Polling numbers and rejection of evolution

Posted to http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/09/who_rejects_evolution.php.

Hi Jason, others:

Nice provocative posting that lays out the issues and - as it should - the biases as well: "Regular readers of this blog are aware that I think science in general, and evolution in particular, pose grave, even fatal, challenges to traditional notions of religious faith."

In my experience, biases readily lead to a misreading of polling results on religion and evolution. Here is why:

If you strongly believe that religion and science are incompatible, then you will reject the view of God creating us as compatible with evolution. But lets be clear: the idea that God created us and that evolution is the historical rendering of that creation is perfectly logical and completely consistent with both science and belief in God.

With respect to polling, when someone says that they believe God created us, it doesn't necessarily mean that they disbelieve in evolution. They may or they may not. What it primarily means is that they view the ultimate cause as God. Evolution - whether or not it took place - is in their view at best a secondary cause.

This is not how it looks to a diehard anti-religion evolutionist. For them, evolution is primary and religious ideas are an evolutionary heritage. Therefore, it is inconceivable that someone can legitimately have "meta-ideas" like belief in God and not be concerned about evolution. Thus, the misinterpretation of polling results that you argue for.

Interestingly, it is this reversal - the replacement of first causes - God - by a creation story - evolution - that makes a lot of people suspect and mistrust evolution as a quasi-religion.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 29, 2009 4:06 PM

A continuation of this post:

Hi Eric:

You wrote: "I disagree that the statement 'evolution and religion are in conflict' is useful for discussion, because I think its an overbroad generalization. Sometimes there IS conflict between a person's belief in god and the TOE...but sometimes there isn't."

You also wrote: "There is no single set of beliefs that all religions subscribe to, so it is an overgeneralization to say religion is in conflict with empirical claim X (for any X). My second point was religions do not even share a single methodology for gaining religious truth. So it is also an overgeneralization to say that the religious "way of knowing" is in conflict with science. There isn't a single religious way of knowing; there are many. Some conflict with science, some don't."

I agree, and I think the implications are important and should be thought through.

The militant atheist point of view - and apparently Coyne's point of view as well - is that evolution and religion are like oil and water. They don't mix. If many people are perfectly fine with both of them - as I am - then the stance that they necessarily contradict is not in accord with the evidence.

What do proponents of the conflict model do when so many people disagree with them? What I see is arguments that are essentially emotional in appeal:

One is the "slippery slope" argument of Harris and Dawkins. From this point of view, moderate beliefs in religious are inherently unstable and either become extreme or they encourage extremism. The other is the "accommodationist" argument, which, as I understand it, is the claim that there is faulty reasoning on the part of people who claim to accommodate both points of view. Also, there appear to be frequent attacks based on a supposed weakness in holding the line on the part of those who, I'm presuming, are not thought "manly" enough to hold to the strict and narrow. I say that both are essentially emotional as both are based on the assumption that religion is inherently invalid, an emotional assumption.

For example, consider the posting by H.H. in #39: ".. . the idea that God created us and that evolution is the historical rendering of that creation is riddled with unsupportable assumptions, ad hoc excuses, twisted theology and bad reasoning. It's not a position that a sane, intellectually-honest person could endorse." He is basically saying that he strongly believes - an emotional act - that evolution and belief in God are inherently at odds. Also, in a traditional emotional appeal, he holds that those who see things differently are not "sane" or "intellectually honest". [Wow!]

My conclusion is that, yes there are the variations that you talk of, but they don't invalidate Padian's broad general conclusions (the conclusion that there is broad agreement about evolution and religion being in accord). This is so even if there are diverse groups of people who disagree. A further conclusion, hinted at in my post, is that there is as strong component of emotionalism and arbitrary assumptions about the integrity of opposing points of view that drives fundamentalist and militant atheist points of view that hold evolution and belief in God to be in conflict. In other words, yes, militant atheists and fundamentalists are strongly similar in these regards.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 30, 2009 1:35 PM

Hi Eric, Kevin:

Eric: You are making sense, so let me try to explain myself better. Your comment is that I am making "essentially an argument from popularity: since most religious people think they are in accord, it is reasonable to say religion as a whole is in accord. I simply don't see what you gain by making that step."

More tightly phrased, I would say that a sizable number of well-educated and informed folk find no contradiction between evolution and the belief in God. Their conclusions in themselves don't resolve the issue, but the fact that a number of good and capable people familiar with both sides of the issue have concluded in this light means something.

