Are Weak Allies Better Than No Allies?

There has always been a question of whether atheists and theists can really work together to solve problems and/or achieve goals. To some degree I think it is possible. However, there are topics on which I'm not sure that such an alliance is really viable. I do appreciate that there are many religious people who are willing to stand up for science, at least to some degree. I am not saying I want them to give up on science but I'm not convinced that they are as supportive of science as they seem to think they are.

A recent post by Karl Giberson, who is a physicist himself, serves as a pretty good example. In "Is Evolution Satan's Great Lie?" he does seem to take Paul Broun's idiotic comments about science to task. The impression is only on the surface. At heart, Giberson does seem to be more of a creationist in a lab coat than a scientist. The third paragraph says quite a bit about his thinking and biases in a very short space.

"It is one thing to claim, invoking some authority from outside the mainstream, that evolution has weaknesses. Or that the evidence does not warrant the absolute certainty with which scientists embrace the theory. Or that some of the evidence for evolution has been compromised by recent discoveries. The Discovery Institute, where the heart of the intelligent design movement has been beating for some time, does this every day on its website. In principle one can have a conversation on those grounds."

Yes, evolution has its weaknesses. There is no perfection so that is not particularly insightful and scientist don't tend to think in "absolute certainties." I may not be a scientist myself but I do follow science news fairly closely and I am unaware any recent "discoveries" or "evidence" that compromises evolution. I am aware of a variety of apologists and pseudo-intellectuals claiming to have found new discoveries and weaknesses but they have all been shown to be religious BS wrapped up in science sounding language. I also would point out that if Giberson really believes that the Discovery Institute is conducting scientific research then his grasp on what constitute science is rather shoddy.

He goes on to talk about what some prominent fundamentalists believe to be true without much in the way of criticism. He seems to tacitly accept that Satan is real and that, though they are misguided, these individuals hold opinions that should be humored to some degree. Giberson, of course, never explains why they should be humored beyond the usual tropes and certainly never tries to explain how a supernatural figure can possibly be compatible with science at all.

Giberson's conclusion is also rather disturbing in its implication.

"Responding effectively to what look like crazy rants from people like Broun requires that we understand that, whatever we think of the rant, the viewpoint is widespread and shared by many of America's religious leaders. Evolution and the Big Bang will never win the allegiance of America's millions of fundamentalists on the basis of evidence. This conflict is a culture war pitting good against evil and the stakes are much higher."

They don't just look like "crazy rants" they are and they are potentially very dangerous. Science and reality don't bend to wishful thinking. It should not matter how popular an idea is. He offers no way to deal with this problem. In fact, he seems to be saying that we just let these nut-cases have their way. Is this really supporting science? How much help can someone like Giberson really be in the long run?

Religion as a Source of Cohesion

For a blog that is supposed to be about science, Science on Religion consistently has issues with details, nuance, and complexity. On more than one occasion they have posted on one specific study or experiment without paying attention to details or measuring it against any other work on the same topic. The July 19th post, "The evolution of Atheism", is a prime example of this lack of thought.

The first paragraph, as you would expect, sets the tone and nature of the piece quite nicely,
"Typically, when researchers study religion, they find that it brings various benefits to society: cohesion, cooperation, trust, etc. Religion evolved and persisted because of the gains religious cultures reaped. However, these findings implicitly seem to uplift religious people and make a puzzle out of atheists. If atheism (by implication) hurts the fabric of society, why did it evolve? What’s the evolutionary purpose of atheists? Political scientist Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh), rather than offering a definitive answer, instead suggests no less than ten possible hypotheses."

Right from the start, and throughout the piece, DiDonato simply accepts that not only is religion benificial but that it is innately and universally beneficial. If he bothered to look into the details of the various studies that have been done he would know that this is not the case. Cohesion and cooperation within a given religious group does occur. However, it occurs within a specif sets of circumstances. Once even a single one of those circumstances changes religion is just as likely to become divisive. In point of fact, many of these studies seem to indicate that once a religious group reaches a certain size and level of stability (from outside influences/threats) it tends to schism. He also overlooks a major reason that atheism is not that much of a "puzzle." 100% conformity or cohesion is never reached. There is no evidence that humans have ever completely agreed on anything. There is always at least a small faction that does not fit within the norm. These outliers would not necessarily agree with each other. There is also no evidence in these studies to reach the conclusion that atheism or any religious minority, for that matter, actually "hurts the fabric of society."

With his starting point being loaded with all manner of biases and logical fallacies it is not surprising that what follows is little more than a regurgitation of Dominic Johnson's views. Johnson does make some interesting points but none of them are that original or particularly well supported. DiDonato only briefly references Johnson's background. If you didn't notice it in the quotation above, he is a political scientist. This is an important field but not by itself of particular authority in regard to evolution. Remember, "evolution" is in the title of the piece. There is nothing to indicate that Johnson bothered looking into evolutionary biology or any other field more directly related to the study and research of evolution beyond lifting a term or two. So, where's the science? I could go on about some of the "ten possible hypotheses" but I'm not sure where to start and it is hardly worth bothering. I'll just give an idea of their nature by pointing out that one of them supposes "There are no atheists." An assertion that requires conflated a variety of unfounded beliefs together without any real reason. Yup, its that ridiculous.

I really wish those who post to this blog (it has more than one author) would either put a disclaimer at the beginning or change the name of the blog. They could forewarn that what they mean by "Science on Religion" is an interpretation of what they think passes as science.