Tania Lombrozo is an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley who has begun writing for “cosmos & culture“, the National Public Radio’s (NPR’s) website for “commentary of science and society”.  And she is gunning for a spot on Professor Ceiling Cat’s List of “Most Annoying Accommodationists,” as she notes in her piece.

I must confess that I’m puzzled and annoyed by NPR’s constant pandering towards faith.  Their religion correspondent, who regularly osculates the rump of faith, is Barbara Bradley Hagerty, author of Fingerprints of God: What Science is Learning about the Brain and Spiritual Experience, and a self-described “serious mainstream Christian.” NPR also  has the odious Krista Tippett, always wheedling her guests, scientists or otherwise, to confess their “spiritual” leanings. And now we have Tania Lombrozo, who’s writing a series of pieces for NPR’s cosmos & culture site that can be construed as nothing else but a defense of religion. To my mind, a radio network with a reputation for liberal and incisive reporting simply has no business stroking the faithful over and over again as if they were Persian cats.

I don’t listen much to NPR, but if they have an atheist correspondent, or discuss disbelief with the same frequency as belief, I don’t know about it.  In the next two days I want to highlight two of Lombrozo’s pieces, taking up the first, “Science vs. religion: a heated debate fueled by disrespect,” this morning. The piece I’ll discuss tomorrow, about why faith can be rational, is more problematic.

The “heated debate” piece is basically a call for comity between believers and atheists, but is written in such a way that it manages to not just ask for civil discourse, but to give credibility to faith.  In that sense it’s very clever.

Lombrozo’s essay was motivated in part by the strong reaction against journalist Virginia Heffernan’s declaration that she was a creationist. (One reaction that Lombrozo implies was out of line is that Heffernan’s piece was “intellectually vapid.” This distressed her, although I can’t imagine why.  It’s easy to understand why there would be a strong backlash against a popular technology writer who suddenly declares belief in the literalism of a fairy tale because the Bible is a better story than evolution.

To be fair, Lombrozo also notes America’s widespread disapprobation of atheism. But then, Gould-like, she calls for the concordat:

Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it’s hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don’t simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.

I’m not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn’t necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a “charitable ground,” if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people’s religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt and deeply reasoned as our own, and that there’s value in understanding why others believe what they do.

I crossed out the problematic part.

I have no quarrel with any of this except for two things: the possibility that there can be a meaningful dialogue between science and religion, and the idea that religious commitments can be “as deeply reasoned” as scientific ones.

Science has only two things to contribute to religion: an analysis of the evolutionary, cultural, and psychological basis for believing things that aren’t true, and a scientific disproof of some of faith’s claims (e.g., Adam and Eve, the Great Flood).  Religion has nothing to contribute to science, and science is best off staying as far away from faith as possible.  The “constructive dialogue” between science and faith is, in reality, a destructive monlogue, with science making all the good points, tearing down religion in the process.

Second, what on earth does Lombrozo mean adherence to religion being “deeply reasoned”? That may be true in the sense of someone saying, “Well, I’d be a mess without Jesus, so I’d better accept him as savior,” but that’s not “reason” in the scientific sense.

I suppose I’d better mention Lombrozo’s shout-out to this site:

On the other side, a comment at Jerry Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution Is True, suggested that — in light of the article — I should be added to Coyne’s list of “Most Annoying Accommodationists (Female Category).” The main target of Coyne’s original post was Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist who has studied and written about supernatural beliefs. Highlighting a major offense, Coyne wrote of Luhrmann:

“What’s most annoying is that she keeps her own beliefs under wraps, trying to cater to believers of all stripes while not alienating any of them.”

Is it so terrible to try to be accessible to a broad audience with diverse beliefs, and to prefer not to alienate people? Is it terribly naïve of me to think that we can have real discussion about difficult issues without being dismissive of alternative positions or those who hold them?

My view was that Luhrmann, who has been notoriously cagey about her own beliefs while constantly telling us why religion is good, has an obligation to share her own beliefs because she participated in some of the activities of the churches on which she reported. Was that merely an anthropological experience, or did she share some of these beliefs?  While telling us that prayer is good, she refuses to tell us whether she thinks belief in God is true.  That seems to me not the objective stance of an anthropologist, but a form of intellectual cowardice.  And really, what is the downside here? Lombrozo gives away the game by noting that if Luhrmann said what she really believed, she would “alienate people.”  Well, you don’t have to do that when it’s not appropriate (I don’t mention atheism in WEIT), but such a confession is certainly relevant to Luhrmann’s many writings and op-eds on religion. Why should anybody refuse to confess what they believe if it’s relevant? I have no compunction in telling people, when I talk about religion and science, that I’m an atheist. I don’t care if that makes them alienated, for I accomplish nothing by hiding what I think.

Anyway, Lombrozo then gives a list of four things she isn’t saying when she calls for an amiable discussion (these points are indented):

All perspectives are equally valid. They certainly are not. We may not have everything figured out yet, but some perspectives are better supported by evidence and arguments than others.

Indeed, and here science has a clear advantages, for we have the evidence.  So why not just say that? I’ve always argued that, à la Peter Boghossian, while people deserve respect, ideas don’t.  There is nothing wrong with strongly attacking ideas, or even making fun of them when they’re ludicrous (e.g., pot and sodomy as causes of the Colorado floods). Too, when a group of people becomes literally deranged by faith, as with those Muslims who went on murderous rampages when the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons were published, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that those people have been driven mad by religion, and are dangerous.

It’s perfectly OK for people to believe whatever they want. Most beliefs are fine. Some lead people to do unfortunate things, whether it’s support female genital mutilation or dismiss climate change. Part of me thinks there’s nothing wrong with any beliefs, only with particular actions. The problem is that actions and beliefs often go hand in hand.

And who among us atheists has said otherwise? The problem with religion is that, because it combines the idea of absolute truth with that of a God-approved morality (a toxic combination), it is almost certain to lead to actions.

Well, on second thought, there is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. That’s because it softens the mind and makes it possible to have other unsubstantiated beliefs. In other words, it enables faith.  This is why moderate religionists give cover to their more extreme brethren: they know that, at bottom, they all believe in stuff that can’t be proven, and so see themselves in the same boat.  Now I suppose you could call that “cover” a form of action, but it involves words rather than deeds.

You shouldn’t try to change someone’s mind when it comes to scientific or religious beliefs. When you’re trying to enjoy a nice family meal with your conservative Christian in-laws and your card-carrying Skeptics Society cousins, maybe you shouldn’t. It’s up to you. But as far as I’m concerned, there are some contexts in which it is appropriate to aim for persuasion, provided you do so respectfully and not dogmatically.

No disagreement here, save for a failure of Lombrozo to explain what she means by “respectfully and not dogmatically.” Remember that many religious people consider any criticism of their faith as disrespectful. I’ve had very liberal religious friends get extremely touchy when I ask the mildest questions about their faith. And as for dogmatism, is it dogmatic to ask people, “Where’s your evidence?” How can one be dogmatic about a failure to provide convincing evidence?

We shouldn’t engage in serious debate about personal or sensitive issues. Of course we should. But serious, constructive debate is not only consistent with a charitable and respectful attitude toward your conversant, it may require it.

Again, these are words that sound good, and certainly one shouldn’t engage in ad hominems, but I find it hard to be “charitable” towards those who see homosexuality as a sin or want to kill apostates or those who give the wrong name to teddy bears.  As for “constructive” debate, Lombrozo ain’t gonna get it. Atheism and religion are implacably opposed, and there simply isn’t any middle ground where their ideas are concerned.

Finally, Lombrozo tells us what she wants:

We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let’s find some charitable ground.

Now this again sounds good, but apply this prescription to other beliefs, say in homeopathy, spiritual healing, UFO abduction, or, indeed, racism—for racists often have deep beliefs in the inferiority of other races, and can even, like theologians, quote bogus “evidence” for their beliefs.  And racists aren’t always stupid or heartless. Why must we accord special respect to beliefs that are, in the end, as silly as those of, say, Catholicism or Islam?

I agree with Lombrozo that religious people don’t often believe because they’re immoral or heartless or elitist.  But, yes, many of them have been brainwashed, having absorbed religion when they’re young and impressionable. Has Lombrozo heard about madrasas or Catholic schools? That is brainwashing, pure and simple, and that form of inculcation often remains with people into adulthood—though they manage to find high-sounding ways to rationalize it later.

If all Lombrozo is saying is “let’s not call our opponents names,” then I’m largely on board with her, though name-calling in the form of sarcasm can sometimes be remarkably effective (viz., George Carlin). Her big error is assuming that “respectful debate and discussion” between believers and nonbelievers will actually accomplish something.  The only thing it accomplishes is polarization—except for those few people, like Jerry DeWitt or some of my correspondents, who give up their faith because they realized that science is on the right side. But that is usually accomplished via reading and reflection, not discussion.

What we have in Lombrozo’s essay is simply a “why can’t we all get along?” kind of pablum.  Well, one could have said the same thing to segregationists in the early Sixties.  Why can’t racists and civil rights activists have had respectful discussions?  Lombrozo will bridle here, saying, “It’s not fair to compare believers to racists.” But in many respects the comparison is apt, for religious belief (even without action) often marginalizes people, including gays, women, and those of other faiths. It’s divisive by its very nature.  I don’t want to sit down and have a respectful discussion with an extremist Muslim, a devout Catholic, or a faithful Mormon. What is to be accomplished by such a chat? I’d rather talk to and write for those who are on the fence than talk to those who are in the asylum.

It is this kind of feel-good “NOMAism” that is endemic to venues like National Public Radio.  But in the end it says nothing except “be nice.” It’s just high-class tone trolling. Faith has real dangers in this world, and those won’t go away by having “respectful dialogue” with the faithful.  They will go away with books like The God Delusion, Religion Poisons Everything, The End of Faith, and Breaking the Spell.

As for that debate with religionists, well, it looks good on their c.v. but not so good on mine.

___________

A final note: as I suspected, Lombrozo’s research (on cognition) is funded by The Templeton Foundation.