say it loud, accommodationist and proud?
There’s an old joke about a university professor who’s asked to name the most expensive faculty members to keep on his campus. “Physicists and computer scientists,” the president replies. “They always want to build a new supercomputer or buy another top of the line machine, unlike our mathematicians who only need paper, pencils and erasers. Or better yet, philosophers. Those guys don’t even need the erasers.” And just like those philosophers, Michael Ruse doesn’t think that we should override old ideas with new knowledge, especially in some of the most important and fundamental questions about our existence and our future. Instead, he is far more at home writing on religious blogs about how he’s mistreated by those nasty atheists and waves his accommodationist colors like a battle flag on Francis Collins’ and Templeton’s pseudo-scientific brainchild, BioLogos. Sorry Michael, you can’t have it both ways and no amount of complaining will ever change that…
As we’ve seen before, accommodationists are all about building bridges and communicating unless there’s a specter of atheism in sight. Then, they get downright nasty and invite their theistic allies to unite with them to defeat a common enemy who breaks up the Kumbaya moment they’re trying to have. Ruse’s lamentations are just another manifestation of this anti-atheist streak in the accommodationist movement and a pretty obvious attempt to net himself a Templeton Prize. Unfortunately for him, the most likely winner of that award is Francis Collins, whose attempts in using science to proselytize Evangelical Christianity is the stuff that Templeton dreams are made of, and their very expensive, high brow fellowship already went to Chris Mooney. But then again, the award is given out every year and perhaps Ruse is going for consistency here. Once upon a time, I used to think that accommodationists just really believed they could politely tell people that holding two highly contrarian views about the same thing would end debates between scientists and religious fundamentalists and set the world right. But seeing how their arguments began deteriorating into politics and the steady flows of cash and awards from religious groups into their coffers, I can’t help but doubt their motives.
Of course, atheists aren’t interested in watching religious organizations get accommodationists to help out in their agendas with a steady stream of cash and are starting their own groups to help prominent atheists get a grant or two. However, what they offer pales in comparison with what groups like Templeton are willing to pay to those willing to browbeat atheists with meaningless allusions to civility or cooperation (unless you happen to be one of those evil New Atheists, then you should just shoo and leave them alone), or with blatant science abuse. And this is where we have a problem. You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth while getting paid by one side of the debate every time you ridicule people who don’t buy the idea that it’s perfectly okay, or even enlightened, to believe that 5 + 5 = 9.987 is just an elaboration of 5 + 5 = 10 and that both ideas are correct in their own ways. It’s like being a defense lawyer being paid and schmoozed by the plaintiff during a trial. Sure, you could insist that you’re going to be a fair minded champion of justice in this situation, but human nature is such that we tend to avoid biting the hand that feeds us, even if prior to handing us another paycheck it took a shot at someone its owner found offensive by the target’s very existence.
[ illustration by CG artist Fabricio Moraes ]
Does it make you curious why these guys are most likely to be philosophers, and not real scientists?
This is overly simplistic. Of course we “accomodationists” want to include New Atheists in the conversation around religious pluralism – but what we encounter is the same problem we have bringing Fundamentalists (religious and non-religious alike) on board. When you are unwilling to accommodate another’s belief, that means you’re unwilling to engage. You can label pluralism as “accomodationism” or mock is as Kumbaya-esque, but divisive, closed-minded monologuing is symptomatic of the same kind of my-beliefs-first attitude that has made religion problematic as well. So yeah, I’ll say it with volume and pride: I want to make room for the beliefs of others.
When you are unwilling to accommodate another’s belief, that means you’re unwilling to engage.
While I have to admit that I’m not really sure what exactly you mean by your use of the word “accommodate” here, I still have to say I find this total nonsense. Holding to a firm standpoint and not abandoning it in favor of pluralism has nothing whatsoever to do with engagement. In fact, I’m far more inclined to consider pluralism as an attempt to evade engagement in and of itself.
… but divisive, closed-minded monologuing…
I have to say, I certainly don’t consider any participation I have had in any forum on religion as being “closed-minded,” and consider that statement as being divisive by itself.
