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.)
So let’s say it this way: when you celebrate Christmas, JJ, are you also beseeching the sky god to fertilize the earth and bring back the spring? Because if atheists are celebrating the birth of Christ by observing Christmas, then logically you must be engaging in druidic rituals by putting up a Christmas tree.
JJ I think you go a tad too far in asserting that because Christmas is (or at least was) a christian holiday (regardless of the roots of the timing – I’m going to assume here that it purely is a christian holiday) it is illogical to celebrate it.
It would be illogical(or at least inconsistent), as an atheist, to celebrate the birth of Christ (although perhaps not so much, celebrating the birth of Christ as the son of god would be inconsistent, whereas celebrating the birth of Christ as a monumentally successful moral philosopher not so much) would be illogical, to follow the societal norm and enjoy a festival which just so happens to have at its root a mythological origin not so much.
It doesnt require any doublethink – atheists don’t (at least given my limited sample size of one as to what atheists do and don’t think) have to buy into the entirety of christian mythology to celebrate Christmas, they don’t for a single day of the year suddenly believe that water was turned to wine, that there was a virgin birth, that angels descended from the heavens to announce the coming of the son of god, or that Mary and Joseph simultaneously lived in Bethlehem and were called there from elsewhere due to a census – whereas religious belief, in general, requires some sort of doublethink in terms of compatibility with science (at least in terms of truth claims as covered by Phein above)
I guess part of the problem (and I’m not sure if this is what you’re trying to get at or not) is that saying “Christmas is a christian holiday” seems to imply that only christians should celebrate it (I know of at least 2 Hindu’s who celebrate Christmas also – entirely because it is part of the western tradition – are they suffering from the same malfunction in logic?) rather than (and this is what I almost hope you are saying, or at least believe that most atheists would agree with) – christmas being a holiday with Christian roots (at least in the last 1500 years) which is deeply embedded in the traditions of western society – the first definition certainly precludes non-believers from celebration, the second, not at all.
For an atheist celebrating christmas to be operating on illogical grounds they would have to believe that christmas was a christian holiday in the 1st sense, for an atheist celebrating christmas to be perfectly logical all it requires is that they believe christmas to be a christian holiday (or a pagan, or pre-pagan (I suspect the pagans stole it from someone, quite possibly of a starchy nature)) in the 2nd sense – which, based on my sample size of 1, is what atheists do believe.
JJ, Google SOL INVICTUS. Google HORUS. Google SATURNALIA. And that’s just for starters.
It will help you understand how wrong you are about Xmas being a Xian holiday. It’s STOLEN from other cultures which had celebrations or or around the Solsitce. IOW, don’t cherry-pick what you want from the objective articles about the matter.
No, Ewan, what they’re trying to say when they talk about Xmas being a Xian holiday is: “Since it’s a Xian holiday, and you atheists celebrate it, you secretly know Xianity is the TRUTH!!11elevetyone!!111!!!”
Sadly, that’s how logic works in their tiny little minds.
By the way, Japan celebrates Xmas even though, as a joke goes, the majority religion is called being Japanese.
Aquaria – I don’t know (and I may have missed earlier posts, or a history or something) but JJ doesn’t actually appear to be a christian (claims to be agnostic further up in the thread at least) – just believes that there is an inconsistency between being atheist and celebrating christmas.
Which does bring up an interesting question – as an agnostic, JJ, do you celebrate christmas? If yes (and I dont think even by your logic this would represent an illogical decision, as agnostics claim not to know…) do you also celebrate Hannuka, Diwali, Ramadan (etc etc) – if not how do you explain this inconsistency? – I would assume as an agnostic you are equally unsure about all religions
That is his claim, but it’s really hard to believe anyone without Christian baggage could argue the case of how “Christmas is a Christian holiday” so badly. Even when I was a Christian I would have found his argument ridiculous. I mean, just on the face of it he blithely ignores the pagan roots of the many important symbols used in Christmas celebration. It’s one thing to claim the synthesis of component parts made it a truly Christian event, but he straight out denied the disparate sources of the elements they drew together to fabricate their “distinctly Christian” holiday.
Still missing the point, beating around the fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday. It doesn’t matter what traditions you bring up that are associated with it, it was officially denoted as Christmas when it become a Christian observance. You can mimic all the same elements of Christmas at some Winter Solstice party and that would make sense because Winter Solstice is not the same as Christmas, it’s not a Christian holiday.
