The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists

Richard Dawkins writes about the "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists. These are scientists who are willing to compromise science in order to form an alliance with some religious groups who oppose Christian fundamentalism. Do you believe in miracles? That's okay, it's part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce beings who worship him? That's fine too; it's all part of the Neville Chamberlain version of intelligent design. Souls, moral law, life after death, a fine-tuned universe, angels, the efficacy of prayer, transubstantiation ... all these things are part of the new age science according to the appeasement school. There's no conflict with real science. We mustn't question these things for fear of alienating our potential allies in the fight against the IDiots. Welcome to the big tent.

Ed Brayton has declared himself one of the leading members of the Neville Chamberlain School. And now, John Lynch and Pat Hayes have joined the Ed Brayton team.

Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism.

Young Earth Creationsts (YEC's) and Intelligent Design Creationists (IDiots) are anti-science because they propose explanations of the natural world that conflict with science. But they're not alone in doing that. Many of the so-called Theistic Evolutionists also promote a version of evolution that Darwin wouldn't recognize. They are more "theist" than "evolutionist."

For some reason the Neville Chamberlain team is willing to attack the bad science of a Michael Denton or a Michael Behe but not the equally—and mostly indistinguishable—bad science of leading Theistic Evolutionists. Isn't that strange?

Public understanding of science will not be advanced by people like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller. They are subverting science in order to make it conform to their personal religious beliefs. (Which, by the way, conflict.) They are doing more harm to science than those who oppose it directly from the outside because the Theistic Evolutionists are subverting from within. It is sad that they are being supported by people who should know the difference between rationalism and superstition.

Is the appeasement strategy working? Of course not, but the most amazing thing is happening. The Neville Chamberlain School thinks it is winning in spite of the fact that leading politicians oppose evolution; most schools don't teach evolution; and the general public doesn't accept evolution. Talk about delusion. The appeasers think we should continue down the same path that led us to this situation. They think we should continue to compromise science in order to accommodate the religious moderates.

PZ Myers is only the most recent in a long list of people who have noticed that the good guys are not winning ...

Now, what is this winning strategy that Ed's Team is pushing? It seems to be more of the same, the stuff that we've been doing for 80 years, accommodating the watering down of science teaching to avoid conflict with religious superstition…the strategy that has led to a United States where a slim majority opposes the idea of evolution, and we're left with nothing but a struggle in the courts to maintain the status quo.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. We are not winning. We are clinging to tactics that rely on legal fiat to keep nonsense out of the science classroom, while a rising tide of uninformed, idiotic anti-science opinion, tugged upwards by fundamentalist religious fervor, cripples science education. Treading water is not a winning strategy. I'm glad we're not sinking, and I applaud the deserving legal efforts that have kept us afloat, but come on, people, this isn't winning.

Hallelujah! Right on, brother.

The Neville Chamberlain Atheists

There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the origin of the term "Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists." I've seen it attributed to PZ Myers and even to me.

For the record, it comes from The God Delusion and I'm going to quote from the Dawkins' book below. But before doing that I want to acknowledge that I don't like the term very much even though I used it several times last Fall. I think it does an injustice to Neville Chamberlain. Lately I've been referring to this group as just appeasers but now I prefer to use "accommodationist" to describe them.

If you recognize yourself in the description below and want to offer up a term that fits with your position then please make a comment and we'll see if we can reach an agreement about what to call you.

Another prominent luminary of what we might call the Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists is the philosopher Michael Ruse. Ruse has been an effective fighter against creationism, both on paper and in court. He claims to be an atheist, but his article in Playboy takes the view that

we who love science must realize that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend time insulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secular evolutionists. Atheists spend more time running down sympathetic Christians than they do countering creationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.

From a purely tactical viewpoint, I can see the superficial appeal of Ruse's comparison with the fight against Hitler: "Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt did not like Stalin and communism. But in fighting Hitler they realized that they had to work with the Soviet Union. Evolutionists of all kinds must likewise work together to fight creationism." But I finally come down on the side of my colleague the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who wrote that Ruse

fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson [E.O. Wilson, the celebrated Harvard biologist], the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greatest enemy:religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.

Dawkins agrees with Coyne, and so do PZ Myers, me, and many others. The real battle is between rationalism and superstition and that's why we have to point out the superstitious beliefs of Theistic Evolutionists just like we point out the superstitious beliefs of Intelligent Design Creationists.

Some of you are only interested in the American struggle to keep Intelligent Design out of the schools—a serious tactical error, as far as I'm concerned. In that battle you may see the Pope as an ally. That's fine. You can be accommodationists if it suits you in order to win that fight. But don't assume that your fight is my fight. That's where you make a mistake in criticizing my position and that of Dawkins etc.

My Family and Other Emperors

Here's how my family descends from Charlemagne. The last people on the list are my maternal grandparents. I think the data is accurate but I look forward to any corrections or comments.

---

UPDATE: I'm almost certainly NOT related to Charlemagne in the lineage shown below. Link #34 is wrong. The father of Ruhama Hill is NOT William Hill of Fairfield, Connecticut but Captain John Hill of Westerley, Rhode Island.

UPDATE (Jan. 2015): An informed read has pointed out that Julianne FiztMaurice (#18) is the daughter of Maurice FitzMaurice and his first wife, Matilda de Predergast, and not his second wife Emmiline de Longspree (#17) as I've shown.

---

1-Charlemagne (Charles) King of the Franks,
Emperor (2 April 742-28 January 814)
+Hildegarde of Vinzgouw (758-April 783)

2-Louis I (Ludwig) "The Pious" King of France
(16 April 778-20 June 840)
+Ermengarde Princess of Hesbaye (778-3 October 818)

3-Lothair I King of Italy (795-29 September 855)
+Ermengarde of Orleans and Tours
   (about 805-20 March 856)

4-Ermengarde (Helletrude) de Lorraine (about 830-about 864)
+Giselbert II von Maasgau (about 815-after 877

5-Reginier (Rainer, Reginar) I de Hainault (about 850-916)
+Hersent de France? (about 865-after 919)

6-Regnier (Rainier, Reginar) II de Hainault Count of Hainault (about 890-after 932)
+Adelaide of Burgundy (about 903-)

7-Amaury de Hainault (about 925-about 983)
+Judith de Camrai (about 931-about 983)

8-William de Bastinbourg (about 965-about 1002)
+Albreda de Nogent Montfort de Esperon (-about 1022)

9-Amauri (Amalric) I de Montfort (993-about 1053)
+Bertrude "d’epernon" de Gometz (about 1001-after 1051)

10-Simon de Montfort (about 1026-1087)
+Angus d'Evereux (about 1030-about 1087)

11-Bertrade de Montfort (about 1070-February 1117)
+Foulques (Fulk) IV "le Réchin" Count of Anjou (1043-1109)

12-Foulques (Fulk) of Jerusulem Count of Anjou, King o Jerusalem (1089/92-13 November 1143)
+Ermengarde de la Flèche Erembourg of Maine Countess of Maine (-1126)

13-Geoffrey Plantagenet Count of Anjou (24 August 1113-7 September 1151)
+Empress Matilda (Maud) of England (7 February 1102-10 September 1167)

14-Henry II Plantagenet King of England (25 March 1133-8 July 1189)
+Ida de Tosny (about 1158-)

15-William de Longespée Earl of Salisbury (17 August 1152-April 1206)
+Ella of Salisbury Countess (-)

16-Stephen de Longespée Earl of Ulster, Justiciar of Ireland (1216-)
+Emeline Riddlesford (about 1223-1276)

17-Emmeline de Longespee (1250-)
+Baron Offaly Maurice Fitzmaurice (about 1242-1286)

18-Juliane Fitzmaurice of Offaly (between 1249 and 1266-between 1300 and 1309)
+Lord Thomond Thomas de Clare (about 1246-29 August 1287)

19-Matilda (Maude) de Clare (1280-1365)
+Lord Robert de Clifford (de Clare) (1 April 1274-24 June 1314 (Battle of Bannockburn))

20-Idoine (Idonea) de Clifford (de Clare) (about 1303-24 August 1365)
+Baron Henry de Percy (Feb. 6, 1300/01-about Feb. 26, 1351.52)

21-Maud de Percy (about 1335-Feb. 18, 1378/79)
+Baron John de Neville 3rd Lord Neville of Raby (1328-17 October 1388)

