The “progressive” online magazine Religion Dispatches, supposedly a neutral (i.e., nonreligious) venue for reporting religious activity, recently named “The Top Ten Peacemakers in the Science-Religion Wars.” I won’t name them all, but prepare to be dismayed as you see encomiums given to the following individuals for helping “to spread seeds of peace on the blasted-out battleground of science and religion” (citations are RD’s).
1. Terrence Malick, filmmaker, for reminding us that art may be the most compelling way to reconcile science and religion.
I saw that movie and hated it; the montage of “creation” was way, way over the top, and it was completely infused with the love of God. I’m pretty much alone in my opinion here, and am baffled why so many critics (and readers) like it, but I’ll simply echo what Christopher Hitchens said when he spoke in favor of Holocaust deniers in Toronto (do see his talk in four parts [2, 3, and 4 here] it’s a fantastic talk, empassioned and moving):
“I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”
Moving on, we have:
5. Chris Stedman, interfaith activist and super-swell atheist guy, for decoupling atheism from science, and for being the face of a kinder, gentler atheism
You won’t believe this one:
6. Jack Templeton, surgeon, president and chairman of the John Templeton Foundation, for bringing science into the church
Really? Jack Templeton? He’s far more obnoxious than his God-seeking father who founded the foundation. According to an expose at The Nation, here’s a bit about Jack:
And while its founder preferred eternal questions to worldly politics, the son who has succeeded him, John Templeton Jr.—Jack—is a conservative Evangelical who spends his personal time and money opposing gay marriage and defending the Iraq War. Since his father’s death, concerns have swirled among the foundation’s grantees and critics alike that Jack Templeton will steer the foundation even further rightward and, perhaps, even further from respectable science.
and finally, my favorite accommodationist:
10. Karl Giberson, science & religion writer and former physicist, for reminding evangelicals that science is not the enemy
I can’t bring myself to dislike Uncle Karl, but should point out that I suspect he was bounced as Vice President of BioLogos for being too insistent on good science (i.e., the Adam and Eve story was bogus). I think he found out that science is the enemy of evangelical Christianity.
In 2012, let’s not spread the seeds on that blasted-out battleground of science and faith; let’s lay some mines instead.
That may well be true.
I do get a strong impression that Giberson is true to the science. Where there is tension between science it is the religion that must bend.
Ah, the Milquetoast nominations and hagiographies of the tepid.
Shorter Hitchens: Everyone has freedom of speech, even those fat fucking slags!
“fucking fat slags” FIFY. The word order is important, as “The Fat Slags” is an infamous comic strip in the UK.
/@
PS. I wish everyone a happy and rational new year!
sqrt(-1)
C’mon, Karl. For all the effort you made, and all the grief you’ve suffered, they still put you at the back of the line, two places behind Jon Stewart, for Christ’s sake.
Get out now.
This is what Paul Wallace says about Terrence Malick and The Tree of Life on Wallace’s own blog psnt.net:
“I placed Terrence Malick at the number one spot because he’s a world-class artist who, seemingly without strain, opened reality to us in 2011.”
and
“The Tree of Life is overtly Christian. . . . It’s as if the ends of the spectrum wrap around to meet one another at an unstable and seemingly remote point, nearly impossible to discern, nearly impossible to reach, and not possible to secure. But, miraculously, Malick secured it for us for 139 minutes. This is as close to Jesus Christ as movies get.”
As I read the last line, I was reminded of the hymn, “Closer to Thee.” Yuck!
http://psnt.net/blog/2011/12/yes-the-tree-of-lie-is-a-christmas-movie/
Cristopher Hitchens surely knew that many people shared his support not for holocaust deniers but for the freedom of being able to deny the holocaust – or in other words, the opposition to having the ‘state’ determining what can or cannot be said.
In France it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Remember the Faurisson affair and how Noam Chomsky’s support for freedom of speech in this case made him the target of violent (verbal) attacks, from all quarters, until this day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson
He did not send anyone to the arse line though – Hitchen’s statement does come up as a gimmick to entertain an audience, rather than something from the heart.
Maybe it is time to try another approach. Let us concede that science and religion are compatible and that science is merely a continuation of the search for truth that religion started. We will do this on the condition that religion now follows the scientific method and discards any failed hypothesies that it might be harbouring.
More seriously, science is a disciplined and mostly honest search for truth. Religion consists of desperately clinging onto beliefs that, not only have been disproved, but for which there was no good reason to believe in the first place. Accommodationists are pretending that black is white, lying to religious folk to try and keep them on side.
