1. Comment #436239 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 1:42 am

Shermer has a quote above that he thinks amusing, here's the end of that quote:

Michael Freakin' Shermer's heart is not pure enough for Jerry Coyne.

If Jerry Falwell's circle of orthodoxy was, say, 1 meter in radius, then His Worshipfulness The Right Reverend Jerry Coyne's circle of orthodoxy has a radius of, roughly, a Planck Length.

What a hideous, hateful loser Jerry Coyne is.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #436240 by eclampusvitus on November 29, 2009 at 1:45 am

As one who has been guilty of certain... bluntness... myself, I must admit there is room for detente and a certain willingness to grant the opposition's sincerity.

Shermer remains a sharp weapon in the cause of rationalism.

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

3. Comment #436241 by Eshto on November 29, 2009 at 1:49 am

If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity...

Um, I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

I still don't see it being addressed that evolution by natural selection - being by definition the process that happens in nature when there is NO intelligence overseeing things - is logically inconsistent with the idea that there is an intelligence overseeing things in nature.

Other Comments by Eshto

4. Comment #436242 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 1:50 am

Darwin’s theory of evolution as the means by which God creates life.

Um...you got this a little mixed up Michael. The TOE has nothing to do with creating life. That would be Unintelligent Design you're thinking of. Been hanging out with your pals at the Templeton Foundation too much? They're getting you confused.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #436244 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 1:55 am

...we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle).

Oh yeah, the religites have done a wonderful job so far with these problems...causing them that is.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #436245 by Jos Gibbons on November 29, 2009 at 1:55 am

believers who accept Newton’s theory of gravity as the means by which God creates stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes, can just as readily accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as the means by which God creates life.

There are two options: either every single creationist has simply missed this easy possibility, or you're wrong. It could be either, but here's why I think it is probably the second: Darwinian evolution implies enormous scales of suffering, unfairness and contingency precisely because God did not and does not intervene in biology. This makes the problem of theodicy orders of magnitude larger - but worse still, you can't blame it on people. There was no "fall of man" in the time of the ammonites. When then did God require levels of torment that defy the english Language for each minicule advancement in the gene pool's consensus on how to improve the eye?

When I debate creationists...I try to take a Dawkinsonian approach

The Dawkinsian [sic] approach is to not debate them at all. Get your facts right!

If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight

Straw man. We accept any aid we can get. What we ask is that promoters of evolution stop taking sides on a theological question. Some religious beliefs are compatible with scientific facts and some are not, and it isn't Shermer's place to tell American Christians which type of believer they are. Nor is it the role of the NCSE to loudly proclaim that every concern about the evolution-religion compatibility issue is considered flatly wrong by those who represent the scientific community on these scores. I am sick to the back teeth of groups that are almost entirely atheist, precisely because any religious beliefs they may have once had have in their personal judgment lost what sense they made due to subsequent scientific discovery, declaring as if they speak for all of science that science has no atheism-inducing effect, with all who say otherwise being equally bad, whether they are expert contributors to scientific knowledge like Richard Dawkins or idiots like Ray Comfort.

Don't forget the bigger picture of what we're trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity.

And you think the best way to do that is to obsess over convincing people of evolution, however ridiculous their other opinions then have to become? (Christian biologists often suggest convergent evolution produced human intelligence, literally saying they don't see why it only having happened once is a counter-argument. These people's ideas are self-contradictory, the worst any idea can be.) It is the rest of us who are able to see the wood for the trees, knowing that treating religion like a spoiled child who must be allowed its own way even as it is convinced of scientific facts will forever miss the crucial point of WHY they should be believed: because one should believe according to reason. By contrast, one feels like, if only evolution were made a dogma, the NCSE would be happy. But insofar as reason can make a better life for humanity, it must do so by getting people to be reasonable. Focusing on one proposition, whose truth must be promulgated at all costs, is the central failing of people like Shermer.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

7. Comment #436247 by mirandaceleste on November 29, 2009 at 2:03 am

Ugh. This is a truly awful piece. Despite what Shermer asserts, he most definitely is an accommodationist, and this piece only makes that clearer. I wrote a response here.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

8. Comment #436249 by alovrin on November 29, 2009 at 2:12 am

On the other hand, if it is your goal to educate everyone on earth to the power and wonders of science (as it is the Skeptics Society and www.skeptic.com) and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems (as it is my personal goal),

Not sure how science can be used to cure purely political or social problems. Might to be over stretching there Michael.

then we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle). If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project.