22-Eleanor de Neville (1360-1441)
+Ralph de Lumley (1360-)

23-Catherine de Lumley (1400-before 1461)
+John Chideocke (Chidlock) (1393-1450)

24-Catherine Chideocke (Chidlock) (1423-10 April 1479)
+John de Arundel VII (7 January 1421-22 November 1473)

25-Margaret de Arundel (about 1464-December 1519)
+Sir William Capel (1428-6 September 1515)
Lord Mayor of London

26-Sir Giles Capel (about 1486 May 1556)
[Tournament Helm]
+Isabel Newton (-)

27-Margaret Capel (about 1486-)
+Robert Ward (about 1484-)

28-Thomas Ward (-)
+? Hare (-)

29-Sir Richard Ward (about 1540-January 1615)
+Ann Gunville (Guiville?) (about 1540-after 1552)

30-Andrew Ward (about 1572-23 January 1615)
+? ? (-)

31-Andrew Ward (1597-1659)
+Hesther Sherman (1 April 1606-28 February 1665/6)

32-Ens. William Ward (1631-December 1675)
+Deborah Lockwood (12 October 1636-UNKNOWN)

33-Esther (Hester?) Ward (18 April 1664-18 April 1732)
+Eliphalet Hill (about 1663-before 30 January 1695)

34-William Hill (17 November 1692-25 April 1775)
+Abigail Barlow (30 June 1697-16 April 1743)

35-Ruhama (Ruhamah) Hill (-)
+John Belden (-)

36-Mary Belden (22 March 1747/8-5 April 1830)
+Joseph Treen Sr. (16 November 1744-July 1830)

37-William Treen (25 July 1774-26 April 1826)
+Catherine Montross (Montrose) (about 1785-)

38-Ester Treen (1807-~1891)
+Richard Cole (1789-1847)

39-Mary Cole (18 October 1837-9 May 1874)
+John Burns (1818-13 May 1875)

40-Isabelle (Bella) Hooper Burns (18 October 1862-15 August 1923)
+William Findley Docherty (9 March 1852-3 June 1920)

41-William Alvin Doherty (26 December 1878-9 June 1941)
+Ella Jane Foster (7 April 1887-7 February 1961)

---

[Image Credits:
Charlemange Empire map
Emperor Charlemagne]

Something to be Proud of?

 

Gene Expression has a new icon in the sidebar. Apparently the author is proud to be an appeaser.

For the record, here's what it means to be a Neville Chamberlain Atheist. It means you're happy to attack Intelligent Design Creationists like Micheal Denton (Nature's Destiny) and Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) for mixing science and religion. But, you don't say a word when Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) and the Rev. Ted Peters (Evolution from Creation to New Creation) spout equally bad religious nonsense in the name of science.

The Neville Chamberlain Atheists object when Behe talks about intelligent design but mum's the word when Ken Miller talks about how God tweaks mutations to get what He wants. Hypocrisy is a strange thing to be proud of.

He must be joking, right?

Tagged by the Evolution Meme

 
Shalini at Scientia Natura has tagged me with the evolution meme [ I've been tagged!]. The idea is to pick five postings that show the evolution of Sandwalk from the time it first started until now.

This is going to be hard since my blog is less than one year old. Starting in the very first week I published an article on the sea urchin genome [Sea Urchin Genome Sequenced and I've continued to post science articles all along. The biggest change occurred in January when I started combining Monday's Molecule with Wednesday's Nobel Laureates to develop themes for the week. Gradually these themes spread over into following weeks (e.g. Blood Clotting). They began to take over my life!

My postings about atheism and religion haven't changed very much over the past year so there doesn't seem to be any evolution there. Many people will be upset by that since they would very much like to have changed my opinion! My interest in the influence of atheism and the confrontation with the "appeasers" was there from the very first weeks. The thing that's changed is that I now avoid the word "appeasers" and "Neville Chamberlain" whenever possible [The Neville Chamberlain Atheists].

When I started Sandwalk I blogged about Canada and local politics but not very often [I'm Voting for Hurricane Hazel!]. I thought I should avoid being seen as too Canadian because it would scare off readers, especially Americans. Now I'm posting more on Canadian issues because there's a large Canadian audience out there and because non-Canadians don't seem to mind—some even find it interesting [MMP: Debunking the Myths, Chastising the Fearmongers].

