Uncle Karl has left Biologos (and his university), but is still writing for PuffHo. His latest piece, “The anointed leaders of the religious right,” is largely about amateur historian David Barton and similar rabble-rousers who, says Giberson, are infecting American evangelical Christians with a debased populism. But his piece is also permeated with defeatism: a defeatism that evangelical anti-intellectualism is refractory to cure. And that includes Christians’ rejection of evolution:
Unfortunately Barton shares the Right’s academic stage with discouragingly similar leaders in other fields. In The Anointed, Stephens and I note the degree to which American evangelicalism has created its own set of homegrown academic “experts” who preach comforting messages at odds with generally accepted understandings of the modern world.
Many evangelicals get their ideas about origins from Ken Ham, architect of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which features stunning dioramas of Adam and Eve interacting with dinosaurs. The result is that most evangelicals think the earth is a few thousand years old and that evolution is a conspiracy. When Republican presidential hopefuls are asked if they believe in evolution, they dare not answer yes, for fear of offending their antievolutionary base. Unfortunately, most of them don’t even want to answer yes. And this, despite the highly visible presence of Francis Collins at the helm of the NIH. Collins is thoroughly evangelical and, as he and I have argued in our recent book, The Language of Science and Faith, there is simply no reason why evangelicals need to reject evolution in favor of the fanciful tales told by Ken Ham and other creationists. But Collins exerts no more influence on the science of the religious Right than Noll does on its history.
Look at that last sentence: it’s a pretty explicit admission that the mission of BioLogos, which is to turn evangelical Christians toward evolution, has failed. (The organization was founded by Francis Collins.) But of course that mission was doomed from the outset, for asking evangelicals to accept evolution is asking them to not only reject Biblical literalism (though not all evangelicals embrace this view), but also to see humans not as the apex of creation, but as only one branch of a ramifying and materialistic process.
I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that evangelical resistance to accommodationism explains why Giberson is no longer at BioLogos.
I don’t see this as the greatest source of conflict, though. After all, if atheists can happily accept that they’re not the center of the universe, religious people should be able as well. No, I thik it’s a much more basic conflict about authority.
The problem that even accommodationists can’t get around, is that to avoid conflicts, theology must move under the constant pressure of science. Accommodationism means that the conflict between science and religion is resolved by the submission of religion, and by admitting that science has greater authority than theology. This is never going to be acceptable for anyone who thinks that God and Church are the highest authorities.
It is about authority and it is also about self-assurance. Nobody wants to admit that their long-held set of beliefs is wrong and will hold onto those beliefs even when faced with the evidence.
Just look at the news articles about the May 21 Rapture people. Every time they interview someone who is part of this cult, they ask, “what if you’re wrong, what are you going to do on May 22.” They just insist that they are not wrong. They won’t even consider the possibility of being wrong. The more I think and read, the more I’ve come to agree with Jerry: accomodationism does not work. Acceptance of evolution and other scientific realities will only come when religion’s influence is lessened.
I hope some smart sociologist or cultural anthropologist is following these people around.
Come May 22, they’re going to be a terrific case study for cognitive dissonance.
Of course, the research is already pretty clear — they’ll cling to their beliefs. They’ll try to find some person who just “disappeared” and claim they were raptured. They’ll continue to pray (and donate to Harold Camping) well past the October “end of the world” deadline.
I think we need an intervention. I think the best way to intervene in such cases is mockery.
“You still believe in Santa Claus” kind of mockery. Expose their beliefs as childish twaddle. The hard-core converts won’t listen, but it will be more difficult for them to fleece any more people or to gain new converts.
Public shaming. That’s what should come next.
Mockery is 100% necessary. “More flies w honey” won’t get us anywhere. It needs to be clear that it’s becoming increasingly unacceptable to hold on to religious nonsense – that people who do will pay a social price.
I thought the end of the world was this weekend?
I have plans and everything!
Being at the early edge of time like I am, I will be able to tell you all who has been raptured a FULL DAY ahead of most of you in the US.
I’m only charging a nominal fee for this incredible information, which will give you the head’s up on which houses, business, cars, and other property will immediately be available upon previous owner’s being raptured!
send 9.95 (via paypal or credit) to:
Iam@fuckingnuts.com
enjoy your new bounty!
Which is why I think the New Atheists are right: you need to question the authority of religion as a whole.
It’s been done, see “When Prophecy Fails”. Those who were surrounded by group memebers at the time continued on in increased zealousness for the leader, those at home with family or friends who laughed at them tended to abandon the cause.
I don’t agree that the mission of Biologos is to “turn evangelical Christians toward evolution.”
It appears to me that its mission is to keep Christians (evangelical or otherwise) in the flock (or, if possible, win some back to the flock).
The official mission statement is the usual vague mush about dialogues between faith and science, lack of a conflict, etc. Nowhere do I see Biologos say that it wants to bring Christians to an acceptance of science.
But when you read what the leaders of Biologos write about their motivation, it’s pretty clear that their real concern is the “tragedy” of young scientists abandoning their faith when they discover how they’ve been lied to.
I’m sure Biologos believes that their “reconciliation” of science and faith will encourage some Christians to believe in evolution, but that doesn’t seem to be an explicit goal.
Let us never forget: “BioLogos,” literally translated from the pseudo-Greek, is “LifeWord.”
According to John 1:1 and John 14:6, Jesus is the Word of Life.
The Institute has never pretended to be anything other than an organization for evangelical Christian proselytizing.
Cheers,
b&
I dunno, I think Screechy Monkey has a point. Biologos seems more dedicated to patting the Mooney brigade on the head than actually convincing anyone of anything they don’t already believe.
Dan, I think Ben and I are in agreement. At least that’s how I read his comment — we both think that Biologos is more about propounding apologetics so that scientists can remain Christians than about getting Christians to support science.
I’d quibble with your statement about “patting the Mooney brigade on the head.” I think it’s the other way around: the Mooneys are the ones patting the Biologos folks on the head for being good, nice, moderate Christians, who shouldn’t have to deal with the horrible abuse of Gnu Atheists saying, “sorry, I think you’re wrong.”
I need more coffee. I mixed the two lines and saw “Screechy Mooney”.
Religious apologetics, like those offered by Biologos, are generally geared toward keeping believers from leaving by fending off reasons to doubt or abandon the faith. Their arguments and evidences are generally far too weak to convince anyone who didn’t already hold such beliefs. But if one already has a religious belief, almost any defense of it will do.
Agreed. And this is why accommodation, sensu stricto, is an absurd enterprise. The failure of so many religious people to accept scientific understanding isn’t a problem for science. It’s a problem for religion. It is the alliance of the faithful™ who must accommodate some part of reality if they hope to keep any part of the next generation deluded.
What accommodationists say: “You can accept evolution without giving up religion.”
What creationists hear: “You don’t have to give up religion; you just have to give up your religion.”
Exactly. That, and “Of course you won’t start questioning your faith over evolution – never mind the atheists in that corner.”
Accomidationists are arguing from a weakened position and are doomed to failure.
Accommodationism doesn’t have much to recommend itself as a conversion tactic.
Those who are brought up in the tradition are (with a few obvious exceptions) not particularly scientifically literate themselves, and the appeal in accommodationism is simply the smug knowledge that your position is more “sophisticated” (or nuanced, if you will) than the fundamentalist one. It’s a mental trick to allow oneself cognitive dissonance on the occasions when one is presented with science contradicting faith, no more, no less.
As such, it has no real appeal to someone who takes a literalist view of religion. Literalists don’t much care that they are in complete contradiction of the accepted consensus of the scientific community. And let’s face it, neither do the accommodationists whenever their “nuanced” beliefs run headlong into evidence pointing the other way. An Intelligent Designer is still an Intelligent Designer, whether is is an old white-bearded man in the clouds or quantum fluctuations making small but telling adjustments.
I ought to clarify: I don’t think accommodationism is doomed; merely accommodationism as a way of reaching the fundamentalists & denialists is ultimately futile.
Accommodationism is however exactly what you are looking for if you are either
A) scientifically literate
OR
B) hold aspirations of being scientifically literate
AND
still want to believe in whatever supernatural entity you fancy.
However, this makes it clear that it is a mechanism for preserving faith and not a mechanism for ensuring scientific literacy.
Meh. I think if you’re smart and somewhat educated and you wish to reconcile evolution with your religious beliefs, you’ll find a way without the help of BioLogos and others. You’ll do what religious scientists have always done, sacrifice more and more of the bible by calling it metaphor, wall off part of your mind and get on with things. At best BioLogos just adds an air of respectability but I don’t think this is in short supply.
It takes continuous work to totally reject science so fundies need help if they are to survive. Fully rejecting faith is also hard in societies where faith is dominant so these people also need help.
BioLogos and / or Templeton is a whole ‘nother thing.
Most accommodationists have nothing to do with either.
It is true that most accomodationists are not directly involved with either Biologos or Templeton, but both organisations are important supporters of the accomodationist cause.
The whole accomodationist manifesto is about theology, and not science.
Accomo’s are just boring to read and get no press coverage because they don’t stand for anything. They are full of “we need a big tent” and “we need to form alliances”.. yeah good luck with that. Nobody is paying attention.
Even within religions, the ‘big tent’ principal doesn’t do much, like the religious multi-faith organization that wouldn’t run pro-gay religious ads on its website for fear of offending the anti-gay members. What’s the point of being in that tent then?
Likewise here… what does science get out of religion? They’re just people who say ‘no’ to various things for reasons that involve old books, rather than good arguments.
There’s this “those atheists are horrible” tent in which everyone poo-poos atheists for not accepting religion as The Truth. Those inside the tent talk about getting along and about the great unifying power of religion just as they preach conflicting ‘truths’ to each of their own congregations.
Well, I for one am glad for Karl’s admission. It’s hard to eat humble pie, so this must be terribly difficult for him. I commend him.
One last step and you’re done, Karl. It’s quite an easy one, really. And it’s just this:
There is no god; not even yours. All gods are mythological creatures born of the minds of men. Superstitious, primitive men (or outright charlatans, as in the case of $cientology).
Once you glom onto that fact (yes, fact), then Hawking makes complete sense. No god = no heaven, which also = no hell = no afterdeath = no judgment = no divinely given morality. Just humans scraping along, trying to do the best they can in a demon-haunted world.
(BTW: Mooney, are you listening? Someone just changed their mind. Oooo, I thought that was impossible.)
Of course he’s not listening; he never is.
Count me among those who suspect that he took that step many years ago. Pretending to be Christian is a common deceit, and Giberson’s writing is filled with suggestions that it doesn’t really matter if any of this is true.
One day soon Karl might look around and realise, as I did, that he doesn’t actually believe any of the things he’s been trying to believe but failing. And that he’s a much more honest person now that he’s stopped trying to believe in what he knows is not true.
Which, of course, proves Mooney wrong (again!).
You can overcome cognitive dissonance. Happens all the time. May not be easy.
But even an N of 1 proves Mooney’s assertions are nothing but hot air.
And you’re that N. (Not me; I never really believed in god.).
Wow, that must have been very hard to write. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but props to Giberson.
And just because I so want to believe this, I have to ask: is it really true? Do these high-profile tepid theistic scientists really carry no sway with the fundies or have they just not worked hard and long enough? I can muster a lot of evidence to support “accomodationists are teh sux” but I wonder if this is selection bias.
I’m interested to see what others think and what sort of observations we can point to to defend our position.
Yep, it’s a pretty serious volte-face for Giberson to diss Collins’ influence like that. I wonder what happened to make him so disenchanted with the BioLogos approach?
Yes, props to him. He’s impressive.
As Matt noted above, it’s about theology and not science. Collins and BioLogos have influence only with xians who are open to listening to scientists who are also evangelicals. However, the majority of evangelicals see science as the atheistic enemy, and thus remain anti-science no matter who the scientist is, and anti-intellectual no matter who the intellectual is.
The evangelicals that I have encountered on the Net say that of course they would listen to Collins about science because he is also an evangelical and when they do listen, it takes a few seconds for them to stop listening because Collins does not say what they expected an evangelical to say regarding evolution which it is bogus.
Agreed – I should have said listen and actually think about it! What many evangelicals do when the encounter something rational that contradicts their doctrine is to simply misappropriate and quote Corinthians 3:19 that claims the wisdom of this world is foolishness for god – so I presume that they are equating themselves with god by rejecting the wisdom of the world.
I heard Collins speak in front of a large (>1000) audience of evangelicals a few years back. I would say 75% were ‘young earthers.’ They did stay to listen to a message mostly built on accomodationism. Organizations like BioLogos and Reasons to Believe (for over 25 years) have been trying to patiently convince the evangelical community that science is not the enemy of faith and both ‘books’ can (and should) be reconciled with RTB leaning more towards concordism than BioLogos.
And the book they wrote? Pulp?
(subscribing)
Uncle Karl’s problem is that he has a brain and he’s not afraid to use it.
Unk took quite a pounding around here for his equivalence (as I read it) of mythology and science. The Accommodationalist would say, “Let’s agree to disagree.” And I would say, “No, you’re wrong.”
The Gibper gave it a good college try and when he realized his position was weak, he changed his position.
Yes, Karl, I believe that you and John Spong stand toe-to-toe on the same line. One more step and it will be May 22nd, the sun will shine, the birds will sing and all will be well.
Join us, Karl, we have cookies!
I suspect he’s considering it!
More than cookies we have Christmas, Easter egg hunts, Mardi Gras, parties, celebrations, love and cats!
(Sorry, Jerry) but another moronic rabbi at the HuffPo (is that all they hire?) commented that rational people miss out on all this because, well, I guess, they’re rational. Silly, rabbi, kicks are for everybody, not just Thridds.
You’ve actually nailed the reason I’m a Unicorintarian rather than a Pastafarian.
Sure, the idea of the Pastafarian’s stripper factory and beer volcano is cute and all, but we Unicornitarians get to celebrate every holiday, religious or otherwise — and that’s real, not imaginary.
That, and I actually like ham and pineapple pizza and never really cared for mushrooms.
Cheers,
b&
Pineapple pizza? Ewww. I’d rather have one topped with fondled intestines.
Atheists can enjoy non-rational states without sacrificing their rationality.
Parties are perfectly rational
Beer + Theme + Good Friends = Great time.
Ah, but it would appear that he has too many book projects that require him to remain in the evangelical camp. We’ll just have to keep to door open.
Ah well. I’m inviting him to the next baby roast regardless.
But he has to bring the lemon squares for dessert.
Perhaps he could alter the deal. Strident Gnu books sell better that accomodationist waffle so the publishers may be happy to make the change!
“Accomodationism Fails, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Gnus.”
But he’d be sacrificing his purity of essence.
He’s leaving Biologos – but that doesn’t mean he’s changing his view altogether.
It doesn’t mean he’s changed his views – he still seems to be an evangelical christian who accepts (most of) evolution. I think the biggest loser in this situation is the basic Mooney-ist accomodationist position.
That position is that the best way to increase the acceptance of evolution in society is to use exclusively religious scientists as promoters of evolution and scientific consensus (global climate change, vaccination etc).
What we have from Giberson is an admission that this strategy is simply not working. One of the most prominent scientists in the US is an evangelical christian and a firm believer in evolution and yet this has no traction with the evangelical community who choose Ken Ham (and will, no doubt, choose Kent Hovind when he gets out) as their sources of scientific knowledge.
Mooney claims that the approach of the gnus doesn’t work with evangelicals – with the unstated assumption that therefore the accomodationist biologos approach must be the better choice. What we see from Giberson’s words is an admission that the accomodationist approach has no effect on the same target.
I think calling Accomodationism “doomed” overstates the matter. It may well be that the Biologos group is doomed; however, that’s like saying because a mouse dies, mice are doomed to extinction.
As a first approximation, there’s a linear ordering from “atheistic evolution” to “divine creation”. (Second order, there are differences on one hand between assorted evolutionary hypotheses, and on the other between islamic versus christian creationism; not relevant to this discussion, however.) However, not everyone is comfortable at those extremes; thus, intermediate position clusters show up, such as Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creation. Accomodationist groups tend to gain membership from both directions, with pro-evolution individuals and pro-religion individuals each wanting to encourage others to be more accepting of the ideas they favor.
These groups likely act as a catalyst for changing attitudes, by giving social support at an intermediate position that requires a lower degree of cognitive dissonance between experience and worldview to transit to than going all the way from one extreme to another. (I suspect an analogy to the activation energy for chemical reactions.) The catch of such positions is that they may lack fundamental long-term stability. The organizations face criticisms (within or without) on one side from anti-accomodationists such as PZ who think they are deferring too much to religion, and from evangelicals such as R. Albert Mohler Jr. who think that too little recognition is given to scriptural authority. Thus, the groups may tend to fade away from one cause or another; however, new groups are formed because the underlying advantage of facilitating partial shifts remains.
So, while Biologos may be doomed, I suspect a new group will shortly arise in about the same niche once it falls. Similarly, I would expect that should the Discovery Institute run out of funding and be ridiculed out of existence within the next decade or so, those who now rally behind its banner would likely reorganize behind another — much as the Discovery Institute seems largely a regrouping of Creation Science supporters.
Sorta like Whack-a-Mole…
I couldn’t get past “atheistic evolution.” What is it? If it’s the same evolution found in the literature, as I suspect, then what’s so extreme about it? Rather, any variant from just evolution, from theistic evolution to YEC, are different shades of extreme.
The whole thing is very simple. Listen, if each time science discovers something, theology has to add yet another a posteriori layer of rationalizations in order to acommodate the new discovery, then obviously we have a compatibility problem.