A category to watch out for
Mano Singham noted, in his CHE piece “The New War Between Science and Religion,” that
the National Academy of Sciences have come down squarely on the side of the accommodationists…In a 2008 publication titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS stated: “Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. … Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways.
I notice an omission in that passage – a significant omission. It says supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science, but it doesn’t go on to say that they can be investigated by religion. That’s no suprise in one way, because of course they can’t be, but in another way, it is at least noteworthy, because the truth (also of course) is that supernatural entities cannot be investigated by anyone or anything, so why single out science as the one discipline that cannot investigate them? And why not include religion in that impotence?
Well we know why; no need to be coy. Because that’s the whole point. The whole point is to put up a sign saying No Scientists while allowing religionists free passage, despite the fact that religionists are no more able to explore the unexplorable than anyone else is. The whole point is to pretend that religion knows something that science can’t poke into. The truth however is that supernatural entities are immune to any kind of inquiry or inspection or testing, so nobody knows more about them than anyone else. They are just a big Unknown. The fact that purported supernatural entities are immune to inquiry does not magically (or any other way) make science and religion compatible except in the uncontroversial sense that science and reading novels are compatible.
I think this is a category to watch out for. The Uncompleted Parallel might be the right name for it.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nullifidian. nullifidian said: RT @OpheliaBenson: A category to watch out for http://dlvr.it/2Mhrp […]
And so coined. The Uncompleted Parallel – perfect!
Fixed.
But this is the point of controversy. Are supernatural entities, forces, and powers actually immune to inspection or testing — or are they theoretically open to both, but wrong?
I’d shove stuff like chi energy, ESP, psychokenesis, ghosts, vitalism, magical correspondences, astrology, reincarnation, and channeling into the “supernatural” category. Skeptic organizations can set up honest tests for all of them, given that they’re all supposed to make the world look different enough, on a regular enough basis, to convince wise, sensitive, intelligent people that they exist.
Things that are non-controversially “immune” to scientific inspection or testing end up being — what, exactly? Tastes and values? Preferences and poetry? The way sunsets and kittens make you feel? Reasons to love your mother or stand by your country? A decision to give up accounting and become a ballerina?
Why would a statement such as “after we die we live on in an afterlife” not be placed in with “some people can read other people’s minds,” and instead be placed in with “chocolate is yummy?”
That’s the part of religion as “another way of knowing” that I’ve never understood: how do believers “know” that their particular beliefs based upon religion are in some way “true” and inconsistent religious beliefs held by others are in some sense “false?” Every attempt the reliability of religion as a “way of knowing” inevitably boils down either to appeals to (usually egregiously cherry-picked and distorted) empirical phenomena (accounts of miracles, cosmological arguments, etc.) – the turf of science and history – or pure subjective conviction that demonstrates nothing to someone who doesn’t already believe.
It may be too much to ask for as a practical matter, but it’d be nice if organizations such as NAS could simply say “We’re in the business of advancing science, which has proved itself to be an extraordinarily successful method for learning about the reality we perceive around us. Reconciling its methods and conclusions with other alleged ‘ways of knowing’ that do not produce reliable, objective, information subject to repetition and verification is not our problem.”
I don’t for a moment think that science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. If that were as widely accepted as the NAS writer presumes, then why-oh-why do the religious jump on any bandwagon that science provides if the scientific results seem to favour some religious aspect? When this happens, I have yet to come across some spokesman (and isn’t it almost always a man?) who declares that the apparent support from science cannot possibly be used to offer some religious belief a boost because it’s the wrong way to investigate, the incorrect method of coming to any kind of religious understanding, a separate and unrelated conclusion using improper inquiry into the religious aspect of spiritual knowledge.
Cut the crap, NAS.
What you want is to accommodate unjustified religious beliefs when they are incompatible with the results of scientific inquiry but still allow unjustified religious beliefs to utilize compatible results from scientific inquiry when it is convenient. Good luck with that approach. So much for expecting intellectual integrity from the leadership of the NAS.
I’ve come to question whether it’s even good politics. The “religiously moderate” are not going to become fundamentalists just because the scientific community fails to genuflect. Most already know that science is incompatible with religious truth claims, which is why they express their faith as belief in belief. And more than a few wish that there were greater cultural space for naturalism.
I liked that.
Ms. Benson, thank you for linking to this article, which I think does a good job of rounding up “where we stand”.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this but I think it is a pretty significant piece of the story:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/09/video
This whole thing blew up on them when BioLogos put up a video of Bruce Waltke, using the term “cult” to describe YEC, and by extension what Falk is calling “the evangelical church”, that those who did not accept the BioLogos notion of “theistic evolution” are not acknowledging how god works.
The party came crashing down around them, and it wasn’t because of Richard Dawkins being mean. It was because the Orlando RTS “expelled” one of the most respected biblical scholars for WHAT HE SAID.
Falk is trying to make Waltke into a martyr for the biologos cause
But the fact that the church “expelled” Waltke is the real story – the Church in this case says plainly, if you believe in the science of evolution, you are NOT WELCOME HERE.
… Thank you for all your wonderful writing and blogging. Dittos.
Religious claims are immune to science the same way I’m able to turn invisible as long as no-one’s looking at me and there aren’t any cameras around.
Another thought about the Waltke firing as a result of his cooperation with Falk at BioLogos.
The RTS, like most of the top Theological Seminaries (by attendance) are “confessional”. I had to look the significance of this word up.
What it seems to mean is that Falk and BioLogos have a set of institutions, that produce around 30% of the people educated in theology in America – each year, and these top schools formally hold the position that humans did not evolve from non human life though the process of evolution.
Fuller Theological Seminary (4,038 students), Southwestern (2,591) and Southern (2,585) Baptist Theological Seminaries. Dallas (1974) and Gordon-Conwell (1892) Theological Seminaries. New Orleans Baptist (1665) Southeastern Baptist (1643) and Asbury Theological Seminary (1571).
These represent an enrollment of almost 18,000 students, and they are overwhelmingly “evangelical” and formally hold the position that evolution didn’t happen the way science says it did.
It seems to me that all this “don’t be mean to the moderates” is a distraction from the fact that the institutions that form the minds of a large fraction of religious leaders, and essentially all the religious leaders who subscribe to what Falk calls the “evangelical church” are explicitly hostile to what science says about evolution – and they are willing to “expel” even their most respected scholars to prove that commitment.
It isn’t like the confessional positions of these schools are derived from popular opinion, nor are they subject to them, they are scholarly, deliberately and formally considered, in light of all the facts … and they are immune to science – by design, on purpose, and Falk knows this.
Thank you Ms. Benson, again … dittos
Thanks, Scott. I saw your very pertinent comment at Why Evolution is True. BioLogos seems to have the wolf by the ears.
Yikes. I’m reading the Inside Higher Ed piece. Talk about a mental prison…
(I saw headlines about the firing at the time but didn’t follow them up. I should have.)
Sastra – yes – I was using the immune-to-investigation by definition definition. That has to be what accommodationists mean when they say (over and over again) that science can’t investigate the supernatural, so I was accepting that definition for the sake of argument and seeing what it committed the NAS to.
The alternative is to say that “the supernatural” is investigatable because it’s not really supernatural, it’s either made up or not yet understood.
It’s a weasel word. Like so much of the accommodationist vocabulary.
@Sastra (#5): You’re right, of course, that it isn’t at all universally accepted or obviously true that claims about supernatural entities, forces, and powers are actually immune to scientific inspection or testing. However, since any and every attempt to discuss how scientific methods can be used to justify or evaluate claims about the supernatural always and inevitably leads defenders of the supernatural to claim that the supernatural claim in question is “beyond science,” it is certainly worthwhile to keep pointing out that the defenders of the supernatural do not offer any plausible alternative methods for justifying or evaluating such claims.
