My Free Inquiry Interview: Why We Need Religious Moderates (Chris Mooney)

[struggle4progress]

... We live in an overwhelmingly religious society, and we should just admit that not all of the religious have a problem with science. It is important to refute the fundamentalists when they encroach on science education across the country in regard to evolution. But in order to do that, it is critical that we mobilize the pro-science moderates. The New Atheism, as a strategy, flies in the face of this, since it is often about attacking and alienating the religious moderates ...

In America today, diffusing tensions over science and religion is the best way to advance scientific literacy. My real issue with the New Atheists is their broad-brush attacks on all the religious, not just on the fundamentalists. Again, not all the religious are enemies of science. My other concern is that while it is fine to question religion, the tone in which the New Atheists have done so is highly abrasive and, at times, offensive. That doesn’t achieve anything. I think it is very important to uphold the value of a secular life and emphasize that you can be moral without God. But you cannot alienate your allies when you want to achieve better science education and literacy ...

I remember when the Yale campus chaplain reached out to me after I wrote a piece for one of the campus newspapers that was strongly against religion. I learned from that and other experiences that we really do need to make distinctions between religious moderates and the fundamentalists. To advance scientific literacy, we need the religious moderates on our side ...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/22/my-free-inquiry-interview-why-we-need-religious-moderates/

includes indirect link to full interview

[greendog]

1. It's either A or B.

A: There aren't very many religious moderates.

B: Religious moderates don't give a damn about the damage being caused by their extreme cousins.

You wouldn't know there was such a thing as a "religious moderate" if they weren't attacking 3 or 4 atheist authors. Where have they been the last 30 years?

[Silent3]

2. Who says I'm am or should be playing a political/diplomatic game...

...of seeking allies in a cause?

...we should just admit that not all of the religious have a problem with science.

There are two main kinds of "problem(s) with science":

(1) Believing things that are contrary to available evidence, as Biblical literalists do.

(2) What passes for "moderation" in American culture: Believing in improbable things that merely avoid direct contradiction of available evidence. These are "you can't prove I'm wrong!" kinds of beliefs.

I'm afraid I'm simply not good enough at mincing words (nor am I sure that I'd want to be) to dance whatever verbal dance is necessary to clearly make a strong case against problem 1 while neatly avoiding all offense to those suffering from problem 2.

Since I have strong doubts about the efficacy of playing diplomatic games to court so-called religious moderates to more successfully achieve any particular goals that I want to achieve anyway, I figure I might as well just be forthright and honest and say what I actually mean.

I suppose there may be some people who call themselves "religious" who manage to avoid both problems 1 and 2. I see these as people sentimentally clinging to the notion of religion while turning God and religion into such tenuous abstruse abstractions that most religious followers wouldn't recognize as them as God and religion anymore. If the point is supposed to be seeking political allies for causes like better teaching of evolution in public schools, however, I don't think this group would bring a lot to the table in terms of numbers and votes.

[Jim__]

3. "We live in an overwhelmingly religious society ..."

Yes. And if the goal is to increase scientific literacy in this society, then making science the enemy of religion is a very bad tactic.

[trotsky]

4. When *a majority* of Americans believe in creationism over evolution,

how the fuck shall we proceed then if we mustn't offend the religious? Because my oh my, just saying that creationism is wrong is a terrible affront. Guess we'd just all better accept the Texas schoolbooks so we don't offend the MAJORITY. Science is too off-putting, telling people they're wrong sometimes.

[LAGC]

5. Once again, you attack "New Atheists"...

Where is your scorn for your fundamentalist religious cousins? Maybe if moderates spent nearly as much time focusing on fundamentalists as they do on atheists, we wouldn't see this contempt for religious moderates from New Atheist quarters... instead there's been no outrage until New Atheism suddenly appeared on the scene. Who's defending who here?

[struggle4progress]

7. I posted this simply because someone complained in another

thread "there's no link to the Mooney interview" -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=248662&mesg_id=248676

So I posted excerpts with a link enabling folk to track down the interview

[BurtWorm]

6. Which 'we' is he talking about? Who should 'mobilize' these 'moderates'

and what would 'mobilization mean? And how would it be effected?

[humblebum]

8. There really is no difference between so-called New Atheism and

"old" atheism. It has just been repackaged to show the world that it has something new to offer, which of course is really something old to offer. The reasoning they use comes largely out of the 19th and early 20th century, fell into disrepute, and is again being sold to the public in a different form as something new.

