You will often hear people saying that evolution is not compatible with Christianity, or more generally that science is not compatible with religion. Those who disagree (particularly atheists who disagree) are called accommodationists. I put myself in this camp for two reasons.
The first is simply because I think it's true. Certainly some religions are not compatible with evolution, or science, or reality generally. Here I'm thinking of creationism, Raelianism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc. But that's not true of all of them, and it's easy to describe a religion that is compatible. An actual Jedi knight would be able to claim that, whatever you thought of his or her morality. If the speaking-in-tongues Christian sects were really able to send missionaries to foreign countries and have them miraculously speak the language fluently, that would be powerful evidence that science could not ignore. And of course a religion that simply said "God created the universe and he wants you to treat each other with respect" would have no collisions with science. That a thing is not scientifically provable does not make it incompatible with science; it just puts it outside.
One line of argument that I find particularly unimpressive is "the virgin birth and the resurrection are scientifically impossible". For one thing, that's the whole point of miracles. A well-equipped scientific investigation of a modern equivalent would presumably see a stopped heart, flatlined brain waves, etc. And actually, if we really cared we might be able to organize a virgin birth with modern technology. And for another, all science can really say about such a thing is "there would be no way to explain that" - just as radioactivity violated well-accepted science, as did the precession of Mercury. Science does not investigate and pronounce legitimacy on everything that ever happens; it looks directly at only a tiny fraction of what goes on. For all we know, every day somewhere on this planet a dead ant is resurrected; if that were true it would be a long time before it was even noticed, much less explained.
My second reason is more political - it's a not a reason to be an accommodationist, but a reason to argue for it. Religion is not going away. Science is essential to long term human survival. Evolution is key to understanding the biological world that keeps us alive, and which we are currently conducting a full scale experiment on. If people are asked to choose between religion and science, far too many of them are going to choose religion. We can't get rid of horoscopes and homeopathy, much less religions that people invest their identities in. If the accommodationists can't build somewhere for the religious to live, very bad things are going to happen.
What then, of the New Atheists and those who argue for incompatibility? Should they shut up?
Not at all, for reasons that correspond well to mine. Firstly, this is their sincerely held belief, and I'll not be telling them to keep quiet. Some of them (people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins) get the full force of creationists over and over again, and maybe they're right.
And secondly, the politics of it. The New Atheists are moving the Overton window for everyone. I think they have directly contributed to the increase of reported atheists in recent years - not by convincing vast numbers of people, but by making it socially acceptable to be atheists. By arguing that religion is not just untrue, but visibly harmful. That's a valuable thing. In the fight for science, without them it is religious purists versus compromisers, and the purists can claim the high moral ground, with no risk. With them, creationists are taking the risk that if they lose on the science, their "incompatibility" argument turns into a self-inflicted attack on their religion. And the accommodationists can claim the high moral ground of being reasonable and moderate. Also, it's fun to explode creationist heads by telling them that they are agreeing with Richard Dawkins when they say that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible.
I find it hilarious and encouraging to hear the New Atheists described as "militant fundamentalists" by those who don't like them. Hilarious because, well, can you imagine Richard Dawkins as a militant fundamentalist?
The first is simply because I think it's true. Certainly some religions are not compatible with evolution, or science, or reality generally. Here I'm thinking of creationism, Raelianism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc. But that's not true of all of them, and it's easy to describe a religion that is compatible. An actual Jedi knight would be able to claim that, whatever you thought of his or her morality. If the speaking-in-tongues Christian sects were really able to send missionaries to foreign countries and have them miraculously speak the language fluently, that would be powerful evidence that science could not ignore. And of course a religion that simply said "God created the universe and he wants you to treat each other with respect" would have no collisions with science. That a thing is not scientifically provable does not make it incompatible with science; it just puts it outside.
One line of argument that I find particularly unimpressive is "the virgin birth and the resurrection are scientifically impossible". For one thing, that's the whole point of miracles. A well-equipped scientific investigation of a modern equivalent would presumably see a stopped heart, flatlined brain waves, etc. And actually, if we really cared we might be able to organize a virgin birth with modern technology. And for another, all science can really say about such a thing is "there would be no way to explain that" - just as radioactivity violated well-accepted science, as did the precession of Mercury. Science does not investigate and pronounce legitimacy on everything that ever happens; it looks directly at only a tiny fraction of what goes on. For all we know, every day somewhere on this planet a dead ant is resurrected; if that were true it would be a long time before it was even noticed, much less explained.
My second reason is more political - it's a not a reason to be an accommodationist, but a reason to argue for it. Religion is not going away. Science is essential to long term human survival. Evolution is key to understanding the biological world that keeps us alive, and which we are currently conducting a full scale experiment on. If people are asked to choose between religion and science, far too many of them are going to choose religion. We can't get rid of horoscopes and homeopathy, much less religions that people invest their identities in. If the accommodationists can't build somewhere for the religious to live, very bad things are going to happen.
What then, of the New Atheists and those who argue for incompatibility? Should they shut up?
Not at all, for reasons that correspond well to mine. Firstly, this is their sincerely held belief, and I'll not be telling them to keep quiet. Some of them (people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins) get the full force of creationists over and over again, and maybe they're right.
And secondly, the politics of it. The New Atheists are moving the Overton window for everyone. I think they have directly contributed to the increase of reported atheists in recent years - not by convincing vast numbers of people, but by making it socially acceptable to be atheists. By arguing that religion is not just untrue, but visibly harmful. That's a valuable thing. In the fight for science, without them it is religious purists versus compromisers, and the purists can claim the high moral ground, with no risk. With them, creationists are taking the risk that if they lose on the science, their "incompatibility" argument turns into a self-inflicted attack on their religion. And the accommodationists can claim the high moral ground of being reasonable and moderate. Also, it's fun to explode creationist heads by telling them that they are agreeing with Richard Dawkins when they say that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible.
I find it hilarious and encouraging to hear the New Atheists described as "militant fundamentalists" by those who don't like them. Hilarious because, well, can you imagine Richard Dawkins as a militant fundamentalist?
- God probably exists and you should think hard about what he has to say.
- Thou shalt not suffer a witch to teach that Wiccan garbage in a science classroom!
- Sternly worded articles against those who insult the prophet!
- We will never stop writing books explaining why you're wrong!
Yeah, sure. But it's also encouraging, because of the implications. By attacking New Atheists as "militant fundamentalists", they're also attacking real militant fundamentalists. They have become an epithet to be used against those "we" dislike. Every time that appears in the popular press, the religious extremists of all stripes get pushed a little bit further from power and influence.
And that, really, is the main game. Religion is neither an unmixed blessing or an unmitigated disaster; and it's not going away soon. As a religion gets smaller it loses side-effects faster than benefits; it is much harder to coordinate a vast coalition of small sects to achieve some harm, than to take over a single big one. Small religions are easier to leave, easier to ignore. It is harder for them to control or threaten governments. The people who join them are more likely to be looking to achieve simple human good than to control their fellows.
But small religions find it particularly hard to stop us from doing the right thing; they can band together much more easily against something that's actually wrong. If we can simply avoid the harm of religion, then it will no longer be important whether they stay or go, and it will be up to individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment