Well intended but...

Despite having criticized Karl Giberson on numerous occasions and even having questioned his motives in the past I think he does mean well in one of his recent HuffPo pieces, "Fundamentalists Think Science Is Atheism." And, even though he is correct about science and atheism not being synonyms he is wrong about virtually everything else in this short piece. Well meaning intentions are not enough.

The very opening sentences of the piece reveal just how ignorant, biased, and deluded he continues to be.
"Equating science with atheism is one of the most dangerous byproducts of America's culture wars. This strange polarization portends disaster, as the country divides into factions that cannot find common ground on the way the world operates."
Seriously?! This false equivalence is what he sees as the "most dangerous byproducts" of the culture wars. He doesn't see the continued interference of a minority of theocratic minded activists harassing and undermining the rights of everyone else as being more dangerous? He doesn't see religious inspired and/or religiously justified violence as more of a threat? As for finding "common ground on the way the world operates", I'm not convinced that is even remotely possible let alone desirable. If someone's views on the world are not grounded in reality why should I or anyone else give a fuck what they think?

I will not go so far as to say that the wishy-washy-kumbaya-lets-all-get-along approach is completely devoid of merit. This approach seems to be all Giberson relies on. The example he uses to show the type of "controversy" he wants to avoid is also very telling. Using the evangelical debate over the Adam and Eve myth as his primary example shows Giberson's own lack of grounding in reality. It never becomes apparent to him that he does an excellent job demonstrating that mixing the two terms "science" and "atheism" and their associated beliefs are far from being the "most dangerous byproducts." In fact, he unwittingly illustrates that willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy are far more dangerous.

An exercise in confirmation bias

A recent study by Timothy O'Brien and Shiri Noy purports to have found a thrid way in the longstanding Science v. Religion debate. Their claim very quickly falls apart. The group they end up labeling, foolishly, "post-seculars" are not a new group at all. The only differences I can see with this batch of ignorant asses and previous ones is that they are willing to publicly acknowledge, at least to some degree, that there are bits and pieces of modern science and medicine they actually like.

Religious News Service had a decent summary of their "findings" that can be read if you do not wish to wade through the 20+ pages of bullshit that constitute O'brien-Noys study published in the American Sociological Review. I recommend reading the actual study first and then the RNS review. It makes an otherwise tedious and irritating read somewhat entertaining since Cathy Grossman's ("Science vs. religion? There’s actually more of a three-way split") take on it is unintentionally humorous in its own lack of insight and critical thinking.

An excellent example is:
"Post-Seculars pick and choose among science and religion views to create their own “personally compelling way of understanding the world,” said O’Brien, assistant professor at the University of Evansville in Indiana"
It never occurs to her that the pick and choose part of science isn't actually science at all. Whether a scientific theory fits your personal views has absolutely no connection to its validity. Cherry-picking which conclusions work for your preconceived notions and personal preferences is actually the opposite of respecting and accepting science. Both the original report and the summary make clear that that is precisely what is happening among these "post seculars."

"But when it comes to three main areas where science and Christian-centric religious views conflict — on human evolution, the Big Bang origin of the universe and the age of the Earth — Post-Seculars break away from the pack with significantly different views from Traditionals and Moderns." Did you catch that? Again, this is not new. The object to those theories on religious grounds alone. There is no scientific legitimacy to their opposing views. How is this a third way rather than just more of the same old conservative religious bullshit? Even the label the two use is biased. Why not "post-scriptural" since the views they do accept from science don't bother them on religious grounds?

In the end there is no third group in this debate. It only emerges from there study because they choose to interpret it that way. They fail to notice that there has not been any religious objections, except among a tiny fringe, to such modern developments as cars, computers, and antibiotics. The majority of conservative theists have always accept large portions of science and medicine. Like then, they only object when it interferes with the unfounded superstitious non-sense they wish to cling to.

What is up with Jonathan Haidt?

I've heard a few interviews with Jonathan Haidt in which he generally comes across as a reasonable person. That is until he starts talking about the "New Atheists." Suddenly, his brain turns off and he starts acting like a self-righteous deceitful and willfully ignorant dumb-ass.

His most recent bullshit laden diatribe* focuses on the idea that the so-called new atheists are more certain (implying arrogance among other mythical smears) than religious extremists. It has been reported in some places that this conclusion is based on a "study." It isn't. It is Haidt's opinion. He claims to have support for this view since he used a third party algorithm to count a specific set of words in a specific set of works by "new atheist" authors. There is a bit of a problem with this approach. It is completely inaccurate. It does not account for context or even attempt to control for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs). It simply finds and counts each word completely apart from the sentence in which they exist. Some of these word are themselves modifiers but they still are not cross-referenced with the other listed words. His words include; Always, Never, Certainly, Every, and Undeniable.

Consider this sentence:
Eve though it is undeniable that science is an excellent method of determining what is factual, I am certainly not claiming that it is always without errors.

According to Haidt's method this sentence would be proof that the speaker is completely certain of his claim and therefore more arrogant and self-deluded than a religious extremist. It contains three of the target words. See the problem? The point of the sentence is to express and embrace uncertainty which is the exact opposite of Haidt's claim. He can only make that assertion by completely separating the individuals word and imposing rather dubious means of interpretation.

Perhaps, deep down he realizes his opinion of the "new atheists" is baseless but just can't seem to help himself. He doesn't like them so he has to find a way to justify his antipathy. There's no real evidence so he resorts to fabricating it in a way he can sort of claim is scientific.  Either way, when it comes to his fellow atheists Haidt's ability to reason seems to completely disappear. I don't get. I wished he'd either come up with reasons he can back up or just shut the fuck up about it.

*Haidt's piece has been noted and summarized by a handful of bloggers (both atheists and theists) but the original can be found on This View of Life website titled "Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind.
" Sam Harris has responded to this type of shit from Haidt before. An example can Be found on the Edge website, "Sam Harris Response to Jonathan Haidt."