Me and Wife went to see the Tree of Life thinking it would be about how life came about. But as soon as the Texas seen came about it was all down hill from there. We walked out before it ended. Worst movie we paid to see last year.
Professor Coyne, some comments:
1 – Why the scare quotes? I don’t know much about the website, but an initial perusal reveals a site that provides progressive views on religious matters. Some of these progressive views may not be your progressive views, but that can’t be the basis of your stance. Am I missing something?
2 – Why does a neutral venue for reporting religious activity mean nonreligious? This statement is close to a howler since nonreligious could be read an atheist and how is that a neutral stance? Instead, isn’t the site’s neutrality based on not favoring one religion over another?
3 – Why would I be dismayed at the inclusion of Terence Malick when you readily admit that you hold the minority view, perhaps even among your own readers?
4 – Since Chris Stedman is mentioned with no comment, I take it his inclusion is like mentioning Ann Coulter in the top ten list of insightful political commenters. I’m sure you’ve mentioned him before, but could you remind me with a phrase or a link why he’s a terrible choice?
5 – I can meet you half way with Jack Templeton: the quote from The Nation is disturbing and his inclusion is perhaps not the best choice. However, RD is both specific and detailed in why he is included: spending real amounts of money for reconciling religion with the theory of evolution. For the past century, the denial of evolution is one of the most detrimental stances of many religions, particularly those in America. Openly opposing this is to be commended.
6 – Just how much of the list do you have real disagreements with? Surely not with #3: All Those People Who Are Not Backing the Ark Park. You appear copacetic with Karl Gilberson and I don’t see why there are issues with Nidhal Guessoum, Rachel Held Evans or Tenzin Gyatso. Are you that upset over Jon Stewart for mocking both Christians and atheists or the inclusion of Jon Huntmen for meeting the low bar of simple sanity, a rarity among Republican at the moment?
Top ten lists are a game with inherent biases, so there will always be points of disagreement. They should be judged by whether they clearly specify the rules and provide some details for each choice. Compared to many such lists Religion Dispatches does a decent job.
Finally, you kind of give the game away with your final comment: “In 2012, let’s not spread the seeds on that blasted-out battleground of science and faith; let’s lay some mines instead.” Your problem isn’t the choices made for “The Top Ten Peacemakers in the Science and Relgion War” but the assumption that this list should be included in Santa’s “Nice” list.
Oh, a Gnu Atheist Year point-for-point discussion list! =D
1. Coyne has to speak for himself of course, but I would assume he concludes that open up a venue for accommodationism is not in the spirit of being progressive. As demonstrated in the article, they can’t help themselves on mischaracterizing religion and atheism both, based on a conservative “belief in belief”.
2. Atheism # secularism.
3. It is a terrible movie. ‘Nuff said.
4. What, are you lazy as a kitteh? Here, I googled up the short version: “his coddling of faith, his passive-aggressive hatred of all things Gnu, and his patronizing essays on how atheists must behave.”
It’s not Coulter or Bachmann bad, it’s Haught and Pigliucci bad.
5. You fundamentally can’t “reconcile” religion with science, as the first is in the business of replacing fact with belief and the latter is in the business to replace belief with fact.
It would be like reconciling Coulter with the US constitution. It can’t be done.
6. Not applicable. Also not relevant.
No, it’s not a nice list, but it is not because it is assumed it should be treated as nice. It is a bad boy’s & girl’s list because it is based on the unsupported observation that atheism is a bad thing.
Html fail. Try this link to a WEIT article on Stedman.
Uups, no the link is in the original comment as well. My browser annotates that link funnily, and I missed that.
So! This is how you make the Top 5: By commenting on your own comments! 😉
/@
2. Ricky Gervais: “Unlike religious people I treat all religions equally.”
How can anyone of any religion honestly say that all religions are equally right (without appending an Orwellian, “but some are more equal than others”)?
/@
I like the RD’s tacit note that New Atheism is succeeding:
“Creationism cannot last. The New Atheists are now getting old. And between these camps the middle ground continues to expand.”
“New” atheism is getting old – again! Gnu’s are established, and they open up the Overton window to success against religionism.
Unfortunately that means also accommodationist leeches, and concomitant to that the article ends sadly on the unsupported, erroneous note of “new” atheism as making a moral statement and not being open to the enjoyment of nature’s wonders (“closed-hearted scientism”). Accommodationists are as set on lying for jeebus as other religionists.
I saw Tree of Life yesterday. I have to agree there are too many pretenses to the plot. I found this review by Richard Schickel that sums up what I think was wrong with the movie:
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/the_tree_of_life_terrence_malick_syndrome_strikes_again_20110529/