Who are the Accommodationists Accommodating?

Though it has been going on for a while, there is a tension in the skeptical community that seems to have captured a lot of interest lately over the question of whether or not science has anything to say about religious claims.  In as much as we can say there are sides, the divide is often described as the accommodationists vs. the purists.  I doubt either side is entirely comfortable with those titles, but those are the ones being used, so I will use them here as well.

To me, the question of whether or not science has anything to say about religious claims seems to be, in almost all cases, an obvious “yes.”  Are there some claims that are out of the reach of science and reason?  I don’t think so.  How about just science?  Well, sure, but, as it turns out, I think the overwhelming majority of religious claims just happen to eventually have some kinds of empirical implications as they involve the supernatural acting upon the physical world in some way.  Looking at the various types of claims science can address:  any story having to do with the origin of humanity is fair game; any story about the origin of the world in general is fair game; any story about the nature of the mind is fair game; any claim about historical figures or events is fair game; any claim about any physical process at all is fair game.

So what kinds of religious claims are left?  Mostly those that never touch the world.  For example, science cannot say anything about the various kinds of angels that might exist in a purely non-physical world that never touches or interacts with the physical.  The problem is that very few of the people described as purists worry about that kind of stuff.  So far as I can tell, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, nor any of the other “new atheists” are griping about those kinds of claims.  Rather, the issues over which they worry are things that affect the world.  And this, I think, begins to get to what I find so odd about this debate. 

The accommodationists seem to want to privilege religious claims as beyond the reach of science.  How do they do this?  Let’s look at a couple of specifics.  Recently, Massimo Pigliucci (whose blog that you should be reading has long been linked in the blogroll in the sidebar) addressed this issue on his blog and podcast, both entitled “Rationally Speaking.”  In the podcast Pigliucci is concerned that purists are wrong when they suggest that "science is sufficient to debunk or disprove or reject religious claims." He allows that science can reject specific empirical claims that come out of religion, but he does not think that this is the issue at hand. To demonstrate the insufficiency of science to address religious claims he leans on the idea of “Last Thursdayism.”  Last Thursdayism is the hypothetical belief that the entire world was created last Thursday to look as if it were the result of wholly natural processes identical to the ones science posits now.   He also says he’s heard Creationists actually making this claim. I’d like to see that referenced as I personally know lots of Creationists, and none of them would say anything of the sort. Further, I have never heard any of the prominent Creationists say anything like this. Indeed, it seems to be explicitly contrary to any of the well-discussed notions of Creationism, all of which require that the world was created as laid out in some religious text. Now, they might well concede that their god could do such a thing, but they don’t actually think that such is the way it was done.  In fact, it is the assertion of all the prominent Creationist that the world looks exactly as one would expect if God created it.  This, of course, is absolutely something science can address.

But let’s allow that someone does believe such a thing as Last Thursdayism. That puts them in the strange position believing something that is indistinguishable from its not being true. Pigliucci correctly points out that such a position is unfalsifiable, but he then claims that this moves such a question beyond the realm of any kind of scientific reasoning.  I do not think this is right.  While Last Thursdayism may not technically be falsifiable, the notion of parsimony is still active in scientific reasoning. That gives one good scientific reason to reject the unnecessarily complicated hypothesis of Last Thursdayism, even if it is, technically, unfalsifiable.  An analogy would be useful here.  Let us imagine that some scientist claims that, contrary to the understanding of carbon we have now, something else is happening.  In fact, there is some other element that is completely undetectable by any instrument, and, moreover, it has the uncanny property of doing everything carbon is thought to do.  The scientists further asserts that, as it happens, carbon has some set of properties that allow it to look like it has the properties of this newly posited element, but it really has none of the properties we now think it to have.  Further, this new element is always connected to carbon in some way such that it is always present when carbon is but never when carbon is not.  The result of all this is that it is that everything looks exactly as it does now, but it is actually the case that there is some undetectable element doing everything carbon is thought to do while carbon does something completely different.

