As I wrote yesterday, one of the emotional strategies employed in Expelled is to paint atheist pundits as the stand-ins for "big science," in the process selectively avoiding interviews with any of the many prominent scientists who have emphasized the compatibility between evolution and religious perspectives.
And as I noted in this earlier post, the claim by Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other atheist hardliners that science undermines the validity of religion, even respect for religion, is at odds with the consensus view in the scientific community as represented by organizations such as the National Academies or the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
While Dawkins and Myers are to be commended for their tireless work to counter the pseudoscientific claims of the ID movement, their equally tireless commitment to ridiculing religion presents the public with mixed messages about the important differences between science, atheism, and faith.
As Dawkins even admits, he is a strategic liability to what he sometimes condescendingly refers to as the evolution defense lobby. Indeed, the association in the public's mind between evolution and atheism is only likely to grow stronger with the media campaign to promote Dawkins' next book, Only a Theory, for which he reportedly received a $3.5 million advance.
In today's NY Times, Cornelia Dean profiles Francisco Ayala, one of the scientists that Stein conveniently avoids interviewing in Expelled. Ayala is past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a former Catholic priest, and is author of Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. In the article, here's what Ayala has to say about the confusing message of the New Atheist movement:
He said he was saddened when he saw the embrace of evolution identified with, as he put it, "explicit atheism," as in the books of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins or other writers on science and faith.
Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof, Dr. Ayala said, and equating science with the abandonment of religion "fits the prejudices" of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas.
"Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge," he writes in the new book. "It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical."
It is important that Dr. Ayala "is not a religion-basher," Dr. Scott said, "because creationists always showcase the religion-bashers in science as if they speak for all scientists. They clearly do not speak for Francisco and many others."
Nevertheless, Dr. Ayala will not say whether he remains a religious believer.
"I don't want to be tagged," he said. "By one side or the other."
Hat tip to Greg Laden.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Just a thought.--Before the time of Jesus, it was easier to go to heaven by simply behaving well. After Jesus, you have to let Him into your life in order to go to heaven according to some christians.Therefore, the coming of Jesus adds to the requirement for going to heaven.That's just for christians to think about.
You argue that identifying religion as unscientific is a bad tactic, and that many scientists disagree with it, but you don't offer any actual arguments against this claim.
If you want to attack it, wouldn't that normally be the most obvious route to take? Surely the two questions of whether the majority of scientists support a claim, or whether it's a good political approach, are secondary compared to the claim's truth value.
Also, why is the size of Richard Dawkins' advance relevant?
The message is confusing only to those who aren't listening. The message is not that science disproves religion. The message is that faith is the antithesis of reason, that it does not provide knowledge, that such flimsy excuses would never be credited on any topic except religion, and that the notion that "science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge" wrongly assumes that religion is a domain of knowledge.
It isn't. Neither Dr. Ayala nor anyone else can state a single claim in religion that has an iota of standing as knowledge.
Now yes, it is easy to state a wide variety of knowledge claims about religion, from its history to its sociology. Those are not religious claims, and far from being a separate magisterium that doesn't overlap with science, such claims are integrated with all the rest of knowledge. And yes, some religions will incorporate such claims as part of their doctrine. But a religious claim about a god, that really is non-overlapping with the rest of our knowledge? Not one has any evidence or reason to credit it.
This analysis would be completely unremarkable if we were discussing the belief of a small number of people in fairies. And few would object to it. But it is no less valid with respect to the various religious claims about gods. The only reason it is controversial, even in circles where it should not be, is because of its political ramifications. The "new atheism" is very much the same as the "old atheism." It just a willingness to identify nonsense for what it is. Clarence Darrow had it exactly right, when he said "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." Fairy tales are not another domain of knowledge. Just because a Pope or Imam or Rabbi propagates it, and millions or billions believe it, doesn't make a fairy tale one whit more credible.
The extension of a scientific epistemology into metaphysics tends to make mincemeat out of the kind of personal god a lot of people seem to believe in. This conflict is real (philosophically and personally), and again, I don't think this can be avoided without looking deliberately abstruse or disingenuous.
I have a question for you: do you think it's possible that disbelief in evolution is caused by religiosity? In other words, could the "symptom" be disbelief in evolution, an the "disease" be a belief in (an intervening, creator, personal) God?
If you don't subscribe to such a theory, why not (apart from it being a simplification)? If you do, what's the way to fix it?
