Nearer My Atheism to Thee: How to Respond to Theists
On the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Tuesday, November 24) I wrote an invited opinion editorial for CNN, here.
The title, “Religion, Evolution can Live Side by Side,” was written by the CNN editors, but it does capture the thrust of the piece, as it seems to me that believers who accept Newton’s theory of gravity as the means by which God creates stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes, can just as readily accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as the means by which God creates life.
Perhaps predictably, there have been critics responding on both sides, most notably the estimable Jerry Coyne, the author of one of the best books ever written on the subject, Why Evolution is True, in his web page of the same title called me an “accommodationist” and even a “faitheist” (not sure what that is—“faith atheist”? but it’s clever!) Anyway, Jerry is “disappointed” in me and wonders if I’ve gone soft in the brain because of a Templeton Foundation sponsorship. Read it here.
The responses to Jerry’s blog have been interesting, and sometimes amusing:
What Shermer is trying to make peace with are sensible moderate theists, not fundamentalists. It is the people in the middle, not those on the fringes, who will, ultimately, determine the virulence of religion and irreligion. Shermer is trying to reduce religion’s virulence, not embracing fundamentalist ownership of the Bible, and it’s ridiculous interpretations of it. Shermer is right to reclaim the Bible as part of the Western cultural patrimony, and not leave it to fundamentalists to tell us what it means, and the implications to be drawn from it.
Or:
Michael Freakin’ Shermer’s heart is not pure enough for Jerry Coyne. If Jerry Falwell’s circle of orthodoxy was, say, 1 meter in radius, then His Worshipfulness The Right Reverend Jerry Coyne’s circle of orthodoxy has a radius of, roughly, a Planck Length.
For the record, I am not sponsored by Templeton, and I’ve never received a grant or fellowship of any kind from them. They did pay me to write and edit some articles for them (work-for-pay is okay!), but insisted that I could say anything I wanted and could invite anyone I like to contribute to an essay collection, including Christopher Hitchens and Steve Pinker (to answer the question “Does science make belief in God obsolete?”).
What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism? That is the question asked at every atheism/humanism conference I’ve attended the past several years. The answer is simple: there is no one “right way”. There are multiple ways, all of which work, depending on the context. Sometimes a head-on, take-no-prisoners, full-frontal assault á la Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Jerry Coyne is the way to go. Sometimes a more conciliatory approach á la Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or your humble servant is best. It all depends on the context and what you are trying to accomplish. When I debate creationists—whether of the Young Earth, Old Earth, or the Intelligent Design species—I try to take a Dawkinsonian/Coyneian approach and slam-dunk their flawed arguments and duplicitous claims without an ounce of accommodationism (although I am, by nature and upbringing, polite and respectful). Christopher Hitchens’s recent body slam he and Stephen Fry gave the Catholic Church for its stance on women’s rights, birth control, and 3rd-world poverty would have brought tears to my eyes had I not been cheering so fervently:
On the other hand, if it is your goal to educate everyone on earth to the power and wonders of science (as it is the Skeptics Society and www.skeptic.com) and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems (as it is my personal goal), then we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle). If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project.
To what end? So you can stand up tall and proud and proclaim “…but I never gave an inch to those faith heads!”? Well good for you! Just keep on playing “Nearer my Atheism to Thee” while the ship of humanity slips further into the depths of disaster.
Sometimes religion is the problem, but usually it is something else—local political battles, governmental corruption, lack of education, resource depletion, currency debasement, inflation, poverty, etc. Don’t forget the bigger picture of what we’re trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity. Pick your battles carefully and choose your strategy wisely.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
A great rational response to a never ending issue with this complex society we live in. From your own words, I get the feeling this will never be solved because religions will accept only one position…..”but I never gave an inch to those science heads and their facts!”?
Keep up your great work for science and reason!
[...] Shermer responded: For the record, I am not sponsored by Templeton, and I’ve never received a grant or fellowship of any kind from them…. [...]
[...] Shermer replies, or retorts, to Jerry Coyne. What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism? That is the question asked at every [...]
Michael, the point is that in your obsession to get religious believers to accept one scientific theory in particular, you are working against the greater goal of getting them to accept science. All of science; not just a few of its conclusions, or even all of its conclusions, but the scientific way of thinking itself.
Take a statement like this:
“Believers should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.”
Or much worse, this:
“The belief that there is a war between science and religion where one is right and the other wrong, and that one must choose one over the other (…) [is] baseless.”
The first quote is just disturbing in its assumption of the truth of ‘divinity’. The second quote is faitheistic accommodationism in its purest and most disgusting form.
None of the ‘New’ atheists has any problem with teaming up with religious believers to fight for certain causes and solve certain problems, but why should teaming up with someone mean having to do everything to pander to their sensibilities?
As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one thing worse than a faitheist–and that’s a fundagnostical. I hope you’re not one of those.
LOL You kill me, Mr Grossberger.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by matt kovach and Tweets Tube, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Realist, not “Accommodationist”: What is the “right way” to respond to theists? http://bit.ly/5PqNjG [...]
“If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project.” Bravo!
[...] Nearer My Atheism to Thee: How to Respond to Theists [...]
[...] Vertreter der Kuschelatheisten tritt wieder Skeptic-Chef Michael Shermer auf, gegen den ich Richard Dawkins schon einmal in einem Kommentar verteidigt hatte. Doch haben die [...]
[...] Michael Shermer hits back today, gently but firmly. He focuses on the important issue: Not whether religion is true or not, nor whether it is supported by science or not – but how we can actually improve the world we live in through science. [I]f it is your goal to educate everyone on earth to the power and wonders of science (as it is the Skeptics Society and http://www.skeptic.com) and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems (as it is my personal goal), then we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle). If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project.To what end? So you can stand up tall and proud and proclaim “…but I never gave an inch to those faith heads!”? Well good for you! Just keep on playing “Nearer my Atheism to Thee” while the ship of humanity slips further into the depths of disaster. [...]
Religion plays into my T/S blog something like this: Many of those wrongly convicted but exonerated many years later committed actual crimes that placed them in prison before the wrongful convictions. Put another way, they were not modeling the lives of “good Christians” or “good Muslims,” etc.
So, as they serve prison time for the wrong crime, they tend to find God/god behind prison walls. Then, after a hard-won exoneration against tremendous odds, they thank God/god for never allowing the abandonment of hope. I want to ask–to scream out when I’m most frustrated–where was God/god during the process that led to your wrongful conviction, that allowed the actual perpetrators to remain free so they could rape or murder again?
The evangelical expressions of faith by exonerees sure puzzle me because of the immense illogic involved. But I stay silent, out of respect for the ordeal the exonerated had to undergo before justice finally kicked in.