Not that kind of compatibility
Chris Mooney (yes, it’s not over after all) disagrees with Jerry Coyne (and by extension me, and Austin Cline, and anyone else who has made the same point) about what the Pew report tells us about the putative compatibility of science and religion.
Let me say at the outset that I find it regrettable, just as Dr. Coyne does, that people are rejecting scientific findings due to their religion. That’s not cool. It’s not acceptable. And it is of course one of the key reasons we have an “unscientific America.”
But where Coyne sees sheer science-religion incompatibility, I see something else: An opportunity. For it seems to me that if we could only dislodge the idea that evolution is contradictory to people’s belief in “Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%),” then they would have no problem with evolution.
Yes, and if we could perform other miracles we could do other great things, but alas…
My view is that if we force-science religion conflict on much of America, then for a large portion of our citizenry, science is not going to prevail as the victor. But if we demonstrate compatibility, then that should be very good for the public understanding and appreciation of science.
This, annoyingly, is just Mooney going back to that same old equivocation again, as he keeps doing, like a dog with a bone, no matter how many times people tell him that that’s what he’s doing. (And yet he’s always telling us that people who disagree with him don’t know enough philosophy!) I told him so in a comment but of course, as always, he took not a blind bit of notice. I pointed out that it is not possible to ‘demonstrate compatibility’ in the epistemic sense. The only kind of compatibility it is possible to demonstrate is this brute force kind, in which believers simply ignore the evidence whenever it threatens their religious beliefs. The brute force kind of compatibility is epistemically worthless, and worse than that if it leads to delusions about genuine (epistemic) compatibility.
I told Mooney he is still playing on this equivocation and that he’s still talking about the brute force kind of compatibility and ignoring the fact that the people who disagree with him (and I’m one) are talking about epistemic compatibility.
It’s such a basic point. Is he refusing to get it, or is he unable to? The brute force kind of compatibility is an option, it’s true, but it’s not an option that it’s reasonable or sensible to try to pressure other people – least of all scientists! – into accepting for themselves. Yes it is always possible to ignore evidence, even whole mountain ranges of evidence, and believe whatever we want to. But that is not the same thing as substantive compatibility of findings. It is unwise to ignore this distinction.
My question for Mooney remains this: Why do you persist in asserting that “we” are forcing science-religion conflict on America? Who is this “we”?
There are huge numbers of religious Americans – fundamentalist religious leaders and followers, yes, but also more independent-minded religious people who are not necessarily authoritarian in outlook – who insist on believing factual claims which defy all evidence and cannot conceivably be made compatible with science. And those claims aren’t just fundamentalist Biblical-literalist Young Earth Creationist claims, but also Old Earth Creationist claims, deliberately deceptive Intelligent Design Creationism claims, wooly-minded “but humans are special and created in God’s image” (whatever that means) claims, “Global warming can’t be happening because God wouldn’t let it happen” claims, and every other kind of faith-based belief about the natural world. Certainly if anyone is “forcing” a conflict between science and religion, it is those who make such claims. That ain’t “we,” if by “we” Mr. Mooney means atheists and scientists and science supporters – and who the hell else could he mean? It’s decidedly them, religious believers, who create any conflict that exists between science and religion. Science cannot change to avoid such conflicts and still remain science, and religion for the most part will not change.
The only way religion and science can be “compatible” in any meaningful sense is if religious traditions continually accommodate themselves to new scientific findings, which most religious people simply will not embrace – even if we ask them to do so in an extra super-duper polite and uncritical way which doesn’t mention anything that they might be doing incorrectly, as Mooney seems to insist we must. However, I am willing to allow that science and religion can be “compatible” in this limited sense, i.e. that it is possible for religious people to limit their religious beliefs to claims that don’t directly conflict with or impinge on the empirical claims of science. But I must point out that not many religious believers are inclined to limit their beliefs to the concept of a vaguely deistic, non-interventionist God who perhaps did something or other Creator-y at some point in “getting all this started” – but whatever He did will always turn out to be whatever science says happened. And even for those religious believers who are inclined to make such accommodations to empirical science, their religiosity still isn’t compatible with science in the more important epistemological sense of “compatible” insofar as they embrace any faith beliefs whatsoever: Religious believers who accommodate science in this way have explicitly acknowledged the power of and necessity for doubt and evidence and reason to justify claims about the world, and then ignore all that when it comes to their remaining religious beliefs – which beliefs, having so little to do with the world around them, wouldn’t seem to amount to much anyway.
