These labels have been flung around the atheist blogosphere lately. Jerry Coyne seems to be one of the people most outspoken about “accommodationists,” those that think science and religion can happily get along. Coyne thinks science and religion are inherently incompatible – a view I happen to agree with – and explained it nicely in a piece for USA Today.
The opponents of accommodationists have been labeled “confrontationalists.” PZ Myers wrote up an excellent piece on why he’s a confrontationalist after a panel discussion at the Secular Humanism conference. Apparently the whole accommodationist vs. confrontationalist idea was interesting enough for the New York Times to do a piece on it. It’s the whole firebrands vs. diplomats thing all over again – I guess the media love seeing drama within movements. So why am I beating a dead horse?
Because I hate labels, especially crappy labels.
They’re not just crappy because typing accommodationist and confrontationalist over and over makes my hands cramp up – they’re simply horrible at describing what they’re trying to convey. We’re really dealing with two totally different topics: 1) The relationship between science and religion, and 2) Strategies for engaging people.
I would argue the way people think about science and religion falls (mostly) into a binary. There’s the camp that thinks science and religion are compatible, comprised of people like Chris Mooney, Eugenie Scott, Francis Collins, and Chris Stedman. They’re the people you’ll hear talking about “non-overlapping magesteria” and listing successful scientists who are also religious. Then there’s a camp that thinks science and religion are incompatible, comprised of people like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Hemant Mehta, and myself. We’d argue that religious belief is inherently unscientific, and simultaneously being religious and a scientist involves a bit of compartmentalization in your brain.
Notice how religious belief or lack thereof doesn’t necessarily put you in one category or another. You have atheists who believe science and religion are compatible, and atheists who don’t. And I’m sure there are religious people out there who think religion and science are incompatible – the type of theists who make whole museums devoted to poo-pooing science.
The problem starts when we try to merge this viewpoint with different ways people engage others, like labeling the other side as “confrontationalists.” We try to lump this binary with the idea of firebrands and diplomats. But I’m going to argue that it is not a binary, but rather a spectrum. And it’s not just a spectrum in that some people are more aggressive than others – some people can also span wide parts of the spectrum. To illustrate, here I compare myself with some bloggers I enjoy (mainly chosen since I feel the most familiar with their strategies, and didn’t want to misrepresent others):
Notice how I didn’t simply rank people along the spectrum with a single point. That’s because I think there’s a serious aspect people miss when trying to employ this false dichotomy: those who can engage people differently depending on the situation.
I generally hate labels, so I’m hesitant to add “Situationalists” to the growing list, but it describes some people the best. PZ is pretty much always a firebrand, but bloggers like Hemant and Greta can be more or less aggressive depending on the situation.
It also describes me best. When I was president of my student group at a conservative college in a religious area, I needed to be much more diplomatic. I could have run out guns blazing, but the club would have never gotten off the ground. Because I chose a more diplomatic route, we became as well respected as we’re going to get in our community. That’s what was needed in that situation – becoming established, and letting people know that atheists aren’t all monsters.
But here on my blog, I have a much different approach. I’m more of a firebrand. I’m not representing an organization, so I’m more able to speak my mind and “rally the troops.” Or as Rebecca Watson lovingly called me during our panel podcast last week, I’m “a dick with a purpose.”
I don’t think my range is broad just because I’m young and new to the movement – I can think of other student leaders who rank on either extreme of that spectrum. Lucy Gubbins of the University of Oregon’s Alliance of Happy Atheists is very much a diplomat, and JT Eberhard of the Missouri State University Pastafarians is very much a firebrand.
And I think they both are amazing – being a situationalist is not necessarily better. People should do what they’re good at. If you’re good at playing Bad Cop, there’s a Good Cop out there too. We just have to remember there are people like me who don’t neatly fit on either side.
Then why are we labeling all people who think science and religion are incompatible as confrontationalists? We have people like Hemant who clearly fall into that group, but are about as friendly and diplomatic as you can get. If I had to guess, it’s because most people who think science and religion are compatible also happen to be diplomats. The term “accommodationist” is the mish-mash of those two ideas – you don’t just think science and religion are compatible, but you want to use that idea as a way to reach people in a friendly matter.
So, can we nix the confrontationalists label? It seems to serve no other purpose than to paint those who think science and religion are incompatible in a negative, hostile light. Hey, maybe the reason why the arguments of accommodationists seem so wishy washy is because they don’t have enough firebrands on their side.