It means something like the following: there is probable cause to consider the hypothesis that they are right. So, outright rejection of the hypothesis has to be examined closely. It is probably due to other causes, which can include all of the reasons that people entertain false beliefs - and build communities around them.

In particular, all the arguments that the militant atheists employ against religion have to be considered as well (i.e., it is due to tradition, hope, sectarianism, political persuasion, error, dogma, etc.). If religion is man-made and in error because of these things, it is equally likely that this is true for militant atheism and the view that science and religion are inherently in confict.

You ask "What public policy benefit do you expect to gain?". It is a good question, and the answer is multifold and hugely important. Science - and let me emphasize that I'm speaking of real problem-solving science - is both our way of understanding the physical world AND the teachings of religion (i.e., clearing out the underbrush of superstition, creationism, and the like). Let me leave it at this, although the advantages of science are manifold on the public policy front, especially in the harnessing of the spiritual aspects of our religious and biological heritages. Enough said, I hope.

Your posts are rich in many ways, and I wish I could find the time to address other things you bring up.

Kevin:

Kevin, you wrote: "First its not "clear" that your god can act in ANY physical capacity in this world, to effect ANYTHING, so it is very unclear that he should influence evolution, second, since your main source of knowledge of your god is the bible (if you are xtian) the evolutionary origin of man means that a) there is a mistake in the bible re genesis, and b) then there is no "original sin" and that leads to c) there is no need for a redeemer."

Any chance we could "discourse" more on this here? I have to run now, already having spent too much time writing. As the old joke goes, if I believed in the God you don't believe in, I would be crazy. Maybe, to make Eric happy, we could try to discover some of the common foundations of religion, not just some anti-science beliefs in this or that neck of the woods. BTW, I'm a Baha'i, not a Christian.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 30, 2009 6:56 PM

Against Creation Myths

Hi Kevin:

You wrote "oh wow~ what's your creation myth? of course discourse!". Discourse, datcourse, of course, off course, Pebble Beach Golf Course, any will do for me.

I've got to say that this whole creation myth thing is kind of weird. I think people - especially the militant atheists - have been bamboozled by it. I know that the American Native Peoples have some absolutely wonderful creation myths and as part of an oral spiritual tradition, they are great.

But then I look at militant atheism - and Dawkins' writings especially - and I see that a major part of his thing is creation myths. He wants people to adhere to his creation myth - the story of evolution! Like a carpenter with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, Dawkins sometimes seems to think everything can be set right if only people were to believe in the right creation story - his!

But of course science is not just about stories - what everybody who is not a scientist wants to call "facts" - it is about seeing for yourself, not just following some creation myth.

So, I think creation myths are at odds with what the modern world requires. It requires everybody thinking together, finding ways to solve problems together, living together, cooperating together, not just flaunting and fighting over creation myths, be it the creation myth of creationism or the creation myth of modern science writers.

Your turn.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 3:47 PM

Characterizing religion universally

Hi Eric:

You write "I still don't see what discussing religion as an entity gains you, versus discussing specific claims."

Traditionally, science tends to look for universal principles underlying diversity. Yes, general claims as to universal principles can be wrong, as I think apparent to you in the current science vs. religion battles. It hilarious - and sad - to see folks zeroing in on some childhood belief as if it encompassed religion as a whole. So, yes, by all means, lets discuss specific issues. I'm certainly with you there.

But, the search for universal principles shouldn't be discarded because of botched efforts. Its still on!

In fact, the botched efforts are part of it, provided that you review those botched efforts and learn from them.

With that in mind, let me then propose the following as candidates for universal principles:

1. Religious belief sees reality as extending beyond material configurations.

2. Religious belief tends to model the universe using abstractions from experience with conscious beings - consciousness, creativity, intelligence, will and similar properties seen in ourselves, other people and animals. These are viewed as being part of reality, much in the same way that sensory experience leads to concepts of matter as extending throughout the universe (sorry for being verbose, I'll try to reduce it next time)

3. Thought and action throughout the ages and through-out the world today have been and are animated by religious views.

4. I expect some quibbles on this: humankind has a deep reservoir of behaviors and thinking patterns that are spiritual, meaning based on belief in what is right and true as opposed to self-interested and non-altruistic

Of course, we can come up with more, but you get the general idea.

Lets talk about discussing specific claims.

If we acknowledge that there might be universal principles, then we have to start to think about whether or not specific cases are anomalies, say, part of a tribal rites, or whether they are part of religion per se. Obviously, thinking this way starts to push and redefine categories as happens in all arenas involving serious thought.

