Over at the Intersection, Chris Mooney is concerned that we haven’t had a science/religion tiff in what, days? So he wants to offer a defense of organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who choose to promote science by downplaying any conflicts between science and religion. For example, the NCSE sponsors a Faith Project, where you can be reassured that scientists aren’t nearly as godless as the newspapers would have you believe.
In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.
But they’re not happy; Chris and others (Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is a thoughtful example) think that the NCSE can be more effective if it proactively tries to convince people that science and religion need not be incompatible. As an argument toward this conclusion, Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
To which I can only reply … um, yeah? That doesn’t seem very bad at all to me. Do we seriously want representatives of the NCSE saying “No, the claim that accepting evolution is the road to damnation is based on a misreading of Scripture and is pretty bad theology. If we go back to Saint Augustine, we see that the Church has a long tradition of…” Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
Of course, we could also imagine something like this:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: Oh, don’t worry. There’s no such thing as “damnation,” your pastor has just been misleading you.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Well, that will happen. Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: That would be great! Because that’s what we are. But it’s not as depressing as you make it out to be; correctly understanding how the world works is the first step toward making the most out of life.
How awesome would that be? I don’t actually advocate this kind of dialogue in this particular context — as I just said, I think science organizations should simply steer clear. But these answers have a considerable benefit, in that I think they’re “true.”
That’s the major point. Advocacy and educational organizations have the goal of supporting science and education the best way they can, but there are limits. For example, they should stick to the truth. I tried to make this point in my post about politicians and critics — some people have as their primary goal advocating for some sort of cause, whereas others are simply devoted to the truth. But an organization advocating for science needs to take both into consideration.
And there are some scientists — quite a few of us, actually — who straightforwardly believe that science and religion are incompatible. There are absolutely those who disagree, no doubt about that. But establishing the truth is a prior question to performing honest and effective advocacy, not one we can simply brush under the rug when it’s inconvenient or doesn’t make for the best sales pitch. Which is why it’s worth going over these tiresome science/religion debates over and over, even in the face of repeated blatant misrepresentation of one’s views. If science and religion are truly incompatible, then it would be dishonest and irresponsible to pretend otherwise, even if doing so would soothe a few worried souls. And if you want to argue that science and religion are actually compatible (not just that there exist people who think so), by all means make that argument — it’s a worthy discussion to have. But it’s simply wrong to take the stance that it doesn’t matter whether science and religion are compatible, we still need to pretend they are so as not to hurt people’s feelings. That’s not being honest.
I have no problem with the NCSE or any other organization pointing out that there exist scientists who are religious. That’s an uncontroversial statement of fact. But I have a big problem with them making statements about whether religious belief puts you into conflict with science (or vice-versa), or setting up “Faith Projects,” or generally taking politically advantageous sides on issues that aren’t strictly scientific. And explaining to people where their pastors went wrong when talking about damnation? No way.
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared. So the strategy for the NCSE and other organizations should be obvious: just stay away. Stick to talking about science. Yes, that’s a strategy that may lose some potential converts (as it were). So be it! The reason why this battle is worth fighting in the first place is that we’re dedicated to promulgating the truth, not just to winning a few political skirmishes for their own sakes. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mt. 16:26.)
@mogmich:
Is Microsoft Windows “matter in motion”? I ask because Microsoft Windows is man-made — we know exactly where it comes from and how it works, or can at least figure it out in principle. No assumptions about the existence of the spiritual need be made to explain how Microsoft Windows works. Microsoft Windows can be entirely described using materialist (philosophical sense) terminology. But is Windows itself material?
No, of course not. Microsoft Windows is a PATTERN that can instantiated within moving matter, but which the mind can clearly abstract out of any particular instantiation (otherwise, we could not recognize the same operating system running on two different computers as “the same”). Similarly, an internal combustion engine is a pattern wrought in iron, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and all the rest. Is an internal combustion engine material? Well, any PARTICULAR internal combustion engine is. But we could hypothetically make an internal combustion engine out of, say, diamond instead of the materials usually used. It would still be an internal combustion engine, because it’s not the matter itself that makes it an engine.
So while minds might not be perfectly identifiable with any particular instance of matter in motion, it may be identifiable with matter in motion in the same way that Microsoft Windows is identifiable with a tangled flow of 1s and 0s through computer memory, or the same way that an internal combustion engine is identifiable with the chunk of steel bolted under the hood of my roommate’s Ford Focus.
