Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of religion

[rug]

“Belief-ologists” are revealing how religion works. Belittling their work does nothing to further the secularists’ cause, but learning from it might

LEADER
11 April 2017

IT IS just over a decade since Richard Dawkins lit the blue touchpaper with his book The God Delusion. It introduced much of the world to the so-called new atheism – a forceful rejection of religion based on the premise that scientific materialism offers a superior explanation of the universe, while religion is a corrosive influence on society: a pathological meme planted in the minds of defenceless children.

Though a great read and a liberating influence for many closet atheists, The God Delusion largely omitted a new strand of scientific enquiry emerging around the time it was published. Those working on the “science of religion” – a motley crew of psychologists, anthropologists and neuroscientists – explained it as a by-product of normal cognition. Thanks to evolution, they argued, our explanation-seeking minds find religious ideas intuitively appealing, gobbling them up as a hungry trout swallows a fishing fly.

To many disciples of the new atheism, this was little more than, well, heresy. They decried it as “accommodationism” – an illogical and often harmful attempt to pretend religion can still serve a purpose now that science rules the roost. Never mind that the cognitive by-product theory does not imply that religious beliefs are true – far from it. Nor does it claim religion and scientific materialism are compatible. It merely attempts to explore religious belief and disbelief using the tools of science, rather than rhetoric.

The new atheists attacked it anyway. In terms of public debate around the appropriate role of religion in society, this was a mistake. It alienated as many people as it won over, leaving the new atheists preaching to the converted, polarising the debate and dissuading moderates of both secular and religious persuasions from getting involved at all.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431213-700-holier-than-thou/?utm_campaign=RSS%7CNSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=news&campaign_id=RSS%7CNSNS-news

[safeinOhio]

1. I took Anthropology of Religion in college.

Great course and makes one think about a religion gene, that I don't think I have. Most traits that cross all time and all cultures are most likely nature, not nurture. Also, is it adaptive to its inviroment. If so, it most likely survives.

[Bretton Garcia]

2. I'm trained in cultural analysis.

And I come up with the opposite conclusions to some. For one thing, 1) I don't see a religion gene.

But especially 2) I try to show that the Bible itself advocates experimental science. Even demanding that materialistic science be applied to religion itself.

Further, I find that the Bible supports science over faith, and even over the rest of the Bible. To the extent that, furthermore, if science sees things that seem false in Christianity? Then far from holding on to them anyway, faithfully, we are supposed to simply say that ... yes, what do you know, there ARE false things in Christianity.

So, ironically, in my reading for now, roughly, the Bible itself gives us the very tool that largely destroys Christianity: a scientific approach to the Bible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. "To many disciples of the new atheism, this was little more than, well, heresy" - can anyone give

some examples of this? The article goes on to say "they decried it as “accommodationism” – an illogical and often harmful attempt to pretend religion can still serve a purpose now that science rules the roost." While I do see things denounced as accommodationism, it's not people giving explanations of why people belong to religions; it's things like saying it's OK to say miracles happened in biblical times, while claiming to fully support science in the present day.

[rug]

4. Chris Stedman, the Executive Director of the Yale Humanist Community at Yale University.

He's been called an accommodationist as well as a faitheist. usually mutttered in surly tones while looking around for approval.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. And that was for his work in "belief-ology", was it? (nt)

[rug]

6. It was for seeing value in religions.

Met with the usual responses in the usual quarters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. So, not what the thread is about, and not what I asked about, then (nt)

[rug]

8. "The article goes on to say "they decried it as 'accommodationism' an illogical and often harmful

attempt to pretend religion can still serve a purpose now that science rules the roost."

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Yes, I quoted that. My point is that the article is claiming "belief-ology" was called

'accommodiationism'. I asked if anyone knew of any of these examples of belief-ology being called accommodationism. The article is about belief-ology.

[rug]

10. I think the article is saying two things.

One, it describes those who think religion is not a worthy subject of science.

