the creationists’ unwitting butler
Philosopher Michael Ruse doesn’t like vocal atheists, especially the ones who actively speak about the merits of their ideas; the so-called New Atheists. He liked the old ones better. They old ones kept quiet and if you barked at them loud enough, they’d go away altogether. And despite his agnosticism and detailed notes on what exactly he doesn’t believe about theistic doctrines, when it comes to debates about whether kids should be taught creationism in science class or not, he likes to compliment creationists and their religious fervor as he excruciatingly politely disagrees with them. Even when they say absurd things that deserve a swift and brutal rebuttal.
So as any proponent of good science would do, he made a big guest post on a religious site to bemoan how bad the New Atheists are, how creationists aren’t motivated by money (yes, not even the stream of tax-free donations they get every year and their six figure incomes) and worst of all, how the atheists in his crosshairs pick on little poor him for trying to be gentlemanly and struggle to understand the ardent creationists’ point of view. But since that’s not enough of a critique for a scientifically minded reader, he also accuses the New Atheists of wrecking scholarship.
Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non- being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.
Now, to a philosopher who talks about viewpoints all day long, this might seem like a weighty charge. To a scientist who’s tacking the direct points at which religious belief and scientific fact clash, this is just random griping. Dawkins doesn’t set out to write treatise after treatise on religion. He sets out to put a million watt spotlight on the places where theism is trying to replace reality. What he needs is a solid scientific base first and foremost, letting the facts speak for themselves. If Ruse wanted to keep his criticisms consistent, he would’ve noted that creationists would fail any basic scientific curriculum and proudly ridicule something they haven’t the slightest grasp of. However, they’re all fine chaps who are just a wee bit misguided at some points as far as he’s concerned.
And here’s the big difference between accommodationists like him and the New Atheists. The likes of PZ and Coyne and Dawkins are willing to say that the reason why the creationists are a wee bit misguided is their religious belief which forces them to view facts through a prism and gives them the ability to pick and choose what parts of reality they’ll accept. Ruse, on the other hand, thinks that pointing that out is simply terrible and would offend creationists’ sensibilities. Like Mooney and Kirshenbaum, he seems to think that if you’re really, really nice to people who couldn’t give less of a damn about the facts if they tried, they’ll suddenly open their eyes and accept a point of view they see as evil and sinful. That’s not going to happen. You might as well try turning cats into dogs.
The creationism/evolution “debate” is first and foremost a culture war issue that pits good science against stubborn dogma. Pointing that out will get you called a few nasty things but trust me, a few choice names later, I managed to survive. Ruse would too. But of course, that runs against his mantra…
I engage with believers – I don’t accept their beliefs but I respect their right to have them.
Sure, they can have all the beliefs they want. If we don’t respect people’s right to have their own ideas, we’d lose a vital part of public discourse. However, I don’t see why respecting people’s right to an opinion must mean that the opinion itself can’t be criticized in no uncertain terms. The very creationists he names as his friendly sparring partners over the years blame the horrors of Nazi Germany on Darwin, teach their students how to be apologetics trolls on “hostile” science blogs and insist on cramming theology into the classroom by casting scientists as villains who reject God because evolutionists are just evil by nature. How much respect do we have to dole out to arrogant liars and shameless ignoramuses? Ruse spends absolutely no time pondering this question aloud and instead whips out this ridiculous argument by assertion…
If teaching ‘God exists’ is teaching religion – and it is – then why is teaching ‘God does not exist’ not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment.
If this argument were actually true, we would have to shut down every secular science class around the world. With no respect for the century and a half of scientific progress, he uses the word “Darwinism” to describe evolution and hacks up the facepalm-inducing “atheism is a religion” claim you can hear from any overzealous religious pundit. It seems that Ruse’s desire to bend over backwards, sideways and twist himself into a pretzel to be the living, breathing manifestation of politeness to creationists, has finally made him talk like them. It’s as if he’s serving up their arguments on a platter like a butler who doesn’t know he’s become one.
In the scientific worldview, you can’t use the supernatural to explain events. You can’t create a cop out and call it a day. No, you have to get to the bottom of things. When you study scientific theories, you make the assumption that unless you can spot evidence of something, you can’t say that it exists with any certainty. And this, exactly this, is what both atheism and science classes teach. They instruct students how to be skeptics, how to explore and how to ask for proof. No one should ever tell them that we have absolute proof that something that can be considered a higher power doesn’t exist. Just that we have no evidence of one at the moment and it could be anything from an omnipotent, omniscient God with a flowing white beard, to a group of enigmatic supercomputers ala The Matrix, or giant, scaly alien lizards.
