Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part I

“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?”

I think it would help if all sides kept these ten signs of intellectual honesty in mind:

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Hi Michael,

I am very much looking forward to your series. 

“Why are these people so upset?”

First, don’t lose sight of the obvious.  The fact that Coyne, Myers, and Dawkins scorn you tells us, by definition, they are extremists. 

Second, they have made it quite clear with their own words that they are activists with an anti-religious cultural agenda. 

You are scorned because extremist activists of all stripes tend to demonize anyone who does not see things their way.  More importantly, you represent a threat to their black-and-white view of the world (where religion is the cause of evil) because they think you, along with theistic evolutionists, confer some element of respectability to religion and this directly contradicts their agenda which seeks to get more and more people to ridicule and scorn religion.

cont…

The New Atheists hate religion and naively think the world would be a much better place without it.  But they know they can never erase religion from the world.  So the next best thing is to drive it underground; push it into the closet.  They might not be able to get everyone to do this, but if they can pull that off among the intellectuals, the inertia is set.  But that’s not going to happen if people like you and Francis Collins exist.  So you represent a more serious threat to their agenda than you might think.

What steps can BioLogos take to foster a more productive conversation

One important step I think is to find appropriate conversation partners - no matter what we do, conversations with the Myers & Coyne’s of the world will never result in real dialogue just debate (I agree with Mike’s comment above) - as a side note, I’m not sure I’d write off Dawkins so fast - he seems to be able to have reasonable conversations when he wants to - eg. his exchange with McGrath a few years ago). 

And no matter what we do, I suspect we can’t have good conversations with the Ham’s of the world - again, followers of Christ that show intellectual, scriptural, and scientific integrity are a threat to his entire worldview. 

So, let’s find others that may disagree with us but actually want dialogue.  In particular, let’s find those who share our most important purpose - living and promoting the Kingdom of Christ.

Totally agree with you, Michael (Gene)! It’s a basic (and angry) intolerance toward not only religion and accommodationism, but any person who dares to speak of religion and accommodationism in positive terms. Those of us who represent moderate views must do our best not to get sucked in. There’s a saying in the Faroe Islands, my home country, that goes, “Empty barrels make that most noise.” Let them make their noise. The moderate, balanced and friendly voices will, I believe, win in the end.

I think that what gets lost in a lot of “anti-accommodationist” writing is the importance of having a civil society.  You don’t just blurt out anything and everything just because it is “true” in the abstract.  Don’t get me wrong, though, I don’t urge either “accommodation” or its opposite on any one person or faction, I just think that most of science should and does seek to get along with other segments of society.

Ruse’s recent article in Chronicle of Higher Education seems to have gotten some grudging respect from his detractors.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I am keen to read on. Haven’t read too much from this camp. This may very well be where my thinking is headed. We’ll see.

During a recent seminary conference on science/faith interaction, I found myself musing about the emotional payback that comes from being “right” and patronizing or even putting down people with different, but intellectually honest (for them), opinions. Here I am referring to examples of this adversarial language from all camps -  from Creationists, ID proponents, and theist evolutionists alike. Of course, the animadversion flows freely between the New Atheists and Christians of all three positions. The evolutionary psychology that applies to this situation implies that a lot more is going on than the question of whose interpretation of creation-related passages in Scripture conforms best to the reality of the natural world, or whether it applies at all. Obviously, I do think only one position is true; but from Christians who are trying to interpret Scripture faithfully and to promote the Kingdom of God, we should see respectful conversation only. In other words, while defending our own positions, we should not allow ourselves the ego-charging collegiality of name-calling, belittling, or otherwise bashing those who differ with us.

So what can the New Atheists do to annihilate religionists and sympathisers? First, if in the USA, eliminate free speech under the constitution. In general, they could undermine democracy that is supposed to give voice to all members of society. They could work to get psychologists and the medical fraternity declare believers of religion, dangerously medically unfit and have them assigned to asylums.
But more productively, they could become civilised (take up gardening) and drop their fundamentally literalist ways and have an engaging and meaningful lifestyle that will help produce a non-militant, civilised society that all could enjoy.

Mike Gene, I like the “intellectual honesty” posting.  Is that original to you or from another source?

Besides the ego boost that Diane mentions comes from “winning” an argument, we also have just basic respect and patience toward the autonomous personhood of another individual.  We all bring different perspectives, backgrounds, assumptions, tolerance for ambiguity or dissonance, innate conservatism or novelty-seeking, etc.  When we insist others agree with us RIGHT NOW and bash them for not obeying, it betrays a lack of recognition of those values.

Looking forward to the continuation of the series.  Way to think outside the box, BioLogos!

Hi Karl,

Yeah, I wrote it.  Thanks.

I often hear it claimed by atheists like Coyne and Myers that science and religion are incompatible.  I take this to mean that if we embrace science, and its findings, then we are rationally obligated to abandon Christianity.  In other words, if we accept both science and Christianity, we are being accused of intellectual ‘sin.’

