polydaidaloi.com

It internecine battles mark the maturity if a movement then atheism has reached a high point with the stoush between Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney. It all started with Coyne’s review of two theistic evolution books in the New Republic. This was followed some criticism from Barbara Forrest and then an exchange of blog posts at dawn between Coyne and Mooney. Needless to say there is more to come.

Coyne does a grand job showing the inadequacies of certain strain of theistic evolution in his New Republic article. A provocative and well argued review that has reverberated around the community where evolution and religion is discussed. It is a civil review and Coyne is at pains to ensure that he was fair in both praise and criticism. Unfortunately, it has lead to the creation of an unfortunate term “accomodationist” to disparage those that find no problem with the like of Ken Miller. Accomodationist is a stupid term and is a distraction from the main game. I don’t see why we simply name Miller et al as collaborationists and call for their removal from the order of proper sciency folk.

I’m not really sure what the point of this stoush really is. It seems to be based around that any religious ideas are poisonous and if scientists have religious ideas it will corrupt science. But science has accommodated religious beliefs for centuries with no problems. And given the religious nature of some of the past evolutionary science heavyweights, I see no danger if someone does have religious beliefs yet is quite happy to accept evolution as is.

What seems to be happening here is a pitiful pissing contest over who is the more proper atheist. Which is a shame as the very worst thing atheism could do to itself is argue over who is most correct in their disbeliefs. How about we leave that sort of fighting to the religious folk? They have many more years experience at it.

The so called “new atheists” (a risible term as well) have done the hard yards in bringing atheism into the public discourse. And at times, they have had to be abrasive to get their point across. It has made enemies of the faithful but that is not the atheists fault. Few people, if any, take well to being told their their world view is wrong. But having put our position out in the open, what are we now doing to win the hearts and minds of the faithful that will pull them to reason?

Coyne points out that the likes of Miller have done nothing (not for lack of effort) to improve the public acceptance of evolution in the US over the past few decades. That may be true but what does Coyne offer instead? The position argued by Coyne seems to be a retreat from any meaningful dialogue to improve the perception of atheism. That does not mean we do not criticise moderate religious beliefs and save our energy for the fundies. But dialogue with those of moderate beliefs who have similar views to us (apart from that god bizzo) is a boon for a pluralistic society where there is freedom of and freedom from religion.

PS Wondering about the title? A movie I watched yesterday. And goddam it, I enjoyed it.