Hola from Mexico, where the Ciudad de las Ideas meeting starts tonight. Puebla is a nice town, a welcome respite from the hideous, smog-ridden sprawl of Mexico City. Volcanoes are in sight, and the city is rumored to be the gastronomic capital of Mexico, something I hope to investigate. But on to today’s post:
If anything shows that our internet debates on accommodationism have reached an impasse, it’s this curiously inconclusive article by Dan Jones at The New Statesman. There’s no attempt here to go deeper than the quotes of the participants — for example, Jones made no effort to find out if atheists have indeed been “excessively mean,” as accommodationists claim. He doesn’t press those who make this argument for examples, nor look for any himself.
Even Jones himself seems bored with the debate as he reaches the predictable non-commital and middle-of-the-road conclusion beloved by journalists:
In the meantime, there is little reason to suppose that the world will reach any meaningful consensus on the question of how best to engage the public with science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular. Perhaps, in true Darwinian fashion, those arguments and ideas best adapted to the modern world will prevail. In an era of resurgent religion, it is far from clear which approach this will be.
Those last two sentences are completely meaningless filler, designed to look clever. Dan seems like a nice guy, and is no intellectual slouch, but this one he phoned in.
And I guess I’m tired of the debates myself. I’m posting this only because I was intereviewed for the piece, as were several other participants.
I think the world will more interested to read that a cat got swine flu than another inconclusive article on atheist meanness.
Anyone who thinks that religion is resurgent should probably read this.
The effects of outspoken atheism will be evident in polls five years from now as the percentage of people who do not believe in any gods continues to rise. Then the accommodationists can either continue to bury their heads in the sand or join those who no longer stand for the status-quo.
That’s a cheap shot on Mexico City. I’m guessing you didn’t get near the Zocalo. Here’s a quick intro from Lonely Planet on what to see.
“our internet debates on accommodationism have reached an impasse”
I would suggest that there is new ground to be made by ‘reframing’ (see what I did there?) the loaded term ‘new atheist’ as the more accurate and neutral term ‘unapologetic atheist’. See Mano Singham’s latest post on this: http://blog.case.edu/singham/2009/11/05/introducing_the_unapologetic_atheist
I have personally tried this and found it to be quite effective at stopping the ‘strident/rude/militant’ smear in its tracks. See the comments to the article at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-new-crybaby-theists-20091105-hyyc.html
In terms of using ‘unapologetic’ against accommodationists, the main point would be that we personally believe that science is epistemologically incompatible with faith, and we see no reason to apologize for stating that belief publicly. There’s nothing wrong with that idea, and there’s no reason to apologize for it. Furthermore, this taboo against hurting the religious sensitivities of faith-believers is dangerous and illegitimate And we’re not going to apologize for saying that, either.
This taboo being enforced by accommodationists is the same taboo being enforced by the Greg Cravens and the Courtier’s Repliers who so lamely avoid the arguments of atheists. It’s the exact same taboo. So, I think the term ‘unapologetic’ is useful to counter it in both cases.
Did you fly over Mexico City in the daylight, Jerry? It’s breathtaking. Of course, all sorts of things can be breathtaking from a distance. The place does have its downside once you actually land.
Yes, it was breathtakingly HUGE! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a massive city from the air. And it was covered with a fine veil of brownish-gray smog. I was glad to be out ot there–Puebla is MUCH nicer.
Ah, it actually wasn’t smoggy the day I flew over it (11 years ago). I was able to gawk at its immensity without that problem.
But meanwhile, I came here for a different reason: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
Say hello to my brother if you bump into him, would you? He’s in Mexico City all week. 🙂
Peter, you forgot to tell him what color bow tie your brother is wearing so he can recognize him.
But speaking of New Statesman, which otherwise is a rather fine paper, there’s an even more idiotic piece about how “faith in science is a belief”. The writer, Sholto Byrnes, takes a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal judge’s ruling and flies off with it into bizarro world. Hadn’t Judge Jones already thought of the phrase in a slightly different context, “breathtaking inanity” would have to be invented just for this occasion.
Ah, Sholto Byrnes…
Hahahahahahahaha
I noticed that Melanie Phillips did a piece criticizing the same ruling but for the entirely idiotic reasoning that “the effect of this is to downgrade religion because it elevates other ideas to the same status. Indeed it would appear that just about any idea system however bizarre can lay claim to equal status on this basis. Christians are up in arms and no wonder, since it down-grades real religion as a result.”
And I guess I’m tired of the debates myself. I’m posting this only because I was intereviewed for the piece, as were several other participants.
I’m tired of it too. So how about we dispense with all this talk about whether science and religion are compatible and, instead, put science to work testing your hypothesis? If science and religion are truly incompatible, as you claim, one ought to be able to discern it in the scientific work of actual — you know — scientists. So how about (per Prof. Heddle) a blind test where competent, working scientists are asked to review peer-reviewed papers and discern if they are written by atheists or believers? We might even create a sub-set of reviewers including elite scientists, to see if they are even more discerning. If you are correct, there ought to be evidence for your claim. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same — so much sanctimonious drivel.
Why not put the onus on the believers. Let them prove there is a compatibility. One can never prove a negative so let them. Prove that someone can be totally rational on one subject and irrational on another. Show neurological proof that one is not affected by the other.
No, I think the claim came from Francis Collins before being denied by Jerry Coyne.
That Collins may also be making affirmative claims doesn’t provide Prof. Coyne with an excuse to avoid supporting his affirmitive claims. Moreover, even if we assume that Collins made a compatibility claim first (I don’t know if he did or not), to which Prof. Coyne is responding, Collins has made his prima facie case by pointing to himself. He’s a (rather good) scientist who is also a believer.
Now, with respect to Prof. Coyne’s assertion that those who point out the existence of scientists who are also believers as evidence in support of compatibility are making a point that is trivial and irrelevant (as if pointing out that the existence of adulterers means that marriage and adultery are compatible), he quite spectacularly (intentionally?) misses the point. Without a clear and universal definition of what science is (and thus a clear demarcarcation of what science is not), the best evidence of what science is comes from the behavior of scientists who, by definition [gasp], do science. Nowhere (that I’m aware of, at least) does Prof. Coyne offer such a definition. Accordingly, the existence of believers who are also scientists is terrific evidence that religion and science are indeed compatible. That said, this prima facie case could be undercut by evidence that the science done by believers is inferior in some way to that done by atheists. Thus my proposed test.
Any takers?
I think it is Robocop who misses the point. Actually many points.
Robocop thinks that if he states things four times, they become true.
Robocop thinks that if he states things four times, they become true.
Translation: “New England Bob doesn’t have any evidence of incompatibility.”
I’ll keep asking for evidence until you actually provide some.
Got any?
“I’ll keep asking for evidence until you actually provide some.”
Translation: Robocop doesn’t have any evidence of compatibility. There have been tons of evidence provided here of incompatibility.
Robocop obviously thinks this test is logical since he’s posted the same point on another board. He fails to realize that both theistic and atheistic scientists carry out their peer reviewed scientific work using the principles of methodological naturalism – in other words both groups act as if atheism is true and theism is incompatible with published science. If science and religion really was compatible we would expect to see published articles such as the following:
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/06/nature-accomodationist.html
Nonsense.
Being incompatible, by definition, means being unable to exist in harmony. If religion were truly incompatible with science, it would have to show up in the work. A really good “accomodationist” might be able to cover up his or her infection for a while, but real incompatibility would have to show up over time.