And, I feel compelled to add, it is especially worthwhile to point out this glaring lack of alternatives because, when examined in detail or when the claimants are pressed, it turns out (again, always and inevitably) that “beyond science” doesn’t just mean beyond scientific investigation by controlled experimentation and so on. The claims in question prove to be not just beyond “science” narrowly construed, but beyond any and all means of justification grounded in reason and evidence. They cannot be justified within the scope of any concept of “justification” that doesn’t twist the word’s meaning beyond recognition.
The perniciousness of the Uncompleted Parallel fallacy* doesn’t just lie in the sneaky use of a double standard, whereby scientific claims are expected to be justified by one standard and religious claims are held to some other, lesser standard: Rather, the UP fallacy lets religious claims off the hook for justification of any kind, while at the same time deliberately (and falsely) implying that religious claims are epistemologically on par with non-religious claims subject to ordinary expectations of justification: Creating this false equivalence is why it is religion and science which are described as “aspects of human understanding” or “aspects of human experience” as if they were parallel and somehow equivalent, not religion and personal tastes (“Chocolate is yummy.”) or religion and aesthetic preferences (“Mozart’s music is superior to Beethoven’s.”).
*A fallacy is just a flawed argument made often enough to deserve its own name, so let’s not shy away from the word here when we’re identifying and criticizing yet another slight variation on the same awful argument for the umpteenth time.
Scott, you’re not Scott Jaschik are you? If so I’ve been reading your articles at IHE for years – but I assume you’re not, or you would have said you wrote that piece on Waltke.
What a story. And what an embarrassment for BioLogos, not to mention Templeton.
By the way, G, did you see that “rules for debate” cartoon video? Your kind of thing, I should think. If not it’s in News – or at WEIT or Dawkinsland.
Ms. Benson, is it possible that are we present at another great “schism” in the church?
(and if we are, should we care?)
Is Francis Collins, and his proxy, Falk, a kind of 21st century Luther? Sniff, Sniff.
Are his growing list of martyred scholars who bravely assert that God created humans though evolution, the future saints of a the New Protestantism?
That seems to be what Waltke is implying saying when he played the “cult” card … Falk, has nailed his thesis to the door at Fuller and the other important Seminaries … the young monks are grappling with it all. The Cardinals and Bishops are complaining (see Albert Mohlers condemnation here) (this is must see theater).
Falk, like Luther feels he has no choice, (Mohler feels the same way) he would rather not have to speak these things, but he has no choice. He trembles for what this means. The careers he sees ruined in his name, weigh on him.
His blog really is just a place where evangelicals who want jobs in the life science industry can”come out” … and to witness God’s creation as their conscience directs … like this guy:
http://biologos.org/blog/from-hubris-to-humility-my-journey-of-science-and-faith/
who has made the incredible journey from a home school family in VA beach, to a man who could do productive work for Monsanto. This is a good thing too, since there is a a growing evangelical movement against GM.
Again, thank you … Scott
Scott, we’re at least present at a major stumbling block (so to speak) for BioLogos and Templeton. Their own people are busy saying “No!! Science and religion are not compatible!” With friends like that who needs accommodationists?
Jerry Coyne is debating Karl Giberson on Skype tomorrow. It should be interesting.
Oh, that is very interesting to hear. I hope Jerry keeps bringing the Gibberish back to Albert Mohler’s “age of the earth” speech … you are exactly right, with men like Mohler pounding the pulpit and mocking the entire Templeton program, and attacking BioLogos with everything they’ve got, all we need to do is remind them where the real challenges reside.
In Falks latest post, he’s even taken to holding up Dawkins as an example of the way in which God works and he’s desperate to pair Dawkins with Mohler. Both extreme and poor ol’ BioLogos stuck in the middle with the truth.
The New Protestants have indeed become a target. Hopefully, Jerry will summon his most (how did you say it) “sonorous” voice – and lament how horrible it must be for them to take all this flack from the leaders of our nations most powerful theological institutions … to face a billion dollar industry based on God’s inerrant word … takes courage.
Is the debate going to be streamed? How do I tune in??
again … dittos …
It is sad that our societies include so many people who are unable to understand the truth. It is frightening that our societies include so many people willing to assert what they know to be false. Albert Mohler’s address, which Darrel Falk discussed, is truly disturbing. Mohler points out, quite articulately, how young earth creation is simply impossible to believe, and then demands that it be believed. Bruce Waltke’s experience makes it clear that the demand will be enforced.
Along with our theological seminaries, we also have Patrick Henry College: Shaping Our Culture, Serving Our Nation. PHC students, who are fairly elite with respect to academic credentials, are not studying for the clergy. Mostly, they are pursuing careers in government and law, and many serve internships in US legislative offices. Among its principles statements is the following:
As you might imagine, PHC does not have a biology major, nor, thank God, any biology faculty, although biology is included in its core curriculum. In any event, the point is that PHC demands that both its faculty and students lie, and that it is proud to produce leaders committed to lying.
I trust that any old leftists here will forgive my reflection that all of this calls Kim Philby to mind.
money quote from Mohler, he trashes Templeton, Gould, Shermer, and he apparently did not appreciate Jerry Coyne’s book … BioLogos will insist that this is just the same kind of fundamentalism that Dawkins spews … and to be honest, it really does read like Dawkins … just for fun, I hope Jerry can do “sonorous” … and has some tricks to slip the inevitable accusation from BioLogos that a clear interpretation of the scientific facts, is pairable with the view of the Southern Baptist Seminary and what Falk calls “the evangelical church” … whatever that is.
In conclusion, there is a head-on collision here. There are those that claim there is no head-on collision. Francisco Ayala, who just won the Templeton Award, says that science and religion cannot be in conflict because they’re answering two different questions. Science is answering the how, and religion is answering the who and the why. That is intellectual facile. The scripture is claiming far more than who and why and any honest reading of the modern scientific consensus knows that it too is speaking to the who and very clearly speaking to the why. Stephen J. Gould, the late paleontologist of Harvard University, spoke of what he called non-overlapping magisteria. He said science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. Each has its own magisterial authority and its own sphere of knowledge and they never overlap. Well the problem is they overlap all the time. They overlap in Stephen J. Gould’s own writings. We cannot separate the who and the why and the what, as if those are intellectually separable questions. In his new book Why Evolution is True Jerry Coyne cites Michael Shermer at the very beginning who says this, “Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age. An epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.”
Now it sounds to me like he’s talking about the why, not just the when and the what. I want to suggest to you that when it comes to the confrontation between evolutionary theory and the Christian gospel we have a head-on collision. In the confrontation between secular science and the scripture we have a head-on collision. I want to suggest to you that it is our responsibility to give an answer when we are asked the question “Why does the universe look so old?” In the limitations of time, it is impossible that we walk through every alternative and answer every sub-question. But I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the scripture of how to answer that question comes to this: The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.
Ophelia,
I don’t know where to post this, and this thread seems as good or better than any considering it’s top of the blog right now, so you’ll see it. I am wondering if you can give me a solid definition of the word “accomodationism,” and perhaps even show me some accommodationism in words/action. This might be worth its own post, up to you. But I’ve been thinking about this word lately and might dedicate a post to it myself. It seems to be used rather flexibly.
The accommodationists routinely accuse atheists of going beyond methodological naturalism – science studies natural phenomena by natural means – to philosophical naturalism – asserting that the supernatural does not exist – which they correctly identify as a philosophical rather than a scientific proposition. They then almost always go on to assert that the supernatural and natural realms are disjoint, without noticing that this is an equally unsupportable proposition which is practically equivalent.
The accusation is false. Scientists study all phenomena by any means available, but so far only natural explanations have proven useful. The absence of evidence of supernatural phenomena is an experimental result.