Two, it describes those who think religion is not worthy of anything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It's about the 'science of religion'; it claims 'New Atheists' have criticised studying

why people adhere to religions, or why they start. What I want is an actual example of New Atheists doing this alleged criticising. Jerry Coyne doesn't think it exists either:

That’s completely wrong! The arguments about religion’s origins were in fact made by one of the New Atheists, Dan Dennett in Breaking the Spell, as well as by people like Pascal Boyer. This was not accommodationism, but curiosity about why religion came to be, and of course no New Atheist I know criticized these people. In fact, they quoted them. Accommodationism is not the study of the historical origins of faith, but the claim that religion and science are perfectly compatible! I don’t know what in tarnation the author is talking about here, but it’s dead wrong. Many of us are curious about how and why religion came to be. It’s New Scientist, not we, who denigrate those working on the problem as a “motley crew.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/new-scientist-osculates-religion-again/

[rug]

12. What you want you can find quicker than typing accommodationist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. OK, you don't know of any examples either. It would have been a lot quicker

if you'd just said that.

[rug]

14. Here's Jerry Coyne, three hours ago.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/new-scientist-osculates-religion-again/

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I linked to that in #11. Pay attention. As I said, Coyne thinks the article is wrong too

He points out Breaking the Spell, one of the original 'New Atheist' books:

The book is divided into three parts. Part I discusses the motivation and justification for the entire project: Can science study religion? Should science study religion? After answering in the affirmative, Part II proceeds to use the tools of evolutionary biology and memetics to suggest possible theories regarding the origin of religion and subsequent evolution of modern religions from ancient folk beliefs. Part III analyzes religion and its effects in today's world: Does religion make us moral? Is religion what gives meaning to life? What should we teach the children? Dennett bases much of his analysis on empirical evidence, though he often points out that much more research in this field is needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon

[rug]

16. What did you thinik he'd say?

He's been complaing for some time that it's all "atheist-bashing". Naturally he must refute it. That's what apologists are called to do. (Note the "we" in the first link.)

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/darwin-proclaimed-wrong-again-we-fight-back/

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/new-scientist-atheism-is-a-belief-system-like-religion/'

You will find most of the "New Atheists" conveniently together here eight years ago:

https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg20126960-100-darwin-was-right/

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. You're just throwing out links now, in the hope that they are about the thread topic

You haven't bothered finding them yourself - you've posted the link I already did (which repeats the criticism of the article I already gave; I suspect that means you googled the New Scientist link but didn't bother reading it), and now you've posted the links he gave - which are about his criticism of the New Scientist. You're just copying links other people have already given. That gets us nowhere.

And none of them back up the claim that 'New Atheists' call the 'science of religion' "accommodationism". As shown, Dennett himself, one of the New Atheists by anyone's definition, spent much of his book, which was central to the start of 'New Atheism' when it was given a name, saying religion should be studied by science. I've tried to get you to talk about the subject of your own thread, but you appear unable or unwilling to.

So, I think we can be fairly sure the New Scientist article is wrong in its basic claim. No one has been able to show anything at all to back it up.

[rug]

24. And you're just throwing up objections in the hope that no one will read them.

"So, I think we can be fairly sure the New Scientist article is wrong in its basic claim" is the type of rebuttal that gives apologetics a bad name.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Well, it does look like you haven't actually read my objection

Since you haven't bothered, in several posts, to either show there are such instances of New Atheists objecting to scientific study of religion, or to say that you don't know of any either. But don't assume that your actions are what I want people to do.

Of course I want people to read the objection. That's why I posted it. That's why I posted that Prof Coyne said the same thing I did. That's why I showed that Dennett's book is good evidence that the New Scientist is wrong.

[rug]

26. I've given them the attention they warrent.

Polishing your objections and saying they shine doesn't make it so.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Looks like a big article in strawmanning atheists. n/t

[rug]

18. Looks more like a science magazine commenting on antitheist bloggers.

Quelle horreur!

