how accommodating can you get?

Imagine yourself as a skeptic arguing with a religious zealot who insist that creationism needs to be taught in your local school district and that evolution is nothing more than atheist gospel. You counter with evidence for the evolutionary process and point out that religious dogmas aren’t the same scientific theories. Suddenly, a few people from the audience jump up and say that while you’re technically right, you should recognize that it’s not impossible to believe in a higher power and respect science at the same time, that science was inspired by religious devotion and that you should be nice to your zealous opponent because if you don’t say anything mean about his beliefs, he’ll eventually come around. What happened? You’ve met the accommodationists.

The accommodationist position seems to be confusing at best. Yes it’s true that a lot of scientists made a lot of profound discoveries and studied the natural world because they were inspired to learn how it was created by a supernatural being. And yes, it’s true that there are a lot of people who separate their science from what they hear in church and have no problem believing in a deity and defending the science classes from the likes of Don McLeroy and Barbara Cargill because they think that a good science education is crucial. And as you might’ve already guessed, these aren’t the people who make it a habit to barge into school board meetings to spew fire and brimstone speeches as they wave Bibles in their hands. Appealing to moderate theists for help in backing science education and respect for scientists is just preaching to the choir.

This is where the accommodationist stance slips into politics. Believing that moderate sensitivities are one of the vital but fragile pillars of public support for scientific endeavors, they want to muzzle atheists, skeptics and unbelievers who don’t strike a Reader’s Digest style, non-confrontational tone when defending science. They would much rather give more leeway to religious and inaccurate interpretations of evolution and cosmology in the public eye than a critique of fundamentalist notions. And while the Ray Comforts and Ken Hams and their friends sabotage education, they sit back and insist that the fundamentalists will come around on their own or will eventually be swayed by enough evidence. To speak ill of their beliefs is to offend the moderates who will suddenly bolt and rush to defend the very same people with who they vehemently disagreed before.

One of the accommodationists’ favorite tenants is that religion and science pursue different knowledge so in theory, they should have no problem co-existing. But the reality is very different. Religion is a social construct which exists to perpetuate its traditions rather than actually acquire any new insight. All the knowledge it wants is already contained in its holy books and the lengthy ruminations on them. Those who feel inspired to go out and explore, find themselves in the realm of science, a bureaucratic entity which gathers, documents and sifts through new knowledge. It started off as a nearly blank slate and its entire purpose is to find new information and grow with each discovery.

The conflict between the two spheres happens when scientists discover something that contradicts religious dogma and the people who rigidly follow their holy texts mount a campaign to defend their worldview from the new information. Do you honestly think that fundamentalists are interested in broadening their horizons when their primary concern is to make sure everyone around them does as they say? In the supposed war between science and religion, the actual facts take a back seat. Rather, the debate is about whether we could pick and choose our personal worldview regardless of the facts. Creationists aren’t mad because they did a study that found major contradictions in evolutionary biology. They’re mad because scientists dare to tell the world about evolution and use facts they passionately want to ignore to teach this knowledge in schools.

We can see the same problem when people mix their beliefs into facts to reconcile the contradictions in their minds. Sure they think they’re creating a profound blend of theology and science, but all they’re really doing is trying to cram their dogmas into the fluid, expanding body of knowledge that is science and coming up with a muddled mess. Testable claims are mixed with opinion and personal desires so we get quotes like “people have experiences scientists can’t explain” promptly followed by “and don’t you give me any studies otherwise, they were all done by atheists and they’re all wrong” or “if we can’t repeat CERN experiments at home, all the claims those scientists make aren’t falsifiable.” In other words, don’t try to prove your point because I have no interest in hearing it, and if I can’t replicate an experiment at home or understand the science involved, it’s just random conjecture. Accommodationists don’t stop for even a moment to point out just how anti-scientific that attitude is, parading it as some great reconciliatory gesture in fear of offending anyone of faith.

Instead of trying to draw a line between facts and our personal interpretations of what those facts mean about the universe at large, and make sure that the boundary is loud and clear, we’re supposed to be timidly sitting in the corner and quietly ask if it wouldn’t be too much trouble not to muddy the scientific waters. And if we just drop the milquetoast act to make the case that separating science from religion is a good idea, we get swiftly cast as loud, obnoxious new atheists who only want to bully and demean religion, and bombarded with empty quotes about how it’s foolish to claim absolute knowledge of anything. This tactic doesn’t address the issues at hand or answer any questions. Its intent is to make us be quiet and go away while the accommodationists can mingle with their like-minded friends, complaining about those silly absolutists and their quaint notions like keeping fact and opinion separate.