More Fun With Science And Religion

One of the best popular science books I’ve ever read is Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. That’s also the name of his blog, which you can find on the list to the right.

Coyne has been one of the louder voices in the argument about what is being called “accomodationism,” a debate about whether religion and science are compatible. Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Letter Project, has challenged Coyne’s (and PZ Myers’, et. al.) claims of compatibility. Here’s what he wrote on HuffPost:

The problem, as I see it, is that [Coyne], like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to name just two, feels compelled to argue that science and religion are utterly incompatible — that scientific knowledge can prove religious faith wrong.

Coyne makes it clear that he believes science is rational while religion is irrational, and only science is “equipped to find real truth.” This leads him to conclude that any meaningful dialogue between the two is useless.

After making the usual point about “extreme fundamentalists” not representing most of the religious people in this country, Zimmerman writes:

Many, many religious leaders understand that religion is not dependent upon a single interpretation of any text. Instead, the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community.

There are great liberal religious people in the world trying very hard to make a positive difference. As a rabbi and Jewish communal worker I deal with them every day. I take issue with them, however, on their claims that the bible and religious writings provide the source of their moral judgment. They are untruthful in this regard. Whenever those writings contradict modern secular morality, the writings are justly tossed aside. Coyne put the problem a little differently:

I agree that they want to make the world a better place. But if they’re all on about morality and spirituality, why do they need to talk about Jebus, heaven, and sin? Why do the Catholics proffer crackers and wine, claiming that they’re the body and blood of Christ? Why the crosses, why the prayers? Why the insistence on the empty tomb, and the idea that somebody is really up there listening to us? Do these have nothing to do with empirical claims about the world?

As a rabbi, reared and trained to appreciate the importance of participating in a spiritual community, I am the ally of my religious colleagues. As an atheist and secular humanist, I am constantly singing Coyne’s refrain.

What Coyne points out are indeed unprovable empirical claims about the world. As such they are clearly wrong. No one has ever said that there should be no spiritual communities. Sam Harris devoted a whole chapter to spirituality in The End of Faith. What we are saying is that they must be compatible with a scientific approach to knowledge:

Zimmerman fails to understand that my goal is more than just getting people to accept evolution and science. As I repeat endlessly (and wish I could stop repeating), my goal…is the promotion of reason.

Reason is what yields a modern morality appropriate to the age we live in. This is why I have repeatedly said that it is time for liberal religious leaders to put down the meaningless prayer book, stick the bible on the shelf with the other old mythologies, and start participating in the new moral philosophy. There is no one up there listening and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Such dishonesty is a terrible way to teach about morality. Let’s leave the ridiculous claims about biblical wisdom and the power of prayer to those “extreme fundamentalists.”