Chris Mooney apparently has a strong desire to believe that ALL religious believers either are of this accommodating sort or can be persuaded to adopt such positions. Indeed, his belief in this seems so strong that I am inclined to call it an article of faith: Certainly, he has yet to produce the slightest shred of evidence for it. As OB points out, the poll data he cites only demonstrates that people are perfectly capable of compartmentalizing and ignoring incompatibilities like those I discussed in my first paragraph – or, more likely, they don’t so much ignore the incompatibility as embrace it and simply toss out whatever elements of science conflict with one of their religious convictions.
Yet, somehow, the conflict between science and religion is all the fault of people who simply dare to point out these facts: We’re “forcing” the science-religion conflict on people, according to Mooney and his allies. Somehow the consistently science-minded are responsible for the conflict between faith and science, rather than the religious people who insist on either (1) adopting demonstrably false beliefs which contradict science as a matter of faith (which I will label empirical incompatibility), or (2) picking and choosing when to use doubt and evidence and reason to justify claims and when to resort to faith instead, thereby wielding the only demonstrably effective method for avoiding false beliefs only on a part-time, ad hoc basis and abandoning it whenever it is emotionally satisfying to do so (epistemic incompatibility). Yes, some religious believers can remain religious and adopt a position of empirical compatibility between science and religion, but science and religion must always remain epistemically incompatible as long as religion involves faith beliefs.
Yes, in some (small number of) individuals and groups, some degree of empirical compatibility between religion and science is evident. But of the people – Coyne, Myers, Benson, Blackford, humble ol’ me, and others – who have consistently been pointing out the epistemic incompatibility of science, none of us have denied either the “brute force” psychological compatibility of science & religion (of course a single human can believe scientific claims and contradictory religious claims at the same time; people can believe all sorts of contradictory things!) or the epistemic compatibility of science & religion (Ken Miller and other theistic evolutionists try very hard to limit their faith beliefs to claims that do not contradict scientific claims, although they must sometimes engage in some serious mental gymnastics to do so). As I read OB’s criticism, even she isn’t denying the difference between what I’ve labeled empirical compatibility and the mere “brute force” compatibility of some people simultaneously believing A and not-A, but merely pointing out that Mooney keeps conflating them and making arguments that rely on equivocating between them (and between those two and epistemic compatibility, which is another thing entirely).
However, the empirical compatibility of science and religion doesn’t amount to much – precisely because it is a position occupied by only a small minority of believers. But even if epistemic compatibility were a more widespread position than I think it is, Mooney and company have not made any sort of argument – not even a purely hypothetical or theoretical argument, never mind an argument grounded in actual evidence – for their claim that mere forthright acknowledgment of epistemic incompatibility in public discourse is harmful because it will somehow or other drive those who are amenable to or have already adopted an empirical compatibility position away from that position.
Nor does Mooney (or anyone else I have seen) make a case for the related claim, which I think Mooney implies more than states openly, that glossing over and otherwise avoiding any mention of epistemic incompatibility will somehow help make empirical compatibility more attractive to religious believers solidly lodged in an empirical incompatibility position. This second notion seems especially ludicrous on the face of it, because one cannot make a case for adopting an empirical compatibility approach to religious belief without discussing the epistemic virtues of science – and thus, at least by implication, the epistemic flaws of faith. Such a discussion must necessarily make epistemic incompatibility rather an elephant in the room. Come to think of it, maybe that’s exactly why Mooney wants so very badly to gloss over epistemic incompatibility: If we paint the elephant the same color as the walls, maybe everyone will just ignore it! If so, I am impressed with neither his rhetorical strategy nor his psychological insight. Come to think of it, such an approach doesn’t speak well of his intellectual integrity either. Even if such a rhetorical strategy would work, I’m not sure it is even remotely worth the price.