Michael De Dora, you can see accommodationism in action at the blogs of <a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/”>Chris Mooney</a> and <a href=”http://scienceblogs.com/tfk”>Josh Rosenau</a>, both of whom are good guys fighting the good fight, trying to sell evolution to the god-mad masses with the pitch that biology isn’t fatal to your faith.
The main point of contention is whether science and religion are compatible. It’s trivial to observe that some science and some religion are incompatible, and also that inversely most science and most religion play well together. The accommodationists want to reassure everyone that you can have God and science too, and we agree that you can if you don’t mind a little mental adultery, not letting your religion know about your science.
The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man.
Philip Gosse made the same claim in Omphalos a hundred and fifty years ago. Even then, the christian Charles Kingsley dismissed it as “a vast and superfluous lie”. Bertrand russell pointed out that bythesame logic goid could have created the unibersea split-second ago.
In fact, if we accept this logic, perhaps god hasn’t created the universe yet and this post, my memory of writing it and any evidence it was written “now” will only be created in the future with the entire history and future of the universe.
Bad Jim …
If one only sticks to methodological naturalism, it is still legitimate to ask:”Does this supernatural phenomenon (whatever it is, whether you call it god, or poltergeist or any other sort of woo) exist inside this universe, or not?”
If it does not, then it is irrelevant, and if it does, then it must be possible to investigate it, using methodological-naturalistic (Scientific) principles and investigation, surely? Please, accomodationists/Templetonians (whatever/whoever) answer this question, clearly and honestly.
The conventional sorts of gods, or angels or demons, ought to be detectable by contravening the ordinary course of events in ways otherwise unexplainable. There should be signs and wonders, well-attested Fortean events, apparently random violations of conservation of energy, and so forth.
Any experimenter can attest that all sorts of strange things happen at first for which no explanation can be found but tend to disappear with experience and practice. At first it’s a miracle when something works; later on it’s surprising when something fails. Perhaps there are demons and we’re chasing them out, but it seems likelier that we’re getting control of the process, controlling for exogenous variables.
Some contend that there is yet room for God in the quantum realm; He may be able to mutate a molecule from time to time, and thus patiently shaped us. If so, He must have spent millions of years tending the dinosaurs only to find His handiwork destroyed by an errant asteroid He was unable to deflect. Or perhaps not; He may have had the birds in mind the whole time, and may yet. (If the mammals were His pet project, and if He had been capable of doing so, He wouldn’t have permitted the Permian extinction which largely eliminated our progenitors.)
I was just delving into the logical and rhetorical details of the accommodationism debate elsewhere and have been thinking about the subject a great deal, so I’ll gladly have a pass at answering Michael De Dora’s question.
Accommodationists are those who hold that science and faith are compatible in some non-trivial way – but accommodationists have not proved very effective at saying exactly how science and faith are compatible in the face of all the ways they are so evidently not – hence the comedic contortions of BioLogos. Part of the problem with the fluidity of the definition of “accommodationism” is that it’s part of an ongoing, live and lively debate occurring between all sorts of people, not a theoretical discussion being hashed out by experts in narrow academic journals where everyone is careful to define their terms and pair rhetoric with clearly articulated reasoning and so on. That fluidity is made worse, in my opinion, because one side of the debate is consistently unable to state clearly what position they are advocating.
In light of that failure, perhaps I can make more progress focusing on what accommodationists oppose than what they advocate – or better still, WHOM they oppose. If there is one thing that everyone consistently labeled as an “accommodationist” here and elsewhere has been very clear and consistent about, it’s this: They don’t like those nasssty “New” atheists precious, no they don’t. They don’t like what we say or how we say it, and they especially don’t like it when we say science and religion are incompatible.
As articulated by many outspoken atheists (who are not in any important way “new,” dammit!), the incompatibility of science and faith consists in, at minimum, the following two claims: Firstly, many of the actual beliefs that people adopt as articles of religious faith directly contradict well-established scientific knowledge – for example, creationism in all its guises. This first sense of incompatibility is, frankly, trivial and obvious: It is important only in the sense that so much of the sociopolitical problem of religion starts right there, with creationism and other forms of willful ignorance. Secondly, science as a way of coming to know things about the world – which is continuous with and springs from a broader critical thinking epistemology wherein the truth of no claim is assumed in advance and justification of claims must be grounded in evidence and reason – is manifestly and directly incompatible with faith, which is a way of deciding what to believe about the world in a decidedly uncritical fashion which eschews or distorts evidence and reason.
Let’s call these two claims I1 and I2, short for Incompatibility claims 1 and 2. I take the first claim to be fairly trivial and indisputable, and the second claim to be the much more interesting and substantial issue at stake in the debate. Frankly, I think I2 is every bit as self-evident and indisputable as I1, but I won’t argue for it here: It’s been argued often enough; see the collected writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Harris, PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, etc. I believe even our blog hostess had a word or two to say in support of I2 or something very like it in Why Truth Matters.
For the most part, even those who most stridently and repeatedly tell outspoken atheists that they are wrong about the incompatibility of science and religion – or, often enough, just tell atheists to shut up about the incompatibility without precisely denying it – do not deny I1. Heck, the BioLogos people not only acknowledge I1, they tie themselves in knots trying to work around it without offending or “confusing” more literal-minded fellow Christians. So, logically speaking, if accommodationists think outspoken atheists are wrong to say science and religion are incompatible, and they agree with and recognize the truth of I1, they MUST deny I2. Or at least, they appear to want very much to deny I2 – but they must not have any good arguments to offer against I2, because they keep dodging the claim instead of actually arguing against it.
The most common dodge is to make straw man arguments which pretend that everyone arguing for the incompatibility of science and religion is only making claim I1, and to ignore the much more substantial and interesting claim I2 entirely. (The other all-too-common dodge is the even more ridiculous and dishonest straw man argument which revolves around pointing out that the same person can be a believer and a scientist, which I won’t even dignify by articulating and dismantling.) Another dodge is to rely on a distorted definition of “science” which ignores the methodology of science, treating all of “science” as if it consisted only in the individual factual claims and explanatory theories produced and justified by scientific methodology – which again ignores I2 in favor of I1. This dodge incorporates multiple levels of missing the point, because all it really accomplishes is to allow the desperate accommodationist to point out that it is possible for some religious beliefs not to contradict science – which still doesn’t constitute an argument against I1.
The few accommodationists with the intellectual integrity to argue against I2 instead of a complete straw man still consistently ignore a large chunk of I2. Eugenie Scott and the NCSE crew, for example, make much of the fact that science as such can only address certain range of phenomena, which range they assert does not include religious claims: They say again and again that science is only and entirely in the particularly narrow business of addressing the regularities of cause-and-effect events in the natural world, and therefore cannot even in principle touch on miracles or supernatural entities/powers/events.
Leaving aside the incoherence of every definition of “supernatural” ever proposed and the fact that miracles do in fact constitute violations of the scientifically established regularities of cause-and-effect events, and also leaving aside the fact that a great many religious claims do in fact fall well within this narrow range of phenomena despite the attribution of the phenomenon in question to some ultimately supernatural cause (which, at least on better days, is sometimes acknowledged by some who take this general tack), this approach fails to address I2 because it willfully ignores the continuity of science with a broader epistemology. “Science” is not some magical, special, completely different way of arriving at knowledge about the world: It is simply a word that refers collectively to the rigorous, formalized application of the broader critical thinking epistemology articulated in I2 to various aspects of nature. I say the argument “willfully” ignores the broader epistemology because the one-sided and often sly phrasing of the argument is so transparently intended to elide the fact that faith utterly fails to offer any plausible alternative to this demonstrably successful way of acquiring knowledge – which was part of Ophelia’s point in the original post, and which I expanded on in comment #14 above. This argument must especially be judged as willfully and deliberately deceptive when offered by atheists, since atheism itself is a conclusion supported by this broader epistemology rather than the narrow considerations of science in itself.
