"Accommodationism" is the word used today to speak of the position that believes science and religion can exist together harmoniously, or at least without conflict. It is disliked strongly both by the New Atheists, who loathe religion, and by the fundamentalists, who reject science. Expectedly, it is a position much favored by liberal Christians and other such believers. People like Francis Collins, head of the National Institute of Health, are deeply committed Christians and strong supporters of modern science.
Is there a place under the accommodationism canvas for the non-believer? I think there is for I aspire to be one such person. As explained in an earlier blog and argued at length in my book Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science, I believe that one can argue for all of modern science and yet agree that there are certain questions that science leaves unanswered: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the ultimate ground of morality?
I believe that although one need not turn to religion -- I am simply a skeptic on these sorts of questions -- it is legitimate for the believer to offer answers.
The well-known philosopher Philip Kitcher has just written a most interesting article where he tries a somewhat different tack. He is much closer to the New Atheists than I, so much so that he might not want to be called an "accommodationist." I have no quarrel with this. I am interested in seeing if his position works.
Basically, Kitcher agrees with the New Atheists (he calls them "militant modern atheists") that science shows religion is false. He does not, like me, allow that there are areas where science does not go and that religion can. However, he sees a social value in religion that the New Atheists do not -- or at least he sees that religion is not going away soon and that we must therefore make some area where it can exist -- and hence he searches for a meaning to religion that will allow it to persist in the world of modern science.
The solution he adopts is much like that of the late Stephen Jay Gould in his Rocks of Ages, namely that we must see religion as a support for morality and social well-being rather than a system that legitimately makes claims about objective reality. (Kitcher does not mention Gould and I am not at all suggesting that he should have. For a start, Kitcher does not use Gould's terminology of "Magisteria," meaning domains of understanding. It is I who think there are similarities.)
Kitcher repudiates all claims to objective truth in religion as unacceptable fundamentalism. (In the philosophical trade, we talk of this as using a "persuasive definition," that is, using words to give subtle or not-so-subtle implications. The Archbishop of Canterbury believes in a literal resurrection. Kitcher would label him a fundamentalist, something I am sure His Grace would find objectionable.)
Kitcher starts his argument with the notion of an "orientation." This refers to the set of goals that a person has, goals that he or she wants to achieve and that define his or her life. Note that it is not a set of claims about objective reality: "An orientation, then, is a complex of psychological states -- states of valuing, desires, intentions, emotions and commitments -- a complex that does not include factual beliefs, and that embodies a person's sense of what is most significant and worthwhile in his own life and in the lives of others."
In the context of his discussion, Kitcher identifies four orientation options. The first is secular. People in this group (which I take would include both Kitcher and me) simply have no religious beliefs and our thinking on morality and so forth is purely secular. We can ignore such people here. Next, we have the mythically self-conscious, who like the stories of the Bible but don't think them literally true in any way. Although it is a long time since I was a practicing Quaker, my suspicion is that today this would cover many (by no means all) members of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers). I still find the story of Ruth with her devotion to Naomi deeply moving and inspirational, although I very much doubt that either Ruth or Naomi ever existed.
More extreme are the doctrinally-entangled. They actually believe in some of the claims of their religion, that is to say they think that some of the existence claims are true. But they do not do so on the evidence, because there is none (none reliable, at least). They do so because these claims make true their moral and social beliefs. In other words, the existence claims function (and this is my reading, not one suggested by Kitcher) a bit like theoretical entities in science. You may never see an electron, but you believe in it because it makes sense of what you do see.
Kitcher writes, and I am quoting because I really do want to get his position right, "If asked to defend his belief in particular claims about the transcendent, the doctrinally-entangled person will not appeal primarily to evidence, but rather suggest that it is legitimate to form such beliefs because of the positive role they play in the promotion of the most important values."
Finally, there is the doctrinally-indefinite category, somewhere between the mythically self-conscious and the doctrinally-entangled. People here might or might not believe in existence claims. They are all a bit vague. "If pressed, they will admit that they can only gesture vaguely in the direction of something that might commit them to the existence of transcendent entities -- or might not."