The biggest change has been the number of people who comment on Sandwalk. In my opinion, some of the most interesting things on this blog are taking place in the debates and discussions that occur after an initial posting [Plants, not Fungi, Are Most Closely Related to Animals?]. This was one of the things I wanted to happen since I'm coming from a newsgroup background but it didn't happen for the first six months. I realize now that you need a critical mass of readers in order to get a discussion going.

I tag:

easternblot
Primordial Blog
Runesmith's Canadian Content
Genomicron [which has definitely evolved]
Sex, Genes & Evolution [which hasn't?]
Thoughts in a Haystack [which should :-)]

Words from a Proud Neville Chamberlain Atheist

 
Chris is a cognitive psychologist (Mixing Memory). He claims to be a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist. He writes about Religion and Social Critique.

While I think it's obvious to anyone with eyes (a category that seems to grow smaller by the day) that within the anti-religious bigotry today there is an underlying feeling of superiority, an unliberal belittling of the little guy, a feeling that "Joe Schmoe" is stupid and to some extent worth less than the intellectually righteous secularist, ...

Whoa! I think he's talking 'bout people like me here. First of all, I'm not a bigot. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about rationalism and superstition then it's best to avoid that term unless you can back it up. Second, I do feel strongly that my opinion is better than contrary opinions. Are there any other possibilities? Are there some people who feel that their opinions are unworthy? Thirdly, some of the people who believe in superstitious nonsense really are stupid. And they really are bigots—yes, I can back that up.

(Incidentally, I'm sure that in the interests of fairness, Chris has posted a strong criticism of the bigotry and intolerance of religious leaders in the USA. I look forward to getting the URL to those postings.)

... there is another element to rabid atheist criticisms of religion that I find both disturbing and puzzling. As many of the comments to my recent post and Pharyngula's post on the same topic illustrate, these criticisms of religion are largely based on its perceived social and political effects. That is, the critique of religion by these atheists (let's call them Churchillians) is a social critique.

Oh, that's a relief. It's not me he's referring to. My criticism of religion is based on the idea that its supporters believe in supernatural beings. That's a delusion because there's no evidence of supernatural beings. The fact that some religions are sexist, racist, and homophobic is incidental. I'm well aware of the fact that this doesn't apply to all religions. I'm equally opposed to the more liberal versions of religion because the underlying premise is wrong, in my opinion.

This is the part that Chris and his fellow appeasers don't get. They oppose the extreme versions of religion because of the outward manifestations of social behavior. But they give a free pass to all those superstitions that don't recruit suicide bombers or put women in the back pews. I don't make that distinction. To me the battle is between rationalism and superstition. The social critique is secondary.

What I find disturbing and puzzling about it is its naïveté. As I believe fellow ScienceBlogger and Chaimberlainian atheist Razib has pointed out before (I don't have a link right now, but if he gives me one, I'll add it later), religion is such an effective user of our cognitive and social composition that it falls naturally out of them. So naturally, in fact, that there is no reason to believe that religion is going away, much less that it is possible, through accusation and invective, to facilitate religion's demise. In other words, as social critiques go, the Churchillians' is about as ineffective as you'll find.

Chris, I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't hide my light under a bushel just because I think my chances of changing the world are slim. So, even if it were true that the USA will always be strongly religious that wouldn't be a reason to keep quiet. I don't believe that America is going to accept gays and lesbians anytime soon but that's not a reason to give up the fight. Or, do you think it is? Do you advocate an appeaser position toward homophobic bigots on the grounds that you'll never change their minds?

But, setting the illogic of your argument aside, let's think about the future of religion. European societies became more and more secular in the 20th century. Canada is much, much less religious than the USA. Do you really think that America will resist the change? I don't. Furthermore, I think your statement that the "Churchillians" are being ineffective is patently absurd. Richard Dawkins has done more to stimulate debate about atheism than hundreds of appeasers. Although you misrepresent his position, the fact is that by being blunt he has got people's attention and that's the first step toward getting them to question their beliefs.