And because you’re the one who asked, Michael, I will note one more category of bad/irrelevant arguments against the incompatibility of science and religion: If you read my description of the broader epistemology as I articulated it above, or for that matter read what any of the people I cited have to say about the connection between science in specific and a scientific way of looking at the world in a more general sense, there is absolutely NOTHING there which indicates any commitment to metaphysical naturalism as opposed to methodological naturalism. Since nothing about I1 or I2 requires or implies anything other than methodological naturalism, raising the methodological vs. metaphysical naturalism question is simply a red herring in this dispute.
This last point has history, of course. I argued something very much like the contents of the prior few paragraphs in the comments on Rationally Speaking when Massimo first brought up accommodationism and offered what I consider to be a very tendentious and distorted characterization of the debate – and since you now contribute to Rationally Speaking, I thought that history was worth citing. When the subject came up later in the context of what I saw as snide and undeserved accusations of “scientism,” Massimo only compounded and entrenched his broader-epistemology-ignoring, science-definition-narrowing arguments. It’s not that what Massimo says on the definition of science and the supernatural is wrong, any more than Eugenie Scott is wrong about the importance of making the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism: It’s that the arguments he’s making have nothing to do with the actual positions of the people he apparently considers himself to be arguing against – and when faced with that objection, he has not to date made the only legitimate response, which would be to show that his purported opponents actually do take the positions he imputes to them. In the absence of such a response, his arguments remain either straw men or red herrings, take your pick.
This is a weird assertion. Is ‘supernatural entities’ code for ‘the one true Gawd that nearly all decent Murkans worship’? Or is it (boldly and honestly) ‘the Jewish versions of YHWH and the Christian versions of YHWH and Allah and Ganesh and Thor and countless other gods and angels and djinns and pixies and Uri Geller and my auntie’s lucky rabbit’s ear’?
If it’s something like the latter, then it’s false, because science can demonstrate (for example) that it’s not pixies turning the milk sour (or whatever),
If it’s something like the former, then it’s on a false premise, because, as the current implosion at Biologos, and countless other schisms in all the big religions, demonstrate, religious people cannot agree on anything important that they know about any supernatural entity.
However, there are many people, including I assume Ayala, who sincerely believe that they regularly experience the presence of the risen Jesus. Can science investigate this experience? I think, yes. Meanwhile, can it properly be called a basis for knowledge? I think, no.
Sorry if this comes up as a double post, but my first attempt seems not to have worked…
Ophelia wrote:
Those aren’t the only alternatives. The full range of justifications given by supporters of a priori MN was considered and refuted in a recent paper: “How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism.” You can find a link to the paper at Taner Edis’s blog:
http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/06/methodological-naturalism.html
Note that I felt the paper’s refutation of the “by definition” position was incomplete, so addressed it myself in comments to the blog.
I would say that a priori MN (or Intrinsic MN as the paper calls it) is used for two purposes: to keep science out of religion, and to keep religion out of science. The former suits the accommodationist agenda. In the latter role it provides a quick and easy (but fallacious) argument against ID, and is actually harmful as it plays into the hands of ID advocates, who use it to argue that ID critics have a dogmatic a priori rule that excludes ID from science regardless of the evidence.
I have read with an increasing sense of disorientation the notes above, as well as the two articles in the Chronicle and InsideHigherEducation. It seems to me that there is a much deeper problem that is not being acknowledged by the compatibilists or accommodationists, and is not clearly noticed by their critics. Indeed, the compatibilists really cannot raise the question of the compatibility of science and religion at all, until they have addressed themselves to the critical scholarship of the Bible which has now been underway for well over three hundred years. It is the impossibly naive reading of the Bible that is adhered to by the evangelical groups noted in Scott’s catalogue of evangelical seminaries that needs to be addressed before those who share these views can even begin to speak about the compatibillity of religion (Christian evangelicalism) and science.
To take but one example. The Old Testament canon, and, in particular the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and the Kings, have been shown to be edited works combining the writings of several different schools. Evidence for this is obvious in the Genesis creation narratives, since there are two creation stories, the first, in chapter 1 of Genesis, clearly the product of a priestly school, and probably reflecting ritual practices in the Jerusalem Temple during the years of the monarchy, and the second and third chapters, containing the work of a Yahwist author, and related to more primitive Canaanite creation stories …. and I could go on here in some detail. But unless evangelicals are prepared to read these works as composed in context — in their Sitze im Leben as biblical scholars like to say — as what we might call ‘scientific’ scholarship has begun to understand them (though that too is, as with all such critical work, a moveable feast), that is, unless they are prepared to accept that critical scholarship has important things to say about the text itself, let alone the specific content and its likely use within the religious practices of Israel, what sense does it make to speak of compatibility of incompatibility between scriptures, naively understood, and contemporary science? All you can end up with is the prevaricating nonsense of the Florida pastor who doesn’t want to upset his particular flock of sheep, which, not to put too fine a point on it, has as much to do with finances as it has to do with care and concern for the people themselves. If he was really sincere, he would want to help them think things through and give them the tools to do so. Refusing to do this is in fact to doom the compatibilist project from the start.
I think these people will find, if they do give some room for a critical understanding of the Bible, that this will be found to be more challenging than evolutionary biology, for it will call a lot of their most comfortable assumptions into question. But unless they are prepared to do this — to open the door to the so-called ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible — they haven’t even begun on the long road that will bring their religion and science face to face. This is what I find so disingenuous about the whole project of Biologos, because the preliminary work is all being left undone, and the imaginary scenario of finding accommodation between a Bible which is naively understood, and science in all its sophistication, is simply that, sheer imagination, based on a refusal to face up to plain facts.
One of the most telling features of the whole sad charade is Francis Collins’ obvious dependence on C.S. Lewis’ apologetic writings. No one would accuse Lewis of intellectual sophistication when it comes to his theological writings. A critical literary scholar himself, there is scarcely any evidence in his work of the use of critical biblical scholarship. But why should anyone who is trying to find points of junction between religion and science be attended to if s/he is not prepared to use critical methods to understand the foundation documents of his/her faith? Not only is this a sign that the work needs to be done again; it is more worryingly a sign that there is a level either of dishonesty or self-deception here that in effect must nullify everything that is being said.
There are some things that science can’t investigate. Therefore, religion is a useful epistemology!
There are some tasks for which a Phillips-head screwdriver is ineffective. Therefore, a wet noodle is a useful item to have in your toolbox!
Two additions to/expansions upon what’s already said. Both probably going without saying, but anyway:
1) Certain categories of supernatural claims can absolutely be investigated by science–and by empirical/rational methods generally. Anywhere they’re so careless as to make claims that have impacts upon the real world, they’re wide open. Randi has done great business taking such charlatans apart. As they so richly deserve. Here, the claim of ‘science has no business…’ is obvious bullshit. It’s like the perp trying to tell the cop he’s out of his jurisdiction on no greater basis than the fact that he himself just painted a red line around the bank he knocked over and declared it his own country.
2) Certain other categories of woo (including the claims of many mainstream religions) which cannot actually be investigated by any empirical method are *still* subject to criticism on *precisely* that basis. Sure, they’ve attempted to rule themselves out of said bounds by carefully making vague, ineffable claims with exactly no discernible impact upon the observed world, but this itself is the very thing critics can (and absolutely should) be pointing out. You might argue this is less the job of scientists specifically than of alert thinkers everywhere, and folk versed in philosophical type pursuits especially, but it’s still a huge tell. And again, it’s as actionable as the bank job in the example above. It’s not that science has no province. It’s that you should hardly need a scientist to work out it’s bullshit.
