On the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (Tuesday, November 24) I wrote an invited opinion editorial for CNN.
The title, "Religion, Evolution can Live Side by Side," was written by the CNN editors, but it does capture the thrust of the piece, as it seems to me that 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.
Perhaps predictably, there have been critics responding on both sides, most notably the estimable Jerry Coyne, the author of one of the best books ever written on the subject, Why Evolution is True, who on his web page of the same title called me an "accommodationist" and even a "faitheist" (not sure what that is--"faith atheist"? but it's clever!) Anyway, Jerry is "disappointed" in me and wonders if I've gone soft in the brain because of a Templeton Foundation sponsorship. Read it here.
The responses to Jerry's blog have been interesting, and sometimes amusing:
"What Shermer is trying to make peace with are sensible moderate theists, not fundamentalists. It is the people in the middle, not those on the fringes, who will, ultimately, determine the virulence of religion and irreligion. Shermer is trying to reduce religion's virulence, not embracing fundamentalist ownership of the Bible, and it's ridiculous interpretations of it. Shermer is right to reclaim the Bible as part of the Western cultural patrimony, and not leave it to fundamentalists to tell us what it means, and the implications to be drawn from it."
"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."
For the record, I am not sponsored by Templeton, and I've never received a grant or fellowship of any kind from them. They did pay me to write and edit some articles for them (work-for-pay is okay!), but insisted that I could say anything I wanted and could invite anyone I like to contribute to an essay collection, including Christopher Hitchens and Steve Pinker (to answer the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?").
What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism? That is the question asked at every atheism/humanism conference I've attended the past several years. The answer is simple: there is no one "right way." There are multiple ways, all of which work, depending on the context. Sometimes a head-on, take-no-prisoners, full-frontal assault á la Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Jerry Coyne is the way to go. Sometimes a more conciliatory approach á la Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or your humble servant is best. It all depends on the context and what you are trying to accomplish. When I debate creationists -- whether of the Young Earth, Old Earth, or the Intelligent Design species -- I try to take a Dawkinsonian/Coyneian approach and slam-dunk their flawed arguments and duplicitous claims without an ounce of accommodationism (although I am, by nature and upbringing, polite and respectful). Christopher Hitchens's recent body slam he and Stephen Fry gave the Catholic Church for its stance on women's rights, birth control, and Third World poverty would have brought tears to my eyes had I not been cheering so fervently.
On the other hand, if it is our 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), then we need as many people as we can get on board with 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, you have just alienated the vast majority of the world's population from your project.
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.
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.
Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer
David Brog: Praying for Christopher Hitchens
Darwins Church: open source mission statement / creed
What would you add to the open source belief system of Darwins Church as a mission statement / creed ?
It seems to me that famous quote by Voltaire "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" is still true but we have evolved to the time when Darwins Church with an existing infinite life membership all from amoeba to primate, religious order to atheist group, faiths and philosophers accept the origin of species as the natural theology. It is possible that through Darwins Church atheist's can always work through reason and ambiguity rather than in isolation / antipathy
Comments please
Encompassing all entities
The science of life
Infinite congregation
Interdependent
Encompassing all primate belief systems, faiths, creeds, ........... from totem poles to cathedrals all that once gave social order
DarwinsChurch.com
DarwinsChurch.org
We evolved religions to survive, what’s the point in believing something if you don’t think it’s true? Our fears created our superstitions at the dawn of our intelligence; beliefs are built into us through ignorance. We will always have belief systems, I see no reason why we can’t have a belief system where every living thing is a member by default and is based on reason
a faith for reason.
Church
any Christian - non-Christian society, organization, or "congregation": the Jewish church.
Congregation
colonial North America a parish, town, plantation, or other “settlement”
You cannot deny the existence of “God” and believe the “BBT” (Big Bang Theory). If you did deny God, you would also have to deny the “BBT”. Each one cannot be proven except by faith alone. I believe the exact point of creation of the universe was the combination of God speaking the “BBT” into existence.
Hawking himself could not prove all of his theories and admitted it was all on paper.
People, who don't believe in God, believe the “Big Bang Theory”. The universe exploded out from super dense particle and became the universe. Where did this particle come from? There isn't one scientist in the world that can prove this theory or where this particle came from. They just say it always existed.
