Religion And Science? Religion Vs. Science? Whatever

by tristero

I have given the matter of religion/science compatibility a great deal of thought. I am quite serious when I say that I’ve concluded that it’s a profoundly uninteresting question, as silly as the arguments we used to have as to whether Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix was the better guitarist. In the blogosphere, if not elsewhere, I know people think this is important. Do you stand with the New Atheists Dawkins and Myers? Or with the Catholic Ken Miller? And all I can answer is, “I don’t care enough to form an opinion one way or another. I guess I like ’em all.”

There’s only one thing that matters: preventing christianists from (further) establishing religion in the American government. Jerry Coyne has done great work in that regard. So has NCSE. But Dr. Coyne is concerned:

…the NCSE’s pragmatism has taken it far outside its mandate. Their guiding strategy seems to be keep Darwin in the schools by all means necessary. [emphasis in original]

And that’s a problem? But, ok, let’s even concede that it is a problem. It’s simply not true, not even close to true, to assert that NCSE would use “all means necessary” to keep Darwin in the schools, not by a long shot. For example, I sincerely doubt that Eugenie Scott would argue that if Texas wants to teach creationism, they should secede from the Union – and let’s not forget before you dismiss me as arguing from absurdity that the issue of secession was recently broached by the governor of, you know, Texas . Nor is anyone at NCSE prepared to lie about facts, as their opponents do at the drop of a hat. The implication by Dr. Coyne that Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch, and others at NCSE are somehow prepared use whatever means necessary to achieve their end is ludicrous.

Finally, Dr. Coyne sums up his concern:

I want religion and atheism left completely out of all the official discourse of scientific societies and organizations that promote evolution. If natural selection and evolution are as powerful as we all believe, then we should devote our time to making sure that they are more widely and accurately understood, and that their teaching is defended. Those should be the sole missions of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education. Leave theology to the theologians.

I completely agree but I don’t care enough to make a stink about it. Why?

Because so far, the combined efforts of Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Barbara Forrest, Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, John Haught and many others have done an excellent job at defending science against an incredibly well-funded and organized assault from American theocrats. Could they do better? Of course, they haven’t been entirely successful. But it is far from clear to me that asserting only one position on religion/science compatibility will , in any real way, increase the chances of preventing the establishment of religion in the public school science classes.

And that’s something I care about. Really care about.

Sure, in a perfect world, NCSE should be consistent. Then again in a perfect world even Jerry Coyne wouldn’t resort to a statement of faith in order to make his arguments:

I can’t tell people that faith and science are compatible, because I don’t believe it [emphasis added]

And if you take the trouble to read that entire post, you’ll note that Dr. Coyne doesn’t argue from evidence but from his, that’s right, beliefs about what he thinks religion is. In fact, he argues in circles, saying essentially that since religion is that which is incompatible with science, therefore religion is incompatible with science. Of course, in the real world, there really are religions that are incompatible with science. And there are religions that seem perfectly compatible with science, eg Methodism:

The most fundamental distinction of Methodist teaching is that people must use logic and reason in all matters of faith.

And there are, or course, plenty of Methodists who have no problem whatsoever practicing their religion and understanding science. They simply define religion and belief very differently than Dr. Coyne. And the question as to who is right or wrong simply is of no importance.

The concern that all our allies must agree with us completely is misplaced. And if Dr. Coyne disagrees with me, that’s cool. In fact, that’s my whole point. Whatever.