Either way, religion loses, as it has chosen to do. And non-overlapping magisteria my ass. But hey charlatans, with and without an established church from which to pontificate: if you really want to rule yourselves out of everyone else’s bailiwick, ‘cos you’re tired of having to defend your BS from people who’ve noted that’s what it is, well, chuckleheads, there is actually *one* effective way…
Just shut the hell up entirely. Should do the trick.
This is a fascinating discussion with many valuable contributions. I will copy it and file it.
There is a mismatch and a bit of sleight of hand when people talk of ‘religion as a way of knowing’ as against ‘science as a way of knowing’, and some of the commenters here as I recall have pointed it out before.’Science’ is a term inluding all the separate disciplines of science, each of which is compatible by necessity with all the rest. The propositions of Science A do not contradict those of Science B, but complement them. If this were not so, then readjustments would have to be made to one or both until compatibility was achieved.
But when we see a statement like “science and religion deal with different domains of knowledge” the assumption is made that both ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are each internally compatible in the manner outlined above. That assumption is only half right. People making that claim do not have to specify what scientific discipline they are talking about, thanks to the mutual compatibility of the disciplines. But they do need to specify what religious discipline they are talking about, because the whole lot of them have a history of mutual doctrinal and political incompatibility that has on many occasions boiled over into outright war. This is before we deal with the claims made by some of the more far-out cargo cults twinkling in religion’s sky.
Hence accomodationists in particular should talk of ‘science and Catholicism’, or ‘science and Hinduism’, because while chemistry is not incompatible with physics, Hinduism is definitely incompatible with Catholicism.
Ultimately, it is not about ‘science’ or ‘religion’ so much as politics. When there are so many believers divided into so many religious disciplines, what unites them is their hostility to science: specifically to any suggestion that the claims they separately make can be subject to meaningful examination by people who use only evidence and reason. If 95% of the population of the US, or of the world had no specific religious belief, the accomodationists would go out of business.
(I hope the above makes sense. I am typing it while huddled over my palmtop inside a sleeping compartment of the Indian-Pacific during a late-night stop at Kalgoorlie, WA.)
Slightly OT, but don’t have Ophelia’s email and couldn’t find it in a brief search :-).
Have you checked out the comment thread at The Buddha is not Serious in the last couple days? I know you wanted to kind of move on past the Will from Arkansas thing, but there have been a couple large revelations.
Do you remember Mooney’s Counterproductive Attacks on Religion–Exhibit A post, citing an “anonymous scientist” pseudonym Tom Johnson talking about how evil scientists who are fans of PZ and Dawkins would “make a point AT CONSERVATION EVENTS to mock the religious to their face, shout forced laughter at them, and call them “stupid,” “ignorant” and the like – and these are events hosted by religious moderates where we’ve been ASKED to attend.”
Yeah, that was Will from Arkansas. Mooney made two frontpage posts using his anonymous input, with no vetting or even sanity checks for consistency (and the inconsistency of his story was even brought up in the first comment thread). He was also a really disgusting series sockpuppet in a comment thread following from Intersection post The Value of Science Blogs, claiming to be a woman who was told to “get raped and die” the one time he posted on Pharyngula (among other things…). You were banned at that point so I’m not sure if you ever saw the post and resulting thread. It was rather reprehensible, but at least in hindsight it seems like past the first 50 comments or so it was just sane people arguing with Will sockpuppets and J.J. Ramsey. I’d hate to think so many people could miss the point so completely.
I was all for letting the Will situation die, but this is pretty big stuff, and since you have been intimately involved with things on Mooney’s site before I thought you might want to know.
Gosh, Ian – well done!
I think “it is not about ’science’ or ‘religion’ so much as politics” helps to account for the flexibility Michael mentioned. I use it flexibly that way myself. I sometimes mean by it “people who try hard to pressure atheists into being closeted, especially people who have no qualms about making wild inaccurate hostile generalizations about ‘new atheists’ in the process,” and other times I mean just “people who claim, or often insist, that religion and science are compatible in some sense more substantive than just brute force combination.” A subset of that second meaning might be “people who insist that religion and science are compatible and are aware that mere brute force combination isn’t the same as epistemic compatibility but are very careful never to admit it.” A subset of that would be people who occasionally admit it but don’t admit that they’re admitting anything – that is, they say it, but don’t say that it’s a departure from what they’ve said in the past, or that people have been explaining the difference to them for months with no reply, or that they have learned from their critics and that that fact obviously means that they’re not actually radically different from their critics after all. Chris Mooney is the arch-example of that.
Paul
Oh! No, I haven’t. I said that! I said that a couple of weeks ago! I said that post about the mother whose kid said smack about atheists sounded like that fake Tom. I said that! Ha!
Thanks – will look at once.
Holy crap!
I stopped checking the Buddha thread days ago – relieved to get back to sanity, etc. But I should have kept checking anyway. Sanity is over-rated!
Wow…
Talking of the war between religion and science, off-topic but I am sure OB will forgive me.
There is news that Mooney was taken in by the person calling themselves “William” of the “You Are Not Helping ” blog. The person who has now admitted he was the sole author of all the blogs posts and a good number of the comments there as well. Well “William” has now admitted that the “Tom Johnson” Mooney made a big issue of a while back was all faked. If you recall “Tom Johnson” claimed to have witnessed atheists colleagues haranguing religious believers at an academic conference. Mooney claimed to have verified who Tom Johnson was!
Great journalism from Mooney there.
Yup, hence “wow” and “holy crap.” :- )
Yes, but look how he verified it: “William” sent him a link to the web page of a grad student named Tom Johnson. That’s it. Mooney didn’t actually query the Johnson at the web site, he just accepted “William’s” ownership. It’s quite the most amazingly gullible part of the story.
No idea how I missed that post by Paul. Sorry about that, a bit. Another bit of me was happy to gloat anyway.
I have emailed both Mooney and Kirshenbaum point out what happened and asking what they have to say by why of sorry.
If I get a reply I will let people know.
Appreciate the link. I’m sure those of you trying to lead productive conversations are frustrated by this kind of thing but, speaking as an outsider, I have to say that I found that comments thread wildly entertaining. (It’s so disappointing that the new atheists are that way, but, you know, that’s just the way they are.) And while I know this guy’s done a lot of damage, damn, what a role he plays!
[tears hair] And I said all this at the time! I said – the guy’s a fucking journalist – yet he doesn’t properly check a single anonymous source?! But I couldn’t say it there, because I’m banned. That’s how honest those two are.
I might be able to see it that way, at least some of the time, if it weren’t for the fact that my protracted dispute with him so disgusted my former colleague and co-author that he severed all relations with me (pausing only to tell me how horrible I am and how horrible B&W is), down to defriending me at Facebook.
John Kwok was your coauthor?
Seriously, though, I’m sorry to hear that. “William” did leave a lot of wreckage in his wake, didn’t he? And Mooney was so helpful in fanning the flames.
Heh! Yeah, me and Kwok go way back.
Yes he did.
So, an accomodationist might be one who thinks science and religion are compatible; or an accomodationist might be one who thinks secularists ought to consider tone and approach when it comes to discussing religion and morality; or, to take it a step further, an accomodationist could be one who is an atheist but thinks atheists should quiet down. Don’t you think those three meanings are very different? They do not necessarily go together. I am a shining example of that fact. I do not think science and religion are compatible; I do not think atheists should quiet down; but I do think tone and approach matter in such discussions. Therefore, dubbing me an accomodationist — and I think this goes for most accomodationists — doesn’t tell you where I stand. Instead, it serves to quite easily tell people, “he’s not on our side.”
It might be helpful to note that many commenters, when they think of you, recall your post where you stated that verbiage referring to creation as (paraphrasing) “the myth that the world was created in 7 days” is inappropriate and even unconstitutional in a biology textbook giving an overview of the Scopes trial. While it isn’t really telling atheists to quiet down (as even a religious teacher could give that lecture without significant issue, unless they’re a YEC fundie), it is giving undue deference to religion, which is another notable action that tends to draw the “accomodationist” label (to wit, taking actions that water down or weaken science in order to make religious people comfortable — this goes beyond mere tone).
