Thursday, November 5, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Since the dawn of time

by Dan Jones - New Stateman

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/11/science-evolution-faith-world

It has been the year of evolution. To coincide with the anniversaries of both Darwin's birth and the publication of On the Origin of Species, Richard Dawkins published The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution. And Jerry Coyne (an eminent evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago) wrote Why Evolution Is True. Yet, amid the ongoing celebrations, a new storm has erupted. This is not the usual battle between creationist fundamentalists and evolutionists. The latest ruckus has broken out among scientists and philosophers who accept evolutionary theory as the explanation for the emergence of life's diversity.

Where they differ is on the public communication of science and evolution. Dawkins in particular is being rebuked for doing more harm than good to the public face of science. The basic claim - spelled out by the journalist Chris Mooney and the biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America, published in June - is that Dawkins presents an unnecessarily divisive choice: you can accept evolution and a scientific world-view more broadly, and therefore reject religion, or cling to religion and sacrifice scientific understanding.

This strategy, critics argue, alienates moderate religious people who might otherwise be receptive to scientific theory. Faced with a mutually exclusive choice between their private faith and the objective world-view of science, moderates will turn away from the latter. Science loses out.
It's not just Dawkins. Coyne and all the "new atheists" (including the Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett, the neuroscientist Sam Harris and the cultural commentator Christopher Hitchens) are charged with alienating people from science. Lining up against them is a group of "accommodationists", including Mooney, an atheist, and Kirshenbaum, an agnostic, who believe that evolution and religion can live happily side by side - at least under an entente cordiale, if not in a mutually supportive relationship.
...
Continue reading
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/11/science-evolution-faith-world

Posted: Thursday, November 5, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #429841 by glenister_m on November 5, 2009 at 10:26 pm

This article reads like it was written by a friend of Mooney & Kirshenbaum, who did it to help sales of their book.

I'm reminded of the book "Unreasonable People" which pointed out that all the change in the world is caused by unreasonable people who refuse to accept things as they are and devote their energy to try to improve them instead.

Other Comments by glenister_m

2. Comment #429843 by APPlet on November 5, 2009 at 10:31 pm

One is the increasingly common criticism that the new atheists are excessively mean to people of faith, "militant" in tone, and ironically fundamentalist in their non-belief.

I just need help in understanding the phrase "fundamentalist in their non-belief". I have non-belief in invisible pink unicorns and many other things; how can I (or anyone else) not be fundamental about it? I also don't remember being mean to anyone about their personal beliefs.

Other Comments by APPlet

3. Comment #429849 by andersemil on November 5, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Comment #429843 by APPlet

From wikipedia:
"Fundamentalism, the belief in, and usually the strict adherence to, the simplistic or "fundamental" ideas based on faith of a system of thought."

I guess the question is whether naturalists can be described as having "faith" in a naturalistic worldview. Since the naturalistic worldview is based on facts and therefore does not require faith, I find this paradoxical and therefore refuse to accept the term fundamentalist atheism.

Other Comments by andersemil

4. Comment #429850 by aquilacane on November 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm

How do you tell someone you think their belief is batshit crazy and void of any shred of evidence to support it, without coming off mean£

I think the only way is to come up with an even crazier batshit insane idea and throw it back at them. Let them be mean first. "You're crazy" they'll say. That's when you reply "I know you are but what am I£".

All we need is a really crazy idea, like a god made of Spagetti or a tea cup... something crazy.

Love this too,

"It's not just Dawkins. Coyne and all the "new atheists" (including the Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett, the neuroscientist Sam Harris and the cultural commentator Christopher Hitchens) are charged with alienating people from science"

Whereas Biff the shit shoveller, Bobby Sue the cafetiria worker and Drunk Mike the born again alcoholic rapist who only just found Jesus see another side to it. Science and religion are the same thing as god made everything cause it says so in the bible.

