From the blog of Oxford University Press comes this essay from philosopher Phillip Kitcher. The subject: evolution and religion. Let’s look at some highlights:
The answer, very often, is that particular pieces of scientific knowledge are viewed as threatening. Acknowledging the truth about global warming would unsettle those who believe in the unfettered rights of oil companies to drill and of auto-makers to produce gas-guzzling behemoths. Acknowledging the truth about Darwin would raise worrying questions about religious belief (or so many people think). So the pressure for “alternative science” becomes strong, and we lose opportunities to craft our policies according to the best knowledge we have. As this occurs, as the idea of “alternatives” to received scientific wisdom becomes firmly entrenched, any conception of real expertise starts to erode. The media fragments into economic niches, where “information” is passed on to consumers in ways that accord with prior values – or prior prejudices. Debate about difficult issues becomes ever more difficult because we can’t agree on the basic facts.
I would only add to this that political demagogues, found almost exclusively on the right in modern American politics, find it convenient to play upon these fears. Just think of the Bush administration’s snide dismissal of the reality-based community.
The continued debate about Darwin is a symptom of a serious underlying disease. It’s useful to think about that debate as an example of the deeper problems, trying to understand how scientific work that is as firmly established as any piece of research can be regarded as questionable. Darwin’s defenders need to get beyond the sense of irritation, to recognize that advances in knowledge can pose genuine threats to people’s beliefs and to their lives. It’s important to appreciate that trumpeting the Great New Enlightenment often seems like bullying, and that the distant pundits who scoff at superstition sound less trustworthy than apparently friendly champions of “alternative views” that are more sympathetic to those who feel the threat.
I think most academics do appreciate that trumpeting the Enlightenment can seem like bullying, but what else is there to do? As Kitcher himself recognizes, evolution does, indeed, pose a genuine threat to the religious beliefs of countless Americans. All the soft-peddling in the world won’t change that simple fact. Scientists can try to present evolution in as gentle and non-threatening a way as possible, but reliigous fundamentalists will recognize it for the threat that it is nonetheless.
In trying to help people see that we have to learn to live with Darwin it doesn’t help much to thump the table and declare that Intelligent Design isn’t REAL science. Our criteria for identifying “real science” are not sharp, and, in any case, there was a time in the history of inquiry in which something very like Intelligent Design was a cornerstone of scientific investigation. That last fact provides a clue about what’s needed: people should be given clear, straightforward explanations of how Darwinism came to triumph, and how the evidence in its favor continues to roll in.
This is an important point, and one that I’ve made myself at this blog. All too many people make, “It’s not science!” their main reply to ID nonsense. That statement is true, but it does not get at the heart of the matter. ID should be rejected because its scientific claims are demonstrably false. That it also is not science has some relevance to courtroom procedings, and is a useful point to make when creationists claim that it is, but it should not be the focus of the conversation.
Because of the perceived impact on religious beliefs and values, that won’t be enough. So long as Darwin is seen as the bogeyman, no amount of evidence will counter the charm of smooth advertisements for faith-friendly alternatives. Many religious scientists try to convince the public that fears are unfounded – we can have God and Darwin too, they say. Yet the worried Christians – including our President – who worry that Darwin is the apostle of godlessness have a point. There’s a real threat here.
Once again, I agree. Darwin really is the bogeyman to certain popular religions in this country. Our inability to convince people otherwise is not a failure of marketing. It is a reflection of the fact that it is difficult to reconcile the idea of human beings as the pinnacle of creation as willed by an omnipotent God with the idea of humans emerging from a highly contingent evolutionary process.
Kitcher goes on from here to give a good discussion of different flavors of religion, and which ones are legitimately threatened by scientific progress. Essentially, religions content to interpret their myths as significant allegories can survive the scientific juggernaut. But religions that feel it is sacrificing too much to interpret their stories this way are going to have a problem.
But then Kitcher slips up near the end:
How do we get beyond this impasse? Not by shouting at people about “the God delusion”. Religion is immensely important to people, and, although it’s easy to point to the ways in which religious belief has caused serious harm, it’s also necessary to appreciate its social and personal functions. Religious beliefs play an important role in people’s sense of their own lives, explaining why those lives matter. Religion also offers genuine community with others, providing spaces for joint ethical commitment and joint action. You don’t end this heated debate by simply telling folk to brace up – or to take their scientific medicine so that they’ll feel better in the morning. They won’t.
You’ll notice that Kitcher does not answer his own question. How do we get beyond this impasse? The answer is that we do not. Kitcher devotes much of his essay to explaining why people cling to their myths in spite of the evidence. They rightly perceive a threat to their religious beliefs, and prefer to cling to those beliefs rather than give them up. If it is not possible to persuade such people with mere evidence, then what does Kitcher propose that we do?
And that is why shouting about the God delusion is an important part of how we deal with this issue. If large segments of the population are absolutely determined not to be swayed by evidence, then our only recourse is to be loud and bold in our opposition. We must make it clear that they will not have things their own way. Books like Dawkins’ (the obvious target of Kitcher’s snideness here) are important not because they are going to make fundamentalists wake up, but because they forcefully present a more rational, sensible view of the world. Fundamentalists have made themselves very powerful in American politics largely by screaming like crazy over the most minor of perceived slights. It’s long past time for secularists to do likewise.
Anyway, I recommend all of Kitcher’s essay. It’s not very long, but provides plenty of food for thought.