I also think that Mooney needs to take a different lesson from the Pew data. Mooney thinks it just means that we need to show that there are ways that you can accept science and still be religious. On the other hand, I think the data shows that in the case of a contradiction, many people put their faith before science. Therefore, if they are to accept science, we need to convince them that they should put science before faith instead.
It also means that the approach of the “new atheists”, to attack faith itself as an inferior way of gathering knowledge, is completely appropriate, even if it won’t convince everyone, and may even upset some.
I also left something along those lines in the comment thread at Mooney’s blog, but it feels rather pointless. Especially since his threads are so utterly swamped by Kwok and McCarthy, there really is little point to read the comments on his posts anymore. I wonder if Mooney himself even reads them anymore (if he ever did).
First, everything that G said. Thanks, G, for being so cogent, and such a delight to read.
Second:
Since I’ve already been publicly uncharitable about Chris Mooney, I’ll keep it up. Ophelia, you’re watching a politician at work. It’s really that basic; it’s really that simple and ugly. I suspect it’s a combination of Mooney “getting it” (but not admitting that he gets it), and Mooney strenuously convincing himself that he doesn’t understand the criticism. That is, a combination of calculating deceit, and inward-looking face-saving so he can still think of himself as the nice, reasonable guy.
It doesn’t matter in what proportions those two things exist in his mind. The plain fact is that he’s willing to play dumb when he knows better, or to dumb himself down deliberately in order to keep his social/political capital in the accomodationist venue.
It’s worth pointing out that his view of the average religious American- delicate as a Faberge egg, unable to countenance criticism, not made of strong enough stuff to stand up to intellectual challenges on equal footing – is not respect. It’s condescension. It’s patronizing. It is – ironically – the most insulting, dismissive attitude possible. It’s the equivalent of the colonialist attitude about the “benighted natives”: They know not what they do, and they can’t help themselves, the poor dears. Let’s make sure to talk on their level so as no to frighten them. Or their horses.
The only way he can maintain this is through willful denial of the fact that other societies – Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, even the UK to a lesser degree – have been able to cut the shackles of simpering public piety without the natives going batshit and devolving into existential crises at the mere idea of non-theism. That, by the way, is another challenge many have put to Mooney that he studiously-jarringly-ignores.
Another thing. G writes:
This is just a slightly more sophisticated (very, very slightly) way of stating the bigot’s rallying cry whenever minorities won’t shut up:
1. The gay version – “Why are you homosexuals shoving your lifestyle down our throats?” [yes, please note the almost Freudian irony here – people really do say this] This usually comes in response to someone who asserts that gay people shouldn’t be beaten up on sight, or disqualified from public office, if they refuse to not hold hands in public.
2. The black version – “Why do you people have to be so militant about it?” This was usually stated when brown-skinned people noted how offensive it was to have “colored” drinking fountains. It gets used today when said brown-skinned people protest vulgar stereotypes like “welfare queen.”
3. The feminist version – “Why do you have to be so shrill and militant?” This one was formerly reserved for instances in which women demanded not to be called “bitches” if they were tough business negotiators, or when they had the temerity to point out that there was something wrong with male colleagues being paid more, by default, because they were male. Its use has expanded to cover situations in which rational people refuse to say “I respect your deeply held, cherished beliefs ” with proper universal obeisance.
In short, it’s fucking bullshit.
“But where Coyne sees sheer science-religion incompatibility, I see something else: An opportunity. For it seems to me that if we could only dislodge the idea that evolution is contradictory to people’s belief in ‘Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%),’ then they would have no problem with evolution.”
I don’t actually think that evolution is incompatible with any of these things, without more. You can believe that Jesus was historical (as I do) and all sorts of other things about him (which I don’t … such documentation as we have is too heavily mythologised to be at all reliable) while still accepting the fact of evolution.
You can believe in God while accepting the fact of evolution – no one on our team is claiming an incompatibility between evolution and deism. As for religion in general, well … there are recognisably religious positions (though highly liberal and non-literal ones with little appeal for most people) that are not contradicted in any way by evolution.
