why the faithful aren’t so accommodating…
Generally, readers of skeptical and science blogs get to see criticisms of accommodationism from scientific and politicial viewpoints. We note how they’re more backstabbers than allies, marvel at their lack of spines to stand up for facts while bravely ridiculing scientists for being scientists, and continuously point out just how strenuously they try to avoid a straight answer, casting anyone who questions them as a sociopath on the warpath against the faithful. And while all those critiques are still true, there’s a new set we could add to them by looking at what the faithful think of accommodationist groups and their attempts to subtly introduce a few watered-down scientific theories that pay a whole lot of lip service to a deity and are supposedly explicitly cleared by hordes of theologians. In his follow up to BioLogos’ ideological statement of beliefs, Jerry Coyne unearthed the following quote from a well known Baptist theologian who’s very, very unhappy with ceding a cherished tenet of faith for fundamentalists everywhere: the supposed inerrancy of their holy books…
BioLogos has published explicit calls to deny the inerrancy of the Bible. The concerns do not stop here. The Bible reveals Adam to be an historical human being, the first human being, the father of all humanity. Adam is included in biblical genealogies, including the genealogy of Jesus Christ. If the arguments offered thus far by BioLogos for resolving the “theological challenges” associated with “evolutionary creation” are any indication of what is likely to come in the future, [BioLogos] will wait a very long time indeed for evangelicals to join their club.
Would it be too obvious if I say "told you so!" to any accommodationists who read this blog? My very first posts on accommodationism pointed out that the devoted faithful will not decide to part with their holy texts and their ideas of their inerrancy just because we tell them that science and faith can be reconciled. To them, a phrase like this means that all this uppity and unruly science nonsense with its evolution and cosmology will be held in line as not to venture into their beliefs, not that they’re going to have to give some ground to the facts. In the mind of the faithful, they have the divine truth. Why should they cede any ground to science, a methodology the findings of which they automatically discard when they argue against something they passionately believe, or praise when they can twist them into some support for one of their cherished dogmas? Our theologist shows this attitude perfectly by declaring that BioLogos has gone too far in denying that the Bible is the infallible word of the divine and should be treated like a history book. To him, if science has no evidence for Adam and Eve in our ancient past, the science must be wrong, and for BioLogos to push this science is a travesty. See, this is what happens when accommodationists finally decide to take a firm stance on an article of faith and can’t just hide behind vague appeals to "non-overlapping magisteria" and "compatibility between worldviews." Instead of being praised across the spectrum, they get angry cries from those whose beliefs they impinged.
But come on, accommodationists might say, we’re not trying to reach the fundamentalists because they’re too far gone in their world but we’re trying to appeal to the moderates! Well, guess what, the moderates aren’t the ones petitioning school boards to stop teaching astronomy and evolution and the moderates weren’t the ones who ran the Texas SBoE when it gutted the state’s educational standards into oblivion. They’re not the ones trying to legislate dogma as national law. They’re not the ones crusading against scientific research because they were told it was an abomination by a televangelist. They’re on your side. They don’t want creationism and its various strains in school, and they don’t want priests teaching science classes to boost church attendance through implicitly validated breach of the wall that should be there between church and state. Appealing to the moderates and liberal faithful is basically preaching to the choir and all it does is make them feel good about their faith while bashing some of those mouthy atheists who keep squawking about science and evidence for this or that. Those who are actually having a negative impact on our schooling and on our politics because of their burning desire to ensure that all heed their opinions as the word of God despise accommodationism in all its forms anyway. To them it’s just wishy-washy pretence at faith, pretence that true followers like them just can’t tolerate in their binary world of us vs. them and in-the-book vs. not-in-the-book.
What I’m basically saying is that the only accomplishment that accommodationists could claim is in making some of the more moderate and liberal faithful think they’re really swell fellows and buy a few of their books or pat them on the head. In terms of getting those who most need to understand real scientific concepts and the merits of ongoing scientific research, things would be exactly the same with or without accommodationists in the picture. Well, maybe with a little less atheist bashing since that’s generally to what they revert when they’re being asked tough questions requiring them to actually take a stance and suggest something more concrete than a grand sounding euphemism for talking, or to find a quick scapegoat for some interfaith debate…
“Well, guess what, the moderates aren’t the ones petitioning school boards to stop teaching astronomy and evolution and the moderates weren’t the ones who ran the Texas SBoE when it gutted the state’s educational standards into oblivion. They’re not the ones trying to legislate dogma as national law. They’re not the ones crusading against scientific research because they were told it was an abomination by a televangelist. They’re on your side.”
Actually, no, they’re not, and that’s the problem. When it comes right down to it, the moderately religious appear to be siding with the extremists or fundamentalists where it counts: in voting, supporting, or campaigning. Even if they feel an issue is being too overrun with religious rhetoric for their comfort, it seems they more often simply shut up and play “neutral.”