The above description is completely unfalsifiable, and it is completely consistent with all possible observations.  That being the case, would it be appropriate for other scientists to rule out such a claim?  I imagine that most of you are thinking to yourself, “Of course.”  But this is exactly the same kind of claim as Last Thursdayism.  It is a difference that makes no difference, is completely superfluous, and for which there is no good reason to believe it at all.  In such a case, there is nothing that prohibits science from tossing this claim.  Parsimony is as much a part of science as anything else, and in this case it dictates that the Non-Carbon theory be discarded along with Last Thursayism.

Let us now turn to a recent post by Steven Novella (who writes for several of the blogs linked in the blogroll).  Here Novella says that religious claims cannot be examined as they fall outside the bounds of methodological naturalism, the process assumed for scientific activity.  He writes,

Any belief which is structured in such a way that it is positioned outside the realm of methodological naturalism by definition cannot be examined by the methods of science. In short, this usually means that the beliefs cannot be empirically tested in any conceivable way. One can therefore not have scientific knowledge of such claims, and science can only be agnostic toward them. Any belief in untestable claims is therefore by definition faith.

Now, he does say that some religious claims are, in fact, testable.  He further says, “They intrude upon science on a regular basis, and whenever they step into the arena of science, they are absolutely fair game.”  It just turns out that, according to Novella, very few of the claims of religion are of this type.

Here is where I am deeply puzzled.  What are these claims that are being made that never touch the physical world, that are, in principle, untestable?  As I said above, I can imagine some class of claims that fall into this category, but they make up almost none of the actual claims made by believers of various stripes.  Almost all claims of genuine interest to believers have to do with things that touch the world science examines.  And this gets to the title of this post.  Who are these people being accommodated?  They are not the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or even Buddhists.  The overwhelming majority of the claims made by these religions, and certainly the ones that are of interest to the overwhelming majority of adherents, end up being testable in some way.  In fact, the only group that seems to genuinely make the kinds of claims that really make no difference are deists.  While it is certainly not the case that there are no deists in the world, it certainly is the case that there are very few, and none of the purists seem to care at all about them.  Rather, the purists are concerned about the majority of religious believers, those who believe that the supernatural interacts in detectable ways with the natural world.  But, as both Pigliucci and Novella explicitly say, those kinds of claims are fair game for science to examine.  In which case it appears that everyone is on the same side.  Except, of course, they aren’t, because the accommodationists keep chastising the purists by telling them that religious claims are out of bounds.

So what are the accommodationists really doing?  In the end, it is hard for me to think that accommodationism is not merely a political move.  Its advocates all concede that science can address religious claims that have a discernable effect, but those are the only kinds of claims about which the purists cared anyway.  Questions about the ranks of wholly non-material angels were simply never a concern.  That makes it look like the accommodationists are simply trying to avoid offending theists as a way of keeping their assistance in terms of fighting other issues they believe to be more problematic, like science education.  And this might be a very practical concern.  I am not sure about that, but it might be, and that too is an empirical claim that we could test.  However, if that is the case, they should be explicit about it and not couch their arguments for accommodation in arguments about the limits of scientific reasoning.  The most such arguments can do is “protect” articles of faith that cannot possibly affect the world in any way.  But, of course, those beliefs were never under any serious attack, so that kind of move is a dead end.

 

I want to say here at the end that it seems some people have misunderstood some of the things I’ve said on here before even though I tried to be clear.  I’m not trying to convince everyone that they should be attacking theists.  I’m not making a case for atheism at all.  All I’m doing is addressing this issue of various people saying that religious claims are somehow off limits for discussion.  That seems both perplexing and worrying.  I don’t think anything should be off limits.  That’s my whole point.  It is not that atheists rule and theists drool.  If that’s what you got out of my posts, you have seriously misread me.

Oh, and before someone feels the need to address the grammar of the title, I am well aware that it should be ‘whom’.  However, colloquially, that sounds odd, and I’m not the kind of pedantic bastard who feels the need to correct colloquial phrasing.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Who are the Accommodationists Accommodating?”

  1. CW Says:

    Who are the Accommodationists Accommodating? I think they are accommodating those that profess a belief in God but don’t really relate to it in their everyday life. These are professors, bartendars, musicians, paramedics, electricians, – people that stopped going to church (or maybe go to church 2-3 times a year at the most), stopped reading the bible after confirmation classes, and only pray when facing great turmoil. They’re accommodating those that want to believe in God, but don’t necessarily believe in biblical inerrancy. Because there is at least an opening for rational thought and reason to slip in….