Using your argument about Pagan traditions, I use similar logic…the English language was derived from many other languages over time, such as Latin. Therefore, when I’m speaking English, does it also mean I’m speaking Latin? No, they’re entirely different languages, just as Paganism and Christianity are entirely different religions.
I don’t have any preference for any religion. I believe religion is essentially a psychological handbook that helps people cope with life’s issues. All religions in general share the commonality of engaging human emotion with rituals and stories that are meant to teach lessons in life and shape behavior. It takes on many forms and functions around the world and people have used various ritualistic behaviors as means to promote a sense of community, self esteem, safety, and other human psychological needs. As societies changed, rituals and beliefs changed, new religions were adopted and the cycle continues.
As for me and Christmas, I don’t believe in any organized religion, but I understand the purpose of religions to be as previously stated, therefore I interpret teachings from various religions as applied to the human psyche to foster emotional and mental health. For example, if I hear a story about Christ or Buddah, etc., I interpret the teachings as applied to reality, a metaphor of sorts. It’s like reading a story or watching a movie, it’s an art form.
So the form of observance matters – what if I were to claim I did not believe in Judaism, yet came from a society which for the past 1800 or so years had been steeped deep in Judaism, such that when Hanukkah rolled around the societal norm was for families to gather, exchange presents, perform various religious rituals, and what not – and that, bar the religious rituals, I participated – I still fail to see any hypocrisy there (the hypocrisy would come with either participating in the rituals, or believing in the original reasons for the celebrations while at the same time not believing in the religion itself.
You aren’t demonstrating an acutal hypocrisy, just asserting one is there.
If I were to go all out, celebrate xmas and include a stop off at church along the way (midnight mass or whatever your local brand of christianity does – I’m relatively oblivious to the actual religious traditions), sacrifice a goat, or whatever then yes this may be a tad hypocritical (although arguably not so much as it all fits into what has been a societal norm for generations)
As to your last point – so you do, or do not celebrate christmas? It’s not clear. You can interpret religious teachings however you will (I can see that some parts of a lot of religions can be taken the way you choose to take them, but only devoid of the other bits, like stoning homosexuals, killing apostates, avoiding your wife for a week every month – etc) however if the interpretation of religion is merely that it is a metaphor for how to live your life (and here only if you can actually figure out which bits to follow, and which bits not to, which suggests to an extent it is an impediment rather than a help – if you pick the right bits, then surely you already know how to do it) then my conclusion, based on all your arguements previously, is that you cannot possibly participate in any religious type holiday, to any extent, without branding yourself an illogical hypocrite – whereas I and most other atheists would not brand in the same manner regardless of which religious type holiday you choose to observe.
That sure sounds like something a religious person would say. Most of us believe in organized religion, we simply don’t believe in their tenets or authority.
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.
You’re confusing the name with the substance. As previously noted, no one has a copyright on the name “Christmas”, and it has long since passed into the public domain. People are free to make of it what they will. It’s only a Christian holiday for Christians, and from what I’ve observed, very few of them anyway.
There really is no logical conundrum involved here. People can say “Merry Christmas”, and mean what most people mean — I wish you well, this is a time of year when I can wish people well without seeming sappy, please relax and enjoy yourself because you are usually too uptight to be around, etc — without believing in the divinity or existence of Christ. They aren’t even remotely connected.
What it would take to make even a little sense of what you’re saying is to have a case where someone went to confession, Mass, partook of Communion, and fervently prayed to Jesus, all without believing in the existence of Jesus. That would at least appear to be illogical, although it could just be someone not taking it too seriously, which seems common enough.
If I was to admit I was a hypocrite that celebrated Christmas and continued to push this question, you would immediately turn it into a personal issue of me defying my own logic, away from the real issue at hand. I can’t talk sense to those who won’t acknowledge Christmas as a Christian holiday when it’s obvious and factually true. Is Hanukkah not a Jewish holiday? Is Ramadan not a Muslim holiday? The circular reasoning here is beating around the bush to preserve your position. It’s a very simple issue, with simple logic that you’re making extremely complex in an attempt to dodge the issue.
@JJ:
Or maybe we just disagree with you because you’re oversimplifying what Christmas is and why people celebrate it. As someone said about, you’re asserting a logical contradiction without demonstrating one. And you’re asserting things about atheists (that they hate Christmas; that they persecute Christians) without offering any evidence.