I dont see many atheists INSISTING that people renounce their faith. And when the governments of the world make DEALING WITH "Starvation in Africa, Disease in India, and Poverty in South America" their top priority rather than the extermination of a band of illiterates in some inaccessible region in the world. Im sure we will all breathe a sign of relief.
When is that happening Michael? Do you have any news on that front?

To what end? So you can stand up tall and proud and proclaim “…but I never gave an inch to those faith heads!”? Well good for you! Just keep on playing “Nearer my Atheism to Thee” while the ship of humanity slips further into the depths of disaster.

Your rhetoric is getting a bit overblown here Michael.
And, a reminder, its not atheists singing hymns as the "ship of humanity" heads down the gurgler.

Sometimes religion is the problem, but usually it is something else—local political battles, governmental corruption, lack of education, resource depletion, currency debasement, inflation, poverty, etc. Don’t forget the bigger picture of what we’re trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity. Pick your battles carefully and choose your strategy wisely.

So why do some 35% of people in the USA still believe people and dinosaurs walked on this planet together?
Why does the vast majority of peoples in Africa still believe in witches and evil spirits? What are religious organisations doing about these abominations?

What is this bigger picture of which you speak?
What battles are worthy of having WISE strategy?
Or maybe your've just gone a bit overboard in the ego protection gambit.

Other Comments by alovrin

9. Comment #436250 by Janus on November 29, 2009 at 2:17 am

Shermer hasn't addressed Coyne's criticism at all.

The point is that in his obsession to get religious believers to accept one scientific theory in particular, Shermer is working against the greater goal of getting them to accept science. All of science, not just a few of its conclusions, or even all of its conclusions, but the scientific way of thinking itself.

Take a statement like this:

Believers should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.

Or even worse, this:

The belief that there is a war between science and religion where one is right and the other wrong, and that one must choose one over the other (...) [is] baseless.

The first quote is just disturbing in its assumption of the truth of 'divinity'. The second quote is faitheistic accommodationism in its purest and most disgusting form.


I don't think any one of us has any problem with teaming up with religious people to solve certain problems, but why should teaming up with someone mean having to do everything to pander to their sensibilities?

Other Comments by Janus

10. Comment #436253 by mirandaceleste on November 29, 2009 at 2:31 am

Comment #436250 by Janus

Excellent comment. This hits it on the head:

The point is that in his obsession to get religious believers to accept one scientific theory in particular, Shermer is working against the greater goal of getting them to accept science. All of science, not just a few of its conclusions, or even all of its conclusions, but the scientific way of thinking itself.

Exactly

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

11. Comment #436256 by Ophelia Benson on November 29, 2009 at 2:45 am

I don't think any one of us has any problem with teaming up with religious people to solve certain problems, but why should teaming up with someone mean having to do everything to pander to their sensibilities£

It shouldn't. It doesn't.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

12. Comment #436261 by Eshto on November 29, 2009 at 3:01 am

Shermer is the new Maher.

Other Comments by Eshto

13. Comment #436263 by j.mills on November 29, 2009 at 3:03 am

I do agree with Shermer that there is room for many approaches: Dennett is mild, Hitch merciless. But different styles are not the same as different facts. It is the theists who regard evolution as incompatible with scripture, and they are justified in doing so for several reasons:

1. If scripture is literally true, evolution didn't happen.

2. If evolution did happen, gods are unnecessary and have no role to play in our origins.

3. If evolution did happen, there's nothing metaphysically special about human beings - no souls, no afterlife, no centre of the universe.

Those are serious concerns to the believer, and Shermer can't brush them away with a warm smile. The conflict is real, and to pretend otherwise is a short-term and probably misguided manoeuvre at best.

(I always have to look up how to spell 'manoeuvre'. And US readers will still protest.)

Other Comments by j.mills

14. Comment #436271 by DeusExNihilum on November 29, 2009 at 3:32 am

It seems that shermer is far too interested in a strange recruitment drive for people to simply ACCEPT evolution as quickly as possible and not actually understand the damn theory or understand why it is Lunacy to deny its validity.

To me, it seems, that he's saying "Feel free to butcher evolution! Put as many or as little God's in as you like, I'll even let you pick when all the 'magic' was meant to happen and while you do that I'll just not pay any attention. See no evil hear no evil eh?"

No Shermer. No. God is not welcome in evolution any more than he is welcome in planet formation; There is no evidence nor need to suggest any non-directed cause at ANY stage so it is irrational to suggest that there is one.