[darkstar3]

9. You're right about one thing:

The arguments that so-called "new atheists" use are actually old, but that is only because no one has been able to properly answer them. "New Atheists" are merely old atheists who are tired of remaining silent while being repeatedly told how evil they are by the tyrranical supermajority of the supposedly faithful.

[humblebum]

10. There is absolutely nothing in the Scientific Method, nor any

epistemology that contributed to its compilation,that makes it possible to either confirm nor deny the existence of diety. Any attempt to say "There is no evidence of god nor intelligent creation" or "There is evidence for a Divine Creator" based on physical Science, is an absolute misstatement. The Scientific Method that is used today (in the "hard" sciences) is based upon the logical positivist model defined in the 1930's, which is totally objective. The inductive component in that model is restricted completely to objective, empirical enquiry and makes no accomodation for anything intuitive, or emotive. Any attempt to confirm or deny that anything religious is deductive from Science is meaningless. Such a claim is inductive and subjective and has no place in science. Whenever Christians say that evidence pointing to an Intelligent Design exists, that is a purely subjective rational conclusion with no empirical proof. When a Richard Dawkins declares any evidence pointing to a purely abiogenetic beginning of life, it is nothing more than a subjective educated guess. Science, alone, simply cannot claim anything concerning religion. Religion and science are 2 seperate realms. Neither cancels out the other.

[trotsky]

11. Completely to the contrary...

when religion makes a testable claim (the smart believers never do, because they realize the folly), science can examine it. We know that creationism is false, for instance. We know there was no worldwide flood that narrowed the human species down to 8 people. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of claims that your Christian brethren have made over the centuries about your religion have been proven false, over and over and over. Doesn't look good.

[humblebum]

13. Actually, you really do not know what you are talking about.

Do I believe in a divine creation? Yes. Do I believe it happened 6000 years ago? No. I cannot base that on anything empirical. Anything I observe I can only make a subjective judgment on. There is no stamp on there that says "God made this". My opinion is purely subjective and based on something other than empirical objective analysis. The same holds for any atheist. Anything empirical or observable is what it is and to say that it is a product of abiogenetic origin is nothing but educated guesswork. There is NO objective, absolute proof of anything except that what you can detect with your senses. How such a thing came to be is pure speculation.

[trotsky]

14. "I cannot base that on anything empirical."

You already did. :rofl:

[humblebum]

16. how so? nt

[trotsky]

17. Because you're just a brain in a vat and no one - not god, not me, not anyone else...

exists. That's what you've told us the universe is, because no one at no time can be certain of anything.

Congratulations, you've reached a useless philosophical dead end that serious thinkers discarded a long time ago.

Have fun in your vat.

[humblebum]

18. I never said anything of the sort. You are showing a complete

ignorance of what science can and cannot do. You are making no logical sense whatsoever.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. If you believe "there is NO objective, absolute proof of anything except that what you can detect...

... with your senses", then you do not think that the US Civil War can be proved to have happened. Because you didn't detect it with your own senses.

However, in the world which we actually live our lives in, we say we have objective evidence of the US Civil War, and a lot more of history. And we have objective evidence of the evolution of species, once vehmently denied by most believers (and still denied by the more gullible ones). And objective evidence of the origin of life without the involvement of any supernatural being can also be sought. Meanwhile, religious believers wave their hands, mutter 'Goddidit', and completly fail to show any evidence for the existence of this god, let alone anything pointing to its involvement in starting life on earth.

[humblebum]

20. You are making absolutely no sense at all. nt

[darkstar3]

28. What's funny about this post and most of your contributions here

is that when confronted with the errors in your claims about the Scientific Method, you flop into and out of Solipsism in order to defend those claims rather than admit that you're simply talking out of your ass and actually know very little about what science can and cannot do.

Solipsism is an old and worthless POV. I suggest you abandon it and admit that there actually IS an objective reality if you want anyone born after the Enlightenment to take you seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The beginning of life its not something "concerning religion"

So, when you say "when a Richard Dawkins declares any evidence pointing to a purely abiogenetic beginning of life, it is nothing more than a subjective educated guess", you're wrong. The beginning of life is a very suitable subject for research for science, and it is also one which religion can tell us nothing whatsoever about.

