They just can’t get it right, can they
Michael Shermer replies, or retorts, to Jerry Coyne.
What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism? That is the question asked at every atheism/humanism conference I’ve attended the past several years. The answer is simple: there is no one “right way”. There are multiple ways, all of which work, depending on the context.
He expands on the point, but without bothering to say what he means by ‘works.’ It’s a rather silly way to put it, frankly, because one doesn’t always expect one’s responses to ‘work’ – one sometimes simply wants to say what is true to the best of one’s ability, not to do what ‘works.’ This is a big part of the issue between accommodationists and critics of accommodationism, and it’s one of the most irritating things about accommodationists that they almost never seem to get that. Accommodationists always talk about what works, what wins more allies, what is least likely to offend the moderates, and similar calculating issues. Critics of accommodationism on the other hand tend to dislike manipulative rhetoric and tactical evasion, and want to try to tell the truth instead of trying to shape a message for fragile listeners.
Shermer’s apparent unawareness of that disagreement leads him, predictably, into the usual strawman overstatement and sneering.
If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project. To what end? So you can stand up tall and proud and proclaim “…but I never gave an inch to those faith heads!”? Well good for you! Just keep on playing “Nearer my Atheism to Thee” while the ship of humanity slips further into the depths of disaster.
We don’t insist that. That is a strawman. What we insist is that we shouldn’t be expected to say things that we do not think are true on the flimsy grounds that some observers think that not doing so will ‘alienate the vast majority of the world’s population from your project’ (and what if we don’t have a project apart from telling the truth as we see it?). There is a difference between insisting ‘that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs,’ and refusing to tailor everything we say to suit some vague idea of what will not threaten other people. There is a big, serious, important difference between those two things. It is irritating that accommodationists so often insist on framing the matter the first way. It is irritating and it does not increase our respect for their probity.
The rest of the quoted passage is of course just snotty jeering. That doesn’t do much for the respect for probity either.
Congratulations, Ophelia!
Once again you express so very succinctly that over which I would stumble.
Nail, meet hammer-head!
The strawman is a well used tactic of accommodationists.
“… If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, […]”
This, from Michael Shermer?
Disappointing.
But what if the “faith heads” insist your project is immoral and goes against God’s will, for example stem cell research? Do you “give them an inch” (and what does that even entail) or insist that you should be allowed to continue with the research? We saw for the last 8 years where accommodating the religious perspective got us in that regard.
I wish everyone would step back and take a deep breath. Okay, the CNN piece was not Michael Shermer’s best-ever piece of writing. I have my own disagreements with it. And then, of course, he has to defend it …
But, come on folks, Michael is still one of the good guys. I don’t see him telling us to shut up, I think his “nearer my atheism to thee” joke was meant to be good-humoured – he was having a dig at Jerry and Richard, both of whom he respects – and I especially think y’all ought to make me some money by buying copies of 50 Voices of Disbelief (Ophelia already has one of course). :)
If you do that, you can read Michael’s quite extensive and considered views about religion in a 5000-word essay. He puts powerful arguments as to why we should regard religion as a human construct. He doesn’t think it is somehow improper to criticise religion (accommodationism) or that religion is wrong-but-valuable (faitheism).
He does, however, think it’s sometimes useful to talk to the religious in a conciliatory way and look for common ground (and he probably thinks, maybe with justification, that he’s better placed than most atheists and sceptics to do that).
I don’t see him has an accommodationist or faitheist who should be expelled from our tent. I think our tent ought to have plenty of room for diverse views and disagreements, certainly enough room for someone like Michael Shermer.
That doesn’t mean I have to agree with Michael on every single point … or even on every single point in his excellent 50VoD essay! But he’s no Chris Mooney, or anything remotely like it. I reckon he deserves a bit of latitude.
Eh? Who said he did tell us to shut up, Russell? Or say he isn’t one of the good guys? I just reacted to this particular post…and I think at least the bit I quoted was sloppy in just the way so many accommodationist posts and articles are sloppy. And not just any sloppy but sloppy in a way that makes people look bad – sloppy in a way that accuses people of something they don’t in fact do. Should I not say so?! I don’t see why.
Maybe it’s not fair to call him an accommodationist? If that’s inaccurate I’ll update the post. But that line about saying X in order to appeal to Y group of people – well isn’t that the essence of accommodationism?
Great post. Despite its title, Shermer’s article makes it clear that he indeed is an accommodationist, which, unfortunately, isn’t an uncommon position among the skeptic movement. I wrote about this yesterday too: http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=633
I’ll side here with Ophelia, Russell, and perhaps forgive your mistake here with exhaustion over your move.