For example, is creationism a religious phenomena or a universal non-religious human phenomena? To what extent does it inherently involve religion and to what extent does it involve politics and general human love of leadership and perversity? These are important questions, and questions that cannot be thought through without an attempt to create a universal framework.

The good point about militant atheism is that it is forcing this rethinking. Yes, it is still primitive - and frequently laughable - but the good part underlying it (and what will be preserved in the long run) is the push towards a more universal concept of religion.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 4:43 PM

62

Hi Kevin:

Hold on there!

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 4:45 PM

Hi Eric:

You wrote: "Lastly, while evolutionary mechanisms may apply to both living and nonliving structures and even possibly explain how the latter became the former, it is not primarily "about" creation."

You are aware, aren't you, that there are differences between "just-so" stories, what I call evolutionary creation myths, and evolutionary theories (you correctly talk about speciation)? I'm talking about the former, not the later.

Think about it. The consumers of these stories, indeed some of their purveyors, hold that their creation stories show religion to be wrong. Clearly, they are jumping off the rails of science into claims of a larger and more grandiose type. This is why so many people see evolution as a quasi-religion.

Don't imagine for a moment that that this discounts the science.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 6:08 PM

Fifth Post in the Dialogue

Hi Wowbagger (still a cool name):

I wrote that creationism is partly a response to social Darwinism. You replied “… an odd thing to say – since both creationism and social Darwinism stem from the refusal to accept reality because it interferes with beliefs.”

Some background on “the survival of the fittest”, i.e., social Darwinism. Like evolution, it predates Darwin, and it can be innocuous or even positive. Competition among start-up companies, for example, is a positive form of social Darwinism.

Where it got a bad name, and where it played a role in the beginnings of creationism, is its role in the development of late 19th century racism, most dramatically in Germany but more generally in northern Europe. Ernst Haeckel, an eminent German biologist and the popularizer of Darwin in Germany, played a central role in its development. He wrote that that “the Caucasian … has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all the races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect.”

Especially virulent was eugenics, the widespread practice of putting away those deemed inferior and thus harmful to the fitness of society. Eugenics was started by Francis Galton, Darwin’s son-in-law. Eugenics camps in Germany morphed into concentration camps in World War II.

The relationship between creationism and social Darwinism is most directly seen in the influence of William Jennings Bryant, the famous populist politician and one-time Secretary of State. He was the lawyer for the creationist side at the Scopes “monkey” trial and a powerful force in the creation of creationism. He strongly opposed Social Darwinism, seeing “Darwinism or Social Darwinism as a great evil force in the world promoting hatreds and conflicts, especially [in] the World War.” (Wikipedia, William Jennings Bryant, accessed Sept. 17, 2009).

The larger picture has been well-documented by Michael Ruse, the biology philosopher and supporter of evolution, and others. Evolution, before neo-Darwinism finally established its scientific bona fides, was very much of a grab-bag over the last 200 years. It was an all things to all people, quasi-religious, enlightenment-based movement used frequently as a battle axe against religion, especially by people like Thomas Huxley and similar-minded people in the US. Understanding this, while not excusing creationism, can certainly lead to a more complete understanding of where it comes from and what the battle lines are.

Fourth Intersection Post

89. Stephen Friberg Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Hi Marion Delgado:

You kindly asked “How does a book like “Unscientific America” make you feel about cases like the Dover vs. Kitzmiller civil suit in Pennsylvania, or the current John Freshwater termination battle in Ohio? How does a book like “The God Delusion” make you feel? Or Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is true?” You seem to be a believer, as many, probably most of us here are not, so it’s interesting to me to get your reaction.”

Yes, I’m believer, a Baha’i in fact, as well as a scientist. I’m probably overeducated on the relationship between science and religion, as it has been at the core of my interests for over 30 years. I’ve spent a lot of time in Japan and have read widely the history of science and religion, and I don’t share the usual prejudices against Islam, meaning that I know a bit more about the historical roots of the modern conflicts than most people do and I have had a chance to look at them from outside a typical western perspective.

My feelings about Dover vs. Kitzmiller are probably the same as yours. I was delighted by the way it turned out. But I also know that creationism is rooted in a hatred and distrust of Social Darwinism and the high-handedness of Dawkin’s 19th century predecessors.

Freshwater and others like him are not going to go away, no doubt about it, as long as contention and contempt continue to animate large numbers of people when it comes to the relationship between science and religion. A similar situation exists with respect to different religions or different sects in religion.

