It’s fascinating that the definition of fundamentalism requires “agreement with the statement ‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.’” That’s about like asking, “Which do you depend on more, air or water?” Science and faith do different things. It isn’t that “faith” is wishful thinking contrary to (scientific) evidence. Faith is trust in what we believe. So, a scientist has faith that his particular understanding of science is true. Christians believe God created the world because the Bible tells us so, and that truth makes a whole lot more sense of the world than a random process such as evolution ever could. This planet and this universe are way too well ordered to have just randomly come together.
I’ve had a lifelong fascination with science. My eighth-grade yearbook listed “zoologist” as what I wished to be when I grew up, and my childhood best friend became an entomologist. But a big part of my fascination with the natural world is that it is the handiwork of God.
You speak of morals evolving because they’re useful to society. That’s a huge difference from morals being actually right and wrong. Here is one of my favorite examples. When a male lion takes over an established pride, he kills all the cubs. That allows the lion mothers to go back into estrus so that he can mate with them and the territory he defends will be sheltering his own offspring and not that of other males. Is it morally wrong for the lion to kill those cubs? Would it be morally wrong for a human to do this? I’m not asking whether it feels icky, but is it actually morally wrong in each instance. Any thought at all tells us that it is not wrong for the lion but it would be wrong for the man. Why? Because God gave mankind a moral code in which murder is sin. And God, the One who created us and told us His laws for our behavior, is also the One who gave us the way to deal with our sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in our place. The Bible explains it in much more detail than I can give here.
Cheryl, regarding science and faith, what we really want to know is what we should believe about anything and by what methods we use to determine what is true. Faith, or belief in something for which there is no evidence, is not a reliable method because of human cognitive biases and the fact that we're fallible beings. Even something as seemingly subjective as love is not based on faith. It's based on evidence. As the singer-songwriter Tim Minchin jokes, "Do you know what you call love without evidence? Stalking."
Cheryl, You mention "morals being actually right and wrong." Were it so. There is no such thing as objective moral truths outside of humans and societies. What most theists mean by "objective" is something outside of human nature or culture, even something outside the world or universe; i.e., God. But even if there is a God that cannot get us objective moral truths for two reasons: (1) If murder is wrong because God said it is wrong, what if He said it was right? Would that make murder acceptable? Of course not! If God commanded murder wrong for good reasons, what are those reasons and why can’t we base our proscription against murder on those reasons alone and skip the divine command stage altogether? In other words, if murder is really wrong in the moral universe, then it doesn’t matter what God thinks, or whether or not there is a god—it’s still wrong. (2) How do you know what God thinks is right or wrong? Holy book? Prayer? Hearing voices? Unfortunately for theists, there are many holy books with conflicting moral values. Which one is right? All faithful followers think their holy book is the right one, so how is an outsider to adjudicate conflicting moral claims?
Great! Let's agree to disagree and co-exist in peace! I'd love to hear from the Evolutionists what existed before the Big Bang and what sits outside our ever expanding Universe? Stunning to see the personal attacks around this subject.
TW: there is nothing outside the expanding spacetime bubble we call the universe. It isn't expanding into anything. It's like asking what's north of the north pole, or what time was it before time began. These are meaningless questions. In any case, pursuing this line of reasoning then we can ask: where does God sit outside our ever expanding Universe?
Evolutionists (whatever you mean by the term) don't have any explanations of what existed before the Big Bang or is outside of our universe. That's because they don't need them. People who hold reality-based worldviews are able to accept that we simply don't know the answer to such existential questions. They generally accept the well-founded physical evidence for how the world works, and where there is no clear answer, they can say: "Well, we don't know now, but maybe someday we will".
Evolution deniers, on the other hand, require the mental comfort provided by made-up answers to such questions. They'll even deny irrefutable evidence to avoid a seed of doubt infiltrating their strict worldview. That's how the world's many religions got started and how they perpetuate.
As for questions for which science has provided no answer, no one is right or wrong, we each are entitled to our own personal philosophy. Everyone should be able to accept that.
In my simplistic view, we are all scientists--to a point. We gather physical information, apply some sort of logic, and make predictions and decisions, which we might then modify as we get more information. But we avoid this approach when it might challenge our moral beliefs and emotional preferences.
Sure, evolution vs. christian fundamentalism is the classic science vs. religion conflict, at least in the western world. And it does reveal some basic truths about our societal intellect.
But before atheists and liberals get too uppity, they should recognize their own ideological limits to personal science. For example, can they even talk about cognitive differences by gender? Or does the very idea of (subtle) variations between the ways that men, women, and others think and feel strike them as heretical if not evil?
And I appreciate Michael's point #8, and have used the same rhetorical challenge: why should people who support evolutionary market economies prefer creationist biology? But again, I also have used the inverse rhetoric: why should people who embrace (or at least claim to support) evolutionary biology, including academic experts, embrace creationist economics? Along with the graph of support and denial of biological evolution through time, I would like to see a graph of support and denial of free market economics.
Well, Michael, I taught human anatomy & physiology, equine animal science, and emergency medical services at the college level for 30 years. I have also been a Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor for nearly 30 years. I have read quite a bit of your writing here and respectfully disagree with you for so many reasons, both intellectual and theological. I am going to keep it simple here: I have purpose, I am here for a reason, I am not random. All of these are objections to my support of Darwinian evolution. I am, and will remain, irenic and respectful in my living out my calling from God to proclaim the wonder of His creation including me, a sinner who has been redeemed by God becoming a human man in space and time, and carried out the most pressing need of we who have rebelled:He died in my place, and rose again as the first fruits of our restored relationship with God. I look forward to working with you for the purpose of breaking down walls of hatred, misunderstanding, and pride. I can do that with integrity and transparency, and I pray you will work with me as well.
Sorry Padre, but it has been proven that God doesn't exist and the idea of Jesus' atonement is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity. If God did exist, he would never arrange for the torture and murder of his own son. How could you believe such a thing?
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree with the arguments you put forth in this piece. I'm wondering how much credence you think should be given to considering the emotional intensity component of why a particular individual either accepts or rejects the theory of evolution, or one that's been modified through a theistic lens? It seems to me that this concept would be a valid one to pursue in a rigorous scientific study and would yield important results. Emotional attachment or connection could be quantified, and then a cohort could be surveyed to find out to what level their emotions (both positive & negative) are involved in either acceptance or rejection of the theory and various permutations of it.
You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix. It's possible that emotions (both for attraction & acceptance, or repulsion & denial) may ultimately hold sway in how far evolution is accepted by these folks, no matter how perfectly it's presented to their rational minds. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these observations. Q. Richlife
It depends on what you mean by "emotions". The best predictors of who rejects the theory of evolution is religion and politics, "tribes" people join primarily out of how it feels to be in those groups, that is, the sort of emotional support and reinforcement one receives from one's fellow group members for adhering to the tenets of a religious or political belief. Research shows that, for the most part, most people have a better "feeling" being liberal or conservative, based largely on temperament (see the Big Five personality inventory and studies done by political preference as a function thereof), then with the hindsight and confirmation biases fully engaged they find rational arguments to support the positions they've already staked out for non-rational reasons (and smart, educated people are even better at this). See, for example, Drew Weston's The Political Brain, George Lakoff's The Political Mind, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, and the several textbooks on political psychology. I devote a chapter to this research in my book The Believing Brain.
People don't primarily believe religions based on how they make them feel. The primary purpose of religion is to get real answers to real questions to life issues. How can my life have meaning? If there is a God, how can I please Him? Christianity offers a coherent, unified answer to those life questions--not because it makes us "feel" better, but because it is true.
"You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix."
There is a very good discussion and analysis in the Junior Skeptic portion of Skeptic Vol.26 No.2 that addresses some aspects of the potential problem you are describing here. My view is that the problem is not just with considering emotions but has more to do with dealing with the problem of Cognitive Dissonance. I quote, "The way dissonance works, it's easy to keep going down the slope into stronger belief-and very difficult to turn around and go back up hill." I think that the discussion of the development and implications/application of Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory, as explained in the Junior Skeptic pages 67-73, would be a useful starting point for answering your question.
Thanks for your reply, and the references mentioned for future investigation.
The questions I posed in my comments on this substack article by Michael Shermer were meant to be more rhetorical in that I was trying to nudge the discussion in a particular direction. That direction is a plea for those who approach evolution acceptance and related subjects strictly intellectually to take a step back and acknowledge that most humans want an emotional component to these types of larger questions we encounter in life. These folks want to feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful by believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., cares for them and personally answers their prayers, etc. I would venture to guess that most deeply religious believers feel that the theory of evolution is a deeply impersonal concept, the adoption of which would make them personally feel as if they were living in a very uncaring universe. For them, evolution would, as young folks say these days, "harsh their mellow", which is the warm fuzziness that most religious people get from their beliefs (whether they're in the presence of others in a church or not). Those charismatic folks who peddle in the "feel good" messages of fundamentalist religious fervor have a much better product to sell to the general public than all the Carl Sagan's, Michael Shermers, and other proponents of the beauty & wonders of science do combined. Make no mistake about it, I'm 100% in favor of ALL these folks on the science side; am a militant atheist/Bright, and don't believe in an afterlife. But we're at a decided disadvantage compared to those who are tugging at (or preying on) the ego-based emotional desires of the general public. That's why religious & spiritual folks have millions of followers on Twitter, while those who're promoting science, evidence, reason, rationality have just a fraction of that. Our society (and most others around the globe) are driven almost entirely by human emotion, but just a small fraction by intellectual reason & rationality. We have a tough row to hoe going forward. Q. Richlife
"These folks want to feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful by believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., cares for them and personally answers their prayers, etc."
Yes, like Padre Dave perhaps. I have lived, like you I am guessing, with and among these kind of folks all my life. Evaluating my experiences with "these folks" based on observations of their behaviors and voiced descriptions of their thoughts I have concluded that, "believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., who cares for them, is not bringing much of the ecstatic, joyful, good feelings of importance that you think they seek. I have also concluded that what they "want" and what they can delude themselves into thinking they are getting tends to be ill defined and varies quite a bit. I of course know a few nonbelievers like myself who compare most congruently with what you say is a believers pursuit of the ecstatic, joyful, good feelings of importance. Making a admittedly subjective assessment of this It is my view that living a fairy tale based existence achieves no measurable or observable improvement (feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful) over living non-fairy tale existence.
I do agree that we non-fairy tale folks "have a tough row to hoe going forward," trying to deal with the real world and the deluded beliefs about it held by the fairy tale folks. But then again what else is new?
Michael, kudos for a well-done essay, which reflects an understanding of Christian theology and ethics (perhaps informed by your own upbringing?).
I suspect St. Augustine would also appreciate your words: “The universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state, but was gifted with the capacity to transform itself from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of structures and life forms” (quoted by J. N. Wilford). Ditto Pope Francis in 2015: “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Thanks David. Some theistic evolutionists think of it this way: the laws of nature come preloaded with information to allow the unfolding of complexity: atoms into stars and planets, molecules into self-replicating spiral chains, proteins into protein chains into proto-cells into simple procaryote cells into complex eucaryote cells into organs and organisms, etc. But that just pushes back another step the question of what gave rise to those particular laws of nature that come preloaded with information, and at some point in the regress we hit an epistemological wall where, for some, faith comes into play by positing an agent who preloaded the laws themselves. That is not my way (any longer!) but it is understandable and not unreasonable.
"Why Christians and Conservatives Should "Accept" Evolution"
Mr. Shermer,
Once again you have demonstrated that not only are you a careful and knowledge based observer and thinker but you also demonstrate a clear understanding that the words used to express your conclusions matter. Too often the acceptance of evolution is characterized as a "belief" when discussing the lack of acceptance of evolution by "believers." This is where I think things can and do go wrong in any discussion of any scientific conclusions be they about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of infection. In the actual doing and conclusions of any scientific endeavor belief should be and basically is suspended. The closest thing that a practicing scientist would have to a statement of "belief" is the hypothesis. This, as anyone knowledgable of the scientific method knows, is not the same as a belief because it is held only to be tested for denial or confirmation. I think scientists and writers about science should when speaking or writing publicly, like Mr. Shermer did here, avoid expressing their scientific acceptance, conclusions and promotions of hypothesis' and theories as "beliefs." The question should not be do you "believe" in evolution or climate change. The question should be do you accept evolution or climate change based on the scientifically based evidence available to you. In any discussion this would necessarily keep the focus on the evidence and conclusions from it rather than the natural human proclivity to draw conclusions or assert beliefs from a rather limited personal experience and knowledge base.
While I enjoy and appreciate the truth in this observation I personally I find it unnecessary and somewhat problematic to have any sort of belief. Instead I prefer a data based probability hypothesis or supposition that is open to confirmation or denial based on more and better data.
One of my favorite historical examples of this is the French scientist Laplace,
Ball's description | 1888
The gist of which, accounted by British mathematician Walter Ball (1888), is as follows: [12]
“Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] "
Since the invention of the scientific method it has become increasingly clear that the god hypothesis is unnecessary and a dead end for explaining anything about the universe.
Beliefs are just a part of human psychology. A belief is a proposition held to be probably true (to different degrees) by any person. A belief is just a truth claim for which your certainty is lacking.