I do wish that the Mooneys of the world would understand that the anti-accommodationist position is more nuanced. We reserve the right to criticise religious views, using arguments based on evolution (among others) and we don’t see any straightforward way of reconciling the facts of evolution with either Genesis-based fundamentalist Christianity (which it plainly contradicts) or with more “moderate” forms of belief that involve an activist, providential, loving God (which it contradicts less plainly; you need to make some additional, though commonsensical, assumptions to get a contradiction). Any serious attempt at reconciliation by some “moderate” believers will lead to mental gymnastics, implausible claims, reliance on the mystery card, and so on.
While believers can pursue those strategies, many of the believers themselves can see how bogus it is. Chris Mooney can argue until he is blue in the face, but he’ll never change this.
For those of us who want to challenge the authority of religion, of course we’re going to point all this out. What does Mooney expect us to do, just shut up about one of our most powerful arguments? As for those who are prepared to appease “moderate” religion by allowing that it can still be true in some sense, despite evolution, that it still has moral authority, etc., well, they simply appear to be dishonest. It’s obvious that evolution is at least not straightforwardly compatible with religion, and that no amount of trying to be nice will make it so. Statements of compatibility are dishonest because you can only get to the compatibility by adopting a highly liberal theological position that most people would not even recognise as religion or by some mental gymnastics that many religious people are themselves too honest to engage in.
And does Mooney not realise how hypocritical he seems when he’s on the public record as saying that he is an atheist, that there are good arguments for atheism, and that he supports the public presentation of these arguments (whichever they are)? Aren’t the religious going to think he’s being disingenuous and Machiavellian when they put all this together?
I think this book and its relatives aren’t worth this much time and effort. Continued minute analysis only increases the drizzle of nitpicking. The book itself, from the various descriptions I’ve read, and Nesbit and Mooney’s blogs (which I did browse — briefly, since I’m no glutton for punishment), are a prime example of concern trollism: if there is no crisis, manufacture one. Then become rich and/or famous by naming yourself the expert for managing it.
Thank you for this post (and for all of them!) I’ve very much been enjoying reading you and others eviscerate Money’s ridiculousness.
Science is a consensual body of thought and uniform the world over. The fact that all claims about nature must survive rational scrutiny, analysis and debate has meant its convergence to one universal body of ‘doctrine’. This is demonstrably not the case with religion; nor does it mean that the scientifically inclined (or the religiously inclined for that matter) have equal opportunites worldwide.
JB Haldane when asked what would disprove Darwin’s theory stated famously and bluntly “rabbits in the Precambrian”. (I am going from memory here.)
What would disprove any religion? Nothing,It is hard to think of any one discovery, because all the claims of the various world religions are so different, being all based on traditional stories originating in disparate societies.
However, the discovery of extra-terrestrial high-order intelligent life would create as big a crisis for believers within Genesis-based religions as heliocentrism and the telescope created for Ptolemaic astronomy. If the universe turns out to be teeming with civilisations of literate, cultured, philosophic and scientific intelligent beings, each with its own creation myths and stories of sin and redemption, then this would indicate a pronounced tendency to cultural convergence, or alternatively, the incredible fallibility of the Creator, who kept making the same mistake over and over again.
G: a Google search seeking relationship between God and climate change yielded me mixed results. However the AGW denialist geologist Ian Plimer has concluded his recent book ‘Heaven + Earth’ with the statement: “Human stupidity is only exceeded by God’s mercy, which is infinite.” I get the feeling that implied in this is the view that (although in Plimer’s view AGW is not happening) God would not allow it anyway.
If so, this indeed is an interesting relationship between one man’s science and the same man’s theology.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=God%2C+climate+change&btnG=Search&meta=
For those not familiar with the acronym, in the above comment I should have added that AGW = ‘anthropogenic global warming’.
Athena,
You’re doubtless right, and yet there’s a morbid fascination of some kind – Jerry Coyne likens it to sniffing milk you already know is sour, I would liken it to scab-picking.
Then again, it’s also true that Mooney has some clout because of his previous books – and rightly so.