People need to be shown HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Warping a scientific theory to accommodate for a non-scientific presupposed belief Does more harm than good, all it does is teach people that it's okay to wedge the supernatural into any scientific theory that happens to look at them funny.

Evidence, Reason, Logic, Critical thinking, Scepticism <<< THESE are the things that should be getting touted, understanding and accepting evolution will come as the natural conclusion of applying these.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

15. Comment #436272 by nother person on November 29, 2009 at 3:35 am

Shermer creeps me out. I pondered posting as much on Coyne's site yesterday and restrained myself, primarily because I have trouble pinning my visceral reaction to specific observations of his behavior. It sounds like woo to say it's just a gut feeling or a hunch—'intuition.' There is a piece in this article that sheds some light on the matter though. Shermer says:

If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join [emphasis mine] the common fight against these scourges of humanity...

I think Shermer has something I call 'celebrity ego.' He seems to think very hierarchically and traditionally about social interactions. It seems to me he aspires to be an elder of the tribe. He is criticizing Coyne for wanting to be a too strict a gatekeeper for the tribe (totally erroneously in my opinion), but he himself works completely within that tribal paradigm. He wants to be the gatekeeper, or at least he wants the gate to be kept according to his own prejudices. I think the notion that there is no gate would be lost on him. I think he sees himself as some sort of VIP who ought to be listened to, not because what he says makes sense, but just because he thinks he deserves to be in the spotlight leading lesser beings.

He sets off all my bullshit alarms almost as much as D'Souza does.

Other Comments by nother person

16. Comment #436276 by nother person on November 29, 2009 at 3:52 am

Don't forget the bigger picture of what we're trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity.

Shermer tries to co-opt science to serve his utilitarian morality. No. What we are trying to accomplish through science is an understanding of reality. A 'better life for all humanity,' whatever that may be, is a question of politics, not science. Sure technology offers us some options we may not have otherwise, but a better life for all, however one measures it, does not depend on a better understanding of the physical world. It is a matter of empathy and cooperation, sharing, justice, equal rights and protections under the law... there are so many ways to improve our social reality that have nothing whatsoever to do with understanding physical reality.

Other Comments by nother person

17. Comment #436278 by A on November 29, 2009 at 4:07 am

"Darwin’s theory of evolution as the means by which God creates life."

?

Abiogenesis, 'intelligent design', magic, a cosmic egg . . . there are many ideas that postulate the creation of life, evolution has never been one of those ideas.


....................................................................


Damn, I hate the formatting on this news feed, why not some very basic buttons for commonly used functions like bold, italic, and underscore ?

Other Comments by A

18. Comment #436285 by Crazycharlie on November 29, 2009 at 4:29 am

I agree that Shermer is too accommodating to theists but I still respect the man. To call a fellow rationalist names like "faithiest" like Jerry Coyne does isn't right. It's just ridicule that Shermer doesn't deserve. There's a wide spectrum of atheist temperaments. I think he's simply a mild mannered, nice guy. It's just in Shermer's nature to try and find common ground with theists. Shermer doesn't say the "New Atheists" are a disaster as someone like Michael Ruse would. If you're arguing for rationalism over superstitious nonsense then you should have Michael Shermer on your side.

He's not a Templeton Foundation fellow either, as some have hinted.

P.S --Comment#436272 And he's nothing like Dinesh D'Souza.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

19. Comment #436287 by SaintStephen on November 29, 2009 at 4:39 am

Shermer says:

To what end? So you can stand up tall and proud and proclaim “…but I never gave an inch to those faith heads!”? Well good for you! Just keep on playing “Nearer my Atheism to Thee” while the ship of humanity slips further into the depths of disaster.

Well thank you very much Neville Chamberlain. Shermer is shamefully fear-mongering here, threatening atheists (and humanity itself !) with impending "disaster" if we don't yield to his peculiar brand of accomodationism. Shermer's political behavior is no better than George Bush's or Tony Blair's. As has been said so eloquently in this thread by Jos Gibbons, Janus, nother person, and others, the idea here is to advance science as a way of thinking and understanding reality. Shermer obviously believes reality is some sort of game whose facts can -- and should -- be argued over and tossed around like beachballs between the "science team" and the "religious team." And he's positioned himself perfectly to be a profitable "referee."