Is Channukah a Jewish holiday? Is “Jewish” a religion? I know a few atheist Jews, some of them go to synagogue. They all celebrate Channukah. Channukah is actually a rather unimportant Jewish holiday, and its rise to fame only occurred when it came to America and had to deal with (the garish, grotesque secularized version of) Christmas. My stepmother was Jewish, so despite the fact that my mother raised me vaguely Catholic, I celebrated both Christmas and Channukah with my father and stepmother, both of whom are essentially deists.
See how that’s more complex than just “Channukah is a Jewish holiday”? And how it’s not necessarily hypocritical for me, an atheist former Catholic, to celebrate Channukah with my Jewish-but-not-particularly-religious stepmother? If you could acknowledge that observing holidays that have their roots in religious traditions does not make atheists hypocrites, I think we could move past the whole discussion of Christmas.
“Officially.” HA HA HA HA
@JJ:
Actually, you’d also have to acknowledge that most atheists are fine with Christmas and you were lying about the atheist campaign to destroy it.
I never said they were campaigning to destroy it or hate Christians, that was Bill O’Reilly. I asked a simple question that requires a simple answer that you all refuse to answer, complete denial of the facts. Obviously Jewish isn’t a religion, once again a personal attack on my intelligence. An Atheist Jew is contradictory by definition, you can’t be both anti-religious and practice an organized religion.
I think the answer you’re looking for is it’s perfectly ok to not believe in any religion, yet participate in their festivities. I’m not saying it’s not ok, I’m only saying it’s a logical paradox. To refute all religion, yet participate in their practices lacks logic, it’s that simple. Would you buy a set of golf clubs if you didn’t play golf? Would you label yourself a Conservative when your political views are overwhelmingly Liberal?
I can’t believe this debate is still going strong, yet achieving absolutely nothing. It’s like the climate conference in Copenhagen. Thanks for the insights, but I’m done with this thread. It’s been good, take care.
@JJ:
You said:
When it is the exceptional “New Atheist” that does this, not the average New Atheist. You seemed to think that:
How did the New Atheists force their views on Christians? Are you going to back up any of these wild assertions?
You contradict yourself here. Being Jewish is not a religion, but being an atheist Jew IS a contradiction because…well…here you seem to say being Jewish IS a religion. That’s an impressively adroit mental handspring. By the way, since you contradict yourself on whether being Jewish constitutes religion within the space of two sentences, I think it’s unfair to say asking the question is a personal attack on your intelligence. The answer clearly isn’t all too obvious, or you wouldn’t have contradicted yourself trying to find the answer. I think it’s a fair question: if you don’t believe in God or the prophets or the historical veracity of the Pentateuch but you stay kosher and go to synagogue, are you Jewish? Does that constitute religion?
Like I said, I know atheists who go to synagogue. None of their Jewish friends or families think they’re hypocrites. That’s because Judaism is more complex than simply being a “religion” in your view of what that means. The fact that we’re unwilling to buy into your over-simplified view of what most atheists are willing to admit is an amazingly complex cultural phenomenon does not mean we’re denying the facts. In fact, it means we’re taking account of MORE facts than you are.
Yes, you’re SAYING it, but you’re not making a case for it. You’re not demonstrating it. You’re giving us no reason to believe that you’re correct on this. Is Christmas a Christian holiday? Yes! Is it JUST a Christian holiday? No. It’s a more complex cultural phenomenon than a simple religious observance, and the fact that we can acknowledge that and you apparently can’t does not make US the idiots or hypocrites or whatever else you’d like to call us.
When I put up a Christmas tree, I am not affirming the truth of any part of Christian dogma, am I? When you put up a Christmas tree, you are not asserting the existence of the sky god who impregnates the earth goddess to bring us next year’s crops, are you?
If putting up a Christmas tree is hypocritical for an atheist, then it is equally hypocritical for all Christians, derived as it is from pagan traditions predating Christianity.
This is the same argument everyone has been making for the same 50 posts. What is so hard about this? In Germany, parents tell their children to be good or Santa’s helper Krampus will come get them. That’s another pagan tradition that got mixed in with Christmas, though only regionally. Does that mean that Germans celebrate a different holiday from Christmas, because some of the traditions are a little different? You know why Santa Claus wears red clothes? Because in the 30’s or 40’s, Coca Cola wanted to make a Christmas-time ad associating Santa Claus with their logo’s predominant color. Is putting up a Santa statue the same as vouching support for the Coca Cola corporation?
