I recently criticized Jerry Coyne, standing in for the New Atheists, for having a simplistic view of religious people as people unable to abandon obsolete ideas and move into the modern world. The purpose of my piece was to defend religion -- particularly Christianity -- against such charges: "To insist that the authentically religious are defined by their inability to move out of the past is to create a straw man," was how I put it. In the writings of so many of the New Atheists, religious believers are reduced to a regiment of caricatured clones, marching in lock-step behind a pied piper from some previous century.
I acknowledged, of course, that there are indeed Christians who hold to ideas from the past, such as the long-disproved notion that the earth is just a few thousand years old. Many of them, in fact, do so with no understanding of why, oblivious to the progress of science on this or any other matter. Scientific illiteracy is no respecter of persons, though, as Chris Mooney has argued eloquently in Unscientific America, and even non-religious people have their own scientific disconnects.
Some of these Christians who prefer their planets young, like the Southern Baptist leader, Al Mohler, however, are not oblivious to the progress of science. Mohler is educated and does not hold this belief because of simple ignorance. He is well-read and informed on such things. But he's inclined, for widely accepted theological reasons, to get his science from the Bible. There are, of course, equally legitimate Christian leaders -- say Tim Keller or Joel Hunter -- who do not feel compelled by their faith to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old.
In making my argument with Coyne, I accept the label "accommodationist," a catch-all term -- intended to be derogatory -- for people who believe there is intellectually defensible space in between the opposing positions represented by Coyne and Mohler. Accommodationists include religious believers like Francis Collins and me, as well as non-believers like Chris Mooney and Michael Ruse.
I have been wondering, especially in light of the recent, highly polarized mid-term elections, why "middle ground" of the sort that accommodationists are trying to stake out, is such a troubled bit of geography. From a purely logical point of view, Mohler could view me as "a welcome but theologically confused ally in the war on scientism." After all, he and I both agree that Coyne and the New Atheists go too far when they insist that science rules out religion. But instead, Mohler assaults my argument as "really interesting -- and really dangerous." (To be fair I did hyperbolize Mohler's position as "paddling about in intellectual backwaters," but I think he was less concerned about that unflattering image than he was about the point I was making.) In any event, both Mohler and I worship the same God and are trying to get more people to believe in that God.
On the other end of the spectrum, Coyne could view me as "a welcome partner in the cause of scientific literacy." After all, I am making efforts to persuade people who reject evolution to change their minds and accept it. Both Coyne and I are trying to get more people to believe in evolution. But, from where Coyne sits, I seem to be on the wrong team and am engaged in a "crazy and futile attempt to accommodate a faith that embraces science with the faith of people like Mohler."
Why is it that people on middle ground always seem to be on the "other" team, when this seems far from obvious? In the recent election, by analogy, why were moderate Republicans vilified for being too much like Democrats? Has everyone in the country decided that there is only "us" and "them," so that "not us" equals "them"? Whether we agree with people in the middle or not, is there not value in acknowledging those who can make connections between disparate points of view? Are we locked in a zero sum game where victory on one side automatically prescribes defeat on the other?
In a 1917 paper, Sigmund Freud coined the phrase "narcissism of small differences" to describe our tendency to react so strongly -- with aggression, vitriol, even hatred -- to those that resemble us the most. Family squabbles between people who love each other, for example, are far more vicious than quarrels between casual acquaintances.
In Freud's view, those with whom we have nothing in common cannot truly threaten us, for they are wholly "other." They can be rejected in toto, even destroyed in physical conflict. But those who share many but not all of our views do threaten us, precisely because they suggest that some of our beliefs might need correction. By these lights, Coyne and Mohler cannot be threatened by each other because they have nothing in common. But they can both be threatened by accommodationists on the middle ground, who share some, but not all, of their beliefs.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Accommodationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...
The great accommodationism debate | Evolving Thoughts
On “Accommodationism” and Templeton | The Intersection | Discover ...
a philosopher's case for accommodationism » weird things
Michael Ruse: Accommodationism in the Religion-Science Debate: Why ...
Missing the Point in the Accommodationism Debate : EvolutionBlog
Martin Rees Explains Accommodationism - Larry Moran - Sandwalk ...
New Review of Unscientific America in Science Communication | The ...
That narcissism is matched only by the notion that this magnificent universe (multiverse) could exist without a Prime Creator, or if you will, GOD.
Evolution is GOD's ongoing miracle of creation at work.
This fits this situation if you extend the definition of "ignorance" to a dearth of understanding (or willingness to understand) how things actually are.
Dogmatism is a refuge from the pain of uncertainty, and having to take risks. When you force the entire universe to fit into rigid, black-and-white, either-or categories...it creates the illusion an easily understood (and therefore controllable) Universe.
Men like Coyne and Mohler are less threatened by one another for the simple reason that they are co-conspirators. Though they may cleave to different ends of the same polarity, they agree upon a urniverse that is organized around this polarity.
Someone who sees "shades of grey" and nuance----even if they agree with some of the ideas of the dogmatic---is an existential threat to how they need to see the world.
...and the need to believe that how they see things is "right" in Absolute terms.
What have all the worlds relgions done over the last 3000 years to advance civilization that holds a candle to applied reaosn in the realms of philosphy and science?
crazy that smart people talk about this stuff as if it's real and meaningful. move on.
Like a horse with blinders on that assumes that nothing exists in the blackness at the edges of its field of vision.
There is plenty of room (and necessity) for both the Rational and the Non-Rational at the table of Humanity. They just need to respect certain boundaries.
The Non-rational is a terrible way of trying to understand the nature of the physical universe. This is the realm of the rational and the scientific.
The rational, otoh, is an equally terrible way of bringing MEANING to the experience of a human life, and how best to live with other human beings. Reason makes a wonderful servant (of the non-rational) in this realm....but can be a horrific master if it is allowed to subjugate the non-rational in this realm.
And no, atheism is not a form of fundamentalism just as white is not a new version of black.....Atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs...and it's about time a few articulate people got in our faces over this nonsense...
As evidenced by your own initial statement: There is no reasonable middle ground between wrong and right.
Wrong..and Right...as definded by WHOM?
...and if you are right...then you should be able to easily demonstrate that anyone who who believes in any sort of God is "wrong".
(Hint...don't waste the time trying, because it cannot be done. Since your pronouncement is based upon an unprovable assertion. Just as the articles of faith of any religion are similarly unprovable assertions. The religious, however, are at least honest about what they are doing.)
A fundamentalism that sacrifices at the altar of Reason and Materialism.
I suggest that you have none and that none exists.
There is, however, an enormous amount of evidence for evolution.
There is more evidence for evolution than can be read in thousands of lifetimes without breaks.
Creation by a creator is not a white elephant, it is a pink elephant — as in imaginary.
Only one problem: Where did those laws come from...and why are the laws what they are?
Science doesn't have a good answer for that one. So the Materialist has as many flaws in his argument for the Nature of Reality, as does the Fundamentalist.
- Albert Einstein
"I wish to know how God thinks"
"God does not play dice with the Universe."
---Albert Einstein.
The fact is that Einstein saw no contradiction between Rationality and Faith. Rationality is was the tool by which he sought to understand the Universe and how it functioned. His faith was how he brought meaning to the existence of that Universe and his place within it.
IOW, he had room for both....because he maintained healthy boundaries between the two.
Among Jews the “authentically religious” are going back hundreds or thousands of years recovering Kabbala, a sophisticated ontology, the basic metaphor of which remarkably reappears in various guises in much modern philosophy and psychology,
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Ontology is a central branch of metaphysics which investigates what categories of things there are in the world and what relations these things have to one another. The branch of metaphysics known as “natural philosophy” is today called “science”. Scientific method transformed “natural philosophy into an empirical and experimental activity. Within ontology there is not much difference between “natural philosophy” and science. Non empirical enquiry can easily embrace the results of empirical enquiry or “science” within its philosophic investigation.
The Kabbalists developed a theosophical system in which the corporeal, phenomenological, psychical, personal, metaphysical, linguistic and theological aspects of the cosmos are understood as different perspectives upon or metaphors for a single underlying reality…constituting a kabbalistic ontology.” (Sanford L. Drob, Symbols of the Kabbalah).
The entire religion vs. science debate is really only a “straw man”. Both the “ religious literalist” as well as those who can’t comprehend anything that can’t be” empirically tested” have ignorance in common.
asking for evidence to back up outrageous claims, or trying to devise tests for these claims, is not "ignorance in common."
as for "can't comprehend anything that can't be tested" you clearly are not aware of all the speculation, some quite wild and imaginative, that goes on at the cutting edge of each scientific discipline...
"Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense."
— Rudolf Carnap
In fact, Western psychology is in the process of (re) "discovering" aspects of the human mind that Buddhist psychology (the Abhidharma) has understood for millenia.
What you fail to realize is that you entire argument is based upon the (fundamentally unprovable) notion that the entire Universe is "out there" (on the other side of your eyes) somewhere...and that it Observer is completely seperate from what is being Observed.
Yet there has never been a scientific observation in which the HUMAN MIND---and its fundamental limiations---have not been an integral part.
The same human mind whose non-rational capacities you arbitrarily dismiss, as a valid means of organizing any aspect of human experience.
Every bit as arbitrary as any religious fundamentalists determination to organize all of his life experience through the faculty of Faith.
Among other things, the evidence shows that evolution happened and is happening, the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the Universe is about 13 billion years old. Deal with it.
It is destroying your credibility.
Life forms work with the machine parts of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen ad carbon among other elements such as sodium and Iron etc. If just one of any of these working machine parts were missing, we would not exist and they are all basic elements that the entire universe is also made of.
It is not possible to have even one working machine part apart from design and we have many of them all working in conjuction for the same end. Nitrogen works to the same end as does oxygen and hydrogen. They all are working together to the same end.
The universe is not able to evolve itself billions of times over in order to get all the machine part to work inside of us AND you still need directives for everything to work.
It is more like you and others are not listening to what is being said.
Carl Sagan
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in Honesty, justice equality, second changes, keeping an open mind, tolerance, fairness, morals, science, respect etc etc etc.
I just finished my fifth cup of coffee ... I believe that too much coffee is not good for me ... but I think I might have another cup anyway.
BTW - balrog221 was talking about specific mythological beliefs ... not believing "anything".
Atheists believe many things ... we just don't believe ridiculous god claims.
Apparently, asylum inmates now get internet access.