Because in the end, we're all one big team, right Michael? So it really doesn't matter if one person believes Noah chased down a mating pair of skunks sometime before the flood, and another believes 72 virgins (white grapes?) awaits him in Heaven after he sets off the bomb underneath his jacket. Baby steps, right Mr. Shermer?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

20. Comment #436294 by ggab7768 on November 29, 2009 at 5:43 am

Oh come on guys. Michael Shermer can't play in our reindear games?
Are we taking our bat and ball and going home?
I thought the problem with those we titled accomodationists was that they seemed to prefer we keep our traps shut. Michael is clearly saying that our style is also valid and we're taking his legs out from under him? Our way or the highway?
I don't know, seems kinda childish to me.
Michael's a good guy, Jerry took a swing at him and Michael threw back an open handed halfhearted slap. He obviously went out of his way to keep Jerry from being too insulted. Are we really this petty?

Other Comments by ggab7768

21. Comment #436295 by njwong on November 29, 2009 at 5:54 am

So much hostility towards Shermer just because of opinions he expressed in one CNN article.

And yet, I am sure no one can answer definitively the one key question that Shermer pondered:

What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism?

There is no ONE "right" way. There are just multiple approaches. What is the composition of CNN's audience like? Would a more aggressive "no-accommodation" stance work with such an audience to encourage them to embrace science and reason, as well as to persuade them not to let their religion and dogma be their why for rejecting evolution outright?

Suppose you are Shermer, and your CNN audience is your religious parents and aged grandparents. Would you temper your message (to promote the understanding of evolution) to them without insisting that they drop their religious beliefs?

However, if the audience is the Cameron and Comfort duo from "Way of the Master" instead. Do you think Shermer would be so moderated in his approach then?

Shermer actually put it very well in his last paragraph:

Sometimes religion is the problem, but usually it is something else—local political battles, governmental corruption, lack of education, resource depletion, currency debasement, inflation, poverty, etc. Don’t forget the bigger picture of what we’re trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity. Pick your battles carefully and choose your strategy wisely.

Other Comments by njwong

22. Comment #436297 by Janus on November 29, 2009 at 6:05 am

The two posters above don't seem to get it.

Shermer is saying that the forthright (Dawkinsian) approach should only be used when dealing with fundies. He thinks the honey & sugar approach should be used with moderates: It's what he himself does in the CNN article, and it's what he's telling us to do in the True/Slant article.

So yes, he is effectively telling us to shut up, just as he is spreading the usual accomodationist lie that science and religion are compatible.

Other Comments by Janus

23. Comment #436298 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 6:12 am

Comment #436295 by njwong

Suppose you are Shermer, and your CNN audience is your religious parents and aged grandparents. Would you temper your message (to promote the understanding of evolution) to them without insisting that they drop their religious beliefs?

You tell them the truth, no wishy-washy business. You say, "Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity. If you think that is untrue, you are ignorant. If your religion tells you otherwise, it is wrong".

When someone makes nice with believers, so they feel good, that someone is perpetuating myths. These myths are destructive. Why pander to this bullshit? I don't think Shermer has given any good answers to that question. So that we can all work together to make a better world? The less religion in the world, the better.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #436299 by njwong on November 29, 2009 at 6:13 am

And further to my earlier comment, and to reinforce the idea that an accommodationist approach might sometimes be the more effective approach in mainstream media like CNN or New York Times, take a look at the New York Times "100 Notable Books of 2009 - Non-Fiction":

http://www.nytimes.com/gift-guide/holiday-2009/100-notable-books-of-2009-gift-guide/list.html?ref=books#list-group-1

Note the glaring omission of any books on Evolution despite 2009 being such a special year for Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. And what made it to the "Notable Books of 2009" list? Oh yeah:

The Case for God by Karen Armstrong

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

Other Comments by njwong

25. Comment #436300 by ggab7768 on November 29, 2009 at 6:13 am

He's saying there's room for both. That's exactly what PZ Myers says and Coyne never wrote a hit-piece on him. Has anyone here accused PZ of accomodationism? Is it just we agressive types that are allowed to make such statements?
I'm a daily reader of Coynes blog and a huge fan but I felt he was reaching too much with his accusations. I feel that Michael handled the rebutal gracefully enough. He was plainly addressing believers in his original piece and approached the subjects in a fitting manner. Our side whipped up a shitflinging party.

Other Comments by ggab7768

26. Comment #436301 by SaintStephen on November 29, 2009 at 6:16 am

The Accomodationist Conversion Experience

*Chip, an atheist, and Dale, a theist, are sitting on a park bench one day*

Chip: Isn't it great that we can both agree on evolution, but keep our conflicting beliefs about God separate and still remain friends? It's just wonderful.