Most moderates, to all appearances, get fooled when religion enters the picture, and start to feel that the stands on such issues boil down to “religious or irreligious?” Which might as well be rephrased as “good or bad?” While most issues have virtually nothing to do with religion, too few people have the ability to ignore the posturing of the self-proclaimed devout and weigh the matters on their benefits and deficits.
For instance, on the subject of teaching evolution in schools (and especially, whether creationism gets to sneak in there too,) the decision isn’t whether public schools rely on facts and evidence to establish their curricula. Instead, it becomes a question of whether someone’s rights are being trampled because they’re “not allowed to believe what they want.” It masquerades as a personal decision, rather than a practical one, and many (most?) moderates cannot take a stand against a viewpoint that professes religious backing, regardless of how much they might support scientific findings. There seems to be a real fear of being branded as playing “Uncle Tom” with the atheists.
Notice how few people seem to understand that the ban on prayer in schools has nothing whatsoever to do with what the students themselves do or what they believe – it only prevents the faculty from initiating or leading the students in prayer, to respect the diversity of religion within the country. But this show of respect is frequently turned into a “campaign to destroy the faithful.” The same goes with the stupid whiny issues over the phrase, “under god,” or even, “happy holidays.”
Now, compare a moderate to a fundamentalist or extremist, and you’ll hear the protests immediately: “Don’t lump us in with them! We’re not the ones trying to change school standards or pass laws against gay marriage!” Perhaps not, but if they’re not trying to prevent it either, then I’m not interested in building bridges. I’m not following their stuff at all, but is even BioLogos taking a distinct stand on the school standards issue, aside from some obscure policy statement on their website?
Proposition 8 did not pass on the votes of fundies alone, so I’m not convinced that there are really that many moderates. I just think there might be a lot of non-confrontationists, who won’t admit that they really don’t like or accept science because it might make them look like kooks. When so few in this country “believe in” evolution, can they even be considered “moderates”? Should I care what title someone wants to give them? And should I find any reason to finesse or recruit them?
“When it comes right down to it, the moderately religious appear to be siding with the extremists or fundamentalists where it counts…”
But certainly not on every issue. In fact, the more aggressive fundamentalists will often tend to spook them just as having someone raving and foaming at the mouth about a particular issue would probably spook you. That’s part of why ideologues and partisan dogmatists are so successful in what they do. They’re so rabid, most people just want nothing to do with them. When it comes to teaching evolution in schools, I’ve seen the treatise by Coyne on the subject of the silent creationists. He has a point, but there are some issues he seemed to miss. Many moderates really do think that science should be taught properly, that evolution is a valid concept, that cosmology should be taught in science class as is, and that scientific work should be heeded. They’re not the kind of hardcore creationists as the fundamentalists and just because they defer to a deity as the originator of evolution, doesn’t mean they’re even in the same league.
Would you really put Ken Ham, who thinks that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that all dinosaurs in the garden of Eden were vegetarians until The Fall, alongside someone like Ken Miller or even Francis Collins who doesn’t just embrace, but contributes to the science behind evolution? We don’t need to go the accommodationist route and go off assuming that if we can get Ken Miller to say enough nice things about evolution and how it didn’t impact his faith, that’ll turn Ken Ham into a reasonable person, but at the same time, we need to make some distinctions here. That Pew poll answer of “yes, I think evolution happened but with divine intervention” is an umbrella for a wide variety of views ranging from “God was right there at every mutation” to “God just sort of put in the first few cells and let whatever happened, happen.” The farther down on that latter view the respondents are, the more likely they are to disagree with the ins and outs of a real fundamentalist curriculum, like the one we now have in Texas.
It’s true that a lot of moderates aid and abet fundamentalist crusaders by staying out of the debate because in their minds it’s kind of a win-win. As long as the standards will cover the science, what’s the harm in teaching kids a little theology? And if there isn’t a creationist movement in their local district, that’s a-ok too. They’ll just teach kids about their religion at home. However, where we do have a problem is in moderates thinking that the fundamentalists don’t want changes to be nearly as radical as they really do. A lot of moderates to whom I’ve talked just thought creationism would be mentioned and then swept aside for the science. It’s anecdotal, true, but it seems to me that because the fundamentalists got so good at the “both sides” narrative, they slip under the radar of the moderates who believe that religion is all well and good, but science is key. See, they expect highly abstract, quasi-deist theology in brief passing, but instead, with their passivity, they get Sunday School sessions in science class.