…Or maybe it’s just because they’re wrong. But that’s a whole other post.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post – and I agree, we need better dimensions along which to discuss this. I’m definitely in agreement with those who believe religion and science to incompatible, but I rarely feel the need to be confrontational — mostly because I tend to believe that cultures change (at the macro-scale) in ways that are more allopatric than sympatric. In science this corresponds to the adage that “scientists don’t change their minds, they just get old and are replaced by new ones.” That’s true in the wider culture, to varying degrees.So I tend to associate the “firebrand” militancy of folks like Dawkins and PZ (whom I love to read, and respect immensely) as verging on misguided attempts to engineer sympatric change within the existing culture. Personally, I don’t see that it works, even on long time scales. I think our effort is best spent ensuring that a strong atheistic/non-theist minority can survive within the dominant and surrounding culture, for that future day when cultural change occurs allopatrically. Thanks for the good post, crystallized some things for me (and hopefully others!)
I think the human mind and society have a tendency to prefer binary (or discrete) choices to spectra. There may be many reasons for this. I even think that language may have some part to play in this tendency. I am unsure and not a linguist or psychologist, but I don’t know of any language that has a word for all three in a group that is not the same as all. For example, in English, we have one, both, all. Plus it’s easier to make a decision between two options than a (possibly infinitely) large spectrum.
I’ve been trying to get people to drop the ‘confrontationalist’ label simply on grounds that it’s a pain to write and dry as sawdust to read.I’ve had occasional success, too.That said, I like that you distinguished between 1. and 2. Hadn’t thought of that before. Thanks.
One other point that hasn’t been clearly articulated in the discussion is that science doesn’t equal atheism and vice versa. One can be an atheist without ever having known anything of science andthere have been a number of scientists through history who did great work without being atheists.Both Mooney and Myers created more dust than light on this topic in their discussion session, jumping from atheism to science education and back as if they were the same thing. The tactics chosen to promote proper scientific education need not be the same as those to promote atheism.There are christians who believe that proper scientific education is part of their mandate due to jesus being the truth, etc, etc. It becomes their problem to reconcile their faith with scientific evidence-some have tried with more success that others. But if they agree that Ken Ham and such are a dteriment to education, then they can help to lobby for proper science education-it’s unlikely that they’ll help promote atheism.It’s like the recent FFRF tempest-the fact that a religious group is working to reduce discrimination is a good thing and can have good consequences as more voices call for change. This doesn’t mean that everything they believe in or do needs to be agreed upon nor did it necessitate supporting them financially in the end.Let’s lay aside the terms that have been flung about and, given a commitment to reason, try to be more “reasonable”, and discuss the actual actions and results that are occurring, rather than trying to cram all of them into predefined positions and mental boxes-isn’t the former approach more like the method we espouse to celebrate than the latter?
Humans like to tar with broad brushes. You seem somewhat contemptuous of the mental faculties of people who espouse some sort of religious faith, and many posters on your site attribute the beliefs of the most extreme to all people of faith.We can disagree without being contemptuous. That’s where I part company with the firebrands on both sides. You call it wishy washy, I call it pluralism.
How many have to be burned at the stake because of this schism between to sides of the atheist movement? Oh, yeah, zero.
I believe this goes to the dichotomy that is so prevalent (especially here in the US) of human thinking. It is far easier for people to categorize others in a ‘black-or-white’ fashion than to actually apply critical thought to the topic at hand.
Like your handle!
I’ve never found any argument that religion and science were incompatible compelling. I can readily accept that someone who believes that religion has all the answers to everything can’t be scientific, and of course vice versa for science, but I do think that it’s a shame that we use extreme conditions of thought as our markers.When we have people like Francis Collins who report that their religious faith pushes them to use science to further elucidate the details of (what they believe to be) God’s creation, I find it extremely difficult to believe that these two systems are incompatible. But so many religious folk, and so many people for whom science has attained a status as “answer to all things,” develop a belief in the need for a single all-encompassing system to explain existence as we understand it. And THAT belief is strongly incompatible with any understanding of the world outside that single system, whatever it may be.I think there’s room for both religion and science in the world, but for dogma of neither flavour. I would ask neither the Pope nor Richard Dawkins for advice on running the world.
Why don’t we focus on criticizing the hard core theistic people like Pat Robinson for all of their mistakes and skip mentioning Francis Collins at all? Anyone who agrees with us about Robinson may come to agree with us about Collins in the areas where he and Robinson agree (Religion being a source of knowledge ect). However, by not mentioning Collins by name we would be able to work with him in the future in areas we agree in.
I wonder what camp I should place myself in? My definite view is “science and religion are incommensurable, so speaking of compatibility does not make sense”. Maybe I get to sit by myself, between the two larger camps, forever shouting “don’t you see neither of you make sense” into the empty night?