I misinterpreted your post when I started to respond, and I think we’re mostly on the same page. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the human brain packages together repeated motifs as their own “objects,” in the very way I describe above. For example, the notion of “triangle” is not tied to any particular material instantiation of a triangle; the concept seems to get its own reality within the mind through the frequency with which it is experienced. This pattern persistence is actually important for materialists to come to terms with, since it’s the only way to get around the ship of Theseus paradox in a materialist account of consciousness.
Makes me wonder how “In God We Trust” got onto our money and all over Washington in the first place. It seems like a rather cut and dry issue under the Constitution.
@JJ:
Religion taught you? Or your parents and community members taught you? I went to Catholic mass and sunday school as a kid, but I’m pretty sure I learned all my morals and values from my parents and community — mainly through example — rather than by watching a celibate man in a dress lecture a hall full of people on sexual propriety.
Uh…does this even seem remotely reasonable? NEVER experienced religion? Why would they be strident atheists if they didn’t have a bone to pick with religion?
Like I said, it sounds like my religious background is pretty similar to yours — and I’ll be the first to admit, it was relatively benign — but I still can’t get over the fact that most of the world thinks it’s not only acceptable but actually praiseworthy to lie to children. (I consider saying you’re sure of something when you really have no way to be sure to be lying.)
And it’s not a question of whether a person acts “weird” — when you say you’ve had math teachers more “out there,” I get the feeling that you think atheists’ problem is that there are religious people who are actually acting weird, like, flailing their arms in the air and making awkward comments to minorities. No — they act normally for the post part. They THINK weird — they think that believing exactly what you’re told and not questioning it is a GOOD thing. And again, that lying to children is praiseworthy rather than contemptible. It’s not about being “out there” in the way your math teacher was. It’s about promulgating a belief system that leads systemically to misinformation, and usually exploitation.
If you’ve seen any atheists protesting Christmas trees, they are a rare exception. PZ Myers puts up a Christmas tree, fer gosh sakes. Give me a citation about the thousands of atheists protesting Christmas trees; otherwise, drop this argument as it is dishonest, ascribing actions and intentions to a class of thousands of people who don’t, in fact, have any problems with Christmas trees.
Also, how is a fir tree emblematic of the birth of a Palestinian Jew? From what I can tell, the fir tree actually symbolizes the potential for rebirth and renewal even on the darkest, coldest day of the year. That is, it’s a pagan symbol that got picked up by Christianity, not a Christian symbol itself.
If you’re asking for civility in this debate, maybe you shouldn’t be mischaracterizing the actions or intentions of your opponents. Doing so is almost certainly going to add nothing but acrimony to the discussion.
@JJ:
The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal; the man who wrote it owned black slaves. The man who freed those black slaves had said publicly he did not think they were REALLY equal, and that ideally, they would all be sent back to Africa. The United States signed a whole bunch of binding treaties with Native American nations in the 19th century and broke the provisions of almost every single one.
Why should the capacity of the US government and people for hypocrisy and failing to live up to their own ideals surprise you this late in the game?
Those are proof that humans can rationalize just about anything, even if it doesn’t make logical sense. In regard to Atheists protesting Christmas trees, it’s based on the fact that they want everyone to refer to them as “Holiday” trees and refer to Christmas time or activities as “holiday” activities. This is ridiculous. You can’t force people to relabel their religious activities simply because you disagree with it. This is why I liken those types of Atheists to hate mongering.
I would also argue religion has taught me morals and values because both of parents grew up Catholic, as did their parents, etc. Not to say that religion is necessary for moral and ethical behavior, but it does instill good values in my opinion. You can have a religious parent who sets bad examples, just as you could have an Atheist parent that set good ones. Actions define people more than words.
For better or worse, JJ, religion and personal morality are not closely related.
I was raised without religion, and think I have a pretty good morality.
I know some Christians, including some famous religious leaders, who lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc. Their religion obviously didn’t prevent this.
Some other Christians have asked me, apparently seriously, why I don’t steal and rape if I don’t believe in god. Well, there are laws against it for one thing, but even if there weren’t, I wouldn’t.
Morality just doesn’t have much to do with religious belief. Really. It seems to have a lot more to do with evolution and the kind of social animals we are.
I see that, but this is where religious people would actually fit the morality criteria. By this I mean they would follow the commandments, virtues, etc. There’s no doubt much of our behavior has to do with social, environmental, and genetic factors. However, Christianity teaches people not to fall into these bad behaviors. It’s your choice whether you break those rules or not, religion doesn’t force you to abide by them, they simply teach it. I’m just trying to say that religion teaches good things and if you really believe in those virtues, you won’t fall into those categories you mentioned.
