Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne resign from the FFRF over 'imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics'

[frazzled1]

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/steve-pinker-resigns-from-the-freedom-of-religion-foundation/

After biologist Jerry Coyne wrote an article denounced as anti-trans so the Freedom From Religion Foundation took it down.

Pinker wrote to the FFRF

I think it’s important to distinguish two things:

1. The right to bodily autonomy, an ethical issue.

2. The nature of sex in the living world, a scientific issue.

Some trans activists believe that the only way to ensure the first is to rewrite the second, imposing what we regard as fallacious and tendentious claims in defiance of our best scientific understanding. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it’s a conceptual error, confusing the moral and the empirical, and it’s counterproductive to force people to choose between trans rights and scientific reality. Those who favor scientific reality will be alienated from the cause of safeguarding trans rights.

I see FFRF as in the vanguard of separating key moral and political commitments from honest scientific inquiry (after all, a major impetus for enshrining religious doctrine such as creationism is that it is necessary for the preservation of moral values). Many people have noted that the radical factions of the trans movement have taken on some of the worst features of religion, such as the imposition of dogma and the excommunication and vilification of heretics. FFRF can be firmly on the side of trans rights without advancing tendentious (and almost certainly false) biological claims. Of course, it’s fine for views that we regard as tendentious to be expressed in FFRF forums, as long as respectful disagreements are allowed to be expressed as well.

That what struck me when I used to read "Freethought" Blogs years ago. That, and how totally US-centric it was.

Depressing isn't it?

A Reddit thread full of unhinged gender believers claiming to be sceptical

www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/s/3rNo6u3LLs

Good point. This is it.

This.

Oh my God, how can these people think of themselves as clever?

Mate, sex is the most relevant data when it comes to sex specific spaces and sports. They are segregated by sex for well evidenced and vital reasons.

Go have whatever gender identity you want in every other space. But in sex segregated spaces, its sex that is the only relevant and salient data.

It's not though, different religions have really different attitudes to science, and aren't necessarily opposed at all.

Part of Dawkins problem has always been that he thinks that scientific empiricism stands alone, that's why he makes mistakes in assessing things like historical research which he thinks should be judged in the same way as a scientific question, when in fact historical research has totally different norms. Similarly questions about metaphysics, ethics, or epistemology - things religion is often concerned with - can't be answered by scientific empiricism.

Actually I think this is part of the reason the skeptics who think scientific empiricism is the be all and end all are vulnerable in many cases - they have a poor sense of the real limits of scientific thought.

And that is because they put their faith in scientific rationalism. There is a refusal to consider anything that lies beyond that realm, or beyond that type of process for arriving at truth. There can be a rigid dogmatism in that.

Humans are born.
Their age changes over time.
Their sexuality develops and can change over time.
Their faith and beliefs change over time.
They can become or cease to be disabled.
Their nationality and perceived race can change over time
Their marital and parental status can change over time.
Their sex is immutable from conception to death

It's not dogmatism, it's the scientific method, it's the only reliable method humans have of acquiring knowledge and understanding the world/universe around them. There are no other ways of knowing, there is nothing else to consider.

That's where Dawkins seems to have started his thinking, but that's not a particularly strong position, you won't find it supported by people who are philosophers of science much, for example. What you are describing is scientism.

The claim that “only scientific claims are valid” is not itself a scientific claim, but a philosophical one.

I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but this isn't quite right.

An example of knowing something non-empirically (not using scientific method)? - You know (we all do) that if all A's are B and x is an A, then x is a B. How? - Seems not empirically, nor derived by scientific method.

OK, some will say that's not knowledge of the world, strictly speaking. Try this: if there are two men and three women in the next room, there are at least five people in the next room, because 2 + 3 = 5. How do you know that?

Or, perhaps (slightly more advanced - you may need to look this up), think of the development of the group SU(2) enabling our understanding of the symmetries of the electron. The mathematics of group theory certainly isn't known empirically, or by using the scientific method. It really looks like knowledge, though ... and it sure seems to illuminate our understanding of the world/universe. How?

[This isn't in any way a justification for belief in god or gender identity. There are no such things. But scientific method/empiricism isn't the be-all and end-all of knowledge and understanding. Just saying.]

Not mainstream religion either, more niche and fundamentalist than that.

This is taking quite a narrow view of the scientific method. If you define it instead as encompassing any systematic way of making verifiable claims about the world that reliably pass empirical tests, then all your examples would be scientific.

For example arithmetic itself is indeed a collection of tautologies, but it is an empirical scientific fact that the rules of arithmetic mostly apply to counting objects or people in the real world. Of course it's not always true - wait long enough and you might find there are now six people in the next room 😀

Perfect illustration of my point about Dawkins. He holds to a very narrow tolerance of what is considered conventional scientific method, which tends towards the moralistic and oppressive; though theoretical physics, for example, is quite another, far more radical proposition.

This is word salad. How can a method of verifiable repeatable results be 'moralistic and oppressive'? The scientific method lifted us out of superstition, religious impositions and ignorance. It is the number one weapon in fighting gender ideology. I'm am downright suspicious (verging on hostile) to anyone questioning it with such vagaries without explaining and illustrating a superior method.

Where I probably disagree with Dawkins is that the Scientific Method cannot be used to disprove religion. All it can say is this is unknowable which is the polite way of say unverifiable which is dismissive as it gets.

I agree @Apollo441 which is why I tend to call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I thought that was also Dawkins position, ultimately - but that there's proof of the untruth or extreme improbability of various religious beliefs?

Anyway - on the matter of genderism, Dawkins has shown himself rational for quite a while and I'm glad various other well known men are making their position clearer on this.

Imo much of the considered criticism of the 'skeptic movement' on this is giving it more weight than it deserves - I rather suspect some of the idiotically under-thought positions derive from too many of these orgs being heavily male dominated and they're just not giving a shit about women's rights.

Can you explain which bit of the "word salad" you are having trouble comprehending?I was explaining that he has a very dogmatic approach which, a bit like your 'word salad' above, is very dismissive and intolerant, and yes, hostile.

Scientists are sometimes/have been rejected by the scientific community on the grounds that they did not adhere to what is commonly believed to be science. This could be seen as being no different in attitude from the religious authorities in the past who used to prosecute scientists for contradicting their biblical versions of creation.There will always be alternative theories and scientists who uncover different results or patterns to the established 'truth'.

To this day, we only know a tiny bit about how the universe is made up. But human beings tend to take a 'piece' of the truth and dogmatize it. I think Richard Dawkins is guilty of this - for the reason he is very emotionally attached to his theories and his way of approaching things.

The scientific approach is open minded and not attempts not to be judgmental. there is no need fo excessive heat or hostility when you are able to have a reasoned discussion. Discussion can involve alternative perspectives and viewpoints.

If one can be open minded, curious, and a little bit humble in being prepared to to think holistically: then it is possible to detect and understand patterns using the best from the left AND the right brain.

I recall there was a very personal and heated exchange between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra some years ago. Here is Chopra's take on Dawkins failings:

"The mystery of the brain's interface with reality has led to an open-ended discussion of the hard problem, and a number of prominent theorists now believe that consciousness, or mind, exists in the universe at large, that it is the very basis of everything in spacetime. This is the real God hypothesis–the existence of cosmic mind woven into the very fabric of nature–not Dawkins's trumped-up attack on the God of conventional religion.......I am not saying that science is moving closer to God, only that the possibility of a conscious universe is very real in scientific terms. On that basis, the very things Dawkins defends so vociferously–reason, logic, data, experimentation–can be applied to reality beyond the five senses."

https://www.deepakchopra.com/articles/how-richard-dawkins-lost-his-battle-with-god/

Theoretical Physics still adheres to the laws of physics and mathematics and is to as much a degree as possible measurable and testable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

Isn’t the error using method A to discuss subject Y? It’s like trying to read a French poem using your knowledge of classical Greek. They are pretty much entirely irrelevant to each other.

Biological facts like sex don’t change when considered through the lens of genderism. They are unchanged. It’s possible something else completely different is going on, but the biological facts remain unchanged.

The existence of God doesn’t lend itself to examination by scientific method. It isn’t in the realm of scientific facts. There’s no point saying ‘point to him’ or ‘there’s nowhere for him to exist, standing in the sky’ as it’s a different realm.

Fred’s understanding of God isn’t going to be changed by Bill’s explanation of science. They are different on every level.

Genderists don’t get to tell scientists that they are wrong about sex. Sex remains unchanged regardless. Scientists can only say that science facts don’t back up genderfeelz, and aren’t undermined by genderfeelz.

You seem to be confusing, or conflating, what is taken as the current accepted norm, with the method of scientific investigation itself.

Yes, norms can be challenged and overcome, but this is done through the method of scientific investigation which demonstrates a superior explanatory theory/ model or which outright falsifies what was accepted as correct.

The method of scientific inquiry itself stands firm.