As for Proposition 8, that’s a very different issue. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with good, old-fashioned bigotry as per “they’re not like me, therefore, I don’t like them” which characterized the opposition to every major social change in this country and many others. And yes, there was a hefty dollop of “vote against the gays or you’ll burn in Hell” coming from those who have the audacity to consider themselves a pillar of morality as they bully millions into obeying their personal opinions with threats of supernatural torture and misery.
“Many moderates really do think that science should be taught properly, that evolution is a valid concept, that cosmology should be taught in science class as is, and that scientific work should be heeded.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. As I said, there can be a difference between what someone thinks and what they profess to, especially given the company they’re keeping. What I’m most concerned about is what they’re actively supporting, or passively allowing to change.
The standards you mention above were all established long ago, before you and I were born. But they’re gradually slipping away, mostly since the 1980s. How come? It certainly isn’t because the few actively trying to change it are treated as fringe elements by the majority of the population.
“Would you really put Ken Ham, who thinks that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that all dinosaurs in the garden of Eden were vegetarians until The Fall, alongside someone like Ken Miller or even Francis Collins who doesn’t just embrace, but contributes to the science behind evolution?”
I’m not interested in classifying anybody to a particular slot. I’m more interested in whether Ken Miller and Francis Collins are communicating their own messages effectively, and whether they are garnering support for such in the face of creationists. If the question really is, “religious or irreligious?”, then Miller and Collins fall very simply on the side of religion, unless they themselves make it much clearer that such questions are corrupt – I haven’t seen much from Miller, but Collins seems unable to broach that subject very well. Yes, I know what he’s accomplished in his field. I also know he’s the poster child of the “science and religion are compatible” viewpoint, which is wielded to show that religion is okay and not conflicting with science. What we need such moderates to be doing is separating themselves into a third group (at least,) or striving to eradicate the concept of being anti-religious when you support science.
“However, where we do have a problem is in moderates thinking that the fundamentalists don’t want changes to be nearly as radical as they really do. A lot of moderates to whom I’ve talked just thought creationism would be mentioned and then swept aside for the science. It’s anecdotal, true, but it seems to me that because the fundamentalists got so good at the “both sides” narrative, they slip under the radar of the moderates who believe that religion is all well and good, but science is key.”
Even if this is representative of the greater population of moderates, this could still be just a symptom of the same thing I’m talking about. It’s really hard for you or I to see such creationist campaigns as anything other than an obvious step towards theocracy. But why can’t enough others see it as such? To my mind, the answer is very likely because they’re associating “christianity” with “good,” so anybody waving that flag gets an automatic pass from scrutiny or suspicion. It’s the same kind of thing with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, where people cannot accept that christians can do anything wrong, so when faced with incontrovertible evidence of such, they protect their belief by denying that the perpetrator is a true christian.
“As for Proposition 8, that’s a very different issue. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with good, old-fashioned bigotry as per “they’re not like me, therefore, I don’t like them” which characterized the opposition to every major social change in this country and many others.”
Hmmmm, hard to say, really. We have a black president now, perhaps only due to Palin getting onto the ticket for the opposition, and homosexuality has gained media acceptance, at least, for the past two decades. I find it questionable that anti-gay sentiment that isn’t backed by religion is not recognized as bigotry. True, this could be exactly the same as what I said at top, about the difference between what someone might claim and how they vote, but then that doesn’t explain Obama’s victory. Maybe enough people cannot see that prejudice against gays is the same as prejudice against blacks, but that seems to be a stretch in itself.
I guess the question is, for those who fell for the “family values” arguments against Prop 8, how exactly did they define “family values”?
“It certainly isn’t because the few actively trying to change [the standards] are treated as fringe elements by the majority of the population.”
Let’s remember that most key issues today are resolved by special interest groups so the public at large often doesn’t care. As I already said, to the moderates, what they’re sure is a small dose of religion in school can’t hurt and if no one is trying to say, allow registered sex offenders to become school teachers, they’re really not interested in the issue and rather let those who care resolve it themselves. The problem is that way too many fundamentalists care and far too few school boards know how to deal with them, or are too scared to actually deal with them because they’re elected and don’t want to get the zealots with a vendetta on the warpath at the polls.
“What we need moderates to be doing is [...] striving to eradicate the concept of being anti-religious when you support science.”
And this is exactly what our accommodationist “friends” are doing best to prevent with their treatises on how any opposition to religion is an attack on the faithful either by an angry and disaffected young rebel, or a sociopath with an irrational hatred of religion.
“the question for those who fell for the ‘family values’ arguments against Prop 8, is how exactly did they define ‘family values’?”
Simply. Families like theirs or somewhat recognizably like theirs are legitimate. Those which aren’t, are not legitimate families. After all, what’s the predominant argument for any form of discrimination? The people being marginalized are always said to be way too different from “normal” and must therefore be kept away from those who are so the “normal people” can keep their way of life exactly as is.