Dale: Actually, I no longer believe in God.

Chip: What?

Dale: I am going to join you as an atheist.

Chip: That's wonderful! Just wonderful. What made the difference?

Dale: Yes, it was your gentle treatment of me during my spiritual crisis that finally convinced me that God doesn't exist. It was all your long nights of telling me that maybe there was a greater good somewhere on the planet when New Orleans was being smashed by a hurricane. It was our heartfelt phone conversations, where we would laugh together when you told me "God bless you!" when I sneezed.

Chip: You mean to say my gentle, chocolate laxative accomodationist techniques masterfully and gracefully paved your road to Godless atheism? You, the committed theist?

Dale: Yes, it was your magic touch that did the trick. Dawkins just pissed me off, that strident evolutionist, but you... you allowed me to ferment just like a fine wine. To do it my way.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

27. Comment #436303 by ggab7768 on November 29, 2009 at 6:24 am

Look at it this way.
When Richard wrote TGD he said that his hope was to get ahold of the fence sitters, and he certainly had some success there.
Michael is reaching over the fence to the other side. The closer he gets them to the fence, the better chance people like Richard have of pulling them over.

Other Comments by ggab7768

28. Comment #436304 by chewedbarber on November 29, 2009 at 6:28 am

Ah, it's ok. Just don't get so pissy when someone shores up the rear with the truth, if your aim is anywhere near as good as you hope then they'll get the message and we wont lose anyone to nonsense. I can live with the duplicity, war is hell--eh?

Other Comments by chewedbarber

29. Comment #436305 by Tumara Baap on November 29, 2009 at 6:38 am

I am vexed Dr. Shermer. In the vein of picking your battles carefully and choosing strategy wisely, one may concede that evolution is controversial. This would placate a swathe of citizenry and biology may continue to be taught unencumbered and without poisoning the civility amongst ourselves. Think about it... would you not like to extend the reach of biology?

You are clearly willing to dilute the essence of science by suggesting that faith may be be compatible with its absolute antithesis: the very methodology grounded in rationalism and empiricism. From there, giving evolution the shaft should be a very small step.

P.S. For those who may have missed it, Jerry Coyne has a superb essay in The New Republic on science and religion titled "Seeing and Believing".

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

30. Comment #436306 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 6:41 am

28. Comment #436303 by ggab7768

No, Michael has climbed over the fence and is now sitting in their pile of weeds telling them how beautiful their garden is.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #436307 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 6:42 am

This is indeed a political question. Which is why I am confused by nother person's responses.

Shermer tries to co-opt science to serve his utilitarian morality. No. What we are trying to accomplish through science is an understanding of reality. A 'better life for all humanity,' whatever that may be, is a question of politics, not science.

But is Shermer trying to tell people how to conduct their scientific research? I don't think so. I think this is about spreading scientific knowledge and education. Which takes answering some political questions.

Anyway Shermer's response to this whole thing is dead-on and trying to spin random phrases from his article in a way as to make him seem like some sort of elitist is silly.

Other Comments by Sciros

32. Comment #436310 by Quine on November 29, 2009 at 6:52 am

Much ado about nothing.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #436311 by mordacious1 on November 29, 2009 at 6:58 am

35. Comment #436310 by Quine

:) Perhaps. But Shermer is telling people they're wearing the best finery, when we know they're butt-naked. I'm just afraid they'll all get the chills.

Other Comments by mordacious1

34. Comment #436312 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 am

Saint Stephen

As has been said so eloquently in this thread by Jos Gibbons, Janus, nother person, and others, the idea here is to advance science as a way of thinking and understanding reality. Shermer obviously believes reality is some sort of game whose facts can -- and should -- be argued over and tossed around

Wait, wait! If the "idea here" is to advance science as a way of thinking, then you're missing the point entirely when you criticize Shermer for saying that various approaches (depending on context) work to do just that. Reality isn't a game, as you say, but getting people to buy into reality may as well be a fucking game, because it's an exercise in trying to replace one massive paradigm with another in the minds of millions upon millions of people. With some people, going "whole hog" works best, with others it's little-by-little (just look at peoples' "conversion stories" or indeed how secularization generally works). If you recognize that, you'll realize that, if you wish to secularize society and promote science education, indeed you need people of all sorts to do so -- ranging from non-accomodationists like Sam Harris to "mild" accomodationists to, possibly, total con artist ninjas. Politics is in many ways a game, and you probably have to play it if you want to effect change (or prevent change, whichever the case may be).