Would it not be better to recognize that the content of specific religions has, historically, varied according to the spirit of the times, and therefore the most effective avenue for social critique is to focus on changing that spirit, thereby necessarily effecting change in the content of religion? If you want to make the religious less intolerant, and less hostile towards members of outgroups, wouldn't it be better to work towards a society that is itself less intolerant and hostile towards members of outgrups?

Yes, if your only goal is to make people more tolerant then that's what you should do. Meanwhile, some of us are trying to get people to abandon superstition—that's a different goal.

In other words, it seems to me that the problem with the Churchillian critique is that it mistakes a symptom for the cause; it fails to recognize that religions are, as they have always beens (and as any social institutions are and will alway be), tools of power and domination, and that the object of critique should be the powerful and the dominant.

Wrong. It is you who is making the mistake. The "Churchillians" are opposed to superstition because it's not rational. We don't distinguish between superstitions that are associated with intolerance and those that aren't. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I think, for example, of the ways in which religion and society changed together in 18th century Europe, or the differences between the focus and attitudes of the religious in many European countries as opposed to the United States today. Religions that have survived for millennia have done so because they are incredibly adaptive, and it is the responsibility of anyone with a progressive world-view, recognizing that religion will not go away, to force religion to change by changing its environment and thereby forcing it to adapt. Calling religious people stupid, and treating religion as inherently evil, simply won't accomplish that.

My goal is to achieve a society where there is no religion. I want people to stop believing in supernatural beings for which there is no evidence. I would also like to live in a society with a "more progressive world-view." Both goals are achievable. We don't want an atheistic intolerant society any more than we want a religious intolerant society.

Methodological Naturalism

UPDATE: This post no longer reflects my opinion on this subject. I now believe that science is not bound by methodological naturalism. Science as a way of knowing is free to investigate claims of the supernatural. [Is Science Restricted to Methodologial Naturalism?] [Accommodationism in Dover] [Methodological Naturalism].

In a comment on The Neville Chamberlain Atheists thread "slc" repeats a claim that he/she has been making for several months. I started to reply on that thread but the comment grew too long so I'm making it into a separate posting.
"slc" says,

As I have commented on this and other blogs, Prof. Morans' position, along with Myers and Dawkins is that philosophical naturalism is science and therefore science == atheism.

Indeed, I've seen you make that claim several dozen times. I'm glad it makes you happy.
For the record, I am an atheist so naturally I'm a philosophical naturalist. (Duh!) But I do not claim that good science requires philosophical naturalism. I claim that methodological naturalism is a requirement.
Most of my arguments [e.g. Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground] are based on the idea that methodological naturalism is the foundation of science and that, therefore, science is effectively atheistic in practice. I've been trying to show that methodological naturalism all by itself is capable of highlighting all of the important conflicts between science and religion. In my opinion, it's simply not true that the only conflicts that arise are when you make the leap to philosophical naturalism.
In this sense—and this sense only—I'm defending the concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) promoted by Stephen Jay Gould. As long as religion sticks to it's proper domain (magisterium) and stays out of science then it's okay (e.g., I have no problem with Deism and most versions of Buddhism). The problem is that most believers want to violate the rules of methodological naturalism and still be praised for being good scientists. One of the ways they rationalize this obvious conflict is to try and equate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. They claim that it's okay to allow a little bit of religion into science because science is not the same as atheism. We see an example of that in "slc"'s attempt to dismiss what many of us are saying about the conflict between science and religion.

Michael Ruse: Confused Accommodationist, and Proud of It!

 
Michael Ruse has published some articles on The BioLogos Foundation website. Recall that this foundation was set up by Francis Collins and its mission is very clear.

The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Founded by Dr. Francis Collins, BioLogos addresses the escalating culture war between science and faith, promoting dialog and exploring the harmony between the two. We are committed to helping the church – and students, in particular – develop worldviews that embrace both of these complex belief structures, and that allow science and faith to co-exist peacefully.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Got it? This is a group of people who think that science and religion (e.g. evangelical Christianity, Roman Catholicism) are compatible with science.

Michael Ruse's essay fits right in to this theme [Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part I] Problem is, Ruse doesn't understand why he's an accommodationist.