If you do believe "religion and science are 2 seperate realms", then you need to tell religion to stay out of areas that are obviously scientific, such as the origin of life.

"Religion's realm", if there is one, is the study of what gods want us to do, and how humanity should respond to these gods, and what a human soul is, and so on. If you want to keep religion and science separate, then religion has to keep quiet about any effect on the physical or biological world. Religion claims it can say a lot about ethics as well; philosophers, sociologists (hmm - are they scientists?) and politicians are in that area too. And, of course, every human has ideas about ethics, just as valid as any theologian who claims there is a god, and that they know that god's desires.

[humblebum]

15. You opinion is more emotional than factual and yes religion can make

claims about how life began. But it can't use Science to prove the claim for reasons already stated. Do I think something can evolve from nothing? No. Do I think that something can create itself? No. To me abiogenetic origins make little sense. Can I use science to prove that? Absolutely not. Can philosophy guide me? You bet. Can I use history? You bet. But any opinion based upon these things is subjective. I think you need to go back and see what the SM can and cannot do. Even a man like Stephen Hawking admits that he is a positivist and although he is atheist, he admits that his method has limitations concerning origins.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. What in that is 'emotional'?

Religion can make claims. But since it never produces evidence, it's pointless mouth-flapping. So, if you are a supporter of NOMA, remind religions to stay out of the area in which they are useless, or find a religion that actually shows something, as opposed to 'makes things up'.

[humblebum]

22. Being fanatical to the point where one abandons reason implies

an emotional state of mind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. There's nothing fanatical in my posts

You can't seriously be suggesting there is.

And I have not abandoned reason. You're the one suggesting a supernatural origin of life, remember.

[humblebum]

24. I can suggest anything I want to, but I cannot use science to prove it

objectively. And only science and math hold the rights to 100% objectivity.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. I'm curious

What in MV's post is fanatical or emotional?

[humblebum]

26. There is obviously a very overt opinion as to what religion may

say or do or think eg."... tell religion to stay out of areas that are obviously scientific, such as the origin of life." People are allowed to say or to believe anything they so choose, regardless of how nonsensical it may sound. Maybe it is my interpretation but I consider such a view to be fanatical and as such emotional.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. You didn't point out exactly where MV is being either emotional or fanatical

It's not as if MV is pushing something radical. You may consider it "fanatical", but it's far from that. And the implication of that word is, honestly, offensive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. That was because you, in reply #10, wanted to keep science and religion separate

You said:
"When a Richard Dawkins declares any evidence pointing to a purely abiogenetic beginning of life, it is nothing more than a subjective educated guess. Science, alone, simply cannot claim anything concerning religion. Religion and science are 2 seperate realms."

No; scientists can easily declare evidence pointing to a purely abiogenetic beginning of life; such as the discovery of a simple form of RNA that self-replicates, or a simple molecule that tends to form semi-permeable cell walls. These are the kind of things scientists are cureently researching. So your declaration that this would be "nothing more than a subjective educated guess" is wrong. But if you think that "religion and science are 2 seperate realms", and we have seen that the investigation of a purely abiogenetic beginning of life is in the realm of science, then you need to say to religion "don't try to pronounce on the subject of the beginning of life".

You can, if you wish, say "OK, religion and science are not 2 separate realms". But in that case, religion must be prepared to have science show it to be wrong - as it has in the past, on the subject of a geocentric/heliocentric system, or on the origin of species.

[humblebum]

30. Science and religion are 2 seperate realms as defined by the

epistemology that resulted in the modern Scientific Method.

When we are discussing something that self replicates,we are not discussing first cause and therein lies the difference.Very few eyewitnesses to that.Purely subjective.

[LAGC]

31. What makes you so sure there was a first cause?

I know we are finite creatures, we begin and we end, but that doesn't mean that everything else in the universe is finite. There could be forces out there that have always existed and will always exist, we just aren't able to measure them yet. Even that collection of forces which you may call "God" could be observable and explainable one day, through the scientific method, once our technology and knowledge has advanced enough.

How many times has religion tried to explain something that science is eventually able to explain better? Volcanic eruptions, eclipses, natural disasters, you name it -- not acts of God after all, but just acts of nature. What makes you so sure that whatever attributes you assign to "God" won't be some day explainable as just part of nature, assuming they aren't already?

[humblebum]

32. How can anyone be sure to the point of 100% certainty?

Until then...