I won’t claim there is no nuance lost. But the label didn’t get applied to you for no reason. Better terms could be picked, and the very use of such terms is somewhat tribalist as you note.
I’m going to try this one more time, only more briefly this time. But first, of course, this is all about politics. Religion is always about politics, which is what makes it so very very dangerous. Whether that accounts for the imprecision of the term ‘accommodationism’ is another question.
However, let me try to say what I said at length above. I am getting a sense that the whole discussion is pointless. No one that I know of has yet said what it would mean for science and religion to be compatible. Besides, most of those from the religious side who are making this claim have not even provided for the critical (scholarly) study of religious scriptures. This was made very clear from the Biologos clip of Pastor Hunter talking about Genesis. And then to add insult to injury, they add the thought that scripture itself is ‘broken’ and in need of redemption.
But this is just stupid. The ideas of brokenness and the need for redemption are themselves derived from scripture. So, tell me again. Why is this being taken seriously and debated? When the religious have decided to look critically at their scriptures, they will find, as Hitchens argues in detail, that the whole thing is the product of the human imagination. Far from being compatible with science, scriptures have nothing whatever to do with knowing anything at all. They may, as imaginative constructions, if they have any value at all, help us to understand being human in the same way that novels and poems do. It’s just that simple. And until someone shows how these writings convey anything more, then the war of words about whether or not these writings are compatible with science is pointless. They are no more and no less compatible than War and Peace, although at least Tolstoy does explore in that novel a historical theory about the Battle of Borodino, which may or may not be a reliable account of the facts as we know them.
Having said that, I acknowledge that the flurry of activity about Mooney and his being caught in flagrante is much more exciting, and arguably much more important too.
Wow, Mr. De Dora. Congratulations on your capacity to carefully cherry-pick through a lot of interesting discussion of what accommodationism is and what accommodationists do and STILL come up with a very distorted, self-serving picture of the debate.
You quoted Ophelia at length before listing your three potential definitions. What she said in the quoted paragraph supports only the first of your three definitions in an unambiguous way. The third definition you glean from what OB said is a barely recognizable gloss, given the miles of difference in tone and implication between those who think “atheists should quiet down” and “people who try hard to pressure atheists into being closeted, especially people who have no qualms about making wild inaccurate hostile generalizations about ‘new atheists’ in the process.”
But at least the third definition has some connection to OB’s discussion, however tenuous and distorted. The second definition you suggest has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything OB offered in that paragraph or elsewhere as a definition for “accommodationist,” nor with what anyone else on this thread has said. And, not coincidentally, that turns out to be the definition which you say has been applied to you unfairly and is just a flawed label which indicates nothing but “us vs. them” antagonism. Frankly, this constitutes a staggering display of missing the point on your part – one that I find difficult to see as anything but willful distortion. My willingness to extend you the benefit of a doubt, which I have explicitly expressed in the past, is on its last legs.
But let us take your proposed definition seriously, since it seems to be how some of those labeled accommodationists by their critics (such as Chris Mooney) portray themselves. The first thing to note about this self-serving definition is that NONE of the critics of accommodationists and accommodationism – not even PZ Myers at his most fire-breathing – have EVER criticized anyone simply because he or she has expressed the opinion that “secularists ought to consider tone and approach when it comes to discussing religion and morality.” Having that opinion is all fine and good. Moreover, anyone is welcome to disagree with those of use who HAVE considered tone and approach and decided that forthright criticism and even mockery are sometimes justified. A plurality of approaches to social and political debates is a good thing: Even those who see the virtue in being openly critical of religion in some contexts can gladly acknowledge the value of adopting a more careful, perhaps even conciliatory tone in discussions of science and religion by others, or in other contexts – when doing so doesn’t involve lying and distortion. Unfortunately, the “science and religion are just different ways of knowing” and “science has nothing to say about religious beliefs, we swear” position advanced by the AAS and NCSE is in fact dishonest in the extreme for all the reasons OB and myself and several others have argued in this thread. Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers and others have been especially explicit in saying that this particular lie is what they object to, and that they think it would be strategically wiser as well as more honest for such organizations simply not to take a position on the compatibility of science and religion. (This, take note, is very different from saying that public science advocacy organizations ought to adopt any position officially endorsing incompatibility, which both Coyne and Myers explicitly rejected.)
Advancing that dishonest accommodationist position through deliberately fallacious arguments is bad enough, and deserves criticism. The fact that those who wish to advance this accommodationist position consistently and persistently smear and distort the position of those who disagree with them (in the ways outlined in my prior post, and in other ways I haven’t even bothered to go into) is also worthy of criticism. Also justly deserving of criticism is the frequency with which accommodationists – and Mooney is a real champ here – engage in various dishonest rhetorical smears clearly intended to “other” outspoken atheists, such as the ever-popular accusation of “scientism” which, when spelled out in any detail, doesn’t actually apply to anyone so labeled. Those are all things that the people labeled as accommodationists have done and continue doing, supposedly to advance the cause of a more civil discussion between science and religion. It suggests a curiously limited scope to their call for civility, but let’s pass beyond all that.
Since you have offered a positive definition of accomodationism as being primarily about the importance of tone and approach in discussions involving science and religion, let’s address that directly. When discussing what accommodationists appear to be against (because they have so much trouble saying exactly what they’re for), I laid out the following logic:
Your second definition suggests a third option, not so much a logical alternative as a strictly rhetorical one: An accommodationist might admit (openly or not) that both I1 and I2 are true, but might still think that, given certain sociopolitical facts and to accomplish certain goals, the right strategic approach to discussions about science and religion should deny or avoid stating I2, regardless of whether or not it is true. From the moment that self-appointed communications experts like Nesbitt & Mooney started telling us that this fundamentally dishonest communication strategy was best, albeit not in so many words, skeptics have asked: Why? What is your positive argument for this particular approach to such discussions? More specifically, since this seems to be the heart of their communication strategy, judging from the content of their criticisms of the communication strategies of others – why should we never, ever publicly admit that science and religion are incompatible? Those who keep telling us to shut up because we’re “hurting the cause” by pointing out the incompatibility of science and religion have never been very clear about what exactly the cause is and how we’re hurting it, nor can they give an account of how protecting the delicate sensibilities of believers from even contemplating the incompatibility of science and religion will ever accomplish anything. Given that the strategy is blatantly dishonest, and that it seems impractical on the face of it, and that it is entirely unclear exactly what anyone hopes to accomplish by it, why should we or anyone else buy into it? The strategy only seems more unconvincing because those advocating it have also advanced all the slanders, distortions, straw men, red herrings, and other pernicious pseudo-arguments against their opponents which have been discussed on this thread? The dishonest self-portrayal of martyrdom, the claim that accommodationists are being criticized solely for “trying to raise the tone of the debate between science and religion,” is just another in a long line of dishonest arguments they have leveled against their opponents.
There certainly could be a worthwhile discussion on the strategic question of what to do about the incompatibility of science and religion: However, such a discussion can and must be separated from the argument over the actual incompatibility of science and religion. That worthwhile strategic discussion cannot be advanced when many of the potential participants persist in derailing it by dishonestly insisting that science and religion really are compatible in some important way without being able to advance a clear positive argument for that conclusion, or offer any legitimate objections to the many convincing arguments that lead to the opposite conclusion.
NCSE and AAAS are not arguing with you and me. They’re trying to provide cover for science teachers. Reading the story of Dover, PA, you come to appreciate just what it means to stand at the point of attack of creationist parents and public officials. It is some serious shit. In trying to gather allies in a religiously conservative community, it’s helpful to be able to point to the AAAS statement and other accommodationist fluff. When you’re about to get your throat cut, you may have a different attitude toward appeasement.