The people you mentioned are simply hypocritical of their own religion/beliefs, not true to themselves you could say. I see it as human conditioning to resist certain urges, if they had thought it through, they could have over came the emotional urges that led to those behaviors. Since emotions dictate behavior, those teachings have to hold meaning to serve any good in your own life. However, I’m like you in that I never think of religion in those instances and still maintain a good moral ground. The things that keep me away from such behaviors would be negative emotions (consequences) guilt, remorse, depression, fear, etc. as a result of laws and other learned behaviors. If society was lawless, I believe we would have people committing atrocities quite often.
JJ wrote: “In regard to Atheists protesting Christmas trees, it’s based on the fact that they want everyone to refer to them as “Holiday” trees and refer to Christmas time or activities as “holiday” activities. This is ridiculous.”
Where are all these atheists who want everyone to refer to Christmas trees as “holiday” trees and rename Christmas time? Is this a popular opinion among atheists? Can you name some prominent “new” or “old” atheists who support this idea?
What’s ridiculous is this silly notion of “war on Christmas”.
I base my opinions on observations. I’ve seen numerous stories on the news about Atheists protesting Christmas displays, including Christmas trees just this year at a school in Massachusetts, they even banned the use of green and red during Christmas time! Furthermore, when I was in high school, the Jewish attendance woman had a Menorah displayed in her office, where no students actually went because she greeted students from a small window that overlooks the hallway. Some parent happened to see the Menorah in her office and protested to have it removed, for which she was forced to do so. This woman wasn’t even an educator and didn’t push her views on students, yet she was forced to take down her personal display of worship. I understand the separation of church and state, but she wasn’t even an educator and had minimal contact with students beyond a “hello, I’m here”. Why should she have to take it down because one person doesn’t agree with it? Does this mean all students and teachers should be banned from wearing crosses around their necks? It’s ridiculous.
A bit off topic, but similar events happened last year regarding the American flag of all things. One woman had the flag hanging in her office and was forced to take it down after 20+ years because some new manager told her to do so. Apparently it was offensive to display pride in her own country. Another incident involved a 30+ year old American flag sticker on the locker of an employee. Both of these people fought the charges and won the right to hang their flag. PC has gone too far when hanging the American flag is considered offensive.
These are only a few examples, but they’re a microcosm of the bigger picture that involves political correctness. I see it as “don’t push your views on me and I won’t push my views on you”. From a political standpoint, individual freedom of religion, whether it’s scientifically correct or not. I’m all for Atheists displaying their own holiday displays as well, whether it be a Winter Solstice tree or whatever, as long as it doesn’t take shots at Christianity directly because that’s targeted bigotry toward one religion. It’s like displaying a poster for civil rights that directly refers to white people as racists. That doesn’t help your cause, Dr. King knew that.
@JJ:
Which makes it the perfect response to your stupid little “God We Trust” trope. How can we reconcile what it says on our money with what it says in the constitution? Well, humans can rationalize just about anything, even if it doesn’t make logical sense.
And that’s religion in a nutshell.
Again, find me the citation for the hordes of atheists calling them “holiday trees,” or find a more honest way to argue this. Of all the atheists I know, I don’t know a single one who calls them anything but Christmas trees. Also, how could atheists possibly FORCE anyone to stop calling them Christmas trees? Are they advocating for legislation officially banning the term? If so, it shouldn’t be too hard to find evidence of such advocacy, right?
Furthermore, justify to me why they SHOULDN’T be called holiday trees. Like I already explained, the tradition behind Christmas trees stems from PAGAN WINTER SOLSTICE HOLIDAYS, not Christmas. “Holiday tree” is actually MORE historically appropriate than Christmas tree.
Also, hate mongering to me would be something like, “Queers are ruining our country. We shouldn’t be letting these people into our schools or government buildings.” Referring to a statement like “Could you please call them holiday trees?” as hate-mongering seems to me to trivialize the real meaning of the phrase. As does all this Christian persecution nonsense. All the most entitled and wealthy people on the planet are Christian, buddy. Likening yourselves to Jews circa WWII is a) absurd and b) insulting to anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person.
Which is exactly my point. You gave credit to “religion” when what you really meant was “people who I know who happened to go to the same church as me.” It wasn’t the religion; it was the people. It just so happens that the people who taught you your values were also the ones who introduced you to religion. Even if those values were presented as religious tenets, they were presented by people. And I’m willing to bet you internalized them NOT because it’s what Jesus said, but because it’s what your mother and father said (though I suppose I can never really know).