And yet, I am excoriated at every turn. Why? Simply, because I am an “Accommodationist.” I think that some kind of intellectual meeting is possible with religious believers, including Christian religious believers. As it happens, I believe that in America it is tremendously important politically to bring evolutionists together with people of religious commitment, but I absolutely and completely would not argue for a position that I thought wrong because it was politically expedient to do so. I would not say that emotion plays no role in my position. It does indeed. That helps me to take a stand that I think right against folk with whom I would much rather be a friend than a scorned enemy. But I think one can make a sound case for the position I have taken and still accept strongly today. In this essay, I try to explain what I believe and why I believe it. Why I am an “Accommodationist,” whatever that might mean, and proud of it.

Please understand: this piece I am writing now is not so much a response as a reaction. What I mean by this is that I don’t want to whine about being mistreated or misunderstood or whatever. As I have already intimated, in a way to respond in such a way would be almost hypocritical, because I rather like the fact that I stir people up so much that they want to strike out as they do. But I think there is some value in trying to see where I have come from, what I believe at the moment, and why I have fallen out (or raised the ire of, because frankly it was not I who started the quarrel) of people who in most respects you would think would be my natural allies. I am going to write this in a rather personal way because above all it is rather personal. I think, however, even those of you who think writers should never reveal anything of themselves will be able to strain through the personal and see the arguments underneath.

Oh dear! Ruse is terribly confused.

The accommodationist term was made up to describe atheists who go out of their way to defend religious beliefs as being compatible with science.¹ They claim that religion is a way of knowing separate from science. They claim that science can't investigate the important claim of religion so it's perfectly okay to be a scientist and, at the same time, believe in life after death, miracles, and humans who are the son of God. They are accommodationsts because they pretend there's no conflict between science and many religious beliefs.

Accommodationists are NOT defined as people who have Christian friends and who are willing to ally with their friends on common causes like keeping creationism out of the schools. Those are traits shared by those of us who believe that science and religion are incompatible. Believe it or not, I have friends who believe in God and so does PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. (I suspect Jerry Coyne probably has such friends as well.) Bringing that up only confuses the issue.

I can't believe that Ruse is ignorant of this distinction because he's written many articles about the compatibility of science and religion. Is he being deliberately misleading on the BioLogos website?

Perhaps he'll clarify this point and demonstrate that he understands the difference between being an accommodationist and being a friend and ally of people who believe in the supernatural. There are going to be more essays, but you can skip Part II [Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part II: A Christian Childhood]. There's nothing worth reading there.

P.S. Michael Ruse complains a lot about being misunderstood. The remedy is not to blame his opponents—although we are rarely blameless—but to try and write more clearly.

---

[HatTip: Jerry Coyne - Weekend Accommodationism]

1. They were originally called Neville Chamberlain Evolutionists, as Ruse points out in his article. That term has been dropped but you get the idea. Accommodationists describe otherwise intelligent atheists/evolutionists who compromise their principles when it comes to dealing with the beliefs of some (but not all) believers. They do this in order to maintain the peace.

Jerry Falwell Promotes Superstition

 
In the ongoing battle against superstition it helps from time to time to point out the greatest offenders. I'm not exactly sure how the Neville Chamberlain Atheists approach this issue but for me it's very clear. Stupid, superstitious, idiots like Jerry Falwell need to be exposed and opposed. The fact that they are Christian fundamentalists is a bonus.

Here's the latest from Falwells' sermon last week (THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING).

In recent years, since Al Gore invented the internet and helped invent global warming, our world has been in turmoil. The internet turned out to be “a very good thing” and, when used properly, is a great asset to humanity.

The endless hysteria and alarmism over alleged global warming has increasingly become a national and international nuisance and loses credibility with every passing day. The entire myth has little to do with science and much to do with politics.

Its greatest proponents are the United Nations (no friends of America), liberal politicians, radical environmentalists, liberal clergymen, Hollywood and pseudo-scientists.

Didn't he forget gays? Was that a delberate oversight?

It should be expected that liberal clergymen and theologians would join in concert with Hollywood and liberal politicians on every radical and hurtful issue that arises. But, sadly, some evangelical pastors and leaders have recently jumped aboard this brand new bandwagon. This bandwagon is not abortion, school prayer or gay marriage… rather, it’s a cause that former VP Al Gore is championing in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth” (better named “a Convenient Untruth”: namely global warming.