My above comment is in regards to public relations campaigns (billboards, ads ect). On personal blogs it might do well to have a variety of approaches to the above question so that we can bring in people to our side through various means.
Incommensurabilists!Splitters, the lot of ’em!And the United People’s Front of Judea!:P
Black and white, or binary thinking, is a fundie thing, ask Dan Barker, he can tell you all about it.I’m astonished as to how Rebecca Watson keeps being called a firebrand, when she’s so firmly in the dont be a dick camp, but maybe that’s just me.The term confrontationalist is particularly silly, since being an atheist IMO makes you one per definition.
Ironic how I was just watching this movie a few days ago
I think the main reason people say religion and science are incompatible is because… well, they are.Like Jen said, if you’re capable of thinking that way (and I certainly know people who are – my two closest Christian friends are both scientists) then you’re compartmentalising. Unless you’re willing to watch science erode your faith into nothing (and then why have it in the first place?), you’re going to have to keep a divided mind and ignore when science disproves a religious belief. Claiming a compatibilitybetween science and religion is equivalent to claiming that your faith is scientifically accurate – give me ONE example of a scientifically-accurate, unabridged religion. The “unabridged” part is very important there.Consider this – we’ve been discussing “religion” but I’m pretty sure we’re all really talking about Christianity. It’s the relevant one for most of us. But if you say religion and science are compatible, then you have to accept that ALL religions are compatible, not only with science but with each other, and that clearly isn’t true.In any religion, by and large the only evidence one has is the religious text, be it Bible, Koran or Ginza Rba (thanks Wikipedia!). So if you wish to posit that your religion has objective truth, you can’t just choose the bits that suit you or suit reality. Any book is true by those standards. You’ve got to accept it all as true or accept that it has no basis in reality outside of parables and stories.
The issue a lot of people have with “confrontationalists” or “firebrands” stems from the fact that bluntness and dickishness are so often equated. This is understandable – when faced with an uncomfortable truth, bluntly delivered, our immediate reaction is to cry “dick!”. It is considered polite in our society to soften a harsh truth and we expect this in civilised discussion. But in so many instances, blunt atheists do not find themselves in civilised discussion. Instead, they find themselves trying to halt the infectious bastardising of science by the likes of Kent Hovind, or seeking justice against the promotion of AIDS in Africa AND the institutionalised rape of children worldwide by the good Pope Benedict. A harsh stance against religion in general is motivated by the perceived destructiveness of religion itself.Accommodationism risks simply indulging believers while horrific acts are perpetrated in the name of their belief. How is it not obvious that combating this is the motivation for blunt, confrontationalist, firebrand atheists?
Man, I get so serious on the interwebs.Have a smile, everyone :)
Just read your article and thought it quite excellent. Cheers!Your bit about Dawkins in particular finally put into words my thoughts about the “militant atheist” label, so thankyou especially for that.
Thank you!I am so sick and tired of the false dichotomy. I’m especially tired of seeing it from professional educators – especially at the university level – who insist that there’s only one way to engage with people. What a lousy pedagogical approach they must have in the classroom!Not everybody responds in the same way. I have found it quite possible to have reasoned conversations with people about why I am an atheist, and present the questions and doubts that turned me away from religion in a way that they actually think about them rather than just shutting me out.And then there are some people with whom it is NOT possible to have a reasoned discussion, and a blunter approach generally seems to be called for. And some people take a mixture of bluntness, humor, politeness.An effective communicator is one who uses ALL of the tools at his or her disposal to get the point across. An ineffective one is one who uses the same approach every time, regardless of the audience. (A carpenter who asserts that a hammer will suffice for every task – indeed, who insists that the only tool any carpenter needs is a hammer – isn’t really much of a craftsman. In fact, he’s probably a piss-poor craftsman who can’t really create anything at all.)And I am sick to death of the fallacious reasoning that allowing anyone to believe in religion results in “horrific acts”. Letting your child die because you believe prayer is more efficacious than modern medicine, yes, that’s a horrific act. Thinking that being a decent person will get some kind of reward after you die may be delusional, but that’s not horrific. There’s a whole spectrum of actions, of which those two examples are just points along the line.But as others have mentioned, fundamentalist atheists are just as blinkered as fundamentalist Christians with their black-and-white dichotomies.
The only thing that really concerns me is on the Firebrand side when people like PZ Myers make claims that we should be able to ignore arguments from people who aren’t experts in a given field. To me that validates the religious argument that the only people that can critique religion have to be Theological scholars. While I understand there is a lot of reason to want to ignore these things, by saying that we know things absolutely without any doubt and would be unwilling to listen to or be swayed by any potential arguments and evidence we are sinking to their level.
