Another critic writes in touting the scientific rationality of Islam and decrying the moral failures of atheism

December 15, 2020 • 9:00 am

Since Yahoo! News reprinted my essay from The Conversation arguing that science and religion are incompatible, I’ve been getting lots of emails, nearly all from people who disagree with me. The accommodationists are, of course, religionists, and don’t like to hear that their faith puts them at odds with science. Many of them, like the reader below, also takes atheism to task. I’ve redacted this writer’s name because, unlike the Vatican Vice Astronomer, I don’t think the name is relevant.

This correspondent tries to make two points. First, Islam is not nearly as strongly at odds with science as is Christianity. Second, that religion gives us a moral framework but atheism doesn’t.  Both points are wrong, and I’ll respond to each separately.  The quotes the writer gives within his/her email are put in italics and quotation marks, for the “extra indent” feature isn’t working right now.

Read and weep:


Thank you for the article Yes, there is a war between science and religion. There are two reasons why I would argue that the article reflects atheism in denial of its own shortcomings. You write

“In the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the ‘truths’ undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet, people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect.”

Here you are clearly extrapolating your own experiences with Christian apologists to followers of other religions: in particular Islam. I’d argue that Muslims have no need for “wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions” when forming a judgement about the reliability of their religion. It is common for atheists to  assume that the conflicts between the Bible and scientific evidence (e.g. the descriptions of the Flood, the Exodus or age of the earth) applies equally to the Quran. However, to my knowledge there has been no serious scholarly effort to support this assumption or more generally to show that the Quranic accounts and claims are in conflict with what we have learned through science.

For example, a reading of the Quranic account of the Flood would reveal that it occurred over a short period (a couple of days), the animals preserved were only those required to support a small human settlement and there is no mention of the whole earth being flooded. In regard to the Exodus, the Moses leads a small group of people into the desert, much less in number than the Pharaoh’s pursuing army, so one would not expect to find evidence of over 1 million people roaming the desert for 40 years. In addition, the Quran predicts the preservation of the Pharaoh’s body for future generations. Finally while there is no mention of the Earth’s age, there is a description of the creation of the universe which appears consistent with what we’ve been able to learn through science.

So I think its fair to say that atheists have a lot more work to do to make their case than many are prepared to acknowledge.

The email went on, but let me stop and respond:

As I pointed out in an email to this person, there is a growing literature on the incompatibility of science and Islam.  Here’s how I responded when the person asked for even one piece of literature pointing out an Islamic incompatibility between science and faith.

First, there’s Taner Edis’s book (click on screenshot):

Another book by Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy on the stifling of scientific thought and rationality by modern Islam (and how that contrasts with the faith’s more open attitude centuries ago). 


An article from Discover Magazine (click on screenshot:


A quote from the article:

“This tendency [of Muslim accommodationists] to use their knowledge of science to ‘prove’ that the religious interpretations of life are correct is really corrupting,” he tells me. Soltan, who got his doctorate at the University of Northern Illinois, works in a small office that’s pungent with tobacco smoke; journals and newspapers lie stacked on his desk and floor. “Their methodology is bad,” he says. Soltan explains that Islamic scientists start with a conclusion (the Koran says the body has 360 joints) and then work toward proving that conclusion. To reach the necessary answer they will, in this instance, count things that some orthopedists might not call a joint. “They’re sure about everything, about how the universe was created, who created it, and they just need to control nature rather than interpret it,” Soltan adds. “But the driving force behind any scientific pursuit is that the truth is still out there.”

“Researchers who don’t agree with Islamic thinking ‘avoid questions or research agendas’ that could put them in opposition to authorities — thus steering clear of intellectual debate. In other words, if you are a scientist who is not an Islamic extremist, you simply direct your work toward what is useful. Scientists who contradict the Koran ‘would have to keep a low profile.”’When pressed for examples, Soltan does not elaborate.”

I talk about this kind of Islamic confirmation bias in Faith Versus Fact. It’s pervasive and at once annoying and amusing.

I’ve personally encountered Qur’anic opposition to science—and especially evolution—many times, as has Richard Dawkins. It often comes in the form, as Pitock notes, of saying that the Qur’an is remarkably prescient about science, with its human creation myth coincident with the evolutionary scenario. If you think that’s true, just read about the Qur’anic account itself.  Page 105 of Faith versus Fact shows the desperate lengths that some Muslim scientists go to comport science with the Qur’an.

The resistance of Islam to evolution is not, of course, universal, even within Muslim countries. Surprisingly, Iran doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with evolution being taught in its schools, while Iraq, on the other hand, has always had problems teaching evolution, and has dropped it from secondary-school curricula. Turkey, increasingly becoming a theocracy, did the same thing a few years ago.

The problem comes because many Muslims are Qur’anic literalists. Here are two plots from a 2012 Pew Poll: the first on the proportion of people in (mostly African) Muslim-majority countries who think the Qur’an should be read literally, and then the proportion of people in different Muslim-majority countries who accept evolution. Note that countries like Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia were not surveyed.

Then my correspondent goes on about morality:

The second way in which the article highlights atheist denialism an shortcomings, is in failing to tackling the issue of morality. What are the consequences of a world where ‘moral judgements’ are mere ‘value judgements’ to be decided by each individual. Magnas Bradshaw’s From Humanism to Nihilism: The Eclipse of Secular Ethics (CMC Papers, No. 6) addresses this question. One the one hand we have the teachings of New Atheism, such as Richard Dawkins who writes “‘the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference’.” and Francis Crick who is even more explicit, “you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules… ‘‘you’re nothing but a pack of neurons’’.”

On the other hand we have its practitioners, the rationalists, those who take this stuff seriously, such as Ted Bundy, trained lawyer and serial killer, who reasons thus

Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments’, that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself – that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring – the strength of character – to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self

Bundy’s reasoning is impeccable and based on the teachings of atheists. “Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than  any other animal?” or, “Why shouldn’t Trump tear down the institutions supporting U.S. democracy if he wants?”. Care to answer?

Yes, of course I could answer, but would this person listen? Not a snowball’s chance in hell! But wait! There’s more!

Atheism is leaving people with no guidance on how they should conduct themselves, and what they should expect from others. That’s the reality. And logically, that is what one would expect when people do not believe in a soul capable of oppressing itself through its oppression of others or even simply contemplating words of repentance and aspiration such as : “You that turn stones to gold.. change me.”(Rumi). If you want to claim that such notions are the result of “wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions” then first offer the scholarly work that demonstrates that the Quran is indeed incompatible with what we have learned through science, and hence unreliable.

Name redacted

Where to start here? First of all, neither Dawkins nor Crick would deny that there is a morality that can be derived from humanism; Dawkins, as well as his colleagues Dan Dennett and Anthony Grayling, have been quite explicit on this point.  Indeed, unless you’re one of the few “moral objectivists”, even religious morality must come from “value judgements.”  This is the crux of the Euthyphro argument: if you say that God is good, and wouldn’t give us bad moral guidance, you are assuming there are criteria for “good” and “bad” that are independent of God. (Theologians such as William Craig, who adhere to “divine command theory which stipulates that God is the sole determinant of good, are exceptions, and their morality isn’t so hot anyway. Craig doesn’t oppose the many genocides in the Old Testament, since God ordered them.) Even religious moral judgments, then, are almost always based on “value judgments”. But so what? Different judgments have different consequences for society. You can, for example, be a utilitarian, and base your morality on what acts will do the most good or cause the least harm. Other criteria lead to other moralities, but all of them are superior to the “morality” of the Catholic Church or Islam.

Further, there is a long history of writing and philosophy on secular ethics and morality, beginning with the Greeks, extending through Kant and Hume down to Rawls, Russell, and Grayling in modern times. It is not at all true that atheists haven’t grappled with the problem or morality. To use Ted Bundy as a secular arbiter of morality is simply ridiculous!

And, of course, humanistic morality is far superior to religious morality. The latter has given us things like dictates about genital cutting, the oppression of women and gays, the diktat to kill apostates and infidels, the terrorizing of children with thoughts of hell, the abnegation of modern medicine (Christian science and other faith-healing sects), the prohibition of divorce and regulations about how to have sex and when, and the propagandizing of innocent children, who get turned into little Amish people or Orthodox Jews, deprived of opportunity and education—all because of religious morality.

When I reread the email above, I realized that the writer hadn’t really investigated the rich tradition of secular ethics, and was also woefully—and perhaps willfully—ignorant of what many Muslims think about science. I’m not sure why, but I did write him/her a summary of what I’ve said above.

You should feel free yourself to address the writer’s remarks, and I’ll call that person’s attention to this thread tomorrow.

Lagniappe (h/t Peter N.):

Cat, noms, and and a chinwag with Uncle Dan

April 3, 2015 • 2:53 pm

Just a reprise of my Good Friday up to 2 p.m.—while my memory is still fresh.  This includes a felid, lunch, and coffee and conversation with Dan Dennett.

First, I am staying with old friends, and they have a 13-year-old cat named Garcia. He is is diffident towards strangers, including me, but it let me pet it this morning, so I got at least a bit of a cat fix. Garcia et moi:

Garcia: I’ve just kissed a cat named Garcia.

Upon the recommendation of my hosts’ daughter, I decided to have lunch at a humble but excellent place in Davis Square, Somerville, just a few steps from the Davis Square CTA stop. It’s called the Amsterdam Falafel Shop, and gets nearly unanimous rave reviews:


There are only three items on the menu besides drinks: two falafal sandwiches on pita bread—small (3 falafel balls) and large (5 balls)—or a four-ball plate for those who go gluten-free. The falafel is great, but the bonus is their free “toppings bar,” where you can load you sandwich with any or all of 19 toppings, including baba ganoush, hummus, chopped lettuce and tomato, onion, yogurt, pickled beets, grilled eggplant, pickled turnips, and so on. To do that, they recommend squashing the falafel-filled pita till it’s flat, then opening it and piling the garnishes atop the smashed pita. Here’s what you get: everything is fresh and delicious.


They also have Belgian style fries, which you can dip into six different sauces that you squirt into small plastic cups. I chose peanut sauce and Dutch mayo:


Loaded pita and a paper cone of fries. This was an ample and tasty lunch:


After lunch I repaired across the street to the well known Diesel Cafe, described widely as a “hipster cafe” (I’ve only recently learned what a hipster is, and now know that I don’t want to be one!). There I met Uncle Dan, who had an hour and a half to spare before he met a journalist who wanted to talk to him about—wait for it—free will.

It’s always a treat to talk to Dan, even if we disagree about things like free will and the value of memes. We chatted a while about those memes, and I asked Dan what the advantage was to conceive of “bits of culture” as “Darwin-like memes” rather than simply studying how and why they spread without the meme-ish overlay. I also asked him to give me one example of a cultural change whose spread can be better understood by using the concept of memes rather than other ways of studying cultural transmission.

He said the main advantage of “memetics” was that one could adopt a Darwinian point of view when studying culture. I asked him why that was superior to just studying why things spread culturally, since the reasons for that spread are so varied, involving compulsion, mere imitation, usefulness, and the psychological propensities of humans. The reasons for spread of memetic traits, I think, are so varied that they differ profoundly and incompatibly with the spread of “genetic” traits via natural selection, which has only one pathway: a trait spreads when it enhances the number of copies of the genes that produce it. In other words, you can reverse-engineer a Darwinian trait by studying how it affects reproduction, but you could never do that with “memetic” traits like music, words, the use of forks, and so on. Each one spreads by a unique pathway, compelled by unique forces.

I proffered the recent adoption of the word “like” in American language, as in “So I, like, went to the store to get something to eat, but it was, like, so crowded that it was a real hassle shopping, and I, like, just decided to bag it and go home.”  I argued that saying “like” spread because it was a meme is just a tautology, and didn’t explain why it was so infectious. Dan responded that words like “like” used in that way are equivalent to viruses that are infectious, and that is a quasi-Darwinian process. But to me that explains little: what we want to know is why people so quickly started peppering their sentences with the meaningless spacer “like.” What does saying it’s a “meme”, even an infectious one, add to our knowledge?

I’m still not convinced that the idea of memes, or the field of its study (memetics) is a significant advance in understanding human culture, though I’m willing to be convinced if someone shows me how the idea of memes helps us understand some cultural changes better than any alternative explanations.

Dan showed me the new expanded edition of his book with Linda LaScola, Caught in the Pulpit, which recounts the stories of preachers who no longer believe but are either still preaching, or are leaving or have left the church. This is what developed into The Clergy Project, a communications network in which nonbelieving clergy can talk to each other online and exchange stories and ideas. Dan and Linda were involved in starting that, but have no access to the exchanges among clergy (which now number in the hundreds), for those are confidential.

Nevertheless, the book tells the story of some of these clergy (anonymously, of course), and the expanded edition has an introduction by Richard Dawkins, a new final chapter summing up the authors’ conclusions from their work with preachers, more stories from apostate clergy as well as updates on their lives, and a reprint of the authors’ 2010 paper, “Preachers who are not believers.”

I got an autographed copy of the new edition, which will be published by Pitchstone on May 1. It’s well worth reading.  Here’s Dan showing it off:


Dan mentioned that he had a new paper in Scientific American with Deb Roy, “Our transparent future” (behind a paywall) which begins with a new theory by University of Oxford Zoologist Andrew Parker that the Cambrian Explosion resulted from an increase in the clarity of seawater, which led to the evolution of eyes, and that to the advent of arms races. When your enemy can see you and find you, and you your enemy, all of a sudden there’s the impetus for all kinds of adaptations like armor, better vision on both sides, faster movement and better evasive tactics, on so on. I haven’t read Parker’s theory but it’s a clever one.

At any rate, Dan and Roy’s paper is about how something like this is happening on the Internet, which has suddenly lifted the veil around many institutions and bits of data that were once clouded in secrecy, and this new transparency, they say, will transform society. Dan used the examples of Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange making government secrets suddenly available to the whole world. I immediately thought of religion, and how, for example, the secret theology of Scientology, including its ludicrous scenarios about Xenu and thetans, is now easily found on Wikipeda: you no longer have to pay $30,000 to discover these stupid secrets. And that, I think, has helped lay Scientology low, for it’s no longer nearly as powerful as it used to be. Dan and I agreed that this new transparency will help spread knowledge about the malfeasance and folly of religion, and will, in the end, help erode faith in our world.

Although the Dennett and Roy paper is behind Sci. Am.’s paywall (ironic for a paper on transparency), he sent me an -ecopy, and I think he’ll post it on his website. I can make it available to people for free, I think, when I return to Chicago in 6 days, so if you want it send me an email with “want Dennett and Roy paper” as the header.

That brought up the subject of the world’s changing religious climate as revealed in the Pew Study I discussed this morning. Dan had also read that study, and said we shouldn’t be so frightened by the spread of Islam, for Muslims, at least in the West, will be forced to abandon their more invidious practices when exposed to other cultures.  I’m not so sure about that, as Muslims in the West often band together in insular communities designed to stave off the influence of their non-Muslim neighbors. But Dan said that at least some of them will abandon the stricter tenets of Islam, and I agree with that, for all it takes is one! Nevertheless, it will be a dangerous and thing to do, and Dan said that such a change will necessarily involve bloodshed and sacrifice.

He also added, and I agree heartily, that one thing that would end a lot of the oppressive aspects of Islam would be if Muslim women were to band together, practice civil disobedience, and call for more opportunity and equality. That, too, will be highly dangerous for the pioneers. But, recounting how exposure to Nancy Drew novels had helped catalyze Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s departure from Islam, Dan thought that we should try to expose Muslim girls to more books showing them that they are capable of far more things than wearing veils, having children, and serving Allah and their husbands. Such a tactic might be instrumental in eroding the more oppressive aspects of Islam. Extremist Muslims know the danger of this, which is why they throw acid on Muslim girls trying to go to school.

So perhaps we should find a way to flood Muslim girls with such literature, letting them know they can far exceed what their faith demands. But at the very least, and this is my own view, we should be supporting the work of ex-Muslim feminists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie, who are trying to get this message out, and who have far more credibility than a pair of Old White Male Academics.

Science vs. Faith: no conflict!

January 17, 2014 • 2:24 pm

Faith-friendly historians of science (viz., Ronald Numbers), as well as many accommodationists, hasten to reassure us that there is no real conflict between science and religion. It’s all illusory, and insofar as it doesn’t seem illusory (i.e., the 46% of Americans who are young-earth creationists), well, it’s just a small misunderstanding.

That is, until you see something like this, which is not a Photoshop job. It’s a church sign from Fort Worth, Texas:

Forth Worth Texas

“Facts don’t count.”  Can you get much more irrational than that? I’d love to put that on the cover of my book, but will refrain.

But do you suppose the congregants at Victory Tabernacle Holiness Church accept God as a Ground of Being rather than a Disembodied Person Who Cares About Them? Damon Linker and David Bentley Hart: are you listening?

At any rate, reader Barry, who sent me the photo and did a bit of legwork, also sent me a few tw**s by one Joseph O Morrow, a Christian from Philadelphia. This also demonstrates that a) some Christians do rely on evidence for their beliefs, and b) the standards of evidence are, well, a bit thin. . . .

Screen Shot 2014-01-17 at 3