@JJ:
Then your complaints are about political correctness and not about new atheism. If you look at a few atheist blogs and troll the archives from December, you’ll find that they pretty much all celebrate Christmas and they all pretty much laugh about the “war on Christmas” lie that’s pushed by Bill O’Reilly and the like. Again, find me citations for this war on Christmas garbage or find something new to complain about atheists.
I understand that, but then why would Atheists celebrate Christmas? Christmas is a religious holiday acknowledging the birth of Christ. That doesn’t make sense at all. It would at least make some sense if they were Agnostic and acknowledge the teachings are meaningful representations, but Atheists reject all that is religion. The same goes for St. Patty’s Day, and Easter. A true Atheist should be having a Winter Solstice party.
Laughable. It’s much more a cultural holiday celebrated in the spirit of bringing family together and giving gifts. It’s beyond reason to claim it’s a “religious holiday acknowledging the birth of Christ” when the most obvious items of decor are evergreen trees (pagan), holly/mistletoe (pagan), and Santa Claus (I must have missed his part in the Gospels). When “Christmas Carols” that are listened to are predominantly regarding an oddly nosed reindeer, Jingle Bells, and the like, it just comes off as silly to state it’s only (or even main) meaning is to celebrate Jesus, who is at most mentioned the 4 Sundays in December (and maybe in a quick missive before Christmas dinner). Or did I miss the addendum to the Last Supper where Jesus suggested to his followers that they giveth presents to each other at the Winter Solstice in the guise of a fat, bearded gentleman, in memory of His Holy Birth?
And before the “then why call it Christmas” retort is trotted out, names are retained even when the culture moves on. I mean, you don’t need to celebrate the Norse pantheon to call today Thursday.
“no global religion has emerged”
But several groups are working on the project
The true history of Christmas indeed has roots in Christianity. The most controversial being mistletoe, but nonetheless it has been associated with Christmas for hundreds of years. Your argument is one sided in justifying Atheist celebration of Christmas, which is indeed hypocritical. Simply calling Christmas a non-religious holiday is a fallacy for which there is no proof. Once again, lacking logic and factual argument. There’s no evidence, not tainted by personal bias, that can conclude Christmas doesn’t have roots in Christianity. In regards to Christmas carols, you left out some of the classics…Holy Night, Come All Ye Faithful, Silent Night, Ave Maria…there’s quite a few.
Christmas trees:
http://www.christmasarchives.com/trees.html
Mistletoe
http://weuropeanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_history_of_mistletoe
Santa (aka St. Nicholas)
http://www.history.com/content/christmas/history-of-santa/the-legend-of-st.-nicholas
I like Christmas. Gift-giving, Santa, trees, goodwill toward men and peace on Earth.
I ignore the religious part as best I can as it would detract from my enjoyment of the holiday. The modern world has developed a very significant secular tradition about Christmas.
And I always liked Easter egg hunts, too.
Most modern “religious holidays” have evolved from a combination of one or more religious holidays, modern and pagan, and a secular/commercial element.
The Christians in Russia celebrate Christmas on Jan.7. They put up their trees for New Year’s and leave them up through the 7th. Know what they call them??? Wait for it….
New Year’s Trees!!!
Those Christian-hating Christian Foreigners!!!
Ha ha ha.
JJ, believe what you want about anything you want. Just don’t believe it’s necessarily correct without a lot more research and thought, or, if you can’t manage that, you might at least listen to others and learn a few things. Sorry if this sounds dismissive, but rereading the thread it doesn’t look like you’re well informed about things that seem to bother you so much, so it is a shame you’re so bothered.
I value Truth and efficiency more than honesty. Therefore, it makes sense when lying is a more effective way to lead people to the Truth, I think honesty should take a backseat.
I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article about Christmas, JJ. Many of the things that are synonymous with Christmas either have pagan roots, or are later secular inventions. Jesus wasn’t born — if he was at all — on the 25th December, for example.
But even if it was all inspired by Christianity, why should that prevent atheists from celebrating at that time of year? I was brought up celebrating Christmas, but without any reference to religion, whatsoever. Given that less than 5% of people regularly go to church in the UK, Christmas would be celebrated by a very small number of people if it really were a Christian holiday. And there is a very persuasive economic case to be made for secularizing Christmas, which is exactly what has happened.
You may not like the fact that it has taken on a secular life of its own, but it is hard to argue that it hasn’t. And, of course, nobody is preventing Christians from celebrating the birth of Jesus, if they so wish.
In point of fact, it isn’t necessarily atheists who complain about the Christian influence on what is supposed to be a secular government in the US. One of the most prominent members of Americans United is actually a Christian, for example, and so too are many of their members. Many Christians realize that the only hope that we have to prevent sectarian squabbles is to support secularism.
Unfortunately, some Christians haven’t bothered to find out about why secularism is at heart of most western ideals. It protects all faiths and none, equally. And the origin of secularism has nothing to do with non-belief, either. It was first proposed to prevent different religious sects fighting over who should have what influence over government affairs.
Christians have every reason to support the secular ideal, because most liberal Christians wouldn’t dream of forcing their beliefs on anyone else. It is the more authoritarian religious sects that wish to enshrine their “moral” beliefs in to law, and that is as repugnant to most liberal Christians, as it is to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, etc, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
I find it illogical to spin Christmas as a non-religious holiday. The Greek Orthodox celebrates Christmas a week later than us here as well. Just because the Greeks and Russians celebrate it at a later date and refer to the tree with a different name doesn’t deny the reason for the event. This still doesn’t prove Christmas is a secular, non-religious holiday. You can spin it any way you like, fact is that Christmas indeed began as a religious holiday and has been commercialized as secular. Failure to acknowledge those facts are purely ignorant.
Damian, your argument sounds like circular reasoning to me. The real question is did Christmas exist before Christianity? If it did, then I’m wrong about Christmas having Christian roots. If not, then my argument is confirmed. Christmas may have taken queues from other religions, but they were not referred to as Christmas, therefore Christmas is a Christian holiday. Quite simple. I don’t see why Atheists have to try to spin it to fit their view. I’m not even religious, just arguing facts.
Can we get this thread unhijacked from this silly religious debate and back to its substantive issues; or are you three going to go on and on and on??
Another way to look at this whole debate is to recognize that the same scientific method that is used in physics and chemistry is also used in biology, geology, economics, zoology, et al. Science is a descriptive process sharing a methodology among all its practitioners that strives to describe the knowable universe in concrete testable forms.
That is not the case with religion. Many of the commenters above seem to think that there is only one strand of religious thinking: Christian. That is not true. There are many religions that hold views that are quite diverse and unique: Scientology, Mormonism, Theravada Buddhism, Sihkism, Dogon, PNG, Judaism, and hundreds more. Each has very different constructs and core beliefs; each has its own pathways to the spiritual. Religion is a normative discipline filled with empowering myths, creation stories, and salvation mechanisms. They are incompatible on their face with themselves, yet historians and scientists of religion can study them as representative of human response to the cosmos.
@John Williams: A person does not need to know a thing about religion to have a good conversation about religion. In fact you get the best conversations when a person knows nothing about religion – in such a case the person tends to ask many sensible questions for which the religious have no sensible answer. That is why non-religious people see religion as a very bad joke while the religious are always frustrated about “how little” the non-religious people “understand” (i.e. how little religious trivia masquerading as facts are known to non-religious people). Why even a religious person such as a buddhist can have very interesting conversations with a christian and ask all sorts of questions for which the christian does not have a sensible answer.
The debate really is exhausting, it doesn’t lead anywhere. I’m with John Williams, it is possible for both sides to co-exist when you take a realistic and objective view from the center. Most of the people on these types of blogs tend to be radical to either side and it’s useless in trying to talk sense to them, even with supporting facts.
Science demands evidence. Religion demands faith.
They are clearly incompatible.
Most scientific thinking folk are atheists, agnostics, or at most deists.
There are exceptions of course (Francis Collins) but these are rare birds indeed.
So, to be honest, I would say thinking scientifically will put any religious ideas one has in peril.
“I feel that many of the New Atheists never experienced religion and are basing their views on the assumption that all religious folk are nut jobs.”
What you “feel” is of no consequence, especially when it is in conflict with well-established and easily discernible facts.
But then, that’s the whole point about the religious vs. scientific mode of thinking.
The debate really is exhausting, it doesn’t lead anywhere. I’m with John Williams, it is possible for both sides to co-exist when you take a realistic and objective view from the center. Most of the people on these types of blogs tend to be radical to either side and it’s useless in trying to talk sense to them, even with supporting facts.
Translation: I’m rational and right and anyone who disagrees with me is irrational and wrong.