Michael, if you no longer understand what science teaches and that “maybe God exists, maybe he doesn’t and maybe we have the whole God thing wrong and it’s really something else entirely” is not even close to teaching that “God doesn’t exist, never had, never will,” maybe it’s time to get your head out of the philosophical clouds, come down to Earth and pick up a few actual books about science. The ones with the difficult words which don’t involve frequent references to Greek legends and big numbers arranged into formulas. Then we can go on a tour of school board meetings where angry people are literally thumping Bibles not to let their children study real science. Perhaps then you’ll finally realize that hugging Dembski after politely disagreeing with him about fluffy nothings, isn’t the best way to defend scientific literacy. And I daresay, you just might consider that the New Atheists are really quite a sensible, if fiery, bunch.
Mr. Fish,
I believe that you have fallen for a serious intellectual and political trap. You are arguing that science necessarily entails atheism and vice versa. Fundamentalists (i.e. creationists) want to make the exact same argument, “You cannot accept both Christ and Darwin, you must choose one or the other”. However there are many scientists, probably the majority, who believe that they can indeed accept both. Cardinal Cesare Baronious interestingly said “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. The Gospels, or the Tanakh, or the Qu’ran, or the Mahabharata teach theology, not science and that science has nothing to say about theology. I believe it is a fundamental error to create an artificial and un-necessary disjunction that will ultimately play politically into the hands of creationists.
Great article Greg, well done.
“You are arguing that science necessarily entails atheism and vice versa.”
Really? My take on the article wasn’t an argument for atheism as much as it was an argument against creationism. That science is the best tool against creationism doesn’t say much about atheism except that some people have become atheists because of science. Not all scientists are atheists, but I don’t agree with what you said next:
“‘You cannot accept both Christ and Darwin, you must choose one or the other’. However there are many scientists, probably the majority, who believe that they can indeed accept both.”
Let’s not speak on the behalf of scientists here by injecting our own opinions (especially in a statement that assumes most scientists are Christians), but if I had to offer my own, I’d say the complete opposite. I’d say the majority of scientists are atheists, and the ones who are theists have had an incredibly difficult time reconciling their faith with their profession.
There are a lot of creationists (like the infamous Kent Hovind) who want to push creationism as a science or an “alternative theory” to evolution. It’s all religious propaganda, of course, because to believe in a higher power of any kind responsible for creation takes a faith that is completely incompatible with science and the scientific method.
“You are arguing that science necessarily entails atheism and vice versa.”
Not in the least. I’m arguing that science entails skepticism which just happens to match atheism’s stance towards the supernatural. You can certainly have a personal belief in the eyes of science, but unless you can provide enough evidence for it, you can’t go around calling it a fact.
That’s actually the big problem with people like Francis Collins and his counterparts. As I wrote in a previous post, rather than keep his beliefs and hard science separate, he uses his faith to dictate why and how science should get done, as well as how it’s interpreted for further research.
I’m well aware of the high minded separation of science and religion in theological circles. However, when it comes to creationists in the United States, that separation gets shattered. In their view, religious texts are the only body of knowledge humans need and theology trumps science. So if they can’t find a reference to evolution in the Bible, separate domains be damned, science must be wrong and evolution is Satan’s gospel.
Nicely written.
Mr. Flores,
I am scientist (I have a Ph.D. in environmental chemistry) and know and work with a significant number of other scientists so I am not speaking without some experience. I think it is a fairly safe statement many scientists accept some sort of religion, including Christianity.
However this neither here nor there. Creationism and fundamentalism are neither religious nor scientific movements but rather political movements. There are many aspects of modern US society that are not “democratic” or egalitarian. For example, there are some activities, for example the practice of medicine, which only some people are allowed to do. Further, there many government bodies, advisory committees, licensure boards, &c where only certain individual with specific government recognized credentials can be a members (I myself have been on such bodies). Even more broadly, such individuals are often looked to by the media, legislatures, or society in general as “experts” with a certain credibility that is not “democratic”.
Fundamentalism seeks to create this same undemocratic authority for religious leaders. Creationism is how this movement seeks to create that authority in field of science, hence the move to view “creation science” as “just a theory” just as evolutionary biology is supposed to be. The opinions of religious leaders are to taken with the same “undemocratic” authority that say an MD might have in medicine. The logic here is that God is the ultimate authority on everything and those with the knowledge of God, share in that authority. The battle cry of the fundamentalists is that human science is against God and since our entire existence is dependent upon the will of God, science must bow before God. This being the case, authorities on God must be given authority over all aspects of human life. This is the key point, creationism is a political question masked in religious clothes. Since there are great many religious people in the world, a religious disguise creates a certain amount of popular appeal, which creates political power.
This is why it is a mistake to try to address the question creationism in religious or even scientific terms, it accepts the assumptions of fundamentalism, God vs. science. Creationism needs to addressed for what it is behind its mask of piety, naked political ambition.