Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk
What's Next in Public Engagement?
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
« CPB Report on Best Practices in Digital Journalism: Implications for Science Communication | Main | AU Forum Focuses on Young Voters & Obama: A Year Later »
Category: New Atheism
Posted on: October 2, 2009 12:29 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
Now that Richard Dawkins has a new book out intended to introduce evolutionary science to a wider audience, is he re-framing his message on science and religion to allow for accommodation? It's too early to say based only on comments made during an interview at Newsweek. Josh Rosenau has the details and a discussion.
Find more posts in: 
Life Science
Environment
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/121331
Comments
If he is changing his position it's not apparent in the quote Rosenau posted.
That people can accept evolution and believe in a god is not up for debate, and shows nothing more than that we're capable of holding contradicting beliefs. That seems to have been the anti-accommodationist position all along.
Posted by: Darek | October 2, 2009 4:18 PM
Of course, it doesn't even show that. At most, it shows that humans are capable of holding unrelated beliefs.
Posted by: Pseudonym | October 2, 2009 10:10 PM
In what way does this contradict Dawkins' previously stated views?
Posted by: Mick | October 3, 2009 3:43 AM
Because the religion is connected with the heart, then the other person will not know.
Posted by: cahya | October 7, 2009 9:12 AM
is he re-framing his message on science and religion to allow for accommodation
Trying to make out that he is seems silly to me.
Dawkins wrote books about evolution before writing The God Delusion. They weren't "about" religion either.
You might want to consider that a problem is that others placed on Dawkin positions that he didn't hold and are now these people trying to somehow make out Dawkins has moved his position rather than consider that their misplaced "framing" of Dawkins' position is being shown up. (i.e. they're clinging to the notion that they were right, and creating a rather complicated argument to make that out to be the case, rather than consider it might be that they were wrong.) Just a thought.
I note that you appear to confuse agreeing with the observation that some people hold conflicting beliefs with accommodation (e.g. in your piece in the Huffington Post). The two are quite different things.
Posted by: Heraclides | October 8, 2009 7:19 PM