If you disagree with any sort of accomodationism on principle, because you think that it requires you to lie (does it invariably? "accomodationism" doesn't always mean making positive untrue statements does it?), then that's another topic. But it also has little to do with promoting science or reality or what-have-you.

Other Comments by Sciros

35. Comment #436313 by robotaholic on November 29, 2009 at 7:06 am

I stopped following Shermer on twitter and for the wrong reason of thinking he took Templeton money. Well I still am not following him on twitter, but for a different reason - Because he creeps me out now! Now I wonder what in the world he DOES believe. I thought I knew once but he has said so many weird things in the last 2 pieces.

He really is terrible in a debate too...

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #436314 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 7:12 am

When someone makes nice with believers, so they feel good, that someone is perpetuating myths. These myths are destructive. Why pander to this bullshit? I don't think Shermer has given any good answers to that question.

I would have thought the "why" is obvious -- make someone more comfortable and therefore more receptive to your ideas. Make them feel less threatened. The pieces of their theism that you say are ok (or maybe just don't say "aren't ok") for them to hold on to -- those may be less important politically, or socially, or generally easier to later let go of, or whatever. You can't always just expect people to go "shit, you're right, I quit Christianity!" You sometimes need to, well, build scaffolding.

If your goal is something specific like teaching the theory of evolution, then who gives a shit if you're not busy trying to tell people to let go of their belief in a deity altogether? That can be for someone else to do, if they have the inclination.

EDIT: robotaholic, I don't think that Shermer thinks the teachings of religion are compatible with science. Shermer just points out that being religious is compatible with understanding science (probably not all of it, but even quite a bit) -- Hitchens says this all the time when providing his criticism of Gould's "NOMA" idea. Given that, promoting science and completely eradicating religion aren't quite one and the same "action track." You can do the former to a massive extent without even starting to worry about the latter (and in fact the latter may in part follow from the former). I don't see Shermer's stance as "accomodationist" as much as "strategist."

Other Comments by Sciros

37. Comment #436316 by Bonzai on November 29, 2009 at 7:22 am

Reading this thread I realize there is such a thing as 'fundamentalist atheists'.

39. Comment #436314 by Sciros

Well said.

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #436317 by Tumara Baap on November 29, 2009 at 7:26 am

Okay. I give up. I'm tired of fighting. I concede one may take the view that evolution is part of nature and a wonderful facet of the Almighty's grand plan. As a matter of fact, denying evolution is tantamount to denying a key element of God himself and is thus sacrilege. This line of thought should advance science amongst the masses.
I have an itty bitty request Dr.Shermer, all in the name of honesty. If you could append this video to your articles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwk-THcjmlI

It's about a fascinating creature called the Guinea Worm. It afflicts without much discrimination those living in certain rural areas... babies, children, women, hardworking farmers. It is interesting because it showcases evolution with such grandeur. It is contracted by drinking infected water. But such is its life cycle that it must also spawn in water. As the worm exits one's skin, it causes excruciating burning that makes one run to the nearest pond to submerge one's limb in to relieve the torment... unless you're a baby, in which case you just tough it out :-(. The sheer beauty of evolution. At this point, the seed for the next generation is released into the water.
It is such an incredible life cycle, that no doubt came about by an Almighty supervised Evolution. I'm not sure what exactly this says about God. But it sure says something about one willing to seek the good grace of such a sick fuck.

Dr. Shermer, think what you may about Christians and Muslims. But in a way you have to respect the fundus amongst them for the stand they take.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

39. Comment #436319 by SaintStephen on November 29, 2009 at 7:28 am

37. Comment #436312 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 am

With some people, going "whole hog" works best, with others it's little-by-little (just look at peoples' "conversion stories" or indeed how secularization generally works).

I've said things like "Every genuine light wave of change in the world needs its spectrum of colors," so I'm actually in agreement with you... sort of. I suppose I was assuming that each color in the spectrum referred to the level of "vehemence" or perhaps even "stridency" that was used by a particular atheist in delivering their message or worldview -- not that the truth level if you will, varied at all. In other words, maybe you were an asshole, but you spoke the truth, or you were a mild-mannered nice guy, and also spoke the truth. These different delivery styles, so to speak, might appeal to different faitheists.

I'm not sure that compromising the truth itself in varying degrees constitutes a very effective form of accommodationism. When people (skeptics, even) like Shermer refer to things like "the divine" in their essays, I believe this can be misconstrued as a conspiratorial wink by believers and actually be destructive to the cause of atheism.

