As part of my process of posting my published articles here on my blog for easier access, here is one that was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education Review on May 9, 2010. Note that this was back in 2010 so the word ‘new’ may no longer be applicable. The editors of the magazine said that this article received one of the highest readerships that they had seen.
Mano Singham
Just another Freethought Blogs site
Interesting article.
References to Shermer and Dawkins have not aged well.
Outdated as far as Europe is concerned. There are way too many non-religious science deniers (COVID, climate change) on the old continent.
@1&@2- Yeah, I’ve found that lots of atheists who claim to love science and skepticism have lost the thread in their pursuit of straight, white, cis-male hegemony.
It’s funny that, by your definition, James Clerk Maxwell, although a devout Christian, was not an accommodationist. He thought nothing, including religious beliefs, should be “roped off” from inquiry.
Rob, is that so?
So, he examined his own religious beliefs, and found them scientifically sound, then?
(I very much doubt that — but hey, maybe he just never got around to it)
John @5: Depends what you mean by “examine”, I suppose. I get the impression that a lot of antitheists mean little more than “come to the same conclusions I did”. So, if he didn’t come to the same conclusions, he can’t possibly have “examined”. Nice trick!
I don’t care to speculate exactly what he thought of the “scientific soundness” of his beliefs; I have no idea. I’ll leave that to the many amateur psychologists and mind-readers who seem to love engaging in that sort of speculation.
Rob,
It was all thoroughly discussed during the time accommodationism was a thing, especially in New Atheist circles.
You wrote “He thought nothing, including religious beliefs, should be “roped off” from inquiry”, and you also wrote “James Clerk Maxwell, although a devout Christian”. So, by your own claim he was a devout Christian and also thought religious beliefs are subject to enquiry.
And right there is the core of accommodationism, the belief that science and theism are epistemically compatible; only achievable by compartmentalising one’s theistic and of scientific beliefs, and holding them to a different epistemic standard.
PS
By “examine”, I mean ‘examine’.
PPS
He was a luminary of science; I doubt that if he had actually applied scientific scrutiny to his Christian beliefs he’d have remained devout. But sure, it’s possible.
—
You are still avoiding the import of my retort, Rob.
Point being, again, that to be a devoutly Christian and a scientist is pretty much an epitome of accommodationism.
(Which I infer is your own predilection, given our interactions hitherto)
You’re getting sloppy in your dotage, John. In #4, I referred to Mano’s definition of accommodationism in his article, which includes this;
Maxwell said there was nothing beyond inquiry. Does that mean he should have inquired into everything, or just the things you think he should have? Personally, I’m happy with the topics he chose. They’ve enriched my life immensely.
Rob:
Yes, I can read. I know.
Not that Mano offered a definition, as such; it was more on the lines of “if X, then Y”. Rather implicit.
Such an evasive dance!
It means that I don’t think he performed such an inquiry into the claims his devout Chrisianity makes, because (again) if he had, he’d have to be even more of a dotard than I, or perverse (which is not better).
I think he compartmentalised, so as to accommodate his devoutness and his scientific epistemology. Basically, an accommodationist.
Perhaps by the standard Mano set, he is a No True Accommodationist, since if X then Y. Obviously, not by my standard.
You’re not getting it; whatever he did investigate scientifically resulting in your enriched life did not include investigations into his Christian beliefs, did it?
—
Look: you’ve cherry-picked that claim from Mano and shoehorned it into Maxwell not being an accommodationist by that particular criterion. I get it.
But he was (and here I quote you) “a devout Christian”.
And he was also a scientist.
I have never disputed that the two are incompatible, other than epistemically and methodologically. Compartmentalisation is a thing. Some beliefs are sacred. 😉
Anyway, it follows that he sure accommodated his devout goddishness with his scientific mindset. No miracles in science, no science in miracles type of thing.
Someone who accommodates is perforce an accommodationist.
End of the day, you have to look at what they do, not just listen to what they claim. More reliable.
I think we can consider this impression well affirmed by now.
Because it’s trivial, Holms. A lot of any set of people mean little more than “come to the same conclusions I did”, there’s nothing special about antitheists that way.
