Shh! Say What You Want! Shhh!
Timothy Sandefur on May 13th 2006
Over at Dispatches, Brayton takes issue with folks who complain about NCSE’s position regarding the interaction of science and religion. As Brayton rightly notes, there are basically two camps within the pro-science community: those who believe that evolution indicates a universe without a designer (Dawkins, Dennett, myself, et cetera—we’ll call these the incompatibilists) and those who think that one can have religion and evolution, too (Eugenie Scott, Ed Brayton, and others—we’ll call them the compatibilists). Then Brayton complains about the incompatiblists because they “say[] that we take one position in public and one in private”—that is, the incompatiblists accuse the compatibilists of being disingenuous when they defend the claim that religion and evolution are compatible. The incompatiblists think that the compatibilists are not only wrong, but dishonestly playing to the crowd, and trying avoid offend religious sensibilities lest it scare religious folks away from evolution.
Now, Brayton surely has grounds to complain about people accusing him and his fellows of lying. But let’s also be perfectly honest here. The compatibilist attempt to avoid discussing the conflict between science and religion is not a pure intellectual position. It is a PR ploy—an attempt to avoid offending people who don’t know evolution well enough to have a position on it, but who have been frightened about it by the propaganda of religious authorities. If this were a serious intellectual dispute between compatibilists and incompatiblists about the relationship between religion and science, we would see an open and honest discussion about it. Instead, what we see is an attempt by one side—the compatibilists—to persuade everyone else to keep quiet about the potential conflicts, lest we frighten students away. And that is simply not honest intellectual disagreement.
You don’t just have to look at the conflict that broke out a while ago between Nick Matzke and me at the Thumb. Look, for example, and Scott’s article, “Creationism, Ideology, And Science,” in The Flight from Science And Reason. After arguing in support the utterly and completely false claim that “philosophical materialism and methodological materialism are…logically and practically decoupled,” she makes a further plea:
I suggest that scientists can defuse some of the opposition to evolution by first recognizing that the vast majority of Americans are believers, and that most Americans want to retain their faith. It is demonstrable that individuals can retain religious beliefs and still accept evolution as science [just as it’s demonstrable that people can believe all sorts of utterly incompatible things—TMS]…. Scientists should avoid making theological statements (such as those concerning ultimate purpose in life, or final cause) in the context of their evolution discussions (p. 520).
Now, what is this if not an attempt to silence people from saying something that might scare religious folks away from evolution? Asking people to “avoid making statements” is not a tactic employed in serious intellectual debate—it’s a public relations stunt of the sort that the Wedge Strategy typifies. Scott hopes to “defus[e] the religious issue” (p. 517) by avoiding what she calls “unwise” defenses of the position that religion and science are incompatible (518). Unwise, not because she disagrees with it, mind you, but because it might offend people: “reliable polls place the number of self identified Christians in the United States at upwards of eighty-six percent,” you see, so that “[i]f scientists give Americans the same choice as the [creationists] propose[], there will be scant interest in teaching and learning evolution!! [sic]” (518).
If this were merely a scholarly difference over the relationship between religion and science, then I am very confident that the incompatiblists would win. Indeed, Scott’s own argument in favor of compatibilism in this very article is quite weak. But this is more than a debate, it’s an attempt by one side to convince the other side not to have a debate for public relations reasons. And makes it at least understandable that some people would accuse Scott and others of not really believing the compatibilism they defend. Their desire to silence their opponents for publicity’s sake logically entitles us to skepticism toward their public utterances.
Filed in The Belfry, The Biosphere
[...] Reader Chris Berez has the following to say about my recent post, Shh! Say What You Want! Shhh! I think you are right on in your latest post on PL. I used to be one of those that thought that evolution and religion were compatible. Not only do I think the exact opposite of that now, I also think that science and religion are not compatible at all. I’m sick off the bullshit we have to put up with when it comes to science these days. This school of thought that feels we should water down science, lest it offend the superstitious, will only serve to harm the scientific field. I remember when I was a child, asking my parents how God could have created the earth and the universe in just seven days if the earth itself was billions of years old. They of course gave me the standard answer: that a “day” for God might equal a million years for us. [...]
