Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part I
March 13, 2010
Category: Guest Features
"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse is an author and philosopher of biology well known for his works on the creationism and evolution debate. Though not a believer in God, he takes the position that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. Ruse's latest book, Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science, published by Cambridge University Press, argues against the extremes of both creationism and "new atheism".
Intro: In the first of a new series that will focus on his involvement in the science-and-faith controversy, Michael Ruse introduces himself as “accommodationist, and proud of it”. Over the next few weeks, Ruse’s posts will give a personal account of his experiences as an author and public speaker on the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution. Each post has been excerpted from a larger autobiographical work by Ruse, which will later be posted among our Scholarly Articles. After reading each post, we encourage you to respond to the questions above the comment section.
I have been called many things in my time, but I truly believe that “clueless gobshite” is a first. In a way, I am almost proud of this. After all, if you are in your seventieth year and someone feels so strongly about your ideas that they refer to you in this way, then you must be doing something right. Or if not exactly right, you must have ideas that others want to challenge so strongly that they pull out this kind of language. Can you imagine going through life and absolutely nobody ever cared about what you thought or did? You could take your clothes off in Harvard Square, make your privates anything but, and people would not even bother to cross over to the other side? But clueless gobshite, now that is different. Someone is seriously cheesed off.
The writer is one of the more incandescent folk on (what for want of a better term I shall call) the intellectual scene at the moment. He is P. Z. Myers, a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, who runs one of today’s most successful blogs, Pharyngula. He combines really interesting snippets of information about the biological world with rages against any and all religions, religious people, sympathizers, and so on and so forth. He must have a large readership, because the comment list is always lengthy and, if you glance through it, it is clear that he is resonating with some group out there. I should say that he is not alone in doing what he does. For instance, the University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne runs a similar blog, Why Evolution is True. He too combines bits and pieces of information about the world of biology with equally hostile pieces about religion, especially but by no means exclusively Christianity. He too is no fan of Michael Ruse when I am writing on the science-religion relationship, and periodically swipes away at me. I “gibber on” and my ideas are “quickly approaching their sell-by date” (November 2, 2009).
And then of course there is the grandfather of them all, Richard Dawkins. He too is an ardent evolutionist, author of the truly great The Selfish Gene. He too is an ardent atheist, author of the smash-hit best seller The God Delusion. I particularly am picked out and the reader is somewhat condescendingly told that Dawkins does not think I am “necessarily dishonest,” but my actions (my writings especially) have much the same effect. I am identified as one of the leaders in the “Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists,” so named after the pusillanimous appeaser at Munich, and we are told that perhaps “there should be a First Rule of Science Journalism: ‘Interview at least one person other than Michael Ruse.’”
Why are these people so upset? A priori, you would think that we would be natural allies. Like them, I am an ardent evolutionist and near-fanatical Darwinian. I really think the theory of evolution through natural selection is one of the all-time great achievements in science and that it explains the living world, now and in the past. I have written book after book on the topic expressing my admiration for Charles Darwin and the present-day version of his theory. Like them, I am a total non-believer. If you were to ask me straight out, I would probably say I am an agnostic or a skeptic. I personally prefer the second term, because too often “agnostic” means “I don’t care a bit about the topic,” and that is not me. I care and I don’t believe. Truly though, when it comes to Christianity, I think “atheist” is probably a better term. Loving God, Jesus as His son, resurrection and the promise of eternal salvation – not for me, I am afraid.
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.
Ruse's series continues here.
Question for Discussion: In this entry, Ruse gives several examples of harsh words from those “who would be natural allies”. In a similar way, Christians with opposing views on creation often engage with each other in an unloving manner. What steps can BioLogos take to foster a more productive conversation, and avoid the mud-slinging tactics that are so common in this conversation today?
Filed Under:
science, religion, accomodationism, atheism, agnosticism, new atheists, evolution, creation, intelligent design, creationism, belief, Michael Ruse, Richard DawkinsComments (31)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