I'm sorry if I've wandered a bit in this response but it can't be the wine that did it.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

40. Comment #436320 by Bonzai on November 29, 2009 at 7:34 am

Baap

It is such an incredible life cycle, that no doubt came about by an Almighty supervised Evolution. I'm not sure what exactly this says about God. But it sure says something about one willing to seek the good grace of such a sick fuck.

You can just let people draw their own conclusions once you have started them thinking It is not always the most effective way to get people to start the process by brow beating them and insist that they must go all the way, all at once.

Other Comments by Bonzai

41. Comment #436321 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 am

Saint Stephen, I understand exactly what you're saying about compromising "the truth itself." I don't think being "less forthright" about science being incompatible with religion, when both are taken in total, necessarily involves lying in any case.

But suppose it did! Even then, you are making a "trade" -- perpetuating one misconception of reality in order to clear another. Addressing that action is a question of politics, ethics, and so forth. I think a decent case can be made either way, but I am actually willing to side with the "trading" side on some issues. And so is Shermer, clearly, with the reason being that some science-religion conflicts have more at stake than others when it comes to the welfare of the people involved.

Catholics do not need to disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus in order to ignore the pope's (and bishops' etc.) bullshit regarding condom use. So you don't worry about the Jesus bit and worry about the AIDS bit, at least for now. If they want to believe in Jesus, don't argue with them about it if it's going to make it harder for you to keep them from spreading/getting AIDS. That's what I see Shermer saying.

Other Comments by Sciros

42. Comment #436324 by SaintStephen on November 29, 2009 at 7:49 am

45. Comment #436321 by Sciros on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 am

I'm all for strategic thinking. In fact, before I read Shermer's indignant response to Coyne's rebuttal, I would have been singing his praises, at least from what I knew of him from RD.net. I like him, actually. (But I also like Jerry Coyne -- probably more than I like Shermer, so I jumped to Jerry's defense.)

I think Coyne got under his skin a bit, and Shermer reacted in a wholly human manner.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

43. Comment #436326 by carbonman on November 29, 2009 at 9:02 am

Shermer steps on the classical accommodationist banana skin of treating science as a set of ideas that need to be marketed, and 'religious people' as a kind of unalterable race. More like asymmetrism than accommodationism, really.

Other Comments by carbonman

44. Comment #436328 by fossil-fish on November 29, 2009 at 9:08 am

Does Proffessor Dawkins himself not make the point that religious people should not have a problem accepting the TOE? Surely what Michael Shermer is describing is in many ways just a matter of good manners.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

45. Comment #436334 by Sheol99 on November 29, 2009 at 10:08 am

I am surprised when I read in Coyne's blog about Shermer's article; like Jerry himself, I hope I got it wrong about Shermer being an accomodationist. Michael Shermer is my favorite writer in SciAm.

This response by Shermer sealed the debate, Shermer is definitely an accomodationist!

I read miranda's blog: Good arguments!
http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=633

Other Comments by Sheol99

46. Comment #436335 by Barry Pearson on November 29, 2009 at 10:13 am

#436294 by ggab7768:
I thought the problem with those we titled accomodationists was that they seemed to prefer we keep our traps shut. Michael is clearly saying that our style is also valid and we're taking his legs out from under him? Our way or the highway?

I think what Michael was saying is "use the right tools and weapons for the battle at hand".

This is a war being fought over generations, with many battles of many types. There should be no empty gestures of the sort "we lost that battle but we were right not to make alliances with people we disagree with, (even though they could have helped us)".

Nor should children ever be used as cannon fodder. For example by telling religious parents that evolution is incompatible with god and yet they should still support the teaching of evolution, even though this is likely to reduce their motivation to have evolution taught. (This is something that NCSE has to handle very carefully).

TOE means that god has nothing to do during the evolution. It doesn't prove god doesn't exist. There are other arguments that god(s) don't exist, (and the god(s) of the various religions are truly crackpot ideas, of course), but it isn't always necessary to bring up those arguments if they don't contribute to the immediate objectives.

#436295 by njwong:
What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism?
There is no ONE "right" way.

Precisely!

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

47. Comment #436336 by Jos Gibbons on November 29, 2009 at 10:25 am

Broadly speaking, the posters on this thread have divided into the two camps of disliking this article and of jumping to Shermer's defence. I only disagree with some of the views expressed by the latter group, and I am most concerned that they may have misunderstood those of us in the former, and certainly me.

