Coyne tries to move on
But, I have to disagree with his strategy for dealing with irrational views.
Jerry Coyne tries to move on from accommodationism, with a post that has great summary of his position on the compatibility of religion and science:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/the-debate-that-wont-die/
But (and didn't you know there was going to be a 'but'): I have to disagree with his strategy for dealing with irrational views (such as, he says, those about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV). Working directly for atheism is not directly going to be either successful or necessary for achieving a reduction in irrational views. I don't think working for atheism is even a useful political strategy for dealing with religion, although this depends on what "working for atheism" actually means, and I will discuss that later.
Why do I disagree? Because although religion can be the source of very many worrying irrational views, it isn't the only source even though it is the most visible. For example, there is a real problem right now with the widespread acceptance of "alternative" medicines and the rejection of mainstream medical opinion such as the necessity of vaccination. That does not seem to come from religion. It comes from a general ignorance and lack of acceptance of science.
Anyway, what does "working for atheism" mean? I can only assume that it means promoting the visibility of atheism, and that atheists should be accepted as equals in society. That is entirely admirable, as people should not be excluded because of their opinions (or lack of opinion) regarding the existence of gods. But that is a political position, not a scientific one.
However, problems arise when the principle that the public should be scientifically literate about important matters (such as stem cell research) becomes entangled with the political promotion of atheism. Because, there are conflicts. Sometimes you can end up pushing atheism and putting aside the matter of scientific literacy. When the literacy is about health and medicine, then the result can be dangerous, as in the case of the AAI Award to Bill Maher. That is a form of accommodationism that is more than just academic.
So, I propose a stronger and broader form of anti-accomodationism: science and nonsense are not compatible. Stop the tendency to focus on the compatibility of religion and evolutionary science, because while the concentration has been primarily on that subject more dangerous kinds of unreason have spread. Also, the obsession with religion/atheism, although understandable, has I think been a distraction from the wider battles that need to be fought. We need more than just New Atheists, we need New Scientists (if you will excuse the magazine reference): people who will vigorously attack not just religion but the far wider acceptance of nonsense throughout society.
Here is another suggestion: When supporting atheism be very clear to differentiate political from scientific contexts. Politics is a dirty business. Science needs to stay clean. I'm not saying don't have conventions, or atheist meetings. But be open about the reasons for your promotion of your beliefs in each situation. Don't mix up scientific atheism and political atheism. The Maher case was the worst example of this. Having the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science co-sponsoring a partly political event (the AAI 2009 Convention) was perhaps unwise. At least in my view.
Finally, let's have some consistency. Just as Coyne says that "the National Center for Science Education and other scientific organizations should make no statements about the compatibility of science and religion", so an organisation should make no statements about the compatibility of the belief that condoms prevent HIV infection, and religion. Theism and atheism are conclusions. They should be reached, not jumped to. Get some Catholics to realise that the Vatican is scientifically wrong about condoms and that may help some move away from theism, but most importantly, it could save some lives. What is more likely to come first - a conversion to atheism or believing evidence about condom use?
You don't get to promote science effectively by trying to deconvert people from religion. You promote science effectively by being a good promoter of scientific understanding, of which Coyne is one of the finest. If someone has gained an understanding of the wonders of science and its workings along with a better understanding of reason and how to use it, isn't that "mission accomplished"?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/the-debate-that-wont-die/
But (and didn't you know there was going to be a 'but'): I have to disagree with his strategy for dealing with irrational views (such as, he says, those about the effectiveness of condoms against HIV). Working directly for atheism is not directly going to be either successful or necessary for achieving a reduction in irrational views. I don't think working for atheism is even a useful political strategy for dealing with religion, although this depends on what "working for atheism" actually means, and I will discuss that later.
Why do I disagree? Because although religion can be the source of very many worrying irrational views, it isn't the only source even though it is the most visible. For example, there is a real problem right now with the widespread acceptance of "alternative" medicines and the rejection of mainstream medical opinion such as the necessity of vaccination. That does not seem to come from religion. It comes from a general ignorance and lack of acceptance of science.
Anyway, what does "working for atheism" mean? I can only assume that it means promoting the visibility of atheism, and that atheists should be accepted as equals in society. That is entirely admirable, as people should not be excluded because of their opinions (or lack of opinion) regarding the existence of gods. But that is a political position, not a scientific one.
However, problems arise when the principle that the public should be scientifically literate about important matters (such as stem cell research) becomes entangled with the political promotion of atheism. Because, there are conflicts. Sometimes you can end up pushing atheism and putting aside the matter of scientific literacy. When the literacy is about health and medicine, then the result can be dangerous, as in the case of the AAI Award to Bill Maher. That is a form of accommodationism that is more than just academic.
So, I propose a stronger and broader form of anti-accomodationism: science and nonsense are not compatible. Stop the tendency to focus on the compatibility of religion and evolutionary science, because while the concentration has been primarily on that subject more dangerous kinds of unreason have spread. Also, the obsession with religion/atheism, although understandable, has I think been a distraction from the wider battles that need to be fought. We need more than just New Atheists, we need New Scientists (if you will excuse the magazine reference): people who will vigorously attack not just religion but the far wider acceptance of nonsense throughout society.
Here is another suggestion: When supporting atheism be very clear to differentiate political from scientific contexts. Politics is a dirty business. Science needs to stay clean. I'm not saying don't have conventions, or atheist meetings. But be open about the reasons for your promotion of your beliefs in each situation. Don't mix up scientific atheism and political atheism. The Maher case was the worst example of this. Having the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science co-sponsoring a partly political event (the AAI 2009 Convention) was perhaps unwise. At least in my view.
Finally, let's have some consistency. Just as Coyne says that "the National Center for Science Education and other scientific organizations should make no statements about the compatibility of science and religion", so an organisation should make no statements about the compatibility of the belief that condoms prevent HIV infection, and religion. Theism and atheism are conclusions. They should be reached, not jumped to. Get some Catholics to realise that the Vatican is scientifically wrong about condoms and that may help some move away from theism, but most importantly, it could save some lives. What is more likely to come first - a conversion to atheism or believing evidence about condom use?
You don't get to promote science effectively by trying to deconvert people from religion. You promote science effectively by being a good promoter of scientific understanding, of which Coyne is one of the finest. If someone has gained an understanding of the wonders of science and its workings along with a better understanding of reason and how to use it, isn't that "mission accomplished"?