You just did to Ophelia what Accommodationists say if an atheist criticizes, say, Ken Miller for trying to make biology religious. It was a criticism of a single point he has made and not a damning “I’ll not read Schermer again.” We know that he has done some great work writing about religion and its effects on society, but we give him allowance to be an economic libertarian.
Yes, he is a good guy and on our side and all, but so is Miller, overall. We don’t need to spend half of our time pretending that when we drink beer with the religious, all of a sudden it’s okay.
We still need to be honest, and that actually shows them far more respect than a “no touch” attitude towards religion. I think that’s much better than patronizing anyone, religious or atheist.
Mind you, I agree that the ‘Nearer My Atheism To Thee’ joke is funny – I’ll admit that much.
Russell wrote:
Yes, Michael Shermer is “one of the good guys”, but he is not perfect. Many reasonable people have serious problems with his approaches to some issues.
I know you’re reading him charitably, Russell, but I’m afraid his “joke” was not at all funny. It was not at all responsible. It was not at all appropriate.
We all know full well how much rhetorical damage has been done to this conversation by the constant, provocative, tendentious mischaracterizations of people who approach the issue the way Dawkins and Hitchens do. Shermer damned well knows it, too, and he ought to know better than to lob that one. It *isn’t funny* and it’s *actively harmful.* This straw man characterization of outspoken atheists is wildly popular with the religious and the mainstream media, and we’ve all been rightly pissed off about it. No, I don’t think Shermer deserves to be let off the hook for that.
And frankly, his 5,000-word essay in your book is irrelevant to the essay we’re discussing here. It may well be a great essay (and your book’s on my shopping list), but that in no way exculpates what he wrote *elsewhere*.
Shermer took cheap shots – and intellectually dubious ones – at popular atheists for the sake of scoring rhetorical points with a crowd predisposed to be hostile to said atheists. That’s extremely bad behavior, full stop.
You also wrote:
I’m surprised to see you write that, and I hope you’ll reconsider. I resent the accusation – it’s baseless.
OB: Well, I’m starting to wonder about the definition of accommodationism. To me, it means claiming – in a rather sweeping way, without all the many caveats that are needed that actually eat up most of the claim – that reason and science can accommodate religion. Or it means the claim that people of reason and science should not criticise religion even in a civil and thoughtful manner (i.e. the Chris Mooney style of telling us to shut up (even if Chris then claims he never said that).
I don’t think that Michael is really doing doing things that correspond with either limb of accommodationism, so I’m uncomfortable with branding him as an accommodationist. He’s telling the religious that, from a position within their own basic doctrines, they can accommodate evolution.
I actually think he’s wrong about that, or largely wrong, partly because the tension between evolution and orthodox Abrahamic theism is much worse than he acknowledges. But also because the religious people he mainly has in mind – those who actually oppose evolution at the moment – are mainly people who don’t consider the literal Genesis narrative to be an optional extra. To such people, the literal Genesis narrative is part of a theological system that includes a literal Fall at a time in history, the historical redemption of the world by the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus at another time in history, and the approach of yet another time in history when the forces of God will overcome those of Satan. You can’t just take out an element of such a theological system without radically revising the concepts of the whole system, and Michael of all people should know this. So, when I think about it, I’m really not sure who he thinks he’s addressing.
So, yeah, I have criticisms of his original piece, too. I probably disagree with other things in it, and I’d be interested in how Michael would respond to my points of disagreement.
But I just think that some folks (not just you … I’m thinking of Jerry and some of the people commenting here and at Jerry’s blog) are being too quick to pile on, and perhaps to criticise Michael for the wrong reasons. You did seem to call him an accommodationist, as did Jerry, who also called him a faitheist if I recall. This feels too much like calling one of our friends names.
And you do seem at one point to think he’d deny the claim that at least sometimes we just want to advocate the truth. I don’t think he’d deny that (as Chris would have to in some of his moods, if he were being logical). I think Michael wants to say that there are other times when we should try to find common ground with the religious over, say, teaching evolution or responding to global warming. He may be wrong, and in any event he may not have done a great job of it on this occasion, but it doesn’t seem to me be accommodationism in the undesirable senses discussed above … or if it is we’re using the term more broadly than I’m comfortable with.
Interested in your thoughts in response, but still worried about the size of our tent.
Well, I guess that makes one of me:) Sorry, I don’t think it’s funny. I think it’s smarmy, and clunky besides.
Josh, well, funny in isolation – or in another context. Not all that funny here because he is being…well, Mooneyesque (sorry Russell!), but it could be funny in a less fraught context.
Russell, well I don’t know if he would deny it or not – but I do know he didn’t leave any room for it in this particular post. In fact…he says “we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle).” That’s an incredibly sweeping version of the claim! It boils down to: there are lots of problems in the world so if you want to do anything about any of them, then…you have to not do whatever he takes Jerry Coyne to be doing.