“Notice how I didn’t simply rank people along the spectrum with a single point. That’s because…”…your a FUZZY THINKIN LIBRUL who don’t know RITE FROM RONG and are too cowardy to TAKE A STAND AND SAY WHAT U MEAN becaus you WONT ADMIT THE TRUTH TO URSELF PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!11!!!
Perhaps another way of splitting these people apart: how reasonable do you think religious people are?So called ‘confrontationalists’ or similar seem to all believe that religious belief is not just mistaken but a bit irrational. To square religious belief with the advance of science or similar, you need to do some compartmentalizing or believe something crazy or delusional. Religious belief, in principle, isn’t rational.The other option (my own) is to say that although religious beliefs are in fact mistaken, religious belief isn’t – in principle – irrational. Of course, plenty of religious belief might be irrational in practice, but it is at least possible for a reasonable person to believe (for example) God exists without compartmentalizing, being delusional, or whatever. Back in philosophy of religion, you call this sort of thing ‘friendly Atheism’, but that’s a bit of a misnomer. You can think all religious belief is irrational but be nice and respectful towards believers, and vice versa. But (as noted above) they probably correlate. If you think someone’s beliefs aren’t rational, that gives less reason to treat them with respect. Regardless, Atheists shouldn’t be unfriendly in the common sense because it’s just mean. They shouldn’t be unfriendly in the philosophical sense because it’s mistaken – at least, until I see a stonking good argument otherwise.
Well said, Jen. I’m fairly new to the atheist blogosphere and at first was just glad to see people expressing these thoughts that I have to keep mostly to myself in the physical world. Then I slowly became aware of this whole Accommodationist/Confrontationalist “schism”. I find it very disappointing. It’s not accurate in the least, partly because there are different goals involved. We should all be on the same side when it comes to keeping intelligent design out of schools, but we aren’t necessarily on the same side when it comes to critiquing religion as a whole, and that’s OK. The thing that bothers me about accommodationists is when they are basically telling the confrontationalists to sit down and shut up. Not all of them do this, of course, but it seems to me that this is where the schism originates. If I have a broader interest in criticizing religion, I’m not going to stop expressing myself just because some people think it hurts the cause of keeping religion out of schools. That’s not the only cause I care about. I think it may be impossible to determine whether some accommodationist first told PZ Myers to shut up or whether PZ first criticized accommodationists, but in the end it doesn’t matter. I think it’s more acceptable to attack someone’s ideas than it is to tell someone that whether their ideas are right or wrong, they’re hurting “the cause” so they shouldn’t be expressed. I’m just too honest to take that approach.
Excellent analysis, as usual. A couple of thoughts for what they’re worth:Religion is a multifaceted thing. (So is science, but the multifacetedness of religion is more relevant to my point.) Religions have myths and moral values. I do not believe any of the relious myths, but I share some moral values with some religious people, and I know some religious people who don’t take their myths literally.Atheists can form alliances with some religious people in support of some causes, if they choose to. Work together toward the common goal and leave the debates about your differences for another day. It doesn’t mean the differences don’t exist, or that you’re conceding any debate points to the other side.My personal practice is that I will respond frankly and without pulling any (metaphorical) punches if challenged on my beliefs, but I don’t go around picking fights. In keeping with that, I think Dawkins’s recent public comments in response to the Pope’s accusations were entirely appropriate. I would have been less approving if Dawkins had instead approached the Pope and started shouting at him while he was saying Mass or something. I don’t like it when religious people proselytize, and I don’t proselytize. If a religious friend says “I’m praying for you,” I just say “Thanks.” I take it as an expression of concern and don’t see any point in being confrontational about something like that. I believe in being diplomatic always, even with one’s worst enemies. (To those who don’t know how to do that, I recommend the book “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.”) But one can be diplomatic without being timid.
Good post but I don’t agree with your putting Hemant so far into the “diplomat” side.
I agree that science and religion as we know it are not compatible. But seeing as you can’t really prove that something doesn’t exist, I think it’s possible to believe in a god and accept science.
