Here is an interesting article about what it is like to teach evolution at a place where a lot of people, I would say, are blinded by religious prejudice and irrationality. My thanks to our Ethical Leader Randy Best, and Jack van Dijk, for making me aware of the article. It is well worth reading.
https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin
In one way, I think the author does not go far enough. I want to take issue with one thing he says, and I’m very interested in what others think, whether they are members of the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle (EHST) here in central North Carolina, or visitors to our blog from elsewhere.
My hope is to begin a genuine dialectic about this here on the EHST blog. I mean something more than just taking turns expressing opinions. I mean a respectful but critical series of arguments, objections and rejoinders in a shared search for truth. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, I hope to be shown that this is the case through this process of rational inquiry; it is better to get it right than to be right.
Roughly three quarters of the way into the article, the author says the following about the introductory biology class he teaches: “I make it clear that one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive.” He goes on to cite many religious organizations and individuals, including the current Pope, who say they believe in both religion and evolution. It is indeed true that there are many such organizations and individuals. But that does not mean they are consistent in these beliefs. It may be the case that some religious beliefs and evolution are mutually exclusive, but these organizations and individuals don’t realize it.
So I want to argue that in fact certain widely held religious beliefs are inconsistent with Darwinism, whether the Pope or anyone else thinks they are or are not. I will present my argument with numbered premises, and it is my hope that those who may disagree with my conclusion will show me what error I have made in my reasoning or, if there happens to be no such error, which of my premises is wrong. Because, if my conclusion is wrong, there must be something wrong with my logic, or with my premises.
The key to my argument is to appreciate that Darwinism is not really about evolution, but rather a particular explanation of evolution. It is easy enough to believe that evolution was just the mechanism God used to create life and humanity, by “pushing along” – so to speak – the evolutionary process. And a belief in evolution long pre-dated Darwin. His great contribution was not noticing evolution. It was his theory of natural selection, according to which no supernatural “push” whatsoever is needed. In the struggle for survival, random genetic variations are selected naturally and are passed along to the offspring of those able to reproduce.
Evolution happened all by itself, without any need of help from God or anyone or anything else, thank you very much. So this brings me to my argument, and here it is:
(1) Most religious belief systems include the idea that humanity was created by a God or a spiritual force.
(2) Such a process of creation would require something other than the natural processes of variation and selection.
(3) But Darwin’s theory of natural selection shows us that nothing besides these natural processes are necessary to fully explain evolution, and demonstrates that it is entirely gratuitous to posit “creation” of any kind.
Therefore, there is a contradiction between most religious belief systems and Darwinism, and it is not the case that most people can accept it and maintain their religious beliefs – they are exclusive.
I don’t offer this as a matter of opinion, or as “my two cents.” (I hope we all strive to have reasoned judgments worth a lot more than that.) I offer this as the truth, but I could be mistaken. If I am, there must be something wrong with at least one of my three premises, or with my logic. So, if you disagree with my conclusion, please explain what you think is wrong with my argument, don’t just state a contrary view as though nobody is right or wrong.
If one of my premises is false, please give an argument of your own as to why it is incorrect. Or, if my conclusion does not follow from the premises, show me how that is. And even if you agree with my conclusion, you still may have something to say to strengthen my argument, or a rejoinder to an objection I may not have anticipated.
I look forward to reading your contribution to the philosophical dialectic about this issue. It is, I believe, an important issue. It relates to the metaphysics of naturalism, which Randy and others are exploring through their study of the book by Richard Carrier: Sense and Goodness Without God. If the natural processes Darwin identified are fully adequate to explain life and humanity, naturalism as a general metaphysical philosophy or world-view seems to have very strong confirmation in the realm of the biological sciences.
Sometimes we say that Darwinism and religion are compatible just because we want to smooth over conflict, and prevent a quarrel. But that approach, however kindly motivated, neglects the real point here. The question is not whether it is nice to say that they are not mutually exclusive. The question is whether Darwinism and religion really are or are not mutually exclusive. If they are, then the comfort the biology professor who wrote the article gives to his religious students – by telling them that they can have their religious cake and eat up as Darwinists too – is just plain bogus.