… is symptomatic of the same kind of my-beliefs-first attitude that has made religion problematic as well.
I see this as taking the same approach as dispute settlement usually does, that of the “false middle.” If one party thinks killing human babies is heinous, and another finds human babies delicious, the “proper” approach is not to settle for, “Human babies can be killed but it shouldn’t be enjoyed.” And that’s where I find accommodationism. Fundamentalists may say that the world was created in seven real days, and I, as one of those New Atheists I think (who finds it amusing that you capitalized that but put “accommodatioist” in quotes as if it is less of a real term,) find religion to be nothing but mythology. Should I choose to debate this subject, I find it absolutely useless to dump my standpoint in favor of, “Yeah, we’re both right.” What point would there even be in engaging in dialogue then? I have problems with religion precisely because it not only holds fervent yet unsupportable beliefs, but chooses to inflict them on others from a standpoint of ultimate authority. Should it even come close to holding some form of middle ground and acceptance of differing viewpoints, I wouldn’t have such issues with it.
So you suggest meeting in the middle, shaking hands, and talking about the weather? That’s avoidance and denial. Why bother?
So yeah, I’ll say it with volume and pride: I want to make room for the beliefs of others.
Why? No, seriously, that’s an honest question. What purpose does this serve? I want to hear what you aim to accomplish with this, what goal you have in mind.
I’ll say it with volume and pride: I want to make room for the beliefs of others.
In what context exactly? If both vocal atheists and accommodationists agree that you can’t teach creationism in science class and abusing science to justify an agenda is wrong, what’s the disconnect? Why should there be a decrying of atheism? In what I have seen so far, the ridicule of atheism is done to appease the religious crowd to which atheists are evil and immoral and for the rewards of acceptance.
Believe it or not, I don’t want to take people’s religious beliefs away. If someone took science classes and believes that God created evolution billions of years ago, that’s fine by me since everyone is entitled to their beliefs. All I want is respect for science and respect for atheists as human beings who are just as worthy as any religious adherent. And trust me Chris, with some of the stuff you’re doing, you’re not going to win any fans in the atheist community.
It’s actually a funny coincidence that I was just working on a post detailing what you’re doing to help further alienate atheists from your cause and I have a feeling you’re not going to like what I have to say…
@Just Al: “False middle.” You are so cool!
@gfish: Erudite, as usual.
@Chris: I’m not sure where you’re coming from, but I, like Just Al and gfish, can see no basis for accomodation between atheists and religionists. Assuming, of course, that we continue to live under the Constitution for the United States of America, we can come together for political purposes: Which would include, for instance, science education in the public schools, detention without due process, the wisdom (not to mention the legality) of foreign wars, and so forth.
But I’m willing to share space and mission with almost any damned belief you can name. In fact I do. I attend a Unitarian/Universalist Church; the congregation includes atheists, agnostics, Pagans (which I’m still trying to define in my own mind), spiritualists, and Christians (or something very like – they admire Jesus above all, and count him the Son of God, even if they’re not much into the creation myths of the Jewish Bible.)
The distinction rests on the word “accomodation”. Am I willing to concede that Paganism is cool? No. Am I going to be evangelical with them or accept their evangelizing me? Double NO.
What gfish’s original point was is that the “accomodationist” argument, that we shouldn’t assert scientific fact with such force, we shouldn’t push so hard, we should just let the religionists chew their cud for whatever time it takes them to see the light, has very little merit. The issue is, and has been for over a hundred years, creation vs evolution. Yes, yes, I know, it’s no issue at all. One might say, “The real issue is descent from ‘monkeys’, God made Man in His image, not by evolution from an earlier primate!”
And that’s an equally meaningless dispute, why wouldn’t an omniscient God know that evolution would lead to His desired outcome? The issue is when they who feverishly believe the Genesis creation myths decide to interfere in the science curriculum in the public schools. It’s no longer religious, it’s political, and professors who wish and wash are not helping.