Other Comments by aquilacane

5. Comment #429855 by F_A_F on November 5, 2009 at 10:53 pm

The basic claim - spelled out by the journalist Chris Mooney and the biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America, published in June - is that Dawkins presents an unnecessarily divisive choice: you can accept evolution and a scientific world-view more broadly, and therefore reject religion, or cling to religion and sacrifice scientific understanding.

I don't get it. Religions generate "factual" statements claiming that the earth was made in 6 days, woman was made from a man's rib etc. Science generates "factual" claims that all life forms evolved from earlier life forms. The former is not backed up by any provable evidence, the latter has mountains of evidence. How is it therefore unfair to say that you have to choose one of the other? The murder victim can't have been killed by spirits AND a knife wielding maniac at the samwe time. Truth is truth, it can't be more than one concept at the same time.

Other Comments by F_A_F

6. Comment #429865 by Modo on November 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm

including Mooney, an atheist, and Kirshenbaum, an agnostic

Mooney, I would hope, is an agnostic in principle and an atheist in practice (Teapot).

Does any one else spot this mistake more and more after reading The God Delusion?

Other Comments by Modo

7. Comment #429871 by Border Collie on November 5, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Richard, to bed with no supper, you naughty, divisive boy!

Other Comments by Border Collie

8. Comment #429876 by Laurie Fraser on November 5, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith, and nurture a sense of humility by recognising that scientific evidence does not rule out existence of the divine.

Pig's arse, it doesn't!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #429879 by Rikitiki13 on November 6, 2009 at 12:10 am

True, it IS possible to live with the cognitive dissonance of contrary ideas in one's head - denial has it's merits when something is just too difficult to accept. I lived that way for far too many years...then hit bottom and sobered up. With alcoholics, society and the courts actively push a "Hey! You're living in denial and delusion and not facing reality, deal with it!!" I fail to see how religion is different.

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

10. Comment #429888 by j.mills on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 am

Would have been nice if the writer could have gotten that fence-post out of his arse. Still, difficult to charge him with any major misstatements - until this slip:

Collins is also an evangelical Christian who speaks publicly about his faith and its relation to science. Exemplars of this sort show that a single human mind can hold two divergent world-views simultaneously, or at least accept the legitimacy of two very different ways of gaining knowledge about the world.

In what way is christianity a "way of gaining knowledge about the world"?

Other Comments by j.mills

11. Comment #429893 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 1:40 am

In what way is christianity a "way of gaining knowledge about the world"?

Quite. I'm also not sure what legitimacy means in that sentence? Does that mean effective in gaining real knowledge. In that case we know it isn't. Does is it just code for we shouldn't criticise it. Or is this some post-modernist type speak?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

12. Comment #429894 by artisfact on November 6, 2009 at 1:41 am

These accommodationists sound like spineless hypocrites to me, catering to the ignorant in the hope that one day, common people will be as enlightened as they are. It makes me want to puke.

There is nothing militant about stating an opinion based on sound evidence, and that is all the "new atheists" are doing.

These people need to grow a pair or shut up.

Other Comments by artisfact

13. Comment #429896 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 1:44 am

I think the best reply to this question is here

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4549,How-About-Another-Post-on-Accommodationism,Jason-Rosenhouse---EvolultionBlog

Working with moderates to get creationism out of schools doesn't have to mean signing up to a NOMA-fundementalist position.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

14. Comment #429899 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 2:07 am

Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith, and nurture a sense of humility by recognising that scientific evidence does not rule out existence of ~~the divine~~ Santa Claus.

Didn't Barbara get the memo? Holy Jebus these people are like broken Victrolas.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

15. Comment #429901 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 2:55 am

Francis Collins, who ran the American arm of the Human Genome Project and was recently appointed head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biggest funder of biomedical research in the US. Collins is also an evangelical Christian who speaks publicly about his faith and its relation to science. Exemplars of this sort show that a single human mind can hold two divergent world-views simultaneously, or at least accept the legitimacy of two very different ways of gaining knowledge about the world.