I’ve been struggling to understand the larger implications of Harris’s (and later Dawkins’) work. Neither wrote as scientists, but as impassioned believers. Because I’m a product of a secular upbringing and education, I know well their prejudices and their sense of superiority from a lifetime of experience.

My conclusions are several. On one hand, they are the reactionary furor in response to increasing acceptance of the validity of religion in academic and intellectual circles that has been underway the last 50 years. With the demise of logical positivism in the 50s, the sociological analyses of religion by Kuhn (the “paradigm shift” perspective) and others since the 60s, and with the failure of religion to disappear, such a reaction should be expected. It also explains much of the unfocused and uninformed anger of the new atheists and their followers – they are reacting to broad changes in society much as did the fundamentalists before them, and they are channeling it into very Protestant-like expressions of self-righteousness, this time sanctified by scientific — as opposed to Christian — concepts of self purity.

On the other hand, Dawkins’ especially has reanimated the discussion of the eternal theological questions – why do we exist, what is our purpose – and has done so in a modern way using modern concepts. The latter is potentially a hugely important contribution and will outlive the dogmatism and emotionalism that now characterizes new atheism. Of course, there are the very worrisome aspects to their thoughts that could lead to a revival of the massive cruelty and destructiveness of 19th and 20th century secularism.

I haven’t figured out Jerry Coyne yet. Unlike Harris and Dawkins, he is a scientist, but his “accomodationist” thing looks like a cold-blooded political calculation – a positioning tactic and a power play along the lines of what Hitchens has done. I’m having a hard time believing that a thoughtful, sincere, or reasonably well-read person would buy into such a purely political stance.

Hope this addresses your questions.

Stephen

Third Intersection Post

46. Stephen Friberg Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Hi Wowbagger (cool name):

You write “But he [Christ] could have done just that without needing a god at all. If the concepts themselves are the valuable aspect of Jesus’ existence, he didn’t need to be divine at all - just insightful. What do we need gods for?”

Obviously the right question. The answers are interesting. One compatible with the thinking of believers and non-believers alike is that if His words were to effect change - and we are talking about major change here - He has to connect with His listeners, and language of gods and God was current at the time.

Another answer is how people interpret and cloak some significant event with meaning. Consider, for example, the concept of Christ as the sacrificial lamb or as having a divine father and a human mother. Both invoke widespread traditions of Christ’s time.

But there is a deeper answer too. And that has to do with spiritual reality. Let me explain what I mean. I’ve got a 15 year old son, and I’m teaching him that service to humanity, not just service to his own needs or his own family’s status, leads to an understanding of spiritual reality and the spiritual world is the true world. High ideals and noble work are different than selfish pursuits.

And yes, it’s a reality. When a generation of Englishmen 200 years ago decided that profiteering by slaveholding was wrong and stopped the English involvement in the slave trade, it led to the freeing of the slaves and to civil rights movement. The result, so at odds with Social Darwinist understandings, speaks of a reality that is different than the material reality of a factory or a workshop or a physics laboratory. It is a reality of the world of men and women and of the mind and its power to affect change and modify society.

What does this mean about the existence - or lack thereof - of God? What it establishes, and incontrovertibly, I think, is that the world of the mind and its powers is as real as the world of material existence. Mind exists.

The next step is logical, but challenging to those raised on a strict diet of secularism. In the same way that I can draw inferences from my experience with lasers and atoms in my laboratory to a belief that there is a whole universe out there made out of atoms (and, yes, it turns out that there are interstellar lasers), I can draw by similar inference to the view that mind is real. In other words, the universe contains intelligence and all the creative potential that intelligence entails.

Sure, extrapolation from experience, you might say. It is logical in the case of science. We assume that star stuff in Andromeda is that the same as star stuff in the sun. And we can test it by spectroscopic signatures. So, how do we test it for the case of intelligence? I.e., yes I agree that intelligence is real, but how do I know it can be written BIG as the existence of God? The answer, of course, is needed and as I explained earlier it is found in nature and in revelation.

BTW, once you get the idea that it is logical for people to view reality as made from mind-stuff, rather than just material stuff, it explains the ideas of divine trees, sacred groves, gods, even God. Of course, it doesn’t say whether any particular idea is good or correct.

Stephen

Post in response to previous post

Hi Folks!

Thanks for the comments!

