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.)
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.
So if I invent a religion called Cooptianism, with a holiday called Cooptmas that is identical to Christmas, taking place on December 25 with an exchange to gifts, decorating trees, and other traditions that can be traced back to before the time of Christ, that makes December 25 a Cooptian holiday?
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.
This is cargo cult rhetoric. It is apparent that its author has no real understanding of the terms “hypocritical”, “fallacy”, “proof”, “logic”, “factual”, “evidence”, or “conclude”.
I base my opinions on observations.
This is one of many lies you’ve told. Atheists here tell you that they put up Christmas trees, even PZ Myers puts up a tree, that they do not ask that they be called “holiday trees”, etc., yet you ignore all of this direct evidence and instead insist that atheists demand that they be called “holiday trees” and want to ban green and red. You do not base your opinions on observations, rather you glom onto anything — like bogus Faux News reports or your own mental fabrications — that you can use to reinforce your unfalsifiable opinions and ignore anything that challenges them.
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.
You’ve got the wealth of human knowledge at your fingertips and yet you “wonder” about such things? It’s no wonder that you are so ignorant and have so many false beliefs.
If you had an understanding of neuroscience and psychological study, you would know that this is bullshit.
One can be a scientist and be religious, but it helps a lot to be grossly ignorant outside of one’s immediate area of expertise.
“Religion has been a social glue of civilization; to deny it is unscientific.”
Haiti, Nigeria, the DRC and various other religious hellholes would contest that. As would largely irreligious Scandanavia, Japan and South Korea.
“Religion is universal — every culture has some form of it; there has never been a society without gods of some kind.”
The Pirahãs might have something to say about that. Aside from this, that doesn’t actually demonstrate that “Religion has been a social glue of civilization” – it merely demonstrates that religion is widespread.
At a point, so was feudalism, racism, and sexism.
In other words, you know what is really unscientific?
Claiming that XYZ is so, and to deny it is unscientific. To be scientific it must be open to disproof.
Actually, I think the first part of this statement is not unreasonable. If by “social glue” one means tribalism. Now, of course there’s the matter of determining how exactly any kind of tribalism is desirable in the 21st century.
Which supporting facts would they be? Like “oh, um, there are religious scientists, you know?” Give me a break and work on your reading comprehension. STRAW MAN! Nobody is talking about them not being able to co-exist. OBVIOUSLY THEY DO. The claim the accomodationists make is that they don’t contradict each other. They’re fundamentally opposed. Science rejects faith, religion welcomes and encourages it. It is that simple! Whatever mental masturbation and philosophical hoops one has to jump to argue otherwise is irrelevant. Come on, give us something clear and understandable at the very least.
Dear Reader
Have the Atheists become Evangelical ?
Will they be leaving Tracts and Pamphlets ?
Will they become Circuit Riders ?
Shall I join their Crusade ?
Or become an Atheist missionary ?
But they have no Bible.
Perhaps they have not been out in the sun long enough.
“…ALTHOUGH A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians,[1][13] and some of its popular celebratory customs have pre-Christian or secular themes and origins. Popular modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, music, an exchange of greeting cards, church celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations; including Christmas trees, lights, garlands, mistletoe, nativity scenes, and holly. In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in some areas, including North America, Australia and Ireland) is a popular folklore figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
“Christmas means “Christ’s Mass” and is the celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth and baptism”
http://www.novareinna.com/festive/xmas.html
“Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus. ”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115686/Christmas
I rest my case. Spin all you like, Christmas is a Christan holiday. Therefore, Atheists that celebrate Christmas are illogical hypocrites. Why not also celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Ramadan? Christmas may have some roots in Pagan traditions, that doesn’t make it a Pagan holiday.
http://atheism.about.com/od/christmasholidayseason/p/AtheistsIgnore.htm
Look who’s talking about spin.
You know what, nobody that’s not a fundamentalist gives a damn about what you think “true” christmas is. For most it’s just a tradition, religious or secular.