[Bretton Garcia]

19. Which is politics, religion, intruding in science

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Which bloggers, and where is the evidence for the claims made in this article? n/t

[rug]

23. These, for starters.

https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg20126960-100-darwin-was-right/

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. There's nothing 'antitheist' about that at all

It's a letter to New Scientist from scientists objecting to a New Scientist article and cover that said "Darwin was Wrong". It's not about religion. You are hijacking your own thread with irrelevant links.

[rug]

29. Each of them has made evolution the cornerstone of their intellecual assault on religion.

It's a foolish place to start when attacking the concept of a god but there you have it.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. That doesn't support the assertions of the article in the OP, try again. n/t

[rug]

40. You don't get the assertions in the article. Read it again.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. The assertions in the article are largely false...

For example, most of the leaders of "New Atheism" would agree with this paragraph:

Though a great read and a liberating influence for many closet atheists, The God Delusion largely omitted a new strand of scientific enquiry emerging around the time it was published. Those working on the “science of religion” – a motley crew of psychologists, anthropologists and neuroscientists – explained it as a by-product of normal cognition. Thanks to evolution, they argued, our explanation-seeking minds find religious ideas intuitively appealing, gobbling them up as a hungry trout swallows a fishing fly.

Are there any links you can provide of any of the New Atheists arguing against this type of study? I've seen plenty of them agreeing, roughly with the claims of the above paragraph, with differences probably being in details, but none debasing it wholesale.

Not to mention this statement is just stupid:

The science of religion challenges core elements of the new atheism: for example, the belief that religion leads on the whole to misery and suffering.

Links to any New Atheists arguing this?

[rug]

43. Sure.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

That's for your second point.

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

That's for your first point. He, the most articulate of the New Atheists, says religion is of "the bawling and fearful infancy of our species" not a source of evolutionary progress as suggested by those who study religion and its origins in a scientific manner. It is a case of contempt poisoning everything - including an objective mind.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Do you even read the quotes you quote?

The first quote he literally said that religion both uplifts and is barbaric, there are negatives and positives in it. So it reaffirms my second point.

As far as the second quote, he's making an accurate observation on the state of knowledge of today compared to thousands of years ago. Not sure how that debunks my first point. Note, he wasn't writing a scientific paper on the subject, nor did he opine about whether scientific study is warranted or not.

[rug]

45. Ah, you think Hitchens was calmly weighing the relative benefit and harm of religion.

What a nice, reasonable, objective man.

The gloss you're putting on the second quote will blind bystanders ten feet away.

What about this most cautious of observers?

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.
Sam Harris, "The Politics of Ignorance" (2 August 2005)

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Again, talking about something that is different than what is claimed in the article you are...

citing in the OP.

Studying religion in a sociological and psychological context is completely different than having scientists who are religious believers. They do a disservice to themselves and others when they claim to use evidence based reasoning and critical thinking yet also hold beliefs that they consider to be above scrutiny.

[Bretton Garcia]

20. Problems with the motley crew?

Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:56 AM - Edit history (3)

One is that the notion of a religion "gene" seems to try to declare that religion is inevitable, and probably functional. Suggesting an apologetics motivation for this kind of research.

The religion gene approach has been addressed and rejected on DU. The answer to date is that Religion is just the superstitious guess of ignorant people about what is behind life around us. Essentially, it is just ignorance.

There is no gene for ignorance. Or if there is? We should work hard continually, to do our best to eliminate it. Expanding our intelligence continually.

The pro-religion research note, is coming in large part from some humanists. Many Humanists - not all - have flirted with, compromised with, religion. Trying to introduce the worship of humanity. The better, secular humanists stop short of that. But some cross that line.

If science wants to research this area, fine. But it needs to multiply by at least a factor of 100, the normal lookouts, checks, for research, religious bias. Because religion is very, very, very virulent. (As the ever-play full Rug well knows).