Well, I think we are then within our rights to demand that the stone-throwers justify their accusation.  And no, I am not interested in the rationalizations, generalizations, and arm-chair philosophy that derive from people’s personally favorite way of defining science.

What I would like are the peer-reviewed scientific studies that explain the hypothesis, experiment, and results that rationally obligate me to abandon Christianity.  I do this because I do not think hypotheses, experiments and results are superfluous in science.  So, as someone who values intellectual honesty, I’d like to read these studies so I can come face to face with the data that obligate me to reject Christianity. 

If you are reading and happen to agree that science and religion are incompatible, please send me the citations.  My email should be easy to find by clicking on my name above.  Thanks.

If representatives of BioLogos are truly sincere in fostering a more productive conversation, then a positive good-faith gesture would be to revise some of the descriptions used in the “Leading Figures” section of the Biologos website. Some of the descriptions simply do not provide an accurate or fair portrayal of a particular position.

In my opinion, the most egregious example of this is in the description of Intelligent Design. Previously on this page ID proponents were labeled with the highly pejorative phrase “Science Critics,” and while it is certainly a step in the right direction to see that this inflammatory term has been dropped, the remaining description of ID unfairly makes it sound as if ID proponents are primarily about rejecting scientific explanations of things. An uninformed person who reads that ID proponents “believe that much of modern science is wrong” (emphasis added) is liable to think that these people reject things like modern physics, cosmology, heliocentrism, everything to do with evolutionary biology, and whatever else may be associated with “modern science.”

(cont)
If we truly desire to foster positive dialogue, then descriptions of opposing positions ought be such that proponents of these positions would gladly claim these depictions as their own; else, all we are doing is setting up straw men, and an honest discussion of the real issues fails to occur.

This would be #8 in Mike Gene’s ‘Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty.’ (http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/ten-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/)

“Dawkins succeeded in provoking gasps when he referred to the pope as a Nazi.”

“If we truly desire to foster positive dialogue, then descriptions of opposing positions ought be such that proponents of these positions would gladly claim these depictions as their own”

That’s a great point.  Think of writing a review paper for a class, where the objective is not to criticize or debunk an article, but to accurately describe what you read.  This is a very hard thing for many people to do when reviewing a position they disagree with.  What usually happens is that they consciously, or unconsciously, embed criticisms into the description.

The first step to start for BioLogists to start a productive conversation with fellow Christians is to show, at least implicitly, sufficient loyalty to the Christian Faith.

You don’t have to be a YEC to be a Christian, and that is one area that I differ with a strict YEC, but dont tell me that God expects to be given an inadvertent role to play on the availability of life as we have it today - the kind of role that is given to God by the BioLogists.

From the Christian and Scientific perspective, ID is a much better alternative to Darwinism. But why are BioLogists actively insisting on Darwinism and consistently resisting the ID?

Productive conversation must be between everyone from fundamentalist christians to new athiests.  Yelling and name calling never convinces someone to refine their ideas.  I think also in order to be productive, people must be willing to state that they do not know all of the answers and that others are more educated about certain topics than you are.  If we accept our own personal ignorance, we can learn and grow off of each other.  We should try to resist feeling so threatened when our personal views are challenged.

Gene,
I like your 10 points on intellectual honesty. However, to follow those standards of interchange one must, it seems to me,
  1. Embrace a degree of uncertainty about one’s own viewpoints.
  2. Be willing to admit that one could be in error about one’s views.
  3. Be willing to change one’s viewpoint on the basis of a counterpoint argument.
There is very little probability that these things will be embraced by either extreme. Both seem anchored in their “certainty containers.” This is also why Coyne & company as well as Fundamentalist Creationists are emotionally involved in their dialog. The certainty of their position is threatened by serious interchange.

One would think that a degree of civility could still be accomplished. However, when each side thinks the other is “stupid,”  “clueless gobshites,” or any of the other specially reserved terms for idiots, one can see why name calling becomes the order of the day. I must admit, I had to look up the definition of “gobshite.” The good thing is that I discovered that I am not one, except, perhaps, in someone else’s eyes.

Hi Bob R.,

Good points.  I would expand on your point #3.

We really should not expect someone to immediately change their viewpoint on the basis of a counterpoint argument.  For two reasons.  First, we don’t all mentally see alike because we all have different assumptions, histories, and place different emphases on different background beliefs.  Second, those caught up in the context of debate will have a hard time acknowledging “defeat” to an opponent for reasons of pride and for fear where the concession might lead. 

What I look for is this.  You see person A and B arguing something.  Person A makes an argument and person B hits back with a counterpoint argument that you consider to be more powerful.  I would not expect person A to concede (for the reasons cited above), but I would expect him/her to acknowledge the counterpoint was good/strong.  Then, after time, I would expect person A to either come up with a more powerful counter to the counterpoint, acknowledge the counterpoint is indeed a problem for them, or gradually come to embrace the counterpoint.  If they don’t, then person A simply loses respect in my eyes (as if that mattered).