Here is the most troubling part of Shermer’s piece.
Those people are evil. It’s too bad they’ve gotten their claws into Michael Shermer. Look: he’s speaking doublespeak already.
OB, I didn’t say I agreed with him on everything. :D
In particular, I think he is wrong about that point. Leaving aside the fact that evolution is about the diversification of life, not about how life came about in the first place (this is an easy slip to make), I don’t think that it is necessarily easy for believers to accept evolution from a standpoint of orthdox Abrahamic theism, let alone from a standpoint of literalist fundamentalism. I think the original CNN piece contains errors and problems like that. You and I agree on that much. (I have a piece coming out soon in which I elaborate a bit more about this and take a stance almost the opposite of Michael’s on this particular point.)
But I think we’re seeing a minor disagreement among allies. At this stage, I’m not prepared to see Michael as anything other than someone with whom I have a lot of important areas of agreement but also certain specific disagreements (as I do with many people who are friends or allies, or both). These are a couple of rather slight pieces from him that we’re talking about, and they don’t seem to me to contain errors that put him over in the accommodationist camp. So, are you sure you didn’t respond in a style that tends to characterise him as having kind of broken ranks (as opposed to someone who is just getting some specific things wrong)? If you are sure, ooookay …
Anyway, the housecooling party was great, except that our friends were so lovely that I’m currently feeling bad/sad about leaving Melbourne. *sob*
I agree with Russell that Michael Shermer is one of ‘our’ friends, if by that ‘our’ we are referring to those who (i) to not believe in god, and ancillary supernaturalist beliefs, and (ii) would like to see something in its place in the culture. I even tend to stand with Philip Kitcher in thinking that if atheists, or naturalists or whatever we want to call ourselves, don’t put something in place which can do duty for the social aspects of what religion provides, the culture of unbelief will get stuck with nowhere to go.
My complaint with Michael Shermer’s piece is not that he doesn’t display gospel purity, or whatever kind of orthodoxy is needed here, but that he went over to slum (in his original piece) on the church’s doorstep a little too obviously. I take great exception to his use of the words ‘our better angels’ and ‘the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed of by our ancient ancestors.’ That’s his nod in the direction of Templeton, I take it, and I find it duplicitous, if not actually a lie.
Perhaps he has to defend his article against Coyne’s attack, but he should see that his words, while they can be read metaphorically, just like every other religious expression, do not constitute plain speaking, and suggest a degree of accommodation between religion and science which surely ought to be held up to searching question. What is more, religious people will likely see it as duplicitous too, so I’m not sure what he intended to achieve by saying these things.
On the other hand, there is a danger here that we are establishing a kind of orthodoxy, and then having some sort of belief test for belonging amongst unbelievers, so, like religious people, atheists will also have to be always on the defensive. I don’t think that’s a path we should venture down very far.
Russell, no, I’m not at all sure I didn’t respond in a style that tends to characterise him as having kind of broken ranks…I probably did respond that way. I think that particular post has that sort of tone, I guess. But I don’t necessarily think that kind of thing is irrevocable – in fact I just plain don’t think that. People can always change their minds, withdraw particular claims or jibes, etc. In fact that’s one of many reasons I disagree with so much of what Mooney says: he simply takes it for granted that theists as such won’t ever change their minds, when he can’t possibly know that.
So…I dunno…I certainly have no intention of officially declaring Shermer an apostate or anything like that, but at the same time, I think this particular post is full of, let’s say, accommodationist tropes. Or ‘new atheist’-bashing tropes. It’s not just that I disagree with the post, it’s that it’s so full of the familiar rhetoric. I’m interested in the familiar rhetoric – I’m interested partly in how familiar it is, how predictable, how meme-like; I’m interested in how obediently people seem to pick it up from each other and how un-self-consciously they deploy it.
I know, about the housecooling – I knew it would be like that. Sniff!
Eric MacDonald wrote:
“On the other hand, there is a danger here that we are establishing a kind of orthodoxy, and then having some sort of belief test for belonging amongst unbelievers…”
That just sounds silly. Who is this “we” that is going to establish an orthodoxy? A few random bloggers? If you’re Catholic, or Muslim, or whatever, you’re obligated to accept the orthodoxy of the Pope, or the Bishops, or your holy book, but it doesn’t work that way for non-belief. I would venture that it could never work that way for non-belief. Which is why that statement sounds silly to me.
Well I think Eric meant that ‘we’ as people who read (and perhaps discuss at) B&W. Or maybe he meant people who read and discuss at B&W and Why Ev is True and Metamagician (and maybe some others). Not those people establishing an orthodoxy for other people, just a few people establishing an orthodoxy for themselves.