(Mind you, goddists are exemplars at it)
John, here’s something else that’s trivial: When you can demonstrate that someone’s particular beliefs are inconsistent with science, you can comment in an informed way about compartmentalisation. Until then, it’s just down to your uninformed guesswork.
Here’s the thing about science; it’s not your, or anyone else’s, ideological ally. I’m an atheist because I see no compelling evidence for deities. The mistake that a lot of antitheists, and theists, make is in thinking that science has anything to say about that, apart from explicit claims (e.g. YEC).
Maxwell chided theists who tried to co-opt science for their ideological purposes. I wish more atheists would recognize some of the bullshit claims coming from their side.
Fine, you imagine that the beliefs of a devout Christian can be consistent with science; the miracles, the cosmology, the purposefulness of nature, etc.
(You think transubstantiation is compatible with science?)
You think I am uninformed about science and about devout Christianity?
Perhaps it is you who is uninformed, since you believe they are compatible.
(Might as well claim science and rape are compatible, since some scientists are rapists)
Science is the process of methodological naturalism; you know that cartoon “then a miracle occurs”? Not science.
So it’s not something that can be an ally, contrary to your belief.
Not to mention all the contradictions and stupidities of the mythos, which I’m happy to adumbrate for you if you want. Starting with the conceit that an omniscient omnipotent created existence to sort out dead people into heaven and hell — I mean, how fucking stupid is that?
Anyway, of course it’s not an ally, it’s a method of investigating the natural world, and deities are supernatural.
Did he really. Must be a rarity among devout Christians, that.
(Wait, no — the opposite)
I’m calling yours out, so perhaps start with yourself.
Anyway. For you, Rob:
@John Morales
So you genuinely think Atheism is a scientific position rather than a philosophical one ?
Deepak, what? No. Not even slightly.
Can be, I suppose, but there could be any other number of reasons.
A-theist — a privative term. Means not a theist.
Again: a torturer may finish their torturing for the day, and go home and be a doting parent who lavishes kindness on their family.
Doesn’t mean being familial is a torturing position, or that being a torturer is a family position, or that kindness and torture are compatible.
Just means the torturer can compartmentalise.
Rob is trying to insinuate that, because someone can do both, that both are thereby compatible.
Rob brought the topic up with that silly comment about Maxwell not being an accommodationist according to the inferred classification Mano employed.
I am happy to engage that topic, as should be evident.
Deepak Shetty @15: For some people, atheism is a position from which they indulge in armchair philosophy about the true meaning of words like “compatibility”. Noble warriors defending the integrity of science, while others just get on with the job of doing science. At least it keeps them from getting into serious mischief.
John @14: Nice historical survey. Too bad she mispronounced ‘Clerk’.
@John Morales @16
Sure but if Atheism is not a scientific question , what is the need for a scientist to compartmentalize ?
That looks correct to me , that given that definition Maxwell is not an accommodationist. People who believe in non overlapping magisteria or that supernatural claims cannot be investigated by science would fall in the accommodationist category. You seem to be arguing about the Science compatible with religion thing which isn’t the same thing.
@Rob Grigjanis
I have nothing against armchair philosophy -- being an expert(of the Dunning Kruger variety) armchair philosopher myself .
Deepak:
Rob put it this way: “I’m an atheist because I see no compelling evidence for deities.” Clearly, either Maxwell did in fact find such compelling evidence or he didn’t even try to hold to that standard. The former is rather unlikely, since we know he was indeed a good scientist, so it’s likely the latter.
Basically, the need comes because trying to hold one’s religious beliefs to the same standard as one’s scientific beliefs would inevitably end up being less than satisfactory.
(I leave aside the aspect of scientific beliefs being provisional, which is hardly the case for devoutly Christian beliefs)
Maxwell is dead, so he no longer has a stance. But at the time, he thought his devout Christianity went along fine with his science, so he most certainly indulged in a personal accommodation.
Nah. I certainly think “then a miracle occurs” is not scientific, and I am most certainly not an accommodationist; far as I’m concerned, religion should be no more than a personal hobby, instead of a public policy driver.
Well, no — compatibilism and accommodationism are related but distinct concepts. The former is about how the things themselves relate, the latter about how one perceives their relationship.