Notwithstanding that science and religion cannot be reconciled, I fully appreciate why Eugenie Scott finds value in pretending that they can be.
Eric:
I appreciate your comments (here and elsewhere I’ve read them), as much as I agree with you, I can’t help but feel some appreciation for Falk and Giberson. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that they have taken this issue to places that are inaccessible to the likes of Dawkins and Coyne?
Specifically, by being so sonorous, so solicitous, and so committed to the main project of religion – they do end up eroding the wall that the evangelicals have put up. Isn’t Giberson at war with Mohler over the meaning of “truth” and aren’t they arguing about how one can interpret evidence and still be considered “sane”? Giberson of course has to do this by being sonorous and assuring his intellectual adversaries that he loves them (but then that is one of the genius moves of Christianity) and by his explicitly setting up a “place” where this can take place at all … aren’t they helping?
I don’t know the details of Waltke’s theology, was his scholarship of the kind you’d describe as naive? Surely they don’t spend years studying the bible, and ignore the several hundred years of scholarship you reference above? Surely when they say he is a “respected scholar” they mean that he is a respected scholar in the body of work you are citing as “higher criticism”.
http://biologos.org/blog/author/bruce-waltke/
Doesn’t Mohler’s speech lay this out in terms we all can understand?
http://www.biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old
I mean that doesn’t seem like a guy who is confused about any of this, does it?
You seem to be saying that Mohler’s view (and the 30% of the seminary schools who are in his camp) is “naive” – it seems the opposite, his understanding is in depth, detailed, sophisticated and principled. It is just that he takes words to have plain meanings, and is happier to believe that the speed of light could change, than that the bible is not the inerrant word of God.
So, on this point – isn’t he right? Don’t we proceed in science by establishing facts, such as “the the speed of light is a constant”? I don’t know exactly why I believe that the speed of light is a constant, and I can’t do the math, but I accept that people have worked on this problem and it is what they say it is, until such time as they prove it is different. Mohler on the other hand just lives in a world where God can do anything he wants, so he has no problem saying things like “adam was created” it says so right here.
Giberson thought that by making the new atheists into the black hats that he could get a pass from the Mohler’s of this world … but he couldn’t they slammed him … hard.
So I’m not sure it follows that this disagreement is about politics or religion – it seems more accurate to say it is about facts and reason. We feel that the universe is ordered, predictable, and understandable though reason (science), and Mohler is saying very clearly that it is not.
One thing I don’t really understand is the significance of the word “inerrant” because you seem to be saying that “higher criticism” proves “errancy” or makes the bible a “human creation” – but the inerrantists seem to be saying that because the bible is inerrant, the closer and closer you study it, the more inerrant it becomes.
BioLogos seems really to be at war with an “inerrant” bible … so I think it is true that they aren’t trying to reconcile religion and science, per se, they ARE trying to destroy the idea that the bible is “inerrant” – and Mohler and the whole pack of them, have a “confessional” stance that says to call yourself one of us, you have to agree with that.
Remind me again why we are bickering with BioLogos … they seem to be an enemy of my enemy.
Michael – well since those comments you made here recently, I wouldn’t call you an accommodationist any more. This is for just the reasons you suggest – you don’t fit! Just thinking tone matters isn’t enough (isn’t what the word is generally used to mean). I think you said you’d been changing your thinking on the subject; maybe you’re just not in that camp any more.
Eric:
the Florida pastor who doesn’t want to upset his particular flock of sheep,
Biologos has a new video up from Joel Hunter, oh he of sonorous voice to whom you refer.
And in it, he deals with what you are saying, but he’s saying, that he IS willing to upset people, and that is is necessary, regrettable, and not something he does wantonly, but in reality, it is necessary. He actually goes farther than that, he says in effect, if people leave the flock, its OK, firstly it isn’t like they are not lost to the Kingdom, and secondly because we don’t want them around anyway, it is best for them and best for us, because they are happy where they are, and because they hurt our chances of converting people.
Michael de dora
I can’t define it , but some characteristics are common
One characteristic of accomodationists is if there is some bit of religion that is in conflict with some part of science (it could be anything from Adam and Eve to the age of the earth to turning of water to wine) then their default approach is to make up a suitable interpretation(allegories, metaphors, greater truths) so that the conflict does not exist , rather than the simpler ‘religion got it wrong’. In the rare case that they will admit that religion got it wrong , they prefer to not state it publicly to avoid confrontation.
Which brings us to their next characteristic – Any confrontation with the religious is to be avoided (though this does not apply to confrontations with non believers).
Most peddle the science and religion are non overlapping bunkum in some form, but focus on berating the scientists/non believers whereas clearly they should be concentrating on the religious to not overstep their bounds since science clearly knows and defines its boundaries.
Thank you, Scott, for taking the time to respond. First, let me just say that I think it is crucial, if the whole debate about compatibilism is to be carried out, that we have a clear idea of what we are saying is compatible with what. From the scientific side, this seems pretty clear, though clearly there can be philosophical disagreements about the status of scientific theories. However, from the religious side, we seem to be all over the place, and, in this case, for the most part, serious biblical scholarship does not underlie the position that the religious take on the question of the relationship of religion and science.
To some extent, though, Bruce Waltke obviously does. Since I have not read his books, I do not know to what extent he does this, though it is clear, from his having been dismissed from his position, that he has stepped beyond the confessional parameters of the school in which he taught, and, I should have thought, as a result of that, beyond the confessional parameters of the kind of Christianity he adheres to. I get the impression that, while a well-known evangelical scholar, and immensely learned, that he still has not taken on board some of the more radical conclusions to which biblical scholarship has come, but perhaps that is expecting too much.
Mohler’s position, though, is very different, and, though polished, and apparently well-argued, makes assumptions about the role of scripture which are simply unreasonable and unsustainable. He considers that the Bible makes claims to inerrancy, and it simply does not. There is nowhere that I know of where the Bible claims to be the word of god, but this assumption governs everything that he has to say, and it means that his entire discussion is limited by a ridiculously naive idea of what the Bible says, and what it can be reasonably taken to say.
Giberson responds to Mohler in some detail, and challenges him on a few points, but anyone who has accepted the Bible as in some way inerrant is bound to misinterpret the whole of it, as when he speaks of general and special revelation, and can scarcely be expected to respond to these questions with anything other than clever hermeneutics. To respond in any other way would already to have given up on his basic religious/theological presuppositions, and he’s not going to do that.
Nevertheless, the point still stands. What on earth is being said to be compatible here and on what basis? Mohler says this at one point:
Yes, I think it is, and that is why Francisco Ayala has nothing to contribute to this discussion. He doesn’t seem to recognise what is at issue, which is the fact that we have here two completely different ways of approaching the idea of religious truth. Ayala thinks that, where religion conflicts with science, religion must change. Mohler thinks that, wherever there is conflict — and he thinks the collision is head on — revelation trumps science, and special revelation trumps general revelation.