Obviously, it is the doctrinally-entangled group that is of most interest. The New Atheists would have nothing to do with them, but Kitcher is inclined to cut them some slack. It is clear that he hopes that they will move on, namely in the direction of the mythically self-conscious (at least), and he is strong on the claim that they cannot pretend to prove their existence claims. But Kitcher does allow that it is a legitimate position to take. He argues that "doctrinal indefiniteness can be a reasonable expression of epistemic modesty, and that even doctrinal entanglement can be justified when it is the only way of preserving, in the sociocultural environment available, a reflectively stable orientation." (By "reflectively stable" Kitcher means that it can withstand careful examination and be decreed a "worthy choice" of lifestyle or aims.)
I don't think Kitcher's position is good enough. But before I make any critical remarks, let me say that I think it is a position worth discussing and taking seriously. I wouldn't be writing this blog if I thought otherwise. (Actually, as a general rule that is just not true. I write about the New Atheists, even though I don't think their position is worth taking seriously at all. Or rather, I accept many of the conclusions, but I think the arguments are lousy. But I write about the New Atheists because I think their hateful attitude towards believers is a potential force for great social and moral evil.)
Basically, I just don't think that Kitcher is offering enough to believers to get them to take his position seriously. I felt the same way about Gould, who spoke of the belief in the main Christian claims about the Cross and the Resurrection as "silly." I think Kitcher's position is so hedged that it just won't do. This is why I have no real quarrel if Kitcher refuses the label "accommodationist."
The simple fact is (let's stay with Christians to keep the discussion simple) Christians believe that God exists, that He was Creator, and that He came to earth in the form of Jesus for our eternal salvation, dying on the Cross and rising on the third day to make this possible. They believe that these claims are true, period. They do not believe them in order to give life to their moral beliefs. Contrary to Kitcher, though what he thinks is preferable is not relevant here, Christians believe that morality follows from these beliefs not that these beliefs prop up morality.
I remember vividly growing up as a Quaker in the years after the Second World War. Back in those days, it was not easy to justify pacifism. The war against Hitler had been a deeply justifiable war and to deny this, to belittle the deaths of the young men who had fought to defeat the Nazis, seemed to many to be simply wrong. The main answer we Quakers had -- and we thought it a pretty good answer -- was that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount told us to turn the other cheek. That was it. That was enough. Jesus was the Son of God and what he said was final.
I personally agree with much that Kitcher says. Without empirical proof, religious existence claims depend on faith, and the trouble with faith is that different people with different cultures have different faith insights. For Kitcher (and for me) that is an end to matters. But the point is that the believer thinks that faith works and gives true insights. The believer also has arguments about the relativity. A Christian might argue that others are wrong. We don't accept African medicine. Why should we accept African religion? As a non-believer you may not think much of these arguments, but the point is that the Christian does. And unless you are prepared to give Christians the possibility of such an argument here, as I am and Kitcher is not, then they are not going to be interested.
I applaud Kitcher's attempt to move forward on the science and religion front. But, I am sorry, I just don't think that what he offers will work.
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion and Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Morality without religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are "modern militant Atheist" ? Is this like young angry ,out of the closet,in your face Atheist?
What about 'Olden Day militant Atheist"?
" religion as a support for morality" I find this perplexing from a person who has evidently turned away from a Xtian faith as I did pre teen. The faith and belief just fell away, NOT my humanity,or morality. In fact it occured to me soon after that now I couldn't even ask forgiveness for my transgressions any more. It was really on me , All mine NO excuses.
Is all that keeps the majority of my fellow citizens from Chaos and anarchy thier belief in a God?
Maybe Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine should have written " God Said ! there shall be seperation of church and state " into the Constitution just to be on the safe side.
What is no?
You are correct!
“there are certain questions that science leaves unanswered”
Science doesn't have any questions it “leaves unanswered”, simply questions that haven't been answered yet.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Theoretical physicists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking suggest that the universe came from nothing, and in fact “nothing” is the requirement for its creation. There is no need for god in this equation.
“What is the ultimate ground of morality?”
The belief that humans wouldn't know that cruelty is wrong without a religious construct is false. The suggestion that we need to get moral guidance from a book that advocates slavery and murder, among other things, is laughable. We don't get our morality from religion.
“I write about the New Atheists because I think their hateful attitude towards believers is a potential force for great social and moral evil.”
"New Atheists" a "great social and moral evil"? Define what a "new atheists" is and how they differ from old atheists. And "great moral and social evil", you mean like burning folks at the stake? Cite a single example of moral or social evil caused a people becoming too thoughtful or logical.