Jen, can you make another chart, but this one with two axes–diplomat vs. firebrand and compatibilist vs. incompatibilist ?
the “you can’t prove it doesn’t exist” argument is one that i hate the most. it’s annoying and useless, imho. i also can’t prove polka dotted purple hippos don’t live on the far side of the moon, but no one is attacking me for that inability. “god doesn’t talk to you, nor anyone anymore, but he used to, cause the bible says he did” is the other way of formulating that argument, imho. neither are valid, intellectually speaking. ymmv.
when i was in Divinity school, one of the smartest (non-believing) profs i had put it this way: “people are always saying ‘don’t compare apples and oranges, it’s not a valid comparison’ and i disagree! it is valid, and it is interesting, not because it tells me about the nature of apples per se, nor oranges, but because of what it tells me about the way people think, and act on those thoughts and systems of organizing and cladiography.” that’s pretty much how i feel. technically, at least to my mind, “comparing” the truths (” “) of religion and science is a worthless project… until it’s not. and it is not useless when we understand just how frequently they do in fact intersect, compete, and otherwise merge together in human understanding. i’m fascinated by religious scientists, atheist deacons, closeted gay bigots at the pulpit, wiccans who despise christians, christians who have love/hate relationships with secular, ethnic jews, hindus who mock Jains, Mazdeans who mock Muslims… this list goes on and on. the fun part of discussions like these is that we will likely never come to any “accord” or agreement; there will always be people who cling to superstition, just as there will always be people who arrogantly underscore the value of imaginative philosophy in the human endeavor. the crux of being human is that we’re capable of both, and always have been.boilerplate: just because i just wrote that doesn’t mean i think “church and state” should mix. my atheism is mostly for political reasons. when the believers stop messing around in society and telling me i can’t marry my girlfriend or that she can’t be a member of a Santeria cult instead of a bible based one, then we’ll all get along. i’m a live and let live type, and while i think all religion is mythology, i still believe in the right of all people to choose to entertain it, privately.
Not my article – it’s Crommunist’s article, where he references something he and I had discussed earlier.But yes – it *was* a very good article.
Poe
The inability of religion and science to describe the same things is only a problem if you’re invested in finding a sort of unified field theory of everything in the world. This is where I find the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ argument so compelling. For my money, there’s no reason to assume that it’s necessary to have one way of understanding the world – cross-culturally (which would require, as you say, reconciling a vast number of religious epistemologies) or within a single culture. I wouldn’t go to the dentist to explain to me why my foot hurts; why isn’t the idea of appropriate answers for appropriate questions extensible into other areas of life? I’m not going to go to a church to try to understand steroid synthesis pathways any more than I’d try to find guidelines for virtue under a microscope. Why is it important to have a single system that provides insight into all areas of life? And, taking your inter-religious compatibility question to its logical next step, why is it important to extend that system to all people, everywhere?Whatever happened to working towards harmonious pluralism?There’s also the question of whether it’s wise or even possible to judge one epistemological system by the standards of another (i.e. can we hold religion to scientific standards such as ‘objective truth,’ or expect science to do the work of religion and answer ‘why’ questions?), but I don’t think we have the space for that here.
Nice post, Jen. Refreshing to see someone NOT try and apply a false dichotomy. I myself fall into the “cranky atheist” camp on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and “I don’t give a crap” on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Weekends are reserved for burning christians at the stake and eating babies.
I see. I feel quite the ass.
Pfft – don’t, it’s no biggie. Easy mistake.I just didn’t want to look like I was taking credit for Crom’s work.
Best post I’ve seen on this topic, and there have been quite a few lately. There’s also, as you mention, sometimes a difference in tone on someone’s blog versus interactions in person. Hemant is much more of a diplomat in person (I’ve heard that PZ, while not exactly diplomatic in person, is a very polite, approachable gentleman, like Dawkins), but not as much on Friendly Atheist.
What on earth is a fundamentalist atheist?When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door to proselytize, or when was the last time an atheist flew a plane into a skyscraper? Atheists are called militant and fundamentalist for writing scathing blog posts and newspaper articles, for heavens sake,get some perspective.
Okay, so that was smart assed.But you did ask.
Hehe, that’s hilarious…..
It’s Lucy Gubbins, not “Gubbons.”
At least she didn’t say Gibbons.
Hah! I read “Gibbons” too at first. That would have been a more amusing typo IMO.