So, from what I see, the scientists are telling me that my “theory of God”, holds just as much water as the “Big Bang Theory”. God spoke, bang, it happened! Did the big bang originate from the power of God speaking the universe into existence? I think so. Can I prove it? No. I say God has just always existed.
How could something have always existed? It would have to come into being from something else. But, if there was nothing in the beginning, there would be nothing now. You cannot get something from nothing. So, that tells me, as hard as it is to believe, at one point something always existed. That fries my brains. Believing that God has always existed is as viable as saying a super dense particle has always existed, therefore God is just as much a reality as the “Big Bang Theory”. If God is just as much a possible reality as the “Big Bang Theory”, then everything we see and are could be from God.
F'rinstance. If someone tells you, "Abortion is murder; the Bible says so," hand him a Bible and ask him to show you where it says that. You'll get a parade of verses misinterpreted to support his claims. Politely ask him to show you the statement, "Abortion is murder." This will result in a lot of backpedaling of one sort or another. Go further. Bet him any amount of money you like that he cannot find where the word "abortion" appears in the Bible. (This is a sucker bet.) If you want to be cruel, bet him that he cannot find "the ONLY place in the Bible": where the word appears. This is also a sucker bet: there is no such place.
Please specify the KJV, since it is possible that someone has a Bible with the word added, pretending that this is the "accurate" translation instead of a flat lie. And don't accept a marginal comment, which were never part of the text.
He won't admit defeat, but your purpose is educate bystanders.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
In fact, God left this planet 2000 or so years ago (the Ascension of Jesus) because His son had performed His law ONE TIME. (This is why neither an atheist or a theist can prove that God is here now because He is NOT here!) The Bible (and human experience) proves that no human can perform even one commandment of God's perfect Law-- so don't even try! This is the truth that religion DOESN'T want to tell you-- but is plain to see for anyone who actually READS the sacred Scriptures.
Eventually, alas, not even the measures listed above will succeed to keep the human population at sustainable levels. Thus, under those circumstances the Apocalypse will come-- when this old earth (and old heavens) will be TOTALLY destroyed (by Christians, hopefully). Either one of two things will then happen:
1) Jesus will return as the Bible says He will and fulfill His promises to that true Israel people (Christians, NOT Jews) OR
2) Nothing, in which case, we will have destroyed a GOD FORSAKEN planet.... Would you want to live on a God forsaken planet? I for one, do NOT!!!
And how moral is it really to pawn your sins off on some fictional character instead of stand up and take responsibility for your actions...that's moral...right!
Evolution, The mother and the Great Spirit, they set up the mechanisms and let them grow- it's simple science and true faith must coexist- only fairy tales like the bible or the Koran seek to state the ridiculous as Truth.
Just the take of a pagan who lives among you. You people should really come into the modern world. Greed isn't viable anymore, even if your Church does sanction it daily. Grow up and get a soul- become Human.
Remember who it was that first brought science to the world - the church through the monestaries and universities that were mostly religious institutions. The Renaissance would not have occurred sans Martin Luther, a devout Catholic who was fed up with indulgences, yet still loved God and the church. Look at the tiny Laminin molecule - it is the "glue" that is responsible for all cell cohesion. Only recently has it been seen thru a microscope and -- it's in the form of a CROSS. Interesting. God has such a wonderful sense of humor... Many, many more examples we could share all day, but only the Holy Spirit will convince you. I pray that you will open your heart to His Truth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/theism-v-atheism-im-a-rea_b_372260.html#postComment
http://i48.tinypic.com/9hhz7l.jpg
the fact that you'd present something like this (which would be inconsequential even if true, as a cross is just an intersection of lines at a right angle) as evidence is pretty sad.
joniberry.com
I think it's important to point out in debates about theism (belief in god) that it is purely a "belief" system or "opinion" system.
It (theism) should never be elevated to "knowledge" or "truth". In fact, since people differ on opinions, these invariably lead to disputes, and those that make the mistake of thinking their beliefs are knowledge and the "truth" the "life" and the "way"--the only way, then we (the world public at large) have a problem. I consider this to be self evident from the world news on daily basis about war perpetuated by "religious" people who think that their beliefs are worth dying for.
The public would be better served by philosophical ethics and education, than by clerics.
Comments made in the spirit of Bill Maher, narrator of "Religulous".
Religious fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists are very similar.
Both share a common certainty, that they are not mistaken. But only because, neither have encountered the questions that reveal flaws in their beliefs?