Agreed Gary. Every human has beliefs because there is an ultimate limit on how much, and of what quality, complete information on any given subject is attainable. When there's a gap in information and a level of uncertainty exists, the psychology of the mind bridges the gap quite often with belief. The mental state of belief also comes about because of inherent weaknesses in communication. I can witness a car being stolen, and am certain of the details. But when I explain what I saw to another person (or the police), my certainty comes through incompletely. I can never convey my certainty to them. These folks will believe two things: 1) They will believe I'm conveying what happened, but won't be certain of it, as I am. 2) They will believe that I feel certain, but will doubt the certainty I have in my own head. This certainty/belief gap can be expanded to include religious beliefs, etc., and explains why people can get into heated arguments (or even violent confrontations) when certainty and beliefs can't be reconciled, or an "agree to disagree" truce can't be reached. Because of limits in communication, one person's certainty can only be viewed doubtfully by another as a belief. QR
I mostly agree with what you've written here. Even when we observe something, later on when we try to describe what we observed we may feel uncertain about what we observed. Our mental life is mostly one of probabilities.
Evolution is a fact, but fails to answer some fundamental questions. Scientists know the component cells and atoms of life but have failed to create life. How is it that the earth is just the right distance from its star, tilts in just the right degree. So far scientists have been unable to locate other planets that exhibit these attributes. Perhaps the Webb telescope will solve this mystery. Scientists believe almost universally in the “Big Bang” and if true it proves the universe had a beginning. Which is to say the “Big Bang” “proves” that the universe is finite. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution.
Evolution is a fact, and it is not supposed to answer all "fundamental questions." It is not an answer to the question "How did life begin on Earth?" or "Is there life on other planets?" or "Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe or just a transition event?" The Big Bang does not prove that the universe is finite in time. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution, but there is no good evidence in support of it.
I'm not a believer but during undergrad days took my meals at a boarding club operated by a Lutheran seminary. As a consequence I had a lot of discussions with divinity students. The Lutherans demonstrated a rather practical approach to this subject. When I quizzed them concerning their acceptance of evolutionary theory they responded that the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook and that the narratives found there were intended as lessons in life and faith, composed in such a way as to make a point (when related by a teacher) understandable to people who were mostly illiterate. While these students rejected creationism they did embrace intelligent design although my pointing out the numerous harmful, imperfect aspects of that design confounded them. C. S. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", attempts what I find a convoluted and ultimately circular (and, therefore, unsatisfactory) explanation for the perceived imperfection of "creation" but believers will often refer to this work as the definitive answer to challenges such as mine.
Those are some very high-minded reasons to doubt evolution! I would suggest a more cynical view on the part of the clergy, for if man is just the latest in a chain going back to the primeval ooze, how can he be specially created by God? How can he be liable to sin and be punished when his ancestors weren’t? And how can the church keep him in line with threats of eternal damnation? It all comes back to maintaining the fear of Hell, which I suspect is instrumental in keeping the donations rolling in. It’s difficult to convince a man of something, if his salary depends on not believing it.
That was a wonderful essay. I think a key issue is what of thought processes people use to accept things like scientific theories & results, as well as philosophies, political stances, etc. For example, I have many Mormon relatives who marvel at BYU's extensive dinosaur fossil collection and then ask "What are fossils, _really_?" As if God put fossils there to trick us - like a Latter-Day Loki (and remind me why you'd trust such a god?). I cannot comprehend their thought processes.
Their fall back defense is "God's ways are not man's ways"
Alas, giving up on making sense of it all helps people decide to fly planes into skyscrapers or, since they are Mormon, kill a wagon train of immigrants ... every man, woman and child above a certain age. Rational thought is a gate keeper against extremism - it stops us from committing atrocities in God's name.
I think there is much projection in the 21st Century about Darwin, and about his particular theological stance in light of the new ideas he was generating. From Wiki..."Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated, and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters"
But later in his life, Sheldon, Darwin self-identified as an agnostic, a word coined in 1869 by Darwin's friend and defender Thomas Henry Huxley. Here is what CD wrote in a letter to a correspondent who inquired about the matter:
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
Here is what Huxley meant by "agnostic":
“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist…I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. They [believers] were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis,’—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.”
Technically, agnostic means "insoluble" or "unknowable", although today it is often used to mean "unsure" or "waiting to get more information" or as Stephen Colbert defined it, "an atheist without balls."
I very much appreciate your engagement. Faith communities do not afffix the same level of secular sainthood, nor I believe sacralize Darwin's ideas to the extent evident among this generation of atheists. I view his theistic ideas no more inspiring than any other liberal unitarian Anglican.
It’s fascinating that the definition of fundamentalism requires “agreement with the statement ‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.’” That’s about like asking, “Which do you depend on more, air or water?” Science and faith do different things. It isn’t that “faith” is wishful thinking contrary to (scientific) evidence. Faith is trust in what we believe. So, a scientist has faith that his particular understanding of science is true. Christians believe God created the world because the Bible tells us so, and that truth makes a whole lot more sense of the world than a random process such as evolution ever could. This planet and this universe are way too well ordered to have just randomly