Theism v. Atheism: I'm A Realist, Not An "Accommodationist"

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 answer is simple: there is no one "right way."
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

On the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (Tuesday, November 24) I wrote an invited opinion editorial for CNN.

The title, "Religion, Evolution can Live Side by Side," was written by the CNN editors, but it does capture the thrust of the piece, as it seems to me that believers who accept Newton's theory of gravity as the means by which God creates stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes, can just as readily accept Darwin's theory of evolution as the means by which God creates life.

Perhaps predictably, there have been critics responding on both sides, most notably the estimable Jerry Coyne, the author of one of the best books ever written on the subject, Why Evolution is True, who on his web page of the same title called me an "accommodationist" and even a "faitheist" (not sure what that is--"faith atheist"? but it's clever!) Anyway, Jerry is "disappointed" in me and wonders if I've gone soft in the brain because of a Templeton Foundation sponsorship. Read it here.

The responses to Jerry's blog have been interesting, and sometimes amusing:

"What Shermer is trying to make peace with are sensible moderate theists, not fundamentalists. It is the people in the middle, not those on the fringes, who will, ultimately, determine the virulence of religion and irreligion. Shermer is trying to reduce religion's virulence, not embracing fundamentalist ownership of the Bible, and it's ridiculous interpretations of it. Shermer is right to reclaim the Bible as part of the Western cultural patrimony, and not leave it to fundamentalists to tell us what it means, and the implications to be drawn from it."

"Michael Freakin' Shermer's heart is not pure enough for Jerry Coyne. If Jerry Falwell's circle of orthodoxy was, say, 1 meter in radius, then His Worshipfulness The Right Reverend Jerry Coyne's circle of orthodoxy has a radius of, roughly, a Planck Length."

For the record, I am not sponsored by Templeton, and I've never received a grant or fellowship of any kind from them. They did pay me to write and edit some articles for them (work-for-pay is okay!), but insisted that I could say anything I wanted and could invite anyone I like to contribute to an essay collection, including Christopher Hitchens and Steve Pinker (to answer the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?").

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. Sometimes a head-on, take-no-prisoners, full-frontal assault á la Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Jerry Coyne is the way to go. Sometimes a more conciliatory approach á la Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or your humble servant is best. It all depends on the context and what you are trying to accomplish. When I debate creationists -- whether of the Young Earth, Old Earth, or the Intelligent Design species -- I try to take a Dawkinsonian/Coyneian approach and slam-dunk their flawed arguments and duplicitous claims without an ounce of accommodationism (although I am, by nature and upbringing, polite and respectful). Christopher Hitchens's recent body slam he and Stephen Fry gave the Catholic Church for its stance on women's rights, birth control, and Third World poverty would have brought tears to my eyes had I not been cheering so fervently.

On the other hand, if it is our goal to educate everyone on earth to the power and wonders of science (as it is the Skeptics Society and and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems (as it is my personal goal), then we need as many people as we can get on board with a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere ... pick your battle). 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, 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.

Sometimes religion is the problem, but usually it is something else -- local political battles, governmental corruption, lack of education, resource depletion, currency debasement, inflation, poverty, etc. Don't forget the bigger picture of what we're trying to accomplish through science and reason: a better life for all humanity. Pick your battles carefully and choose your strategy wisely.

Before You Go

Popular in the Community