I for one agree with RD that it may be productive to bring some theists "closer to the fence" as one poster put it so we can grab them afterwards. It feels a little dishonest mind (You can have both evolution and religion ... and no you can't), but my aim in this post is not to discuss that any further.

I do not object to accommodationists (or whatever you'd rather I call them) making the very same claims about the evolution-religion dynamic that sophisticated clergymen and theologians make (when you push them). But there is one key thing they do I do not tolerate, and probably the best example of this behaviour is exhibited by accommodationist groups defending evolution, rather than the individuals.

What such groups, e.g. the NCSE, do is to discuss the question at length, acknowledging briefly the existence of both religious and non-religious people who have more pessimistic views, but immediately dismisses and marginalizes their opinion as not what Science says. These people tell their readers that they, and only they, know what science does and does not discuss, and that anyone who disagrees is as bad as anyone else.

Time and time again people of a different bent have said (paraphrasing): "I don't want the opposite opinion to be expressed as the received wisdom by science-defending groups any more than that one. I recommend not taking sides at all." Time and time again individual accommodationists have pretended that instead a call had been made for organizations to teach science as incompatible with religion, and therefore evaluated their own preferred strategy by comparing it with this straw man to see which of the two worked best, rather than addressing what had actually been said. They use this faulty reasoning as an argument for why the rest of us should keep our mouth shut, although they deny that they are actually instructing us to close them.

There are pros and cons to almost every strategy being exhibited by science defenders, a point on which I thoroughly agree with any of Shermer's defenders. But there is one strategy I will not tolerate, namely the division of labour between accommodationists organizations and individuals noted above. I suspect some may not have realised what groups like the NCSE actually say in their release material, and probably wouldn't disapprove of my objecting to such behaviours, which is what I actually dislike in accommodationists. (Having said that, my aim in my first post on a thread of an article with which I don't entirely agree is to give counterarguments to those points I don't accept. That's the first reason I said anything bad about Shermer's piece.)

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

48. Comment #436342 by carbonman on November 29, 2009 at 11:52 am

Longer response on CarbonBlog
http://commonsensecarbon.blogspot.com/2009/11/accommodationism-is-patronising.html

Other Comments by carbonman

49. Comment #436347 by God fearing Atheist on November 29, 2009 at 12:36 pm

I think we may be looking at the problem from the wrong perspective - that of a rationalist. We should instead try to look at the problem as it might appear to a theist.

I believe that religion and science are incompatable. Therefore an accomodationist is lying. The accomodationist thinks the political expedience is worth the distortion. To the opposition, this betrays the core epistomology.

However, we all know theists operate with cognitive duality. Good scientists like Ken Miller can be scientists Mon-Fri, and theists Sun.
Anti-scientific religious fundementalists have their heads stuffed full of mutually incompatable stories that they believe are literally true. They don't do logic.

These people don't operate with consistent world views, therefore why fret too much about delivering one.

Different groups can put out the stories:-

1) Evolution is gods way of making us.
2) Evolution works. It says nothing about God. (NOMA)
3) Evolution is true. God adds nothing. Occam removes god.

And the religious will accept or reject according to prejudice.

What I do think is a waste of time is the advocates of each approach arguing amongst themselves over the right method.

Given that all three depend on being able to explain science, which is hard, I like the fourth method:

4) Attack religion itself as immoral - the Hitchens approach.

The bastion of irrationality needs assult on all fronts. There is no point in the assult battalions fighting amongst themselves.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

50. Comment #436357 by tlb81 on November 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm

I think God fearing Atheist makes a key point above in noting the difference between rationalists and, well, others. I would imagine that most people posting here are rationalists.

I have only ever tried to deconvert (unconvert?) one person. He, unlike me, is not a rationalist and often holds hard onto his values even when he can't quite explain why. When we debate, I do not admit that "Okay, maybe there is room for God." However, I also don't take what I guess we're calling a Dawkinsian approach, because my partner would tune out, leave the room and possibly file for divorce.

Slowly, his view of God has changed. He has started to recognize how his understanding of such things as evolution raise problems with his belief in God. But instead of being okay with the inconsistencies, he has started to narrow his view of his deity. For him, the God of the Gaps is running out of gaps.

Anyway, my long-winded point is that yes, Mr. Shermer, there are many ways to make the point that we are all trying to make. We need the Dawkins-types and we need the Shermer-types because there are all sorts of different people out there and they won't all respond to the same approach.

Other Comments by tlb81