I know a guy whose surname is “Gibbons”…
I feel kinda bad coming back from a month without commenting in order to respond somewhat polemically and sideways to the topic, but bear with me because it does hit the real topic a bit as well…I find it kind of annoying when people say that religion is incompatible with science, because they’re usually only really talking (and thinking) about certain sorts of religion, or certain forms of religiosity. It’s possible to be religious, and a non-theist, to be neutral on the subject of creation (on the basis of lack of evidence for any sort of before-the-big-bang scenario) but agree with science on the age of the world (and universe, etc). There are some aspects of my life informed by something other than scientific evidence from falsifiable premises; this is true of aspects other than religion, of course. We all build up patterns of behaviour based on inductive reasoning without even thinking about it; we only see the reasoning as inductive when we come to examine it.Similarly, as I am both a social scientist and a ‘hard’ scientist, I am aware of variable standards of proof, and the limits of accepting things. Social science theories are often widely accepted on a “until there’s something better” basis, but that basis is understood explicitly by even very novice practitioners; in the hard sciences the principle of not-yet-disproved theory that happens to make the right predictions is the epistemological basis of pretty much everything, but even seasoned practitioners of high standing make the mistake of considering such theories ‘fact’. Of course they are more well established than the common sensibility of the term ‘theory’, but they’re still not proved true; my understanding of the whole idea of falsifiability is that nothing about “reality” is every “proved true”, only falsified. Proofs are of course entirely valid in constructed scenarios (like mathematics). The distinction between consistent, support, accepted, and as-proved-as-it-can-be is just more consistently thought of in social sciences. (*prepares for scorn towards social sciences from “hard” scientists*)So, if we consider that there are spectra for the characteristics of confrontation, for example, and for the view of the possibility of consistency between science and religion, and then that people’s views are ranges on these spectra rather than points, why can we not consider a spectrum for religiosity, and consider compatibility between science and religiosity as contingent on the point on that spectrum? In truth, it should be a multidimensional space, rather than a spectrum, for religiosity, but there you go.The things that I believe, religiously, that aren’t, and can’t be, supported by objective methods and falsifiable statements, are all based on things in my own experience. My experiences cannot convince anyone else, and anyone else failing to have those experiences does not convince me – it is an aspect of my faith that different approaches and methods (and beliefs) suit different people, so of course experiences will vary, even within my faith community. How does this attitude make it impossible for me to also approach an academic discipline, or anything else, scientifically without strict compartmentalisation?
That video is brilliant. But yeah, this is what gets me. Atheists aren’t getting in anyone’s face, they write books, they blog, they make videos, but they don’t force anyone to watch, they don’t knock on doors and try to convert people, they generally don’t bring up religion in conversation. They don’t think it’s important to ask everyone that have a chat with if they’re “saved”, (or in this case, un-saved?), and they don’t drop “there is no god” or “praise the FSM” in every facebook post, greeting, and conversation. Endlessly I see my friends talking up Jesus in their facebook posts, the bus driver tells me to “have a blessed day”, it’s intrusive and inescapable, and frankly, atheists just don’t do it. Imagine the uproar if a bus driver was telling all his passengers to “have a godless day”. Oops, sorry. I can’t help it when I start thinking about this. I’ll try to contain myself from here on out.
You’ve nailed the topic in a way that as far as I can tell, no one else yet has. The “accomodationist vs. confrontationalist” dichotomy has never been comfortable to me. Maybe it’s because of that added dimension that you’ve astutely brought out — that one is science vs. religion’s compatibility and the other dimension is diplomacy vs. firebrand. I’ve fallen somewhere around Hemant’s position, being both a diplomat and a “science is incompatible with religion” advocate. So where under the prior discussion would I have fit? The diplomat in me seems to argue me as an accomodationist, but then I don’t buy into the “Non-overlapping magisteria” business. I’m hoping to see your observation of this as a 2 dimensional issue growing some legs and becoming the way of framing the issue, for the sake of people such as me who haven’t fit into the discussion up to this point. Perhaps it becomes a two-axis grid…. though your point about one dimension being binary would sort of make that axis problematic in that sort of presentation.
Faith can’t be proven–that’s why it’s called FAITH. A god that can be measured and defined is not a god, it’s just a thing. Religion is a matter of the metaphysical, which by its very nature cannot be measured or analyzed. The two are, indeed, incompatible, but not in the way the “confrontationalists” seem to think of it: they’re irrelevant to each other, or they should be. Both religious folk who attack scientific findings and atheists who claim that religion is a mental illness or people lying to themselves are making the same mistake. Then again, I’m able to believe the previous statement because I disbelieve in an objective reality (prove to me that you see and interpret the world the exact same way I do and I’ll reconsider.
You don’t believe in objective reality, eh?Do you look both ways before crossing the street?
… or expect science to do the work of religion and answer ‘why’ questions?Well – that presupposes that religion actually does answer ‘why’ questions.I don’t think that it does. ‘God-said-so’ is not an answer. It is the ultimate non-answer. And it causes a lot of trouble.Whenever a religious person does give an answer that is any good, that answer will typically converge on ethical humanism with some religious glitter and dried macaroni tacked on.
