. It is impossible to overstate the extent of the changes Russell triggered in my beliefs and opinions.

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
I've read it straight through two or three times, and specific passages countless times.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Also fulfills the requirements for #2 (i.e. I've read it 4 times) but if it's the only book I get to take I'd want to be sure it's one I'll enjoy.

4. One book that made you laugh:
Joseph Heller, Catch-22.
But you have to be in the mood for slightly absurd humour.

5. One book that made you cry:
John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men.
I don't think I cried but it's certainly one of the saddest books I've read.

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Peter Lowenbrau Griffin, Harry Potter and the Half Black Chick.
Particularly if it were released as a book on tape read by Betty White.

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Percival Davis & Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People.
I'm not one for censorship but this purports to be a science textbook; they should be charged under fair-trade laws, if nothing else!

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
A philosopher of science, who is also a Quaker.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Dante Alighieri, La Divina Commedia.
There are many that fulfil this criterion but I think that this is the one I've been meaning to read for the longest time. (I'm waiting until my Italian is a little better and I have the time to do it properly.)

10. Now tag five people:
Let's see, who reads this blog and has a blog of their own? Not sure but I'll say
Baden, Cameron, Pooja, Ayako
Go ahead and answer these same questions on your own blogs. (You don't have to but I would be interested to see your taste in books.)