Atheists take heart, the religious know their days are numbered and getting closer to the end with every "can't we all just get along" article they publish.
I think Michael Servetus and his thoughtful ,reasoned,logical thinking may have provoked John Calvin and gang into "great moral and social evil". I'm sure there are many examples. (;
If this is what the Proffesor means , then this is like blaming the victim of a crime for 'provoking' the crime.
Treating each other as we would like to be treated is a human construct. (Morality?) Possibly evolved as we survived ancient dissasters, Because we had compassion (human construct) for each other.
Our communication code (language) is a human construct. We agree that a sound is the code for 'tree'. The words have no reality. Which is why I guess,when we get out to the far edge of our understanding, and shared experiances, our 'code words' fail us.
We can agree on tree. "Morality" is a little tougher to agree on. But when we start talking about beyond imaginable time and shared experiances, our communication code,SO important to us for storing and sharing "truths", suddenly fails us.
Trying to communicate what is unimaginable, we try to apply mutually agreed code to that which we have no shared experiance.
So ten thousand words (god,creation,heaven,hell,saint,atheist,doomed ect) we cannot agree on and all this confusion and strife.
Words we can agee on? Survival,Compassion. Word we can't agree on? God.
So let's work with what we agree on.
Rather, science simply does not recognize religion or "God" as a verifiable theory upon which to base other theories.
Until, of course, independently verifiable proof is offered in the form of experiments to confirm, deny, or modify the Theory of God.
The ultimate ground of morality is based in group dynamics. Because human beings operating in groups had a greater chance of survival, evolution tended to select for people who acted in what we now call a 'Moral' manner. But make no mistake, morality did not exist prior to that, it wasn't something that was waiting for us to discover it like Relativity. It is very specifically the veneration after the fact of behaviors that were beneficial to the group as a whole, it's not a rigid absolutist set of laws that are self evident.
Definition: Morality is a set of beliefs that informs ones actions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong." Morality then presupposes "free will", as it presumes that a bag of protoplasm (such as myself) can "determine" its actions. Thus "morality" is a senseless word that should be struck from all language (much like how Daniel Dennet would like to delete the word "consciousness"). By the way, the synapses working in concert within me to put this sentence together would have me suggest that the active voice be stricken from the English language for the same reasoning.
The deep seated evolutionary belief that we control ourselves is false. Rather our actions are decided by an amalgam of hormones, genetics and social learning. Adolph Hitler was an unfortunate convolution of genetics, politics and history much like a hurricane is a horrible consequence of evaporation and convection. Those of us who are hard wired for empathy should "pity" him as we do the millions of people he killed, for he died a violent death as well (and like Stalin and Pol Pot he was right about atheism despite it all).
I propose a new word in place of "morality" - pooreality: the mores achieved in the balance of economic, psychological and cultural forces in a complex human society.
Anything that claims a fiction as justification for ANYTHING cannot be the way forward, as such systems will always be arbitrary to a real extent when compared to similar systems derived from the world of the real. I choose to direct your attention to both of the following as additional exploration of the merits of real vs. non-real:
http://www.xkcd.com/808/
http://www.wasabisoft.net/2009/06/10/the-realm-of-reality/
The bible condones slavery, punishing the child for sins of the father and many other immoral actions.
No, religion isn't the font of morality but it needs to make the claim to justify it's existence.
At one point, there were a lot more unanswered questions than there are now. Why does the sun disappear at night? Why do people get sick? Why do you look like your parents and not your neighbor?
Of course there are going to be questions that science hasn't been able to answer, but why give up? Science is actively pursuing the answers to the questions you asked. In fact, you can make a pretty strong case for morality from an evolutionary perspective. Science is not banned from studying these things just because religion claims to have the answers.
I alwasy felt this was a silly question, there cannot be NOTHING, there is no such thing as NOTHING, it's an abstract word to describe what we can't see, like the cup has nothing in it. well no water, but there's something in the cup
The universe arose from nothing, and became something. And from something, came the KFC double down!
Science is a method of thinking, a way of examining evidence and proposing ideas.
Religion is believing.
See this sign: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/we_arent_going_to_kiss_and_mak.php
Stopping the sun in the sky is a perfectly useful way of saying what happened. Do we not today, with all out intellectual pretense, still use sunrise and sunset?
Not accurate, but understandable and useful.