Rant: Being a biologist is great, but it doesn't make you an expert at everything else.

If you are a reader of Pharyngula and many other awesome biology related blogs, you may have seen an occasional rant about physicists, chemists, geologists, etc. commenting on evolution. There is a lot of truth in this rant. After all, biologists have devoted a great deal of time to studying their area of expertise. There are intricacies about theories that may not be readily graspable by people who devoted their time to other spheres of knowledge. When those people ignorantly comment on evolution, and get some aspect of it wrong usually, they are still perceived as experts without the distinction of it being true. 

Someone who devoted their life to studying gravity is not an expert in evolution, and while they may offer an opinion, they should make sure that is is clear to all that they do so without the real educational background to have their words taken seriously or as a representation of the science. 

Them not doing so results in misleading headlines like: "scientist claims evolution makes no sense" or "Scientist claims evolution is bunk". These headlines are dishonest since the scientist in question has done no research on the matter.

Now we come to an different matter. When those self same biologists comment on areas outside their own expertise. In this case psychology. Although it is true that biology has an important role in psychology (as does chemistry for that matter) it is important to realize that it is a science that takes years of study just like biology to master. 

When biologists try to comment on areas outside of their expertise, they are doing as much a disservice as when other scientists comment on biology. 

To be clear, I am not talking about when someone, like PZ Myers for example, comments about problems with evolutionary psychology. Often those comments have to do with the fact that certain hypotheses in Evo Psych actually do disregard how evolution works. It is a valid concern as someone who studies evolution and sees the mistake as one that impacts the success of research.

No, my objection has more to do with people like Richard Dawkins, who feel like they have the capacity to comment on what is more psychologically damaging. Dawkins is a great biologist, but he is not a psychologist. He reveals his ignorance even more when he defends his comments that teaching children about hell is worse than child abuse (including sexual abuse of children). 

Although I still have a lot of schooling to do before I am a qualified psychologist, my own studies already provide enough depth for me to see certain glaring problems in his defense of his arguments. Many of the anecdotal stories he provides as evidence of his claims show symptoms of transference and other psychologically tools employed by victims of trauma. One in particular is talking about how when she was being sexually assaulted by her priest, she was more upset over the fact that her friend who had died recently was going to hell. Often, children who are suffering something catastrophic like abuse will suppress their feelings on the subject and transfer their fears over to something less personal, more hypothetical. Worrying about the false idea that her friend is burning in hell is easier than processing what is happening to them. Moreover, it is also a way for a child to process the natural fears of death experienced by humanity. It has less to do with them being taught that hell exists and more to do with how their experiences inform that concept.

Here is a priest, a representative of god who is causing me pain even though everyone tells me he is good and cares for me. He is the one who tells me about how god is love and he is a representation of that loving god on earth. Well if the priest in his love causes me pain, then how much worse must god's love be and so by virtue, god's displeasure. Is it the hell concept that is the problem here, or the turmoil caused by the abuse? 

Moreover, Dawkin's insistence of defending his position with anecdotes is so scientifically dishonest that is makes me sick. As a biologist and a scientist, he knows first hand that anecdotes are not evidence. Although case studies are employed as a technique in psychology, how they are employed is important. They are usually large samples that are meant to be representative of a population. They have to include control groups to make sure that (like we see with Dawkins' examples) they are not simply informing confirmation bias.   

What infuriates me even more is Dawkins' reference to the feelings stemming from sexual assault being those of ickyness. Well you know what? My fish have ick (ich), and left untreated it will kill them. (sorry, it is a terrible pun, but I couldn't help myself). 

Richard Dawkins uses his own experiences of sexual abuse as an example. He states simply that for him the abuse only left him with a faint feeling of distaste (icky) but wasn't that much of an impact. I won't question whether or not the abuse actually happened, like some who find the sudden revelation a little too convenient considering. If he says he was abused then he was. I will simply counter with the possibility that he may have been (and may still be) repressing what he actually felt. Another common tactic.

It needs to be said that I find the idea of hell and teaching children about hell as being morally repugnant. I agree that it is in many ways a form of child abuse. My objection to his statements has nothing to do with a support for the idea of hell. 

Rather my objections are: 

Richard Dawkins made a broad statement about the psychological implications of certain concepts without having any background in psychology, without the benefit of any valid psychological studies into the matter, and without any evidence. Richard Dawkins statements are not just insulting to the many people out their struggling to get over psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, but are frankly just BAD SCIENCE.