Again, just because you want to MAKE it simple doesn’t mean that it IS simple, and it certainly doesn’t make us hypocrites for pointing out that, golly gee, it’s actually a little more complicated than JJ would like to think.
You don’t know many Jews I’m guessing, especially Israeli “secular Jews.”
The term “Jew” is very ambiguous. It can denote a person with a certain set of beliefs that are vaguely defined, a person who observes some of the traditional practices related to those beliefs without believing the traditional beliefs (e.g., in God), or a person of a certain ethnic heritage traditionally associated with those things, who doesn’t believe or do any of it, but may or may not do certain stereotypically jewish things like eating blintzes and borscht, because they grew up with those things and still like some of them.
You seem to have a black-and-white mentality that requires you to think words only have one sense each.
That’s just silly.
Even in the most precise sciences, with the most rigorous technical terminology, that’s not true.
For example, in physics, “wave” has several related but distinct meanings. A water wave is a very different thing from the kind of wave an electromagnetic wave is, although there are certain similarities.
Are you saying physicists are hypocrites for calling electromagnetic waves “waves”?
Are you saying that biologists are hypocrites for refusing to call squid “fish”? (There’s an ancient tradition of using “fish” to mean just about any animal that lives in water “fish”, especially if you catch it an eat it—e.g., shellfish, crayfish, cuttlefish, etc.)
I think you need to seriously re-think how words work. They demonstrably do not work the way you insist that they do. You are just wrong, scientifically wrong, and need to read about cognitive linguistics.
Just have to clarify one more thing for Dan L. Jewish was a reference to anyone that observes Judaism. Bad analogy, but you get the point by now, or maybe not.
Can we talk about Halloween now, please?!
Or the a related question to the what is Christmas thing…if Pluto is a dog, then what is Goofy?
and this debate has nothing to do with laws of science, just logic and psychology. How about which came first, the chicken or the egg?
@JJ:
The egg. Insects lay eggs, mollusks lay eggs. Fish lay eggs, and fish evolved before chickens. Chickens evolved from egg-laying reptiles. Definitely the egg first.
You’re assuming logic and psychology have nothing to do with the laws of science? Why would you make an assumption like that? It seems to me that psychology and logic MUST be related to natural law somehow.
Yes, if you continually redefine terms in the middle of a discussion, you can make it so you’re never technically wrong. Way to figure that out. Let me guess, you’re going to go get a philosophy degree now?
Some good points made, and questions posed, but at the same time I see the limitations of the e-forum format, for one thing. It’s basically trying to carry on a discussion/debate (of in-depth issues) in cyber sound bites. Clumsy in many ways, and increases one’s appreciation for the ‘greatness’ of face-to-face communication. But beyond even this I think a proper ‘posture’ of mind is a prerequisite for a fruitful exchange. I feel like my post, for example, got only 7th grade cafeteria sarcasm and then a flowerpot chucked from behind a row of bushes. Great. The combo of these two counterproductive elements (the micro-shots & perhaps an predetermined unwillingness) make me wonder about the worthwhileness of such columns. Maybe it’s just not the way to explore deeper matters — at least in many instances.
About two hundred years ago a fellow named Charles Francois Dupuis wrote a book called Origine de tous les cultes, ou Religion universelle in which he pointed out with exhautive detail that religion arose from the perception of astronomical phenomena which gave rise to concepts like transcendence, immortality, etc. Chanukah, the festival of lights, is a reflection of the winter soltice as much as Christmas. This fact does not make such festivals fraudulent but just reflects the elemental connection between religious beliefs and the rhythms of nature. Over the eons, evolution has predisposed the human brain to prefer such connections in the same way the human brain is structured to find beauty and pattern in the world. Why this is so is debatable, but it remains unassailable that science is based on these curious archaic artefacts of the human brain.
Lets see – millions of people LIED to get mortgages for houses they can’t afford
and you clowns are blabbering about inanities, while the economy collapses.
You are affected, but you do not make the connection. Mencken was right:
“The American people constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish,
ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag
in Christendom …”
And he wrote that when the worst thing in high school was chewing gum
and running in the halls. That was when the Ten Commandments were
posted on the wall. Now look at the mess that YOU have created.
It is coming down the pike – and you are responsible.