I like the family and friends gathering. We’re gonna call it whatever we wanna call it. Where’s the hypocrisy on that? Where’s the lack of logic? It’s just a stupid name, we will call it Super Jesuspalooza if we want, OK? This argument on semantics is just as stupid as saying that all atheists that use “god!” as an interjection are hypocrites too.
Just as you can say “christmas may have some roots in pagan traditions, that doesn’t make it a pagan holiday”, we can also say that our holidays may have some roots in christmas-y traditions, that doesn’t make it a christian holiday.
In any case, as others mentioned above, the only nutcases making a big serious (albeit ridiculous to everyone else) fuss about this are some paranoid christians and fundamentalists.
andyo, you need a lesson in logic. We know for a fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday, that’s concrete and well established. So, by celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday, without believing in Christianity is hypocritical. This is equivalent to a Buddhist celebrating Hanukkah for example. If you were to celebrate another holiday that shared the exact same traditions as Christmas, but was called Jesuspalooza and had no ties to Christian faith, that would make logical sense. Atheists I’ve heard actually have a winter solstice party with much of the same traditions as Christmas, justifiable because it has nothing to do with Christianity, it’s a celebration of the shortest day of the year or when Earth reaches perihelion about the sun.
Furthermore, using your logic of semantics and the claim Atheism is based entirely on facts, not feelings, you said “I like the family and friends gathering”. Therefore, the traditions make you feel happy, which is why you celebrate them. So, feeling happy about Christmas is justification for celebrating a Christian holiday. That’s illogical and inconsistent by your own standards. The basis of religion is emotional because much of the stories involving “magic” obviously make no logical sense, which is also an Atheist argument.
I’m also non-religious, I’m just arguing facts to figure out how Atheists justify celebrating Christmas. Thanks to you, I’ve confirmed the answer….because it feels good. Based on your rhetoric, you’re likely getting frustrated because the facts I present are contradictory to your own logic and you lack any real facts to prove Christmas is not a Christian holiday. No feelings here, only facts.
If you follow the last 2 links below, it will lead you to a book written by an Atheist author, Tom Flynn. He argues that “it is important for secularists to abstain from Holiday celebrations”.
http://atheism.about.com/od/christmasholidayseason/p/AtheistsIgnore.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/TroubleXmas.htm
http://atheism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=5342&f=21&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.pointofinquiry.org/%3Fp%3D89
JJ,
Christmas was a Christian holiday that was used to preempt the pagan holidays related to the solstice. Does that make Christians hypocrites?
Anyway, the Christmas of the modern era has little to nothing to do with religion, unless shopping and consumerism are a religion. It doesn’t matter at all whether atheists follow cultural convention or not. There is no hypocrisy.
Trying to downplay the issue and pass fundamentalists off as paranoid nut jobs is only an attempt to dodge the real issue and draw attention away from your lack of credible evidence refuting the facts.
“Christmas was a Christian holiday” – Exactly.
“the Christmas of the modern era has little to nothing to do with religion”
So, that’s why Christians all over the world don’t go to church on Christmas, where they don’t sing religious Christmas carols. Makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing that up. It’s only the biggest Christian holiday next to Easter. Even Christians who don’t go to church every Sunday often attend at least twice a year, for Christmas and Easter. That’s equivalent to saying modern day Hanukkah isn’t the same because they give gifts over a period 8 days, which requires much shopping and consumerism.
You need a lesson on reading comprehension. Nobody is saying that “Atheism is based entirely on facts”. Certainly not me. Some (including me) would say “the facts revealed by science suggest theism is wrong” which, I’m sure as you so enlightened in “logic” is not nearly the same.
And I was accusing you on playing the disingenuous semantics game, and you continue to do so. How about we call it Christmas 2.0.
Say what you will about semantics to spin it, facts are facts. Atheists argue about facts over emotions all the time. I also agree with you that facts suggest theism is far fetched, I’m Agnostic, but that still doesn’t justify why Atheists celebrate Christmas. It’s dodging the real issue. Unless Atheists create their own holiday or celebrate a non-religious event, like Winter Solstice, it will never make sense. Saying Christmas is non-religious because it’s a government recognized holiday and consists of shopping and family gathering doesn’t justify it to be non-religious.
I liken this debate to trying to explain evolution to creationists. Creationists will deny the facts, even when they’re right in front of them, because they’re so set on believing that God clapped his hands and here we are. It’s the same premise and those who are trying to rebut my claims will likely take this and spin it to something like “that’s exactly what you’re doing, being ignorant, facts are that Christmas is secular now, it shares Pagan traditions”.
Those are attempts to dodge the real issue, a personal attack to protect your own feelings about the issue. I’m basing my whole argument on the fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday, the only way to disprove it is to prove Christmas is not a Christian holiday.
JJ – Personally I view Christmas as both a religious holiday, and a non-religious holiday (although from your stance I guess it could be argued that any holiday is a religious holiday, just look at where the word comes from – holy day)
For Christians – christmas is no doubt steeped in religious significance. Regardless of whether or not it was subverted from pagan solstice celebrations centuries ago it has clearly become ingrained in ‘western’ (for want of a better word) cultue because for the past 1000+ years ‘western’ culture and christian culture were essentially the same thing.
However, this equivalence is now in the process of breaking down. We exist in a multicultural society. Christmas means utterly different things to different people. To me Christmas is simply a traditional time to spend with family, overeating and exchanging gifts – the fact that it derives from Christianity does not make me hypocritical for celebrating despite having no belief in god, it is simply a part of the culture in which I grew up (and any excuse to gorge on christmas pudding, mince pies, and roasted veg is alright by me, regardless of if it is a pagan traditional holiday or christian).
Likewise I celebrate Thanksgiving every year now. Despite being British and not an American – I would assume that this equally makes no sense (again to me it is a day to spend with family, overeating – sadly without the presents though) as I care not one bit about the pilgrims and their plight, and find the notion of giving thanks to some unspecified whatchamadingle rather odd – I do however enjoy turkey, cranberries, and apple pie.
Thanks Ewan, that’s the most honest and logical response I’ve heard today. It confirms the point that Atheists celebrate Christmas because it makes them feel good, and it makes perfect sense, who wouldn’t enjoy those festivities? That’s what I was trying to get people to admit. This is why I believe some behaviors are entirely based on our emotions. Whatever makes us feel good, be it logical or not, motivates our behavior and beliefs. In this case, emotions trump logic because non-believers will find ways around the Christmas being a Christian holiday debate to fit their beliefs, just as believers will try to rationalize their claims with things from the Bible. Both sides of the argument contain logical inconsistencies to fit either side, similar to political debate. Therefore, the “correct” answer depends on your perspective.
Ewan – what ? you dont give presents on Thanksgiving ! Get with the program.
Puritans said that Xmas is not in the Bible anyway. Presents are ok, but no dancing
allowed ! I dont believe in supernatural stuff, but Atheistical literature is drivel, their
music insipid.
JJ – holy smokes – Whatever makes us feel good ??? Have a look at “Sinners in the hands
of an angry God” . I just love all that Hellfire and Brimstone stuff – especially when they
call the Pope the Anti-christ.
You seem to think that emotions and logic are at odds here. I don’t think they are. There’s nothing illogical about doing things that are fun, simply because they’re fun. No excuse is needed, and no inconsistencies result. It doesn’t matter that the day is traditionally called “Christmas” in our current culture. What matters is that it’s the traditional winter party, as it has been since thousands of years before Christianity, with the name and details changing now and then.
I propose that we change the name “Christmas” to “Partyday” to reflect that truth.
Until Christians agree to the name change, I’m not going to worry about referring to December 25th as “Christmas”—it’s just a proper name for a day, as far as I’m concerned, in much the same way as “Sunday” is. Taking Sunday off doesn’t introduce inconsistencies into my worldview just because it used to mean “Sun Day.” Like a lot of words, the word “Christmas” has multiple senses, and at least one of them is secular.
No, there’s nothing wrong with doing fun things at all, but you’re missing the point. The point being the logical conflict between not believing in Christianity, but celebrating a Christian holiday. Christmas is factually a Christian holiday, whether you see it that way today or not depends on your own point of view. That is unless you can prove Christmas is not a Christian holiday today, in which the entire argument is bogus.