If there really is a conflict in this case between science and religion, we as a civilization have to face the hard choice of which path we will take. Will we hold on to old religious ideas, or embrace reason and science? I think we simply can not do both, however nice it would be if we could.
So please let me know your thoughts. Again, let’s engage in a real philosophical dialectic here, not just the usual exchange of opinions. I think I’m right, but I could be wrong. If you disagree with my conclusion, you have to show me where I went wrong in my reasoning, or show me that one or more of my premises are incorrect. I look forward to your views.
James Coley says
Thanks, Timothy, for keeping the focus on those in the Abrahamic religions who are really the ones we should be talking about here. It is fine, in my view, for Herb or anyone else to adopt say, naturalistic Buddhism, and call it religion. It is not the question of whether Darwinism conflicts with that kind of naturalistic world-view that is the real issue, as I think you would agree.
Thanks, Name Withheld, for engaging in the dialectic by commenting on the premises of the argument; here are comments on your comments.
(1) Yes, I am limiting my claim to most, but not all, of what may be called “religion.” To keep the dialogue practical, the focus is on the large numbers of people — like the students the author of the article writes about — who are religious in the sense that they believe in a personal God who created the Universe, life and Humanity.
(2) While some religious people might *allow* for the natural processes of variation and selection, the question seems to be whether those processes would be sufficient to explain the religious conception of evolution as creation. It does appear that this conception requires something more, such as “God did it!”
(3) I don’t think you have to be an evolutionary biologist to see that Darwin’s explanation of evolution makes no appeal to the supernatural, and certainly nothing along the lines of “God did it!”
As Socrates, according to Plato, said, “I know I know nothing.” The conclusions we draw have to be open to revision in the light of new evidence and argument. I would hope those who embrace a “two magisteria” view would be open to changing their minds based on the considerations I have brought forth in this blog post.
Essentially, my argument is that since Darwinism undercuts the claim of most religion that the answer to “How did we get here?” requires the supernatural, it does indeed pose a threat to religion.
It seems to me that the author’s students are right, and the author himself wrong, about there being a real conflict between Darwinism and religion. But I side with Darwinism.
Timothy Travis says
James, you wrote, ” It is fine, in my view, for . . . . . . anyone . . . . . to . . . . . say, naturalistic Buddhism, and call it religion.”
-I don’t entirely agree. When we speak of religion in the West, we are not talking about “naturalistic Buddhism” (nor even Deepak Chopra woo). We are talking about the three Abrahamic religions.
The reason stretching the definition of religion to include other belief systems and world views is problematic is because if anything can be called a religion, even philosophy and Humanism, how are we to keep “religion” out of government?
By New Age, Postmodern definitions of religion, socialism can be classified as a religion. S&M club members could just be practicing their religion. It is fine to say football is my religion, good communication, but that does not make football a religion.
Let’s not cloud the issue in a way that undermines our goals.
James Coley says
As I said, I agree that what we are really talking about here are the Abrahamic religions, and religious people who believe in a personal God who created the Universe, life and Humanity. And no one is saying that *anything* can be called a religion; that’s a Straw Man. But you and I have covered this ground before.
What do you think about the argument that, contrary to the author of the article, there is indeed a conflict between Darwinism and the Abrahamic religions because natural selection shows us that there is no need for a supernatural creation story for Humanity?
Timothy Travis says
James, of course there is conflict between Darwinism and religion but it is bigger than just because “natural selection shows us that there is no need for a supernatural creation story for Humanity”.
Religion is not just in conflict with Darwinism, it is in conflict with reason, with science, with critical thinking, with progressive values, with Humanism, with morality and ethics.
Until we are willing to take on religion, as long as we give it special privilege, we will continue to lose.
Gretchen Niver says
I do rather agree with you, Timothy, that religion is in conflict with science, critical thinking, etc., and that the emphasis on ‘respcting peoples’ beliefs’, while openminded and tolerant, is anathema to human progress.
Timothy Travis says
Are Darwinism and Religion Compatible?
I guess it depends on your definition of religion. Herb Silverman, the founder and president of the Secular Coalition, for example, considers himself religious and an atheist.
I don’t much care to stretch the definition is this manner. Don’t see the point of it.
In the West, when we talk of religion we are primarily concerned with the Abrahamic religions. None of the Abrahamic religions are compatible with Darwinism / the theory of evolution.
Religious leaders, such as the Pope, sometimes give lip service to Darwinism but if you take notice, they are being intellectually disingenuous. -Such as the proposition that people are different than other animals, that God gave us a soul or some other nonsensical religious woo.
Name Withheld says
(1) You have included the word “most,” so I think that this is probably true. I don’t know about every religious belief system, but to the extent that I am familiar with the major ones, I think you’re safe on this premise.
(2) To the extent I am familiar with how various religions think about creation, it may be that some of them (or some practitioners within sects) would allow for “the natural processes of variation and selection.” The religions (or sects) who may allow for these processes would probably resolve their final argument with “because… god(s)” (capitalize or pluralize as you wish). That is where their argument is no longer scientific and becomes irrational. Scientists and other rational folks cannot just resolve any argument they cannot bring to closure with a concept of god. The scientist exploring variation and selection accumulates information (observations, data, etc.) and makes one to many attempts to understand and explain them in a way that is (1) consistent with previous understanding or (2) presents a rational alternative to previous understanding. In either case, the body of scientists working on that sub-sub-sub-specialty of a branch of that particular tree of belief and understanding may or may not argue vociferously regarding the merit of the incremental additional – or new – understanding. At no time is this manifold dialectic allowed to say “because… god(s)” so that everyone can get back to counting angels on the head of a pin or whatever. So, I think this element of your argument depends a little tenuously on how deeply one interprets “would require something.” If the “something” is a “hail Mary” (sorry) to forces unknown and not understood except through the multitude of interpretations of various holy books, then it’s a good argument. Perhaps there is some tightening that could be made in that element of the argument – or not.
(3) I am not an evolutionary biologist – a field that has fractured into a huge number of sub-specialties since the quaint old days of Darwin. It may be that practitioners in some of these specialties could argue in very thorough and nuanced ways about “nothing besides these natural processes are necessary to fully explain evolution.” I certainly agree that there is no need to posit “creation” as this signals the absence of an argument rather than the incremental accretion of micro (perhaps nano) arguments that add towards answers on a range of topics, grand and small, that we still don’t (and may never) understand.
For me, the greatest words in human experience are “I don’t know” and too many of us use them too infrequently. While we know a whole bunch (from possible theories of “everything” to the names of way too many celebrities and athletes), we simultaneously don’t know much. The “art” of science is to chip away at our ignorance and add to our knowledge, but knowing everything may be an asymptote that we seem to approach but that we will never achieve. The idea of god(s), and the idea of many religions, is that god(s) taught us everything we need to know already and it is now time to just do what he said. I hope the number of people doing that diminishes towards nothing into the future and the number of people accumulating observations increases semi-proportionally.
I recently had the (amusing to me) thought that, if god(s) exist(s), the knowledge they provided in one (or more) books) would probably have looked a lot more like a combined and enormously advanced edition of every math, biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, geology, etc. tome than a book written by a host of variously crotchety old men about how to behave towards each other (including plants and animals) and our planet, although there are many observations in many “holy” books that are valuable gems of human wisdom (treat others as you would be treated, common to many religions). A tome of science, etc. would have answered our many persistent questions, allowed us to advance ourselves in wise ways, preferably with no genocides or diseases, and pay more attention to the way we treat each other. Now THAT would have been a valuable item for god(s) to pass along as something of a argument for its existence. But that didn’t happen.
Anyway, I guess that was an aside and, as such, was not requested in your post. You probably figured out what I believe about your argument a number of sentences ago, but there you are! Free sentences!