Two very different ways, indeed. (1) Lying through your teeth; and (2) Looking at the evidence. Please, Dan, name ONE piece of "knowledge" gained by evangelical Christianity.

Excuse me, but I'm gonna have to go all Bob Dylan on this dude:

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

16. Comment #429905 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 6, 2009 at 3:40 am

This strategy, critics argue, alienates moderate religious people who might otherwise be receptive to scientific theory. Faced with a mutually exclusive choice between their private faith and the objective world-view of science, moderates will turn away from the latter. Science loses out.

Seeing this in print makes me realize there is no other way. Change what we say about reality to attract people who won't accept it?

Fuck 'em.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

17. Comment #429908 by Mbee on November 6, 2009 at 4:30 am

"Two hundred years after Darwin’s birth, scientists still can’t agree on whether evolution and religion can happily coexist."

I find this totally wrong. Shouldn't this be 'Theists still can’t agree on whether evolution and religion can happily coexist."
Why do scientists have to be the ones that have a problem. Surely the theists need to change their ideas to accommodate the facts.
Science cannot prove that god does not exist, but the theists have to accept the facts regardless of if fits into their theistic model or not.
To ignore the facts simply says that they don't care about evidence.
Remember Galileo said that the Earth was not the center of the universe but the theists said he was wrong (with no evidence) but it is now accepted that the theists were wrong! Sorry theists but you have to admit when you are wrong otherwise you can just fu.. o..

Other Comments by Mbee

18. Comment #429910 by dsainty on November 6, 2009 at 5:00 am

Is this a use-mention-error-style mistake of the kind that Dennett warns us about?

Religion and "science" (the results) are compatible. You can watch TV, use a computer, even accept evolution, and still maintain that some god or other did it.

Religion and science (the method) are incompatible. One would struggle to stack the scientific method against their chosen religion and ever come to the conclusion that their beliefs are justified.

I suspect that people claiming science and religion are compatible typically aren't really talking about science, they're talking about "science".

Other Comments by dsainty

19. Comment #429915 by Enlightenme.. on November 6, 2009 at 6:10 am

"The second thread of the accommodationist argument is that science, in fact, need not be inimical to religious faith. Eminent scientists from Galileo to Newton have found little trouble reconciling their personal faith with a scientific world-view."

What a fucking travesty of serious journalism!
"Little trouble reconciling"..
LITTLE TROUBLE RECONCILING?

Wiki:
The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.

He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[97]

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. [For THE REST OF HIS LIFE]

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[98]

Galileo died on 8 January 1642 at 77 years of age. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[100] These plans were scrapped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested.[101] He was instead buried in a small room next to the novices' chapel at the end of a corridor from the southern transept of the basilica to the sacristy.

-------
"In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls."

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

20. Comment #429917 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 6:23 am

19. Comment #429915 by Enlightenme.. on November 6, 2009 at 6:10 am

Very interesting post. Having myself read a couple biographies of Isaac Newton, I know he also had far more than a "little trouble reconciling" his relationship with religion. Not to mention his more than passing interest in alchemy...

Other Comments by SaintStephen

21. Comment #429918 by Enlightenme.. on November 6, 2009 at 6:27 am

Following the links after that article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-god-blog/2009/11/belief-religion-science-ruling

..."Nevertheless, it seems to me that most militant atheists are characterised not just by an absence of belief in a god, but by a trust in science so certain and ardent that it is entirely akin to religious belief -- and a highly devoted, if not fanatical, one at that."

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

22. Comment #429930 by tieInterceptor on November 6, 2009 at 8:39 am

very good article

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

23. Comment #429943 by carbonman on November 6, 2009 at 10:05 am

Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith

Personal my a**e. If faith were personal, it wouldn't be shoved in people's faces 24/7.