But the plain truth is that, since religion is such a wide house with many narrow rooms, there really is nothing in religion, taken as a whole, that can assuredly be said to be compatible with science. Even if all Christians in the US suddenly accepted Bruce Waltke’s point of view on evolution, to escape the degrading consequence of being reduced to cult status — and of course this is not going to happen — religion is still deeply immersed in a kind of commitment very similar to the commitment to supernatural beginnings, namely, supernatural endings. The whole point and purpose of creation, whether creation takes place in a creative instant, or whether it takes place through evolution, is only fully realised at the end of sacred history, when the consummation of all things takes place of all god’s designs. I dare say that a passable case can be made for god tinkering with evolution to bring about the existence of humans — which is itself a claim for which there is no evidence — but to suppose that, within that process, so understood, is the unfolding of god’s purposes for the kinds of apocalyptic eschatology to which evangelical religion, whether Christian, Islamic or Judaic, are so deeply committed, is to superadd something for which there is no more evidence than there is for god’s participation in beginnings, and arguably much less. As Deepak Shetty says immediately above, this kind of ‘gerrymandering’ with things is just trying to find a form of words which magics conflict away. This is the hermeneutic auction that Ophelia wrote about a few days ago. But the point is that, if this is done at all, it’s done as a kind of stopgap, not because of a critical understanding of what is in the Bible, or of what it can reasonably be taken to say. I still do not see what the debate is about. Religion simply cannot have a content which can, in any sense, be coordinated with the findings of science, and, until it does, speaking of compatibility here is simply comparing apples and oranges, as BioLogos is now in the embarrassing position of finding out.
BioLogos might be the enemy of your enemy, but I think they are just discovering that the programme that want to encourage is not tenable in the way that they supposed. They supposed, naively, that there is a way of making science and religion consistent with each other, so that one could be an intellectually fulfilled theist at the same time as living on the cutting edge of science. I think they are finding out that this is more difficult than they thought, because, at its heart, religion must be uncritical. It is rooted in the irrational, and to bring it out into the light is, ultimately, to destroy it. If we actually look closely at the intention of the original text of sacred scriptures, we will find that it is so at odds with the modern world outlook that the only thing to do is to hide it behind euphemism and prevarication. People forget, when they talk about religion, that, for all its attempts at modernity, it bears, at its heart, the primitive circumstances that gave it birth. To suppose that this can be made consistent with science is not only to dream, it is to destroy, because it cannot be held without denying the critical thought upon which science is founded and the individual freedom that makes such thought possible.
Eric:
Thanks for the dialog here – I know we are scrolling down, but I think what we are thinking about is important.
I think you are right about asking what are we talking about, but I don’t think we really get to decide. The conversation is taking place (in the public square), by our leaders and elected officials, and heads of churches and universities, and so we are going to have to accept that there is a desire in general to understand if “science” and “religion” are compatible, we can either abstain from the discussion, or accept the terms as used “out there”. It must be important, or people wouldn’t care.
It seems to me that what we are talking about on our side is an issue of “meaning” that we scientists might benefit from being clearer about. I agree with your assessment that religion has these primitive circumstances, but then, don’t we humans also have “primitive circumstances that gave us birth”?
Personally, I’m in favor of saying that science informs my “meaning”, and is indeed part of my “worldview”, and describes the “real world” that I care about, and I use it to make moral choices.
I view Mohler as an (intellectual) enemy, as he deliberately abstains from participating in the only means we have of morally interacting with each other, he abstains from reality itself.
Whether or not he is dangerous, or needs to be “addressed”, is another discussion. I like however that he understands that he and I do not share the same values. Hitchens made a movie called “Collision” with this premise. It seems that a lot of people can’t agree that there is a “collision”.
I don’t know how BioLogos and Templeton, go on pretending that a collision doesn’t exist, but it seems to me that we don’t need to “bring it”.
BioLogos seems to think they can balance on their wire holding a long pole with Mohler on one end, and “the new athiests” on the other for balance.
I don’t know if it is good to keep providing this counter balance? As OB said, with guys like Mohler, who needs accommodation? Falk and Giberson have a full blown war on, they are firing their own leaders, and yammering on about the speed of light, and tearing each other up from inside.
This is good. Seems like all we can do is sit safe in the harbor and watch the rockets red glare and the bombs busting in air. Someone is getting beat up, and it ain’t us.
How bout, “BioLogos fights them there, so we don’t have to fight them here”? Go get ’em Gib.
Who was in the court in Dover at the coal face, Dawkins? No. It seems that the real soldiers in this fight are Collins and Giberson. They are the ones who actually have the counter insurgency plan. They are going door to door and killing the “evildoers” like Mohler.
What is the reason we disapprove of BioLogos? I say, have at ’em boys, they are all yours, and look, they ARE staking up bodies … aren’t they?
One question I’d like to ask is about your use of the word, “naive”. To me this word identifies a mindset or way of acting that comes about because of lack of awareness or experience, or knowledge. It seems to me that this (lets call it one third of America’s Seminaries) group, is fully aware, and indeed the authority on the bible (in a scientific sense) – and that therefore calling them “naive” doesn’t advance our understanding of what is going on. This seems to echo one of Harris main points in the end of faith, as long as people pretend that the fundamentalists haven’t had the benefit of a good education and if they’d only read the bible more closely, and learn more context, that they’d change their mind.
Giberson, it seems is also not “naive”, he legitimately hopes to change the minds of men like Mohler, and he feels that the only way to change his fellow Christians is exactly how he is going about it. Why is that naive? Happens all the time in religion, the thing just keeps splitting and fracturing. Half drive around in cars with black bumpers, the other half won’t use zippers.
What is Giberson asking from “science”?
On the topic of the science of evolution, it seems that he’s not asking for any concessions, for instance, he’s not asking for “irreducible complexity” (the opposite, he fights it).
He is however, asking for some running room on the possible “teleological” implications of the findings of science. Specifically he wants the right to believe that evolution has a purpose.
Can we give him that? Honestly, can we?
I found this video taken on a BioLogos retreat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGqtxdKjqbI
Stuff like this happens every time they go out in the woods … a frozen waterfall, a double rainbow … even though they know why water freezes, and why light separates in water vapor, they simply want to know what it means and they are moved to tears by the sight of it.
Giberson, and the New BioProtestants, want the freedom to enjoy life in an ecstatic celebratory and reverent way … they want to be able to assign meaning to things without having Jerry Coyne use his non sonorous voice, and hurt their feelings – they want to be FULL members of the “scientific” community – and they want respect for that. Which as far as I know, they deserve.
However, they also want to expend real money and real talent, to change the thinking of “the evangelical church” … one third of America’s theologians!! They know this, and they want to do it for reasons they feel is important to God, and attacking Mohler for having a conception of God that is too narrow and too small. Can we give them this?
It seems to me that this is exactly what Thomas Paine did in “The Age of Reason”, where he attempts to promote a new religion, Deism – which views the world as “revelation”, and he flushes “revealed religion” down the toilet … this seems to me like a genius move, sometimes I wish I could do it. It is so cool to have a really big god, instead of a really big cold universe.
On one level, a good thing about their brand of theology is that it makes “creation” and the world more of a focus of religion – which is contrary to what you are saying about the “supranatural” commitments of religion. We just don’t care about this stuff, it has no meaning for us. But it does have meaning for Mohler, and lots of others.
Seems like getting Bruce Waltke fired, and drawing the head of the NIH into a “collision” with the leading intellectuals of the Evangelical Chuch, is some pretty respectable achievements, for such a young organization.
Can we give them the meaning of frozen waterfalls and meaning of rainbows?
Right now, I feel like I can. Especially if they are going to use most of their passion to blast holes in the Southern Baptist death cult. I’m all for that.
They have agreed to do the heavy lifting of convert the evangelical church into something less stupid.
Is this a project we oppose? Is this a “useless” project?
At first I didn’t like BioLogos, but now I see them as some kind of deadly strike force operating deep inside the enemy territory. We seem to be treating them like a group that will be dangerous if they win.
If they win, they seem to just want to assign meaning to rainbows … I can live with that … can’t I?
Ophelia,
Can I offer <a href=”http://zachvoch.blogspot.com/2010/07/la-sensabilites.html”>this post </a> as partial explanation for this trend?
In particular, I want to draw attention to the almost purely aesthetic nature of these quasi-apologetics for religion.
Zach – sure – especially if you learn to use the HTML tools!
:- )
Fair enough. I’ve gotten a little better about this :D