That’s always possible, of course. I know of one person who claims that I allow absolutely no dissent, and chase away anyone who disagrees with me. I think that’s a malicious exaggeration, but the possibility is always there – and I think that’s what Eric was alluding to.
Well, no, I certainly wasn’t making the outrageous implication that you suggest, Ophelia, and do not allude in any way, I assure you, to the malicious exaggeration that you, Ophelia, don’t allow dissent on B&W! Nor am I really referring to B&W, as such, at all.
But I do think there is the possibility of distinctive groups of like-thinking unbelievers developing for whom certain kinds of beliefs are simply ruled out. I think this is what some people have in mind when they refer to the New Atheism, for example, which they think of as a more or less self-reinforcing group of unbelievers who share a number of belief parameters, one of which may be, to take the present example, a refusal to accept even the scent of accommodation of science and religious belief.
There would be nothing absurd or silly thinking in terms of the existence of such a group of unbelievers, or even supposing that it might exist. This is the way that schools of philosophy gradually form, and there are always, in such cases, the very strong defining figures who stand guard on the walls, of whom, of course, Ophelia, you may be one! And there may be very good conceptual reasons for making distinctions here, between those who, like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, don’t give an inch when religion is mentioned in relation to science, and those who, like Michael Shermer, is quite prepared to play linguistic footsie with religious believers. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find, at some point in the future, that these differences have evolved into quite different ways of understanding the relationships between science and religion, as well as into distintively different ways of being unbelieving too. The ‘we’ in such a case would be a self-identifying ‘we’ of those who so distinguished themselves by their beliefs and negations.
Perhaps when I used the word ‘danger’ in this connexion I was simply regretting that such divisions should exist, but when I reflect on it further, there seems to be no reason why they shouldn’t, and why they should be harmful either.
Heh! No, Eric, I just meant I thought it was the possibility you were referring to – the possibility that anyone can fall into that orthodoxy trap. That’s all!
Oh shoot! Just when I had imagined you standing guard over the serried ranks of thought!
A dissenter’s head pops up and – blam!! That dissenter is blasted all over the landscape.
Hahahahaha.
Russell said:”He’s telling the religious that, from a position within their own basic doctrines, they can accommodate evolution.”
Russell: telling someone that they can accommodate something is itself a form of accommodating!
There aren’t limbs so much as degrees of accommodation, including a degree which would hold both of the views you describe as limbs — reason and science can get along & you shouldn’t criticize believers.
Shermer has been fairly consistent in his accommodationist view, though it is at times inconsistent with other things he has said. I have personally argued with him about it, heard him discuss it at various conferences & meetings, and read it in his various writings.
For example,in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things”, he quotes Stephen Jay Gould: “Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces, there can be – on the most raw and empirical grounds – no conflict between science and religion.” Never mind that the quote contradicts “rule 19” (overreliance on authorities)in an earlier chapter on “How Thinking Goes Wrong”.
Eric MacDonald wrote:
And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find, at some point in the future, that these differences have evolved into quite different ways of understanding the relationships between science and religion,…
There are already quite different ways of understanding the relationship between science and religion, witness the interminable discussions on accommodationism with all the nuances that people can dream up. So I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
…as well as into distinctively different ways of being unbelieving too.
You may know what you mean, but I have a hard time imagining different ways not to believe. If you mean unbelievers have different opinions on unrelated subjects, such as attitudes towards religion, or different political parties, or whatever, well, that goes without saying. It has nothing to do with belief or non-belief, however.
Tom, since, as you say, there are all sorts of ways of understanding the relationships of science and religion, I think there are probably all sorts of ways of being both believing and unbelieving. Certainly, Huxley, who coined the word ‘agnostic’, was unbelieving in a different sense than, say, Dawkins, who is almost certain that there is no god. And Shermer seems to swing both ways, talking about divinity one moment and atheism the next. So, I don’t see what’s so hard to understand.
And the ‘interminable discussions on accommodationism’ – with all their nuances – may be making some very important distinctions, quite aside from the fact that they are all about the political strategy of a growing anti-religious movement, perhaps even – dare I hope? – a new enlightenment. Seems to me that the philosophes had very similar arguments. Coyne vs. Shermer is very like the disagreement of Voltaire and Condorcet or Baron d’Holbach. Voltaire, as I recall, detested d’Holbach’s work. It was more than just a storm in a teacup; perhaps this disagreement is too, and will lead to unbelief leading in very different directions, and having very different outcomes.
So, yes, I think I know what I mean, and it doesn’t seem to be that hard to understand.