[...] Sandefur writes, below: there are basically two camps within the pro-science community: those who believe that evolution indicates a universe without a designer (Dawkins, Dennett, myself, et cetera—we’ll call these the incompatibilists) and those who think that one can have religion and evolution, too (Eugenie Scott, Ed Brayton, and others—we’ll call them the compatibilists). [...]
[...] Well, a fun little debate is going on over at Postiive Liberty. It seems kicked off by a post by Ed Brayton over at his blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars where he writes about separating what he terms the compatibilist and incombatalist views between Science and Religion. That is to ask is it compatible? Can one be a scientist and and person of fatih too. (Obviously a great many believing scientists think that the affirmative is not impossible) Mr Brayton takes some (welll deserving umbrage) over those who assert that anyone might be a scientist and a believer without being intellectually dishonest. Timothy Sandefur then follows with two posts (here and here) in which he takes the position that the compatabilists are not “intellectually honest” and their aguments and rhetoric are a PR ploiy to shut up dissent. Jason Kuznicki wades in with an erudite post wherein he redefines the terms of the debate in terms of “Non-overlapping magisterium” (NOMA) instead of compatabilist and incompatablists, which have other definitions in terms of the free-will/determinist debate. Mr Kuznicki rejects the non-overlappingness of the majesteria as religion makes claims, e.g., God Created , and so forth, while science often makes values/moral judgements. Ultimately he feels that the claims religion make on the structure of the universe are ever reatreating and if you retreat to “fideism” then there is no way of selecting between religions, as they are all just an internal faith choice. My two cents follow below the fold. Augustine in his Confessions writes in my poor paraphrase that God’s creation praises the Creator in part by man’s understanding of it’s working. That is to say, it seems, that for example in our understanding how Quantum tunneling explains some microwave resonances CO2 molecules, that this unfolding of this subtle mystery is part of a worshipful act. That is, that the CO2 and the student join in worship of the Creator in that aha!, wow moment when understanding of how barriers, tunnelling, and uncertainty join to make just one simple peice in the very big puzzle which is the Universe we cavort within. To Mr Sandefur’s claim that the “NOMA/compabilist” position is just “a big PR campaign” urging science, I’d rebut that Augustine predates this debate by just a few moments and Augustine (and perhaps St Paul as well) do not fear what science might uncover but to the contrary encourage it in the strongest terms. Mr Sandefur’s claim that science and Christianity in particular are “automatically” at loggerheads is patently false. It would seem that while some Christians (incorrectly in my view) fear the march of science and what it might contribute to their understanding of the wonder of the world around them, many notable ones do not. Jurgen Moltemann, I’ve also quoted in the past, while pointing out some of the epistomological limitations of Science as practiced today I think would be counted among the notable and established Christian theologians today who would encourage scientific endeavor. [...]
[...] Writing on the libertarian blog Positive Liberty, hardliner Timothy Sandefur fired back, writing that although “Brayton surely has grounds to complain about people accusing him and his fellows of lying”, the moderates are nonetheless engaged in “a public relations stunt of the sort that the Wedge Strategy typifies”: [Let's] be perfectly honest here. The compatibilist attempt to avoid discussing the conflict between science and religion is not a pure intellectual position. It is a PR ploy - an attempt to avoid offending people who don’t know evolution well enough to have a position on it, but who have been frightened about it by the propaganda of religious authorities. If this were a serious intellectual dispute between compatibilists and incompatiblists about the relationship between religion and science, we would see an open and honest discussion about it. Instead, what we see is an attempt by one side - the compatibilists - to persuade everyone else to keep quiet about the potential conflicts, lest we frighten students away. And that is simply not honest intellectual disagreement. [...]