@John Morales
But why only religion ? Almost all of us have relationships, friendships , hobbies and various other things that we don’t hold to the same standard (and dont want to!). You only need to hold religion to scientific standards if the questions are scientific. (To be clear Rob was saying something else though -- mainly that you cannot know what Maxwell did or did not do or thought or did not think)..
Heh. So people are born devout Christians , remain devout Christians their entire lives and die devout Christians ?
What makes you imagine I meant only religion?
Belief systems, in general, in particular the epistemology and methodology.
And the intellectual honesty, but that’s kinda rare.
Um, when I wrote “The former is about how the things themselves relate”, I was not referring to personal relationships, but rather the relationship between two different belief bases.
You’re not very good at this, are you?
No.
How you even imagined I meant “people are born devout Christians” from what I wrote is subject to speculation.
Point is a devout but provisional Christian is oxymoronic.
(“O darling, I love you with all my heart and soul and will do so unconditionally forever.
Provisionally.”)
@john Morales
So everyone must personally perform all manner of scientific experiments to hold their beliefs to scientific standards ? Ok then please provide me your peer reviewed studies showing that the God hypothesis doesnt work. But to repeat the question whether my spouse is faithful to me is actually a factual one. But I will answer that I *believe* that my spouse is faithful (because of trust, faith, love, and all manner of non scientific reasons) -- you on the other hand I suppose have conducted experiments to show that factual evidence. or maybe you too dont hold yourself to a scientific or evidentiary standard in all matters of your life.
No I imagined that you know that people change their views all the time in all directions, including devout Christians. Therefore your scientific beliefs are provisional but devout Christian beliefs are not is silly.
““O darling, I love you with all my heart and soul and will do so unconditionally forever.
Provisionally.””
No one may say it -- but there is an implicit within reasonable limits for the unconditionally forever even for those that mean it sincerely.
Deepak @21:
Not quite. Maxwell wrote about his faith and its role in his work. He thought it gave him free rein to investigate; to go wherever those investigations led him, including those areas which other theists might consider “sacred ground”. To me, that’s all that’s required ‘philosophically’ for a scientist.
But, enter the antitheists: If Maxwell was a devout Christian, that means he believes in the ‘supernatural’ intervention of a deity into the workings of the universe. To which my response is (given the above paragraph) “So what? What actual difference in his work would that make?”. But to which a common antitheist response is that he should somehow feel obliged to subject his beliefs to the same rigorous questioning as he applied in his physics, and that if he did that honestly, he would also be an atheist. If he remained a theist, he was either intellectually lazy, or dishonest. Or both! In other words, it’s an ideological purity test.
A personal note: The reason I went into physics was primarily an aesthetic one. The beauty (as well as the power) of the models was irresistible to me. But what does aesthetics have to do with science? Should I not subject that aesthetic feeling to investigation to determine if it is justified? How would I do that? What if our best description of the universe turns out to be (in my eyes) hideously ugly? All questions which I take as seriously as those about Maxwell’s ‘honesty’. That is, not very.
Deepak:
No.
Spouses actually exist.
You now claim you didn’t imagine that, yet you actually wrote that.
You just said it, so clearly one may say it.
—
Rob
It may be common, as you see it, but it’s not what I’m claiming.
There is no such obligation, of course.
And if he had tried (no indication he did, is there?) then the result could just have been frustration, or even vindication — after all, it’s easy to fool oneself.
(Also, shouldn’t one begin by examining whether the Christian god actually exists before trying to examine the veridicality of the claims made about it by Christians? That’s what you did, after all)
What? No, it’s evidence of compartmentalisation, as I’ve noted from the beginning.
And this applies to all forms of superstition, not just theism.
[I can’t but help think of Bertrand Russell as a counterpoint]
John @26: You mean you see no evidence of compartmentalisation in Russell? Is that based simply on his arguments for atheism? If so, does that really suffice for you?
I haven’t read much Russell, but one of the few things I remember is him writing something like “without determinism, science is dead”. Ah well, maybe he changed his mind.
More relevantly: “Russell claimed that beginning at age 15, he spent considerable time thinking about the validity of Christian religious dogma, which he found unconvincing.[97]”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)
Actually, I just rewatched the interview and it merits posting, I think:
A lovely little thinker!
I started thinking about that when I was 11 (give or take). So what? Huh, maybe that was just easier to do in 1965 than it was in 1887.
Easier still to do now.