Hey folks – thanks for responding! I found this website after reading a post Greg made on my blog and there’s a lot to mull over here. I have much to say in response to your responses but, unfortunately, very little time, so I’ll just say that while I agree with some of what you’ve said, I still think that accommodating others’ religious beliefs is the quickest route to a more peaceful, engaged and collaborative society. I don’t think it’s avoidance or denial at all – it’s efficiency and prioritizing. For example: religious folks and I may not agree on how the earth was created, but isn’t the more important conversation around how we can take our shared ethic of caring for the earth – be it religious or secular in origin – and put it to work, combining our religious and secular resources to get the job done quicker? Perhaps our disagreement over “accommodation” is more an issue of semantics here. In any event, Greg, I look forward to reading more of your work and hope we can find some common ground.
(Which is to say, no, I didn’t miss your mention that you’re putting together a post about my work. I’ll look forward to reading it – I appreciate an opportunity to receive feedback / critiques.)
For example: religious folks and I may not agree on how the earth was created, but isn’t the more important conversation around how we can take our shared ethic of caring for the earth – be it religious or secular in origin – and put it to work, combining our religious and secular resources to get the job done quicker?
Sure, but I fail to see what that has to do with accommodation. Who, for instance, is blocking the conversation in the first place? I have discussions all day long with people about the proper way to get things done – religion, or lack thereof, never enters the room, nor is there any reason that it should. Am I missing the places it starts becoming a stumbling point?
We have several newsworthy items bouncing around right now, of legislation and standards being pushed to allow/support religious viewpoints in science classes. Is this what you’re talking about? Because I’m going to disagree with you, vehemently, from a very basic premise: science is about facts, experiments, and evidence. Without the support of any of these, religion simply does not belong in the same discussion. If you’re claiming it should, all you’re doing is redefining science (to its detriment) and trying to add legitimacy to religion by inferring there’s some kind of evidential support. That’s simply damaging one of the best tools mankind has ever wielded in favor of not being confrontational – that’s ludicrous.
If you want religion included in science classes under the same examination as any other topic – chemistry, biology, etc. – I’m all for it. There would be nothing that would trash religion faster than examining, for instance, the roots of the Moses stories, and the blatant plagiarizing of Mesopotamian and Sumerian legends. But I’m willing to bet that you’d find resistance from the other side of the fence ;-) And quite frankly, that’s cultural, not really science, and belongs in Social Studies…
Now, something for you to ponder. You’ve mentioned caring for the earth. Who, do you suppose, is more likely to enact a plan for this more effectively: someone who recognizes the delicate balance among living things that has been shaped over millions of years, or someone who thinks the planet (universe!) was created solely for them, and that they get a special playground for eternity after they die?
This isn’t just a nasty question – it’s a very real concern I have over getting people to realize the consequences of our actions. How big is this roadblock, in reality?
@Just Al: Woohoo! Talk about hitting the nail on the head.
I was just ruminating the other day with my sister, about the latest craze: A Bible Studies course/curriculum in the public high schools. I said,”How ignorant can they get? They think Bible Studies will be taught by the pastor of the Third Street Baptist Church. They don’t have a clue what Bible Studies means at Princeton, Duke or Harvard, or even The University of Texas. They have never heard of biblical criticism. They’ve never heard of higher Biblical criticism, literary, textual, historical/contextual,
etc. When they get a taste of the state of the art in these matters, they will go ballistic.” “For instance: Genesis 1 was probably composed and inserted ahead of Genesis 2 after the Judeans were freed from Babylon (Mesopotamian myths) and sent home by Cyrus the Great; Moses, the enslavement of the Isrealites, and the Exodus, are not historical, in fact the Pyramids and other great works of ancient Egypt were built by Egyptian yoeman farmers, not slaves; King David has no historical basis; Jesus has no documented reality, yet Roman records are quite clear about dozens if not hundreds of other Jews of the period. The synoptic gospels state that the Sanhedrin convened on Friday night (already Saturday in Jewish law – the Passover Sabbath) to hear charges against Jesus, which is absolute blithering nonsense, they would all have been guilty of a violation of the commandments of Moses. An absolutely fatal mistake for a priest.”
And we can say, well, you brought it on yourselves. Fundamentalism has its burdens.