Compatibility
We’ve seen that Mooney and Kirshenbaum claim that ‘faith and science are perfectly compatible.’
Austin Cline has a very helpful post explaining how this is done.
Chris Mooney regularly insists that all he wants is to promote the “pragmatic” position that science and religion are compatible. He doesn’t want critics of religion and theism to “shut up,” he just doesn’t want them to keep being so publicly critical. This differs from shutting up in that… well, Chris Mooney can’t quite explain how it differs. But it does, really. You can trust him on that.
As a demonstration of just how trustworthy Chris Mooney is, as well as a demonstration of just what he he thinks “framing” is all about, he recently cited a report which reveals that there is a “silent majority” of Americans who agree with him that science and religion are compatible.
That report, from the Pew Research Center, does indeed shed new light on how people find science and religion to be compatible. What they do is, whenever science says something they don’t like, they just ignore it. Simple!
[A]ccording to a 2006 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form…Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin’s theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard…So what is at work here? How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.
Ah! So that is what is meant by compatible! We suspected as much all along, but how helpful of Mooney to cite a report that spells it out so bluntly and in such detail. Science and religion are ‘compatible’ because many people are perfectly happy just to ignore any theories and evidence that contradict their religious beliefs. Right. We knew that. That’s one of the first things Jerry Coyne said in the New Republic review –
True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind.
Or the even more trivial sense that people can pay lip service to one attitude while allowing it to be trumped by the other whenever that seems more pleasant.
In other words, for a great many Americans, religion and science are ‘compatible’ in a sense that simply contradicts the real meaning of the word. They are ‘compatible’ in the sense that people in this demographic will allow science to go its merry way, and will avail themselves of its benefits, but they will ‘simply choose not to believe’ anything they don’t feel like believing. That’s not genuine compatibility – it’s just compartmentalization, which is in fact the opposite of epistemic compatibility.
It’s funny that Mooney doesn’t seem to dwell on that part of the Pew report very much. He did slip up though in his ‘silent majority’ post, and Austin Cline spotted the slip-up. Mooney quoted this from Pew:
These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations (as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers.
Right – and that, Chris, makes religion incompatible with science, not compatible. It makes the two ‘compatible’ in the brute force sense that people can always just ignore mountains of evidence, but it makes them incompatible in the sense that just ignoring mountains of evidence is in fact not a reliable way to discover the truth about anything.
Mooney seems to rely on equivocation between the two meanings for his whole case, and then express baffled outrage when anyone points this out. Not good.
This is too bizarre for words! What planet does Mooney ‘hale’ from? Bopp? (I know it’s a comet, but it works!)
Religion is not only incompatible with science, as Chris Mooney so tellingly shows, despite himself; it is in fact incompatible with itself. (And this is not on fantastic probablistic grounds like the ones Plantinga alleges against naturalism.)
Once it is acknowledged that the religious are seeking answers to questions, that is, propositional claims that stand a remote chance of being true, the claim that religion is about faith and not about belief (that narrow epistemic space that compatibalists try to occupy) is hopelessly confounded.
But when belief re-enters the picture, as it must, the incompatibilties of one religious belief system with another, even within the same religion, in the absence of methodology for resolving those incompatibilities, must defeat the whole religious project.
It’s high time that we stopped giving the religious a free ride, which they use, not only for their own worldly advantage, but also to impose their moral and other prejudices on those who do not share their beliefs. Let them cut up rough. Do charlatans really deserve respect?
No, no, no again, OB. Clearly you misunderstand. What Chris Mooney actually means is that religion and science are rhetorically compatible, not epistemically or psychologically or factually compatible. We are capable of talking about how science works and what science discovers without ever mentioning how those are in direct opposition to religion in general and faith as the basis for religion in specific. And since we can do so, we ought to do so, for reasons that are patently obvious to Chris Mooney – and would be obvious to the rest of us if we were as smart as he is, or if he would ever condescend to explain his reasoning and present his evidence, and if he would also articulate exactly what ends/values shape that ‘ought’ claim…
Eric, nicely put.
Though I think your comments raise relevant questions about the nature of belief (if there is such a thing). If it turns out that belief has more to do with holding some attitude towards some claim than with acquaintance with the conditions in which a claim is made false, then it would be a different ball-game. For you could not object that the religious (assuming some homogeneity among that group for the sake of argument) are seeking answers if the former were the case. Rather, they’d only be seeking consolation.
Peirce v. Davidson in the grudge match of the century. Whoever wins saves America!
Stop picking on Mooney! Can’t you see what a breakthrough this is? Science and faith are now united by Mooney’s Method: Pragmatic Compartmentalization for Perfect Compatibility.(PC2)
Move over NOMA, make way for NOAM or
Non-overlapping Areas of Mind.
p.s. PC2 also works wonders on the illusions of incompatibilities within and between all of the world’s great religions!
p.p.s. BTW, PC2 performs poorly if there are negative vibes in the air, so be very, very quiet.
snerk
Funny.
Slightly off-topic, but Ophelia, I thought you’d be interested in seeing how McCarthy (a pox on his name) completely misrepresented you at Mooney’s blog and then railed at you for something you didn’t say:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/02/pz-your-book-is-en-route/#comment-22537
I set him straight on a couple of points, but since Mooney has a habit of not approving comments he doesn’t like (I have personal experience with this), I don’t know if mine will get out of moderation purgatory. If it doesn’t, I hope you don’t mind if I re-post it here.
And Chris, if you happen to be reading this, please don’t claim you only deny comments that are “vulgar” or “off topic.” You let quite a few through when they come from people who defend you (although defense by McCarthy or Kwok is of questionable value), even if they’re filled with outright lies and malicious personal attacks.
Thanks Josh. Typical McCarthy (not that I’ve read his comment, but misrepresenting is typical). But I doubt that anyone but Kwok bothers to read him. I know I don’t! He writes tens of thousands of words a day on Mooney’s posts, none of them interesting; I just skip right past him in quest of the elusive answer from Mooney.
Sweet weeping Jesus on flatbread, how stupid am I for having been willingly sucked into the void that is Anthony McCarthy? It’s not that I was innocent – I’ve watched his torrent of pomposity and contemptous dismissal for weeks now. So why did I do it?
Must. Not. Reply. To. McCarthy.
Heeheeheehee – there’s Gill T telling himself the same thing now on the latest thread. McCarthy is like a great sucking device for gulping down other people’s time.
Mind you so is Mooney, but Mooney is far more significant plus he wrote two very good books before he got sucked in (another great sucking device) by Matt Nisbet, so he’s more worth disputing (and trying to convince).
There’s certainly something hypnotic about the way the way McCarthy argues.
He’ll move his goalposts while accusing his critics of moving their goalposts. He’ll quibble over trivialities and tangents, while accusing his critics of the same. He constantly accuses people deliberately misunderstanding him, but never tries to clarify his position. He’s recently using a tactic of claiming he’ll invite neutral third parties to look at the discussion, and they’ll agree with him, as if it’s not his job to communicate with the audience in front of him, so to speak.
It’s like stereogram. I keep looking, and trying to see what he sees. But I can’t wrap my head around it. But there’s also a morbid fascination, like rubbernecking at a train wreck.