There’s an invisible purple magic dragon hovering over your left shoulder.It will burn you alive if you don’t send me $1,000.You can’t prove it doesn’t exist – it’s magic.Since you can’t prove it doesn’t exist, believing it does must be totally compatible with scientific evaluation.So – where’s my $1,000? Or do you prefer death-by-magic-dragon?
Personally, I’d argue that it isn’t binary… just in practice most people are at one extreme, or the people at one extreme (incompatibility) view people anywhere along the line as at the other extreme. Some aspects of religion are more incompatible with science than others, and I would argue that some are incompatible, others aren’t. It also, frankly, depends on the religion.
I can’t really debate this with you, because it seems fairly pointless to me to be arguing about merit with someone who’s determined to be scornful. This is my problem with the atheist movement in all its incarnations. I understand that many atheists, especially in the States (where I think the religious climate is a little different than here) feel that religion is an active force for ill, etc. and needs to be addressed. I can respect that. What I can’t respect is the dismissive use of phrases like “religious glitter and dried macaroni” or my perennial favourite, “magic sky friend.”I find it deeply ironic that many atheists criticise theists for their dogma and judgement of others, but then adopt the same behaviours. Religions have a greater potential to do harm because they wield a lot more political power, but if Richard Dawkins were in the same position as the Pope, I do kind of shudder to think what would happen.For the record, I’m not a religious person, and I do believe that I’m an ethical person regardless, so of course I don’t think that religion is the only way to live a good life. But I am distressed that so many people seem to forget that, much as it’s a source of evil in the world, it can also be a source of tremendous good.I am interested in learning about atheism and the issues surrounding it – one of the reasons why I read this blog! But it’s really disheartening to find such a strong correlation with dogmatism and tunnel vision.
Subjectivism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. Their coexistence depends merely on the existence of the word “probably.”
Cool. I had you wrong. Typically when I hear someone use the term ‘subjective’ the way you do, they’re also big into denying the whole truth thing.Probably is good though. Probably works.The dearth of evidence, the narrative structure, and the just-so nature of religious metaphysics renders them indistinguishable from a man-made work of fiction. Therefore, religious metaphysics are very probably untrue.Better?
The scorn requires no determination on my part. It comes easily.Now, I don’t necessarily think that religion is a force for ill persay. I think religion is a man-made tool. Like all man-made tools, the outcome of that tool depends very much on the skill, thoughtfulness, and intentions of the people wielding it.So religion is a tool. But if human flourishing or an accurate understanding of reality is the goal then it is the second-worst tool humanity has ever devised for these purposes – making stuff up (religion) is second-worst only when compared to giving up in the first place (solipsism).Using religion to improve quality of life or understand reality is a bit like trying to peel a potato with a broadsword. You’re gonna ruin the potato, cut yourself in the process, and probably won’t even be able to properly achieve the goal anyway.Or to switch metaphors, religion is a pair of out-of-focus glasses that make the whole world soft and fuzzy. That’s great, if soft fuzziness is what you want in your worldview and you don’t care overmuch about that whole over-hyped ‘truth’ thing. But personally? If I’m getting into a car, I want the person driving to have glasses that provide the sharpest focus on reality as humanly possible – and that sure ain’t a quality provided by religion.Also note: You’re judging atheists for in turn judging theists for being judgmental. That’s not a game anyone can win – I suggest we drop it. ^_^But onto Dawkins, since you started it: What do you think would actually happen if Dawkins had the same political power as the pope?He might take away religion’s tax exempt status and stop funding faith-based schools. He may even step up his awareness-raising campaign as to the injustice of childhood indoctrination. He would insist that freedom-of and freedom-from religion are respected in publicly-funded schools and institutions. I suspect he may even go so far as Daniel Dennett’s suggestion, and make the study of all major world-religions as a cultural phenomenon a mandatory part of the national education syllabus. This would include Christianity, because as Dawkins has said on a number of occasions, he is in favor of religious literacy – it’s impossible to understand history and world culture if you don’t first understand how religion has contributed to the context of the world. Clearly, he’s some kind of monster.But outside of that? He’s not going to make religion illegal the way that Christianity and Islam have attempted to do to non-belief throughout the ages in the form of blasphemy laws. He wouldn’t advance discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or religious background as happens every time religion achieves real political power. He wouldn’t advocate violence as a valid means of persuasion – again, as nearly all religions have done in the past (including Buddhism) when they gained political clout.If a pope-powerful Dawkins found that people within his organization had been raping children, he wouldn’t attempt to protect them from authority – to the contrary, he’d be aghast, and would do everything in his power to assist the local authorities in the arrest of those individuals.So… Yeah. What’s to shudder about that makes Dawkins so much worse than the Pope?What, exactly, do you think Dawkins may do that would be so horrible?Be specific please. Stating your prejudice against Dawkins is not, of itself, a valid point.
