Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part I
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
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?
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.
March 16th 2010
Hi Gene,
Thanks for personally addressing my points. I am sure that what you have described as a process in your response actually can and does occur among intellectually honest people. Perhaps my point 3 could be better stated as “willing to entertain the possibility of viewpoint change.”
A true debate could probably not occur between Ken Ham & Jerry Coyne, for example, since both have shown that they are certain about their positions. I doubt whether either of them, couched in their own certainty, would admit to the possibility that they might be wrong. Therefore neither of them would be willing to entertain the possibility that their viewpoint might also be changed by a convincing argument.
If the purpose of true debate is to arrive at truth through a thesis-antithesis process, then both Coyne & Ham would have to entertain the refinement process that you have outlined. Eventually the truth will come out either favoring Ham’s position or Coyne’s or a new thesis representing a syncretism of sorts. This is more likely to occur on a BioLogos blog because, I sense, those who engage here are more likely to embrace your 10 points and the axioms upon which they rest.
Reply to this commentMarch 16th 2010
Mike Gene,
You talk about one acknowledging defeat. Don’t you think this mentality is a problem. Why is changing one’s opinion or learning from someone else with a different background admitting defeat? I think we should see it as personal growth and understanding, not defeat. I think for this to happen however, people must admit they do not have the right answer to everything; no one does but it seems like everyone thinks they do.
That being said, of course there will be disagreements. I think people should just not disagree for the sake of avoiding “defeat”.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
Wonder how it would be if all the main players in the Creation/Evolution debate could lose their egos? Wouldn’t we like to see a gathering where it was first emphasized what we all hold in common as traditional Christians, and what we believe God wants us to do in the world as his body? How does this divergence of opinion on a key, but not defining, doctrine hurt our witness as Christians? I think of Jesus’ example of total humility in the face of unjust accusation and punishment - how he didn’t try to defend his position, but simply took the consequences. I wonder how this attitude applies to our disagreements - certainly not to compromise a position held in integrity, but to be extremely gracious to those who oppose us. I personally think that the test of our faithfulness to Christ has more to do with praxis than with correct intellectual belief, which has alway been a struggle for me.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
Diane, you’ve expressed my thoughts exactly!
While I don’t know about getting all the main players to take part, but just such a gathering is what I am envisioning in a project that I am currently working on. Drawing inspiration from the task that C.S. Lewis undertook in his book Mere Christianity, I hope to provide a place where we can find common ground that can be mutually affirmed and celebrated by those who may personally hold to a diversity of Creation views.
I am encouraged by the kind of positive dialogue, humility, and intellectual honesty that I see in this thread and in others, and I am hoping to draw from such grace as I have seen displayed here and on other Creation view websites to pull together something like a “grassroots” movement of fellow Christians who are dismayed or disillusioned by the harm that has come about as a result of uncharitable disagreement. I fully believe that debate and discussion on our differences can be beneficial, but not at the expense of our witness as one Body in Christ.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
Let me add that while I espouse this kind of gracious approach to Christians of differing opinions, I do strongly believe that science uncovers God’s work, though I don’t try to define how God works too narrowly. Even the current concept of consciousness as an active tool in influencing matter/energy at the quantum level should not be tied too closely to how God participates in the world - not really for fear of setting up another God-of-the-gaps scenario, as that level is believed by most physicists to be intrinsically indeterministic, but because I believe that God mainly works through human consciousness and action to accomplish God’s goals. How God may act directly in physical processes may be uncovered someday, but I am not sure that saying “God may work at this level” is ever very helpful to our cause - though providing interesting speculation.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
Diane,
I agree with your general point that humility is a good container from which to conduct the business of dialog, particularly with brothers under the same banner.
However, this in no way precludes the idea that tough words must sometimes be said. A quick re-read of Matthew 23 or John 8:31-58 illustrates this point. The reason why the people “took up stones to kill him” [Jesus] was because of his bold confrontation of their false ideas with the truth. Jesus literally sealed his own death warrant with his attacks upon the religious leaders. Interestingly, he was not above name calling. (I am not suggesting that we do likewise. It’s just an interesting fact.)
Again, I would concede that Jesus spoke the truth because it was the truth, and not because he needed to prop up his ego like we so often do. Nevertheless, he did not shrink from the task before him. I am quite sure that his words and actions were not perceived to be either humble or gracious by those he attacked. The meek and mild Jesus never showed up when he dealt with the Scribes and Pharisees.
Reply to this commentMarch 18th 2010
Good counterpoint! I am not suggesting that we mince words about intellectual beliefs we stongly hold in this debate, though. I think it is extremely important that we who see science and faith as complementary work to educate others that this position is supported by Christian tradition, Scripture, and reason; but I just don’t think that “face-offs” or ridicule are very productive.
Reply to this commentMarch 20th 2010
Er, what exactly was I supposed to get from this? I realize that it’s just “Part 1,” but there doesn’t seem to be anything to it at all. Ruse doesn’t even define “Accommodationist.”
OK, some people disagree with him vehemently enough to use impolite language.* So what? Frankly, that’s what happens when people with strong opinions (and I have strong opinions myself) comment on-line. You may reasonably decry the loss of politeness in on-line discourse, but that’s not the issue here, surely. What is Ruse’s POINT?
I’m having a hard time seeing this post as more than just a plea for sympathy. I’m sorry, but I don’t care about that (and it doesn’t present Michael Ruse in a particularly good light, I must say). I’d like to know what HE thinks, as contrasted with what his critics think. As far as I’m concerned, he should have skipped this “Part 1” entirely.
*PS. I’ve read some of those comments, and they weren’t JUST impolite phrases, but included clear explanations of their difficulties with Ruse’s thinking. That’s what I expected - hoped - to get here, only from Ruse’s side of the argument.
Reply to this commentMarch 21st 2010
How can you speak of religion and accomodationism in positive terms? Science and religion is incompatible because science is based on Natural Law whereas religion is based on superstition. Now to accommodate superstitious believers, (perhaps to make them feel good, or not to hurt their feelings), is to abdicate rational reason.
Reply to this commentMarch 21st 2010
Professor Ruse,
You say ‘And yet, I am excoriated at every turn. Why? Simply, because I am an “Accommodationist.”’
It’s not “simply” because of that. It is, at the least, also because you do a fair amount of excoriating yourself. You make sweeping rude claims about “the New Atheists” whenever you mention them, and you mention them pretty often.
As you say, you ‘rather like the fact that [you] stir people up so much that they want to strike out as they do.’ Quite, and you do a lot of stirring. That being the case, it’s rather invidious to claim that you are ‘excoriated’ simply because you are an accommodationist. You surely rile people on purpose, so you shouldn’t put all the opprobrium on them when they retort.
Reply to this commentMarch 22nd 2010
Here is the section from the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge” document:
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.”
How is this not anti-science?
Reply to this comment