Thoughts in a Haystack

The Framing Wars are off and running again. Matt Nisbet, as he is wont to do, touched off the latest round by attacking PZ Myers ... with somewhat suspicious timing, as PZ is off enjoying himself in the Galapagos (the bustard!). The Pharyngulistas have responded in PZ's absence, as have Afarensis, Larry Moran, Mike Haubrich and Greg Laden, among, no doubt, many others in the blogosphere.

I have mostly stayed away from the framing issue. As an attorney, it is, perhaps, more obvious to me than most that there are valid and invalid uses of rhetoric. At its best, rhetoric is the organization of facts and arguments in a logical way and expressing them in a clear and forceful manner as to maximize their impact on the audience. There is nothing sinister or wrong about that. Any scientist who cannot express the results of his or her work clearly and logically will, at the very least, blunt the dissemination and use of those findings.

One of the most important preconditions for success in this sort of "good" rhetoric is that those seeking to persuade must be clear in their own minds what message it is that they want to convey. In these framing spats there appear to be at least four possible messages that are at issue:

~ The popularization of science with the general public, particularly aimed at increasing the acceptance of evolution in opposition to creationism;

~ The increase in general of the use of reason and logic in the public sphere and the equipping of the public to enable it to resist manipulation by special interests, such as politicians, marketers and peddlers of woo;

~ The advance of secularism in government; and

~ The advance of atheism.

Of course, there can be lively debates over how much any one of these aims supports, or is supported by, any of the others. But if the messenger is not clear about which of these is meant to be conveyed at any time, how can the audience be? If someone wants to argue that atheism supports secularism that, in turn, supports the use of reason and logic and thus supports evolution over creationism, then why not make that argument eminently clear so the audience can examine it?

That does not always happen. A recent case in point is the first episode of Richard Dawkins' The Genius of Charles Darwin. While the show was, overall, excellent, there was some confusion in the message, I thought. Dawkins made numerous mentions of how evolution occurred "without God," as if that was a scientific conclusion. Certainly, Darwin's explanation of adaptation took the wind out of the best argument for the existence of God by demonstrating that there was a naturalistic pathway to the same results. But the very nature of science makes it impossible for it to conclude that God does not exist (a point Dawkins at least pays lip service to) or that any such God had no involvement in the development of life as it exists today. Similarly, in a show supposed to be about Darwin and his science, why are we informed of the fact that learning evolutionary theory made Dawkins an atheist? Is that too supposed to be a scientific conclusion rather than a philosophical choice? Perhaps such an argument can be made but Dawkins did not even try to do so in this show and that is bad rhetoric.

Over all, in a program aimed at an audience less sensitive to issues of atheism versus religionism, it is a minor failing but it is, nonetheless, a mixed message. Dawkins and the "New Atheists" are hardly alone in that. Nisbet is almost comically oblivious to his own Mixmaster. Barely are the accusations against the New Atheists of "ideological porn, sophomoric rants that feed our dark sides and ... unfair stereotypes" out of his pen than he says, without trace of irony, "[t]he addictive nature of their rhetoric radicalizes us and leads us to an ever more closed off conversation ... " Physician heal thyself.

More importantly, Nisbet seems to have lost the thread of his own original argument, as I understood it. In the beginning the intent was that atheists, particularly those who are scientists, should stop equating acceptance of science with acceptance of atheism, as that would tend to close religious believers off from acceptance and support of science. Framed that way, there is a certain force to the contention. Now Nisbet has gone beyond that. Unlike the position of E.O. Wilson that Nisbet appeals to -- where Wilson argued that scientists (not atheists) and evangelicals should "put aside our differences for the time being and not fuss with each other over evolution" -- Nisbet appears to be arguing for atheists, and only atheists, to paper over the differences they have with believers. Wilson argued that both sides must engage in a different dialogue in pursuit of different goals, not that one side play nice to the other concerning their core differences. That's not framing, it's faking.

PZ's recent review of Ken Miller's Only a Theory shows that he can be and is grateful for and respectful toward Miller's fine work on behalf of science and science education, without pretending they have no philosophical differences -- precisely Wilson's prescription. Nisbet is obviously demanding more. If he expects PZ or Dawkins to suddenly commence displays of sweetness and light toward religion, not only is he a poor judge of character for a supposed expert in communications, he is displaying exquisite contempt towards religionists and their ability to detect hypocrisy in the unlikely event such advice would be adopted. On the other hand, if he really wants to follow Paul Kurtz's advice, which does not seem to entail burying the differences but, rather, playing up the areas of agreement, Nisbet would be better advised to emphasize where the "militant" atheists' aims coincide with believers of Miller's stripe than to play up their differences or what he sees as the excesses of the New Atheists.

If Nisbet wants to also emphasize those he characterizes as "friendly atheists," that is his business ... though some of them might not want the faint whiff of Stepin Fetchit that goes with the honor.
.