Why is it so hard for Atheists to admit that Christmas is a Christian holiday? The only logical reason is because they enjoy the festivities and rationalize their claims with inconsistent logic to support their emotional basis. This is proof that Atheists are capable of inconsistent logic, just as religious folks because both of these views are based on emotions. If logic were to trump emotion in this case, all Atheists would not celebrate Christmas. It’s a conflict of their own beliefs, just as conflicts of belief exist in Christianity. Emotions and logic are indeed at odds here, which is why all people are inclined to irrational or illogical thinking at one point or another. Sometimes it just takes another perspective to point it out, which is why perspective leads to personal bias as well.
I consider these views objective because I’m not taking sides for or against either party. It’s simply a logical analysis of behaviors and thought processes of both parties, which is where I believe most scientists should sit on such issues.
I think I may have to disagree with some of your detective work there, Sean. I think we very much need to stop pretending that science and religion aren’t compatible.
There are plenty of places where science and religion are compatible: anthropology, social psychology, abnormal psychology, just to name three. I’d guess there are also fruitful areas of study concerning religion in economics, history and other fields.
It may be difficult or impossible to get direct measurements of specifically religious objects (say, the preferences of the Almighty for specific types of burnt offerings, since the Almighty is an imaginary being to begin with), but it is possible to test and measure hypotheses concerning religions as social objects in human society, such as:
Religionists claim that religion is good for society: Are societies that are “more religious” better in some way (happier, healthier, more peaceful) than societies that are less religious? There are measures for these values which can be compared, and the claims tested.
Religionists claim that prayer is good for something other than personal meditation. There are ways to test this through double-blind studies.
Wherever religions make any sort of truth-claim about the world that is falsifiable, that is where science and religion intersect, and we should be pushing rigorous testing in those areas for all we’re worth.
Let the Templeton folks fund some research like this, if they want to show that religion and science are compatible.
To JJ –
“Why is it so hard for atheists to admit that Christmas is a Christian holiday?”
Probably because there is nothing inherently Christian about Christmas. Some people think “Jesus is the reason for the season”, dress up their yards with live Nativity scenes, and go to midnight Mass. Many others decorate a tree, bake the holiday cookies, and spend no time whatsoever thanking the Almighty for the gift of His sacrificial lamb Self.
“Christmas” is a brand name that has passed into the public domain, just like Kleenex and Xerox. No one holds a copyright to it.
@JJ:
If you can’t be bothered to do the slightest bit of research to find out about Christmas, don’t be surprised if people start dismissing your opinions on this. (Not to mention lying about atheists persecuting poor widdle Christians.)
Christ was probably not born on Dec 25.
Dec 25 is quite close to the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, usually Dec 21.
Pagan celebrations for the winter solstice would often start around dec 21 and go for several weeks (ever hear of the 12 days of Christmas?)
Before St. Nicholas, a large bearded man with reindeer featured in many pagan winter solstice legends.
there’s nothing in the Bible about fir trees, but pagan religions in Germany and Scandinavia have incorporated such trees in their winter solstice celebrations since before the time of Christ
It’s actually fairly well established historically that the Catholic church started the celebration of Christmas so that they could convert northern European pagans without forcing those pagans to give up their winter solstice celebrations. Similarly, Easter was started to replace the vernal equinox celebrations — ever wonder what eggs and rabbits have to do with Jesus? Nothing, they’re fertility symbols associated with pagan vernal equinox celebrations.
If you call it “Christmas,” then yes, it’s a Christian holiday, but you’re ignoring the fact that someone started the Christian holiday at some point for some reason. And they did so well after the time of Christ, and they did so to correspond to a pagan holiday so that pagans would not have to stop having fun just because they became Christian. None of this is secret or particularly controversial. Just because it’s a Christian holiday doesn’t mean it’s not also OTHER things.
What would you say to a wiccan who wants to celebrate the winter solstice by putting up a fir tree? That she should stop trying to steal Christmas from the Christians? Christians stole it from the wiccans (well, nothern european druidic cultures) in the first place.