The Difference Between Persistent Rationality And "Dogma"

The VRTPALEO List discussion regarding the creationist video fiasco has been lively. Kevin Padian is clearly upset by this entire mess, which is understandable given the fact that he is one of the leading voices in vertebrate paleontology for the teaching of evolution, including being the president of the board of directors for the National Center For Science Education (NCSE). Getting duped by those douchebags in such a shamefully dishonest and underhanded scheme must be painful and absolutely infuriating. Kevin, rarely one to publicly say anything overtly critical or negative about anyone, has been dispensing some hurt on the VP list...and it's been beautiful.

In any case, the VRTPALEO List discussion is following the usual route that science and religion discussions tend to take there. People dispense anecdotes, offer advice and talk idealistically about "fighting the good fight" without actually planning to do anything (like me for example), go off on tangents about what bullshit Christianity is, and accuse the "militant" atheists going off on these tangents of being "dogmatic," and of "making things worse" by offering honest opinions. I want to address a couple things: the claim that Richard Dawkins and Greg Paul are "dogmatic", and the difference between being honest and "dogmatic" in religious discussions.

If the term "dogma" refers to an irrational and unsubstantiated position, then there is nothing dogmatic about the religious opposition of Richard Dawkins or Greg Paul. Emphatic, irritable, frustrated, and a bit pompous perhaps, yes. Dogmatic, no. I don't recall ever reading anything written by either of them that did not support their arguments with reasoning, logic, and evidence. That is the very antithesis of being "dogmatic". The claim that outspoken scientific representatives of the atheistic/agnostic community are "dogmatic" is one of the most oft-repeated and cheap-shot bullshit statements made by creationists and politically correct non-believers. There is a strong strain of (usually leftist) moral and intellectual cowardice in our society, which holds that if a non-believer even STATES their lack of support for a religious claim, or worse yet (horror or horrors) EXPLAINS that position, then they are being unreasonable, and that them incarcerating, blowing up, and beheading believers is the next logical step. This is complete horseshit; educated, rationalist, agnostic/atheistic secular humanists are generally among the most supportive of freedom of speech and worship for everybody. Even P.Z. Meyers, perhaps the most outspoken and caustic scientific atheist on this side of the Atlantic, recognizes the importance of allowing the religious to practice and advertise their beliefs in a free society...as long as freedom of speech applies in both directions.

The very fact that simply explaining a lack of belief in religion, and not wussing out just because a lot of people find your opinions discomforting, is seen as being "dogmatic" or "fanatical" is powerful testimony to how weak and irrational those beliefs really are. Don't gently poke that wet toilet paper with your finger! You're being too rough! Douglas Adams has one of the best quotes regarding this (taken from this speech):

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes.

Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'.

Religious apologetics, and the defense of it by politically correct non-believers, is like the Special Olympics of Reason. The reaction to using scientific reasoning and logic to question religion is similar to if an Olympic heavyweight boxer entered the Special Olympics and beat up a retarded kid. You can't do that! It's not FAAAAAAAIR!!! The rules are different! My response to the argument that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" is addressed here, here, and here; one of Richard Dawkin's better commentaries on it is here.