In my opening speech, “Be a Challenging Diplomat” in a debate with zerowing21, I pointed out why firebrands should be angry that their conventionalized anger often gets in the way of reality and sabotages communication. Phil Plait from BadAstronomy blog was criticized for not giving specific examples of how his infamous “Don’t be a dick” speech actually applied. I provided other examples, but did not focus on JT specifically in the debate. Fortunately (I guess), it appears a recent online exchange of his has provided some rather cliche’ examples of where I see firebrands overdoing it (which is my main criticism of a tactic of moral condemnation which can be used justifiably). This is what I said, quoting wiki on the effects of anger:
Unlike other negative emotions like sadness and fear, angry people are more likely to demonstrate correspondence bias - the tendency to blame a person's behavior more on his nature than on his circumstances. They tend to rely more on stereotypes, and pay less attention to details and more attention to the superficial. In this regard, anger is unlike other "negative" emotions such as sadness and fear, which promote analytical thinking.
And so, over on JT’s blog, we can see that JT has some firebrand-like stuff to say in his post “How science and academia work”:
On top of that, lately BD2 has been vomiting up manufactured pride at how she's so proud of her sources (which are unscrutinized web sites, one of which even has the sinner's prayer at the bottom). [...] most religions remain chained to a time when our understanding of the world was completely inchoate both scientifically and morally. [...] It is a simple enough concept to grasp, which makes it a little sad that so many amateur wannabe apologists don't grasp it.
To which one Christian, kenedwards5, replies:
You seem to know so little about science, academia or religion. So why write about them?
In my debate with JT, I also quoted Tribalscientist saying:
A 1992 communications study by a leading researcher in the field of aggression and communication – Dominic Infante – looked into situations where argumentativeness and verbal aggression occurred together, and found that the more aggressive the speaker, the less credible they were deemed to be and less able to appear to present a valid argument[11].
Prophecy confirmed, right? JT is not entirely to blame since obviously kenedwards5 has been very vague. Should we take it on his authority that JT doesn’t know much about what he’s talking about?
JT seems to have a reasonable message at the heart of his post, despite the firebrand packaging. The world of science and academia is most characterized by sustained, well-rounded scrutiny by many knowledgeable people. It is designed to be like that regardless of its failings. When there is a consensus that comes out of that process, that is a strong indicator that the arguments supporting that position are probably the best we can hope for at this point in human history. As non-experts we can’t hope to do better even if that consensus gets overturned at some point in the future. Shouldn’t we be responsible and listen to their conclusions and at the very least grant them a higher priority over our ignorant intuitions?
That is the conversation that they should be having for the sake of everyone, imo. What should non-scholars and non-scientists do with appeals to authority? And further, what should other scientists and scholars do with the authority of other scientists and scholars on the many difficult and complicated areas of knowledge that they will never have the time to personally investigate? That’s a delicate issue and has come up several times in my extensive review of the back and forth online discussion between Christian reviewers and the non-believing contributors to the anthology: “The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.” See here, here, and here.
If Christians have something responsible to say about the topic to non-experts on the authority of experts when it contradicts the Christian worldview (other than trust your arbitrary Christian feelings), I have yet to see it. When science somewhere crosses the domain of religion and religion appears to lose on that point, why should ordinary folk listen to religion? Why not the current consensus of experts? Is it because we should trust God’s authority instead? Well which god? Which religion? And how exactly should we understand the authority of say the Bible since there are many competing views and no Christian consensus on the matter?
How can an ordinary person be expected to figure this out if it comes down to listening to enough of the actual debates on all the issues this huge battle of worldviews inevitably brings up? We can’t all be experts on everything. If the Christian god wants us to be responsible with our ignorance, he does not appear to expect us to be Christians. Just because that battle of worldviews happens to be one of my personal focuses in life, I don’t see how everyone can be expected to do that job. The reality of science and technology is very easy to verify. If you want to know the reasons for their conclusions, it is possible to investigate. Obviously the modern world of experts have to have something going for it. Worst case scenario, we might have to end up disregarding all intellectual authorities if we just don’t have the time to be experts on the topics. Um, okay, but I don’t think we should be going out on religious limbs rather than admitting we just don’t know enough about a given topic to have beliefs worth defending on it.