Benjamin Nelson, I don’t understand why theism is unstable by the same regards. Theism, usually described, is the idea that God created the world and then let it run by itself. It is agnostic, pretty much, with respect to religion. The evidence that the world is continuing to run seems to be an indicator of stability

Depth is an interesting concept. I understand quantum optics in depth, but not chemistry. So scientific depth is about specialization. Wisdom, how cultures thrive, the release of powerful new modes of considering the universe, moral issue, etc., have a different “metric” of depth. Offhand, I would say that new atheism mistakes a litany of scientific facts - evolution, etc - as depth whereas it is the scientific method - thinking through to understanding - that is deep. This is the “metric” of depth that religion has that is similar to that of science.

The questioning and doubting aspect of scientific investigation, I think obvious, apply to religion as well. Otherwise, how can any understanding of revelation be gained? The point is not that science and religion are opposed, i.e., it is not that science investigates to gain understanding but religion doesn’t, rather it is that valid religion in a positive and creative stage involves the same criticality as science. How could religion be said to be engaged with reality otherwise? How could it change the world?

Writings of the new atheists? Wish I had a lot of time for discussion. First of all, the positive. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others have, in my humble opinion, revitalized theology by rephrasing the time-honored theological questions - does God exist, what is the nature of good and evil, etc., - in modern languages, using modern and scientific ideas. Their questions and the language they have invented to ask them elbow aside the musty musings of much of modern theological language.

The negative? Basically, they download their answers from the intelligent design playbook. Dawkins, for example, argues that because intelligent design is obviously false, belief in God is false. Generalizing, both the intelligent design people and the new atheists are what we call literalists; they take spiritual terminology and descriptions to be literal truths. Dawkins wants God to be a literal entity. By the same token, the “light” of understanding should have a wavelength.

Rules writes “The central point of new atheism is not that God doesn’t exist. It’s that ideas should only be believed to the extent that reason and evidence support them - and the vast majority of religious beliefs are cartoonishly over the line on this point.” It is true that Harris is open to atheistic Buddhism, but that doesn’t mean that atheism involves an acceptance of God. But yes, the criticism that religious beliefs tend to not involve reason is, in many cases, true. Unfortunately Harris draws the conclusion (at least he hasn’t indicated that he thinks otherwise) that ALL religious beliefs are over the line. This is certainly not a conclusion compatible with the rules of scientific investigation, which says that you need to investigate before drawing your conclusion. Science hold that you need data points.

Cain, you write “Atheism makes no claims, it has no central point.” Probably, you mean agnosticism here, not atheism. You also say that revelation is relative. Not the type of revelation that Christ revealed, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Baha’u'llah. Each, like the writings of Plato or the teaching of Confucius, has left a distinct and very real footprint in history and in our current thinking. Certainly, many people’s interpretations of them have been relative, but when civilizations are built on revelation, it means that there is something substantive there. It is not the same as material reality - Christ didn’t invent cell phones - but the concept of love and unity that he taught allowed many people to move behind the limits of purely tribal thinking. These kinds of results - the power of great ideas and concepts - are also real, and thus are rooted in reality, but in a reality that is rooted in people, not things.

Thanks, all.
Stephen

The Absence of Reason

It always is refreshing to read Mooney and Kirshenbaum.

To the point of the discussion: I do admire the passion of Harris. But, I don't think that reason is one of his strong points. Nor is it a strong point for new atheism in general, and I'm echoing a criticism of new atheism that is widely voiced.

Let me see if I can make my case (I can already hear the snarky comments in reply).

The central point of new atheism is that God doesn't exist, so religion is in error. If God does exist, then the whole project falls apart. So, atheism in general is unstable, resting as it does on a single central assumption. This may explain why atheists resist reasoned discussion on this point.

The evidence of the existence of God is, perhaps we can say, twofold. One is nature. The amazing fecundity of nature that Dawkins carries on so much about is a profound and deeply convincing demonstration of the underlying complexity of creation and shows that there must be something responsible for that creation. Scientists call it the laws of nature, and don't doubt that it exists. Religion calls it God. Neither understands it in considerable depth, rather both only know that it exists.

The other is revelation and, to a lesser extent, inspiration. Revelation - the creative word - is at the heart of modern great religions and probably of ancient religion as well. Revelation can shape and change the world, as any objective student of religion knows well. If revelation is understood as being historical - i.e., something that happens at a given time and place - them all the dynamics of religion become clear. Its growth and decay into superstitious practices alike become the object of study and understanding, not of contemptuous disregard.

The failure of the new atheists to bring a reasoned and objective lens to these two topics, as well as their failure to examine how our ideas of God are shaped by our experience with the powers of the mind (basically, our ideas of gods or of God are extrapolations from our experiences with the tremendous capabilities of the mind) is what - to my scientific mind - marks out much of the new atheism as a desert of reason.

Steve F.