Indeed, religion (or atheism) ought to be taken out of the debate altogether.
Here some of my favorite quotes about science and religion - and I think scientists who have faith need to be more vocal.
Myself - I'm a modern Gnostic - I believe that science is actually the logical extension of what early Christians believed about learning about their world through observation. It's a shame that more Christians aren't actually aware of what their religion was like closer to the beginning of the Common Era.
It has always puzzled me that so many religious people have taken it for granted that God favors those who believe in him. Isn't it possible that the actual God is a scientific God who has little patience with beliefs founded on faith rather than evidence?
Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies (1983)
The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
No contemporary religion and no New Age belief seems to me to take sufficient account of the grandeur, magnificence, subtlety and intricacy of the Universe revealed by science.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle in the Dark (1995)
@Russell:
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that there is a difference between the credibility of a fairy tale and its value. You're right that the "magisterium" (sensu Gould) of science comprises all facts about the observable world, and so includes facts about religion. But religion is more than just its factual and fanciful history - it's also concerned with value judgments, which do not necessarily arise from observable (scientific) facts. Scientific facts are very useful for telling us the outcomes of all sorts of actions (brushing your teeth, introducing kudzu to North America, listening to Stravinsky, etc.), but they don't tell us whether any of those outcomes are good or bad. Certainly it's possible to (and many people do) make those value judgments without reference to fairies or Thor or the angel Gabriel, but it's not clear to me that it's automatically better to do so.
Nisbet: "And as I noted in this earlier post, the claim by Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other atheist hardliners that science undermines the validity of religion, even respect for religion, is at odds with the consensus view in the scientific community as represented by organizations such as the National Academies or the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
So the official statements of the National Academies or the American Association for the Advancement of Science represent the consensus of the global scientific community? What do you mean by "consensus" and do you have any data to back your statement up?
Personally, I don't think that the official statement by an organization is automatically shared by everyone belonging and backing that organization. Moreover, the global scientific community is much more than National Academies or the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
BTW, why is Nisbet again and again making such a big fuss about certain scientists beeing at odds with a certain political view? Even if this view is a majority view, the scientific community is not a political party whose members are committed to follow the guidlines of a central committee.
The attitude towards religion in the scientific community varies. I think this is a basic fact from which the framers should start their work. Speaking about an unverified consensus will certainly not help.
"Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof"
Ayala ought to know that science isn't about any absolute truth or absolute proof but upon what the weight of the evidence points to and about what can be tested to either support or deny a particular theory about the way nature works.
Having said that, yes, the existence or non-existence of a god is amenable to scientific testing where claims about that god lend themselves to it. One of these claims is that a god created the universe just 6,000 or so years ago. This has been refuted categorically.
Whenever such claims have been made about a god (for example, that his wrath manifests itself in lightning, or earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions), these claims, too, can be tested.
In fact, whenever such a claim has been made and scientists have been able to test it, it has never, ever turned out to be a manifestation of a god.
Yet the creationists still back this loser ideology with regard to evolution. Given the history of such claims, what is the likelihood of this particular claim being true, in the complete absence of a shred of science supporting the claim?
None of this has refuted the ultimate existence of a god, nor has it confirmed such an existence, and this is the pivotal point.
Christian creationists in the USA are hanging their god (in whatever sense you care to see that) and by extension, the very existence of their god on the things which can be tested by science.
This is why they're getting so upset about evolution. It has nothing to do with atheism or with science but with the way these creationists are themselves framing their issue. When they learn to keep their god out of science, then there will no longer be a conflict.
It really is that simple.
Yoder:
I agree, that any commitment to a notion of good ultimately is personal, and cannot be fully resolved by reference to issues of fact. But...
The problem is that that kind of religion isn't just an ethical theory. It is an ethical theory bundled with certain factual claims. If one's view of ethics are that certain rules were delivered by the angel Gabriel, one is then making the factual claim that there is an angel Gabriel, who did certain deeds. Now, it may not matter to one's ethics whether that claim has any more evidence or basis than claims about Thor or fairies. In which case there is no disagreement. Most religious believers whose theological world includes Gabriel seem to bristle at that. But nonetheless can offer no more evidence for Gabriel than for Thor.
"Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof"
Ayala ought to know that science isn't about any absolute truth or absolute proof but upon what the weight of the evidence points to and about what can be tested to either support or deny a particular theory about the way nature works.
