A slightly scrambled egg

The reaction of Pharyngula to Greg Epstein of the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard was disappointing, but perhaps forgivably so, since the journalist reporting on the story of the "new humanism" messed up the quote attributed to Epstein, a quote that made it seem as if Epstein categorized Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist. (Regardless, the name-calling--i.e., Pharyngula calling Epstein a moron--is mean-spirited. Such tactics should be rejected.) Pharyngula, the blog of Paul Zachary Myers of the Univ of Minnesota, has been an excellent defender of science education against Creationism and the supposed science dubbed "Intelligent Design," or "ID," which is basically dressed-up Creationism.

Some commenters attempt to set the record straight.

Epstein clarifies here in reference to the mis-quoting.

I note no apology or follow-up from Pharyngula yet. Maybe later.

But, the personal attacks against religious people, including religious moderates, has got to stop. I no more blame Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins for the rhetorical excesses of some of their fans than I blame Darwin for the crackpot "social Darwinism" invented by his brother. Still, I think we're reaching a point where the debate among the political progressive coalition that includes the religious and non-religious would benefit from a demonstration by perhaps Harris in particular that for the atheist, pluralism and democracy can and should be valued. In general, I think Dawkins has been a bit better about this. I notice that on his foundation's blog he now has up his interview with his sometimes political ally, the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries. I could be wrong, but I suspect Harris would be highly unlikely to team up with any sort of cleric for anything. We'll see.

Comments

[elephty]

When leaders of the religious right make defamatory statements, or twist meaning to incorporate a political agenda that history has taught is harmful, they pile on the vitriol while assassinating the character of groups and individuals they argue against. Quite often rational discussion is drowned out by a media noise machine intended to confuse, mislead, and obfuscate the effort. These leaders are not interested in rational debate, their concern is to eliminate skeptics and critical thinkers, by labeling the use of rational arguments as a character weakness. Considering the ubiquitous and familiarity of their arguments, it seems impossible to loosen the leaders' hold over the American collective consciousness.

[IseFire]

"Quite often rational discussion is drowned out by a media noise machine intended to confuse, mislead, and obfuscate the effort."

Poetry, and too true! The media noise machine loves the sound of their own hyperventilating. Stirring up conflict or controversy is an/the end in and of itself for most producers of TV news, and far too many print journalists, too.