Anyway, kenedwards5 claims this:
I have degrees in both science and theology. My advice to JT would be to talk to people with a little less academic learning and a little more sense! You are very naive if you think the two go together! I have actually met people in the wilds of africa with far more sense than in some of our western places of learning! At colleges and universities I have noticed that common sense often isn't very common!
JT decides that Ken is probably lying about his credentials because he thinks no genuine scientist would put down the accountability factor in science and they wouldn’t play up the folk wisdom of Africa. Who would want to look that dumb? And yet JT is quite familiar with other examples of say Francis Collins publishing his infamous triune waterfall conversion story. That silly religious story doesn’t reflect at all on Collins’ ability to do genetics, does it? But JT wants to call kenedwards5 out anyway:
A degree in 'science', eh? Didn't feel like going for a particular discipline (you know, the kind that universities tend to give out).
I lost a friendly firebrand vs. diplomat bet with JT because the terms were that if Ken did not provide his credentials or simply vanished and was never heard from again, I would accept that as a win for JT. But that’s just the bet. In reality, this is an understandable reaction from kenedwards5:
again I smile at your condescending naivity. 'I will give you a chance'. As if it matters to me what someone like you think about me! Just who do you think you are? You really have got one on yourself! It's really laughable and if you think I'll give details away on a site like this! Sorry but I'm not that stupid!! Just one hint - for goodness sake stop thinking you are the centre of the universe. And try and broaden your mind somewhat by considering other opinions different to your own. [emphasis mine]
A Christian with a degree in physics who gets really lame when defending the relationship between the two and perceives a firebrand atheist as a threatening individual who may have ulterior motives is simply not an extraordinary claim. Lo and behold Ken appears to have exactly that kind of philosophical position. A Christian who is willing to lie in order to justify their faith does at least strike me as a more improbable claim than not (though not that improbable). Even if this particular Christian is lying, he might as well not be since I don’t think JT can hope to argue there aren’t perhaps a million more scientists who are Christians who get irrationally defensive about the relationship of science and religion just like the “lie” describes.
Another aspect of the problem is that JT has insulated himself methodologically from getting to the truth of the matter. If you are always on the war path, people with different values than you have are not going to trust you. It doesn't make a lot of sense to blame them for reacting normally from their perspective to what you are doing. Habitual mockery and ridicule are risky. And as JT conceded in the debate, you damn well need to make sure you are actually right. And JT’s argument from silence is not strong. I’m not the only person who has noticed.
My diplomatic prediction is that kenedwards5 mind will not be changed. He probably has a degree in some science and he probably just doesn’t trust JT with personal information. Ken will not be marginalized. He will persist in “trolling” JT’s blog until he gets bored of it and probably not because of anything JT does. JT will look kind of bad. Most atheists who already agree with JT will continue agreeing with JT (on the actual topic and also JT’s version of the politics), and most Christians who already disagree with JT will continue to disagree with JT (on the topic and politics). Perhaps some Christian who just so happens to be closely aligned with JT’s values will see the light regardless of whether kenedwards5 has a science degree or not and will change their beliefs just because of successful political theater. That may happen eventually if JT does this kind of thing often enough. But on the other hand (and more significantly) the divide between believers and nonbelievers has been reinforced. Atheists walk away somewhat embittered because of kenedwards5's lame defense of NOMA (as though science has never once had anything to say about a single Christian claim). Christians walk away somewhat embittered because of JT’s accusations and general pejorative rhetoric. No real progress on anything important is actually made.
And so my message here is that conventionalized anger is not a tool of communication that serves the skeptical community well. Informal social controls in context of the internet are a poor way to get your message across the ideological divide. Diplomacy is a universal virtue when spreading the proverbial seed of your message to the four winds. Many different kinds of people are listening in and they are all at different points in their intellectual journeys. We are not some nearly like-minded tiny insulated tribe out on the plains where in-group cajoling or “jeer pressure” might actually work out much more often than not. Our ideological differences are intensified because of the nature of the internet just as much as our ignorance of one another is intensified because of the nature of the internet. A worst possible construction-a-thon on each other’s character and intelligence born out of ignorance and stereotypes is simply not ever serving the conversations that need to happen. Perhaps most importantly, we condition ourselves to get things wrong and are just as subject to the down side of impression management theory as everyone else.
Be a challenging diplomat instead.
Ben
Recent Comments