Having said that, yes, the existence or non-existence of a god is amenable to scientific testing where claims about that god lend themselves to it. One of these claims is that a god created the universe just 6,000 or so years ago. This has been refuted categorically.
Whenever such claims have been made about a god (for example, that his wrath manifests itself in lightning, or earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions), these claims, too, can be tested.
In fact, whenever such a claim has been made and scientists have been able to test it, it has never, ever turned out to be a manifestation of a god.
Yet the creationists still back this loser ideology with regard to evolution. Given the history of such claims, what is the likelihood of this particular claim being true, in the complete absence of a shred of science supporting the claim?
None of this has refuted the ultimate existence of a god, nor has it confirmed such an existence, and this is the pivotal point.
Christian creationists in the USA are hanging their god (in whatever sense you care to see that) and by extension, the very existence of their god on the things which can be tested by science.
This is why they're getting so upset about evolution. It has nothing to do with atheism or with science but with the way these creationists are themselves framing their issue. When they learn to keep their god out of science, then there will no longer be a conflict.
It really is that simple.
BTW, you might want to look at how your comment system parses submissions. The first time I submitted this, I neglected to put a name/email to it, yet your parser took it instead of rejecting it. When I tried to resubmit it with name and email, your parser refused it, evidently thinking I was a spammer.
@Yoder:
It's certainly true that religion isn't reducible to the truth value of its claims, but it's equally true that you don't need to actually believe in the religion to access the rest of that value.
Just compare the Bible or the Quran with the Iliad. All ancient texts, all sometimes poetic and inspirational, yet at other times banal or horrific. The difference is that we can access what's valuable in the Iliad, without being hindered by the real world presence of people who think the Iliad is literally true.
If there were significant numbers of people who still thought the Iliad was the revealed truth of the gods, and that Homer and Hesiod were their prophets, it would be obvious that this was a problem that needed addressing. Precisely because hardly anyone is an Olympianist, it becomes possible to access the cultural legacy impartially.
That's a good question. I find it interesting that the reported amount is more than the entire gross revenue for the opening weekend of Expelled. And Dawkins's books generally get good or at least mixed reviews, even from reviewers who don't necessarily agree with him, while critics have almost universally panned Expelled. Yet we are told that Expelled is a public relations coup for the creationists that threatens to sway moderate or uninformed people and demands a coordinated, well-framed response, whereas Dawkins's success is brushed aside as preaching to the atheist choir.
I find it similarly puzzling that Dawkins's and Myers's alleged disagreement with the "consensus view in the scientific community as represented by organizations such as the National Academies or the American Association for the Advancement of Science" is relevant, yet Nisbet appears unfazed by the NCSE's apparent disagreement with his view of P.R. value of the "Expelled from Expelled" incident. Argument from (alleged) authority for me, but not for thee?
It is very important to note that science and religion ARE overlapping magisteria. Science treads on the grounds of belief just as belief treads on the grounds of science. To say that religion is ONLY concerned with values and that science has nothing to say on this subject is strictly wrong. Scientific knowledge plays heavy into values. Let's say there exists a vegetarian who is one solely because he or she knows that animals experience suffering. Knowing that animals suffer is a scientific observation. Let's say that they encounter an article explaining that lobsters lack the neurological components required to experience pain. This vegetarian could, based on this fact, change their mind about eating lobster. Non overlapping magisteria is simply a term that a very smart man (Gould) invented in order to form some kind of truce. It does not, however, work.
So why is Ayala allowed to make the claim that evolution rescues God from the Problem of Evil, but Dawkins can't argue that evolution undermines the idea of a personal God?
Clearly Ayala's position is more popular and therefore politically convenient.
I'm amazed that Ayala hedges his bets on whether he is a believer. I've read his book (and have a review of it forthcoming in Cosmos magazine), and it seems abundantly clear that he is still a Christian, indeed one who thinks that evolutionary biology assists in the practice of orthodox Christian theodicy.
As for the NOMA theory, it's bunk. There really is a conflict, or at least a tension, between religion and science, though it may not always be politic to say so (and it is inappropriate for any representative body of scientists to take a position either way on such a contested philosophical issue). However, I won't argue the case yet again.
I still maintain that even the likes of Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller will not be able to reach out to the majority of Christian fundamentalists who believe that Catholicism is a heresy and that biblical literalism is the only way to interpret scripture.
I've encountered fundamentalists who question the "Christian-ness" of theistic evolutionists. For them, if you can't take the bible literally, then you have no reason to take the passages about Jesus' resurrection literally. Therefore, it's either their way or the highway. Science is simply cannot be reconciled with their dogmatic beliefs, so long as they believe that science is inferior because it is merely a fallible interpretation of the natural world, whereas creationism is based on God's Word. Trying to get atheist scientists to keep their views to themselves is not going to help.
As I've pointed out previously, this supposed "consensus view" seems to be a tactical ploy---the sort of framing you advocate---not an honest statement of a consensus. It's what some organizations choose to say publicly, and nowhere near an accurate representation of what the members of those organizations actually think.
Most scientists are atheists. (Nontheists.) The overwhelming majority of top scientists are atheists---including over 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science. (About 70+ percent outright disbelieving atheists and 20+ percent unbelieving non-theists.) Almost none are the sort of relatively orthodox monotheists that Ayala, Collins, and most Americans are.
You frame Dawkins and Myers as "atheist hardliners" and seem to imply that folks like Ayala are representative of a consensus in the scientific community. (At least in the sense of believing in something like NOMA, if not their particular religion and theodicy.)
I'd say that Ayala is a bizarre outlier among scientists. He's a "hardliner" who won't give up Abrahamic monotheism in the face of obvious scientific falsification. He keeps messing with the theory to try to salvage a failed paradigm that most scientists abandoned long ago.
My impression is that most members of the NAS hold views much closer to Dawkins's than to Ayala's---especially scientists in relevant areas, such as cosmology and evolutionary biology.
If there's a "consensus view" among NAS members, I'd guess it's that Dawkins and Myers are mostly right, and that Ayala is a kook who's handy to have around for PR reasons.
(Not to say that he isn't a fine scientist, so far as his science goes. I just don't think that most NAS members actually believe in NOMA, much less Ayala's theodicy, even if they respect his scientific work.)
Surely, some scientists fail to see the full strength of the conflict between science and religion, but that's why Dawkins and Myers write about it; they should see it more clearly.
I am anagnostic simply because no can prove and disprove the existence of God. Philosophy begins where science ends.
I don'believe in the bible because there are many non-sensical or illogical stories in it.
Examples: Why did Adam and Eve cover their reproductive organs after the ate the fruit of knowledge?This implies that they already have the organs and for what use?
Cain apparently killed Abel and went somewhere to marry a woman. Who was that woman?Adam and Eve where the first people and they only have Cain and Abel.
At the time of Noah, there was no technology to build that boat that Christians claim. And, if God allowed the flood to happen that would make him a murderer of those people sinners and non-sinners.
Although I'm an agnostic, I tend to be more of a believer in God. In elementary science we were taught that nothing can happen without a cause. Could God be the ultimate cause that cause the "big bang"? I also believe in cycles that I think that the big bang is only half of the story, that there is a "big contracting phase". I think of a never ending cycles--electrons circling around the nucleus, the planets around the sun, our solar system revolving around in the constelltion.
I classify myself as a scientist and such has authored a book on the golf swing science published last September. I believe in science and also believe in justice. To be an aetheist does'nt make since to me because that means no justice. I believe in Einstein's theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light , you go back in time.THE THOUGHT OR SPIRIT CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT GUIDED BY GOD ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE LIFE BEFORE. YOU ARE THEN REBORN LIGHT YEARS AWAY DEPENDIONG ON THE NO. OF YEARS YOU HAVE LIVED. THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT.
Sometimes I'm amazed at some supposed to be scientists who know mathematical formulas, but lacking on common sense. I noticed that fact in some authors of scientific golf. If you want to know what I have written about the golf swing science, my website in URL is --golflessonsnotformonkeys.com.
I believe that the basis for religion as well as economic principles are greed and fear.And, these work for the majority of people and probably helpful in some respects as a consolation for miserable people and incentive for economic prosperity.---Just think for example, there is a rich family with abundant food and a very poor family with starving children. If there's no fear of going to hell for eternity, that poor family will have no fear on stealing or even murdering just to satisfy their need.It make sense that religion was invented by the rich elites long time ago. Lord Meynard Keynes in an advice to Churchill said , we must spend ourselves to richness.If the individual spends, he gets poor but if the government spends, people will try to find ways to get that money and become inventive in that sense.NOT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS OR SO, WE MUST LIVE IN AVARICE AND USARY FOR THAT IS THE ROAD TO DAYLIGHT.