    • Jim Says:

      So, do those people believe that some supernatural power, like God, can act upon the world? Those in your example seem to think so as you suggest they are the type to “pray when facing great turmoil.” In which case, these are not the people about whom the accommodationists are writing. After all, the effects of intercessory prayer can and have been studied (Check the conclusion; not only don’t they work, they can make things worse: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567).
      That’s my whole point about the weirdness of that position. I agree that one would think those are the people the accommodationists want to defend, except one can’t do so rationally as they make explicitly empirical claims, and you have to allow that such claims are in the domain of science. That means the people of concern are those that would never say anything opposed to science anyway, as their supernatural deity never touches the world in any discernible way, and, as such, they don’t actually need defending.
      It’s just a damn odd position.

  2. CW Says:

    You are probably right. I guess I have always thought that the people in my example make up a larger population than fundamentalists and non-believers. Thus, they are statistically going to be the ones that may be on most of the school boards, make up most of the politicians or business leaders, etc. — essentially, where they can become influential to areas like education, technology, etc.

    Thus, accommodationists are targeting these people because they are likely to be amenable to arguments/claims of reason, but as long as it’s done in a tone and approach that is subdued and not authoritative.

    I thought up a cheesy analogy: I’m a single guy that goes to a bar. I scout out all the ladies in the room. I discern the ones that I have no chance at talking to (they’re either with someone, or they’re not my type = non-believers and fundamentalists). The remaining ladies are like the part-time theists that I described earlier. You determine that there are five ladies who are un-attached, and possibly looking to meet someone like you. So what’s your approach? If you know they are there and are wanting to meet a guy, do you just cut to the chase and tell the girl “I’m single, you’re single, let’s go out?” Well, that may work if you’re a stud like Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers. But for most people, you’re like Daniel Loxton or Chris Mooney. You need to go through the whole rigmarole of asking the prelim questions, and give all the signals and signs of wooing first. Yeah, it’s superfluous, but still part of the deal before you get the digits.

    Now, I don’t want to say that accommodationists are “wooing” literally – but rather, using that to describe the process of getting someone comfortable with you and what you’re saying.

    I read that Ben Franklin’s tactics for diplomacy was to first flatter, to make it look like the other person had valid points by mock-agreeing with them, as a way of establishing rapport and respect. Then he’d slowly get them to come to see and agree with his viewpoint. I don’t know if this is apocryphal, but I think it might be the way of thinking by many accommodationists.

    • Jim Says:

      I really do follow you. The problem is that the approach you’re describing, if true, makes Loxton, Novella, and Picliucci liars as they have explicitly said that’s not what they’re doing. I guess I want to be generous and take them at their word rather than presuming they’re pragmatic liars, ya know?

      • CW Says:

        I wonder if accommodationists hope (and feel) like “accommodationism” is just a temporary tactic? Perhaps they feel that as science and technology slowly erode the reliance of superstition – the need for an accommodationist position will similarly erode?

        Maybe accommodationists believe there is a non-fundamental theistic population that can be recruited to help them ridicule the fundamentalists that battle science and reason? Sort of like the tactic the North took when it recruited border states to fight with them (but not immediately banning slavery in those states)?

        Maybe accommodationists are spooked by the perceived vitriol in the political arena? And thus, they want to be perceived as a calming voice? I think this becomes evident when people criticize Dawkins and Myers as antagonists.

        Does accommodationism stem from a cynical belief in people? Maybe it’s fear of an angry theistic backlash, or fear of the realization of just how deeply theistic credulousness can be?

  3. Sean Says:

    Brilliant post Jim. I often read Pigliucci’s blog and I never fully understood his position. He seems to have a problem with what he calls the “scientism” of people like Dawkins, Coyne and Myers, but it seemed clear to me that they were only concerned with the religious claims that directly impact on our world. I also wondered why wouldn’t you want to apply the methods of science to understand ALL claims about the world and how we exist in it. If there is a supernatural being impacting us shouldn’t we marshall all of the resources at our disposal to help us understand the workings of such a being?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: