I am an atheist, and I care about the way non-religious belief is communicated by atheists to the public. Over the years, I have become increasingly disappointed with the way atheists explain our origins to the public. In the future, I hope that we stop underselling how much science knows about “how we got here.”
676 words about science
550 words about how atheists fail to explain science adequately I'd say #science absolutely!! - but in the spirit of Hubski ecumenism I'll add #atheism because I can and you can't (yet) . Generally we don't control other people's labels, but we can expand them. No one said that #science had to be Ecumenism is a word referring to attempts to create more unity and understanding among all xtian sects. Hubski ecumenism hmmmm - I don't know.to teach new science or show discoveries or anything like that.
We are more flexible at hubski about our labels. Someone interested in science might also be interested in how to explain it to others. I am.
Surely you're joking - or maybe you just have a knee-jerk reaction to the "A" word. The entire point of the article was about the teaching of science (i.e. explanation of current scientific knowledge, to laymen like Bill O'Reilly), and specifically about how atheists are not doing a terrific job of it.
Indeed. While I believe that this article does have some relevance to those who are interested in following science, that is secondary to it's focus on atheism.
>If I ever had the chance to answer a question similar to the questions Dawkins and Jillette encountered, I know exactly what I would say: Great points, but do you really think that Mr. O'Reilly would let you get more than two sentences into that little prepared speech?
Definitely not. I state that in the article: I know that Dawkins or Jillette wouldn’t have been given enough time to tell that entire story, but some version of explaining what science has learned about our origins would be far better than saying that scientists are “working on it” or “I don’t know.”
But even if I did manage to give that whole speech... O'Reilly would get me by saying that I have yet to explain the tides...
Relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/canyouexplainthat Coincidentally, the first subreddit I ever created. Horrible subreddit, excellent experience. It gave me the motivation to create /r/EarthPorn and the rest of the SFWPorn Network.
Haha, you created /r/EarthPorn(?!), I used to love that subreddit!
Definitely not. This explanation merely begets the questions: Where did the matter for the big bang come from? What was the universe like before its expansion? How long did it exist that way? None of which we have the answers for, and all of which might potentially hide a scope / timeline of the universe far larger than what we currently have theories to explain.Scientists aren’t “working on it”, they have pretty much figured out most of it.
My point was that the narrative of our origins is well developed. At the beginning of the 20th century we did not know who are closest relatives were, we did not know what continent humans originated from, we did not know how long life had been evolving on Earth. We also had little understanding of how our solar system formed, how old the Universe was, how the Universe began, etc. There is a long history in science of us discovering more and more things about our origins. Consequently, the god of the gaps argument evoked by many religious people that say "well you can't tell me anything before the Big Bang, therefore God" is an intellectually untenable position. It is likely that by the end of the 21st century we will have a complete understanding of many things that are currently mysteries. By saying that scientists are "working on it" is dramatically understating the current state of scientific knowledge.