Other Comments by carbonman

24. Comment #429963 by mixmastergaz on November 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm

This business of "being mean to people of faith" really gets my goat! It's so pathetic! We're just giving voice to our honest doubts and concerns about religion.

Sticks and stones may break religious believers' bones but words, yes even name calling, should never hurt them.

I'm also struck by how disproportionate and selective this empty criticism is. Where is their condemnation of the actual sticks and stones hurled at gay people for example, or at followers of other religions or denominations£

Straining out gnats whilst swallowing camels, as Jesus reportedly said. He also supposedly said something about turning the other cheek. And since I've brought him up, I believe he also took a dim view of lying and hypocrisy.

Being mean! What a bunch of childish, pleading wimps!

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

25. Comment #429971 by Protostar on November 6, 2009 at 12:58 pm

It seems to me that the article simply lays out some facts. There is no obvious agenda on the author's part, shown by the constant use of the passive and referring to others.

While statements by the various 'critics' can be rebuked/attacked/ridiculed very easily, the article itself cannot be. It's a welcome change; I hope we see more like this.

As opposed to the linked "faith in science is a belief" one, which is pathetic.

Other Comments by Protostar

26. Comment #429979 by Tyler Durden on November 6, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Yawn!

We've been here before. Science moves on, and drags the human race with it; while religion seeks to remain wrapped up cosy warm in its archaic dogma.

Mutually supportive relationship me arse!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

27. Comment #429990 by samratpathania on November 6, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Please let us bombard the article on the website itself with comments.
I am tired of people publishing such gravel.
I would request the more eloquent heathens here to take the lead

Other Comments by samratpathania

28. Comment #429999 by mitch_486 on November 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm

I get so frustrated reading things like this:

It's not just Dawkins. Coyne and all the "new atheists" (including the Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett, the neuroscientist Sam Harris and the cultural commentator Christopher Hitchens) are charged with alienating people from science. Lining up against them is a group of "accommodationists", including Mooney, an atheist, and Kirshenbaum, an agnostic, who believe that evolution and religion can live happily side by side - at least under an entente cordiale, if not in a mutually supportive relationship.

Instead of presenting religion as a word here, why not include the system it adheres to? Wait...perhaps I will!

It's not just Dawkins. Coyne and all the "men of reason" (including the Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett, the neuroscientist Sam Harris and the cultural commentator Christopher Hitchens) are charged with informing people about the world, as has been observed, tested and proven. Lining up against them is a group of "accommodationists", including Mooney, a man who doesn't believe in thor, allah,shiva or any other myth yet misses the point entirely, and Kirshenbaum, a man afraid to die, who believe that observed evidence supporting the theory of life and bronze age, unproven and unobserved myths catering to anyone who will pay can live happily when people stop dying needlessly, or when the pope decides to step into reality, where AIDS is real - at least under an entente cordiale, if not in a mutually supportive relationship.

There....I think that's better. My additions in bold.
Science and Religion: A mutually supportive relationship:

Science: It's just light hitting the window at different wavelengths...
Religion: It's a miracle! Mary herself!
Science: Ever seen a rainbow?
Religion: A beautiful miracle with an arch!
Science: Basically, it's the same thing. Simply light hitting particles in the air or glass at different wavelengths..
Religion: Ah, God works in mysterious ways!
Science: Well I find them rather obvious...

Yeah, I don't see it working.

Other Comments by mitch_486

29. Comment #430001 by ANTIcarrot on November 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm

"This strategy, critics argue, alienates moderate religious people who might otherwise be receptive to scientific theory."

If they already reject science then they are not moderates.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

30. Comment #430003 by Pilot22A on November 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Of course they can co-exist. Just like the Tooth Fairy, Santa and the Easter Bunny co-exist with Evolution.

Actually, there is probably more evidence for Santa Claus than religion.

And by the way, Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirshenbaum, why should science worry about alienating people who choose to believe (I don't care how moderate they are) in insane religious nonsense? A million years ago some wild animal would have eaten ignorant people like that, and evolution would not have allowed them to breed.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

31. Comment #430004 by mitch_486 on November 6, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Actually, there is probably more evidence for Santa Claus than religion.

Indeed, we know his wardrobe.

Other Comments by mitch_486

32. Comment #430026 by Enlightenme.. on November 6, 2009 at 5:41 pm

^Nah, you been had - it was Coca-Cola!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

33. Comment #430093 by Border Collie on November 6, 2009 at 10:42 pm

'Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith, and nurture a sense of humility by recognising that scientific evidence does not rule out existence of the divine. They should accept that there is a wide range of views, she says, and stop insisting that everyone follow the "one true way" of atheism. Failing to do so only turns people off in droves.'

There they are again, respect, humility and acceptance (of a wide range of views) ... of complete and utter idiocy and of people who have none of the previous virtues regarding us, science, reason, truth, knowledge, etc. My question is why does it apply to us and not them? Oh, I forgot, they have God on their side, they're right by default, they're not required to stand up to any sort of scrutiny ... because a lot of people have believed something for a very long time and have a book to prove it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #430103 by Bonzai on November 6, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Forrest argues that new atheists should respect the personal nature of faith, and nurture a sense of humility by recognising that scientific evidence does not rule out existence of the divine. They should accept that there is a wide range of views, she says, and stop insisting that everyone follow the "one true way" of atheism. Failing to do so only turns people off in droves

This is rich. It is like the flasher complaining that his privacy is being violated when being told that his sexual fetish is, shall we say, rather questionable.

If the believers truly keep their faith 'personal' then we won't be discussing it, would we?

If Priests, Rabbi and Imams are not out there trying to tell us every fucking day that they have some unique expertise in morality and that the society should be structured based on their superstitions I am sure many 'new atheists' would prefer to spend their times on more interesting things than knocking religion. Personal madness may not deserve respect, but I won't give a shit as long as you keep it to yourself.

(As Border Collie said above not all beliefs deserve respect even if it is personal. But my main point is that while believers have a problem of keeping their idiocies to themselves they turn around and demand 'respect' for their 'personal' faith when it suits them.)

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #430162 by Border Collie on November 7, 2009 at 3:54 pm

PGFM ... My sentiments exactly.

I can hear them now, in a very whiny, nasal tone ... "But we deserve respect and if you don't give it to us we'll whine more and more and call our congressmen and tell them in even more intensely whiny voices that scientific funding should be cut off ... Then we'll take our ball and go home because you don't play fair."

Other Comments by Border Collie

36. Comment #430414 by Mr DArcy on November 8, 2009 at 10:28 pm

The article itself explains that someone like Collins, has to split his mind in two to "accommodate" the religious and the scientific view. So long as religio scientists can divorce their particular work, from what the actual reality is out there, then they can, and some do, good science.

Personally I'd prefer scientists whose minds weren't split into different compartments, one of faith and another of reality.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

37. Comment #430763 by Shiva on November 10, 2009 at 9:23 am

Dawkins presents an unnecessarily divisive choice: you can accept evolution and a scientific world-view more broadly, and therefore reject religion, or cling to religion and sacrifice scientific understanding.

Excuse me?

Richard has said many times that it is possible to be both religious and accept the theory of evolution. It is the vocal opponents of the theory of evolution that are trying to make it seem like you have to choose one over the other.

That being said, I have no idea how one can make evolution fit with a world view involving an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving god, but... That's another story :p

Other Comments by Shiva

38. Comment #430818 by aquilacane on November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I love how the worst insult currently (and wrongly) being thrown at atheists these days is that we behave like religious people.

They realize that religious people have no leg to stand on and they try to make that true about atheists, all the while, missing the point about what atheists actually stand for and strengthening the opinion that the religious stand on a foundation of mud.

Other Comments by aquilacane

Reload Comments | Back to Top