I find it curious that the semantics of a feminist being a “dick” seem to be more acceptable than a scientist being a “theist”. Science is a way of examining and proving theories to be more or less correct. (Can they ever truly be “right”?). Theism is merely a way of explaining things in our sensual experience (science) by invoking the actions of beings we cannot understand or comprehend. The methodology of science has pushed back the curtain on much ignorance, but the pushing is not yet done. And as we get to the extreme limits of human comprehension, it seems that some “scientific” theories to explain things are more fantastic than the simple theists propose.
With all due respect: codswallop. Why can’t God or the divine be measured and defined, except in the semantics of religious apologists? Putting aside the “subjective reality” bit for the moment and delving into some theological metaphysics, if God has any effect on our universe then it CAN be measured. And if God is indeed beyond definition, then God must by definition be inconceivable to us mortals. So the proof God exists… is that He/She/It has no interaction with reality and us poor mortals couldn’t possibly comprehend anything of its true nature? You know, I could believe something like that is possible. But why should I, or anyone else, care about it?Afterthought: Gabriel Syme vs. Terry Pratchett! It’s a literature-off!! Except.. it seems as though we’ve each taken the wrong side (what with Pratchett’s damning of organised religion, eg. Nuggan; and Syme’s championing of God and order)
Also, an inability to show that everyone perceives the same way does not prove a subjective reality. A subjective experience of objective reality =/= a subjective reality.If you believe reality is subjective, why are you having this discussion? We only exist in your mind, after all. God only exists in your mind. Even then, if we accept Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” as true, there must be some reality for your mind to exist in.But if you mean that conscious beings (even bats!) experience reality individually, then yeah.. I doubt many people would disagree with you. However, that does nothing to prove a subjective reality. It seems, rather, to strongly suggest that there IS an objective reality, one which we all interpret differently. One where God either does or does not exist – it’s not up to the “faith” of the subject.
Well, the person who wrote the original comment to which you replied wasn’t me, so I can’t actually speak to their satisfaction with your revised edition, but it works fine for me.
Whereas (apparent) tautologies like “I think the main reason people say religion and science are incompatible is because… well, they are” ARE valid points?I honestly don’t know if you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying because we don’t share the same educational / philosophical background, or if you’re doing it deliberately for rhetorical purposes, but either way, I don’t see this ending in any kind of consensus, because you’re not actually addressing my points.I wouldn’t object to anything you’ve put on the proposed Dawkins-as-major-political-figure agenda. Because those are all actions that contribute to freedom and pluralism, of which I am a proponent. I would object to his continuing use of dismissive rhetoric, which creates a climate that allows the opposite to flourish.I have no problem with anyone believing in God. I have no problem with anyone not believing in God. I agree that the political structure we have now in most of the West needs revision because it needs to accord equal political freedom to both positions, rather than favouring religion (although you can readily see how religion’s historical momentum will be difficult to counteract, so I’m a bit less frustrated than you are, I think, with how slowly that’s happening). What I do object to is the idea that instead of working toward a political system that’s sort of epistemologically neutral, Dawkins and other “confrontational atheists” feel the need to take a rhetorical stance that creates a polarized climate of belief, pushing differing epistemologies apart, rather than together. To criticise religious dogmatism for doing the same thing is then sort of the ironic icing on the cake.I also take exception to statements such as “Using religion to improve quality of life or understand reality is a bit like trying to peel a potato with a broadsword. You’re gonna ruin the potato, cut yourself in the process, and probably won’t even be able to properly achieve the goal anyway.” All the research ever done on human cognition shows that our brains are the most delicate and fallible of machines. I suggest reading The Invisible Gorilla, which is a great book (written by scientists about their cognitive processing experiments) that really highlights the ways in which we take in much less information from our surroundings than we think we do. Much of what we ‘know’ is the interpretation of that data through whichever system of meaning we find most relevant. Thus, all ‘fact’ is dependent on an underlying belief structure. We can argue endlessly about which belief structure is best for the world at large (and I, like you, tend to think it’s a secular one), but which belief structure is most relevant to individual happiness is about the farthest thing from a universal that one is likely to find.These are the kind of unreasonable absolutist statements I’m talking about. I would find the atheist movement in general a lot easier to sympathise with if there were fewer of these kinds of statements and more critical generosity.I object to these methods because a secular society is also my goal, and I see confrontational atheists as ultimately working away from that, not toward it.
Strikingly well written article
This post couldnt be more right..