Whew! That's a relief. He managed to slip gays into the next paragraph. For a minute I thought he was losing it.

What does the Bible say about a global warming catastrophe that will melt the glaciers, raise the sea levels to horrific destructive heights and eliminate the four seasons beyond any recognizable difference.

Psalm 24:1-2, “The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. 2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.”

Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that the coming rise in sea level will be God's fault because He did it once before?

Neville Chamberlain Would Love this one!

 
Most of you probably don't realize that Richard Dawkins has a new book called The Fascism Delusion. Those people who criticized his earlier book (The God Delusion) have been quick to jump all over this one. Check out this devastating review at the Valve [More on Dawkins]

[Hat Tip: PZ Myers at Pharyngula (Dawkins demolished]

An Anglican says that science and religion don't conflict

Are you surprised to hear a religious person say that science and religion are not in conflict? Of course you aren't. That's just what you expect religious people to say.

Why in the world would Nature publish an article where an Anglican makes such a claim? [See Religion and science can have a true dialogue] And why in the world should its readers pay any attention at all to the nonsensical first paragraphs ...

I work for the Archbishops’ Council in the Church of England, and this summer I did something that many people would think is impossible. I sat in a dark lecture theatre engrossed in a computationally generated 3D journey through the Universe. Virtual stars whizzed past and seemed narrowly to miss colliding with my head as we accelerated through galaxies and past exploding stars. I listened to cosmologists speak on research into dark matter, particle physics, the rate at which the growth of the Universe is accelerating and the possibi­lity of multi­verses. I asked questions and they responded.

According to the popular narrative on the relationship between science and religion, this event should not have happened. The entire audience was made up of bishops and church leaders. Science and faith, we are constantly told, are in conflict and have little in common.

Really? What "popular narrative" says that Anglican church leaders can't learn about science? What "popular narrative" says that Anglicans cannot accept the findings of physics and cosmology? Who says that?

The problem here is not the ridiculous false claim but the fact that it's published in a leading science journal. I'm not aware of any Nature articles on the conflict between science and religion and the claim that belief in god(s) is not compatible with a scientific way of knowing. Why is Nature getting involved in this debate and why is it taking sides?

Read Jerry Coyne's take on this article at: Fulsome accommodationism in the journal Nature.¹

---

1. Keep in mind that Jerry uses the word "accommodationist" to mean anyone, atheist or theist, who thinks that science and religion are compatible. In its original sense, the word "accommodationist" referred only to those people who Dawkins referred to as "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists." These appeasers were atheists who argued that science and religion are compatible. Only atheists can be accomodationists according to this original definition—they one I still adhere to. I don't think it's noteworthy that religious people try to make science and religion compatible.

More from an Appeaser

John Brockman is literary agent for many authors, including Richard Dawkins. His website, "Edge," carries interesting debates. The latest is started by Scott Atran's diatribe against the views of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Atran, Dawkins, and Harris were together at the recent "Beyond Belief" conference at the Salk Institute. Atran writes,

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems. Some scientists have some good and helpful insights into human beings' existential problems some of the time, but some good scientists have done more to harm others than most people are remotely capable of.

This is a silly argument. Atheists do not claim they can solve all the problems of an irrational society. What they (we) claim is that one important step is to reduce irrationality and promote rationality. One big step in that direction is to eliminate religion.

I am one of those people who would rather live in a society that was rational and evidence based. Surprisingly, Scott Atran is happy to remain in an irrational society that doesn't care about evidence. He's right to be embarrassed.

Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris respond to Atran. Read the Harris response. He elaborates on the following point ...

Atran's comments, both at the Salk conference and in his subsequent essay, miss the point. The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former, and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse.

There's another interesting point made by Harris. He explains that there are only three good reasons for appeasing the superstitious.

(1) Certain religious beliefs are true (or likely to be true); here's why…
(2) Religious beliefs, while not likely to be true, are so useful that they are necessary; here's the evidence…
(3) Many religious people are so irrational that it is simply too dangerous to criticize their beliefs. Please keep your mouth shut.

I agree. I'd like to hear from the Neville Chamberlain Appeasers. Which one of these three arguments do you support?