[ExciteBike66]

28. A link to a good somewhat-rebuttal of the OPs article:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/new-scientist-osculates-religion-again/

[rug]

30. I found "Thats completely wrong!" to be compelling.

[ExciteBike66]

31. So when the author believes that the New Scientist

is wrong in some way, he should not say so, or else you will fail to be convinced?

Is that the only sentence you read?

The point is that the New Atheists were not against the "science of religion" at all, at least so far as the "science of religion" was merely explaining why humanity created religion. That is an interesting question to explore. It also has nothing to do with the "truth"
or benefit of any given religion.

[rug]

32. It's a rather unscientific response to a science article.

Jerry Coyne here is in the role of a polemicist posting on his polemical blog. It has little credence beyond its adherents.

[ExciteBike66]

33. Did you even read the article you linked?

Your article contained little science to begin with (it linked to other articles for that). Coyne, who by the way is an actual scientist (now retired), takes issue rather with the articles points about New Atheism (again, not really "science" but rather a polemic on the part of the New Scientist). You should not criticize Coyne for not talking about the science when your own linked article has no science to begin with.

Furthermore, Coyne actually does talk about the science of religion. He states clearly that the New Atheists actually did not criticize the science of religion, in that it is helping understand how religion works and how it came about.

It is noteworthy that your article starts off by talking about Dawkins and his famous book, and yet includes no quotes from him or other New Atheists slandering the "science of religion" as "accomodationism" or an "apology" for religion.

[rug]

34. Of course.

It summarized the work on the "science of religion" and the response to it - on nonscentific grounds - of self-proclaimed "new atheists".

Coyne, who has replaced "actual science" with anitheist blogging, is clearly personally offended and has responded with trite, old polemics.

I will assume this time your title was rhetorical.

[ExciteBike66]

35. Don't.

"I will assume this time your title was rhetorical." Don't.

The NS article you linked was about 5% discussion of the "science of religion" and 95% screed against supposed New Atheist resistance to said science. The article in no way "summarized the work on the 'science of religion'", it only features two scientific claims! (1. atheism is different than religion, and 2. religion served as a social glue at some time in the past)

Coyne clearly is fine with the 5% discussion of the "science of religion", and he notes that he knows of no New Atheist criticism of the impulse to study the origins and workings of religion, as the "science of religion" does. Furthermore, one scientific claim made in your article, about religion as a "social glue" is specifically addressed in Coyne's response. I don't understand how you don't see that, perhaps you should read Coyne's response again? Heck, Coyne even agrees with the article that the "science of religion" says nothing about whether religion is still needed as that "glue".

Coyne takes issue with the 95% screed against New Atheism, which he says conflates criticism of religion with criticism of the study of the origins of religion.

[rug]

36. Then I take your headline in the obnoxious sense it was posted.

That, combined with your (I assume non-hyperbolic) characterization of the New Scientist article as a "95% screed against New Atheism", is sufficient to conclude you are simply a new atheist apologist, complete with the usual biases it implies. I'll view your comments accordingly.

[ExciteBike66]

37. Wow, talk about not addressing the arguments...

and you accuse Jerry Coyne of being unscientific!

I didn't actually count the words, but I bet I am close with my estimation of 5% science in that article. Seriously, the article itself makes only two claims (as I listed previously). It doesn't give any evidence beyond pointing to two OTHER articles. That's all well and good, except I wouldn't go claiming it is a summary of the current state of the "science of religion" as you did.

The rest of the article is about how New Atheists supposedly hate the "science of religion", but the article never actually gets around to quoting those New Atheists. Jerry Coyne is a New Atheist, and he has now responded that the article is off target. Coyne's response is no more or less "scientific" than the article you linked.

I'm not sure how pointing all this out makes me an "apologist" for New Atheism. I don't think they need an apology. You talk about my supposed biases towards New Atheism, but you pretty clearly have some of your own in the opposite direction. Perhaps neither of us are biased, perhaps we are just convinced of different things.

[rug]

38. Replying to you is hardly science.

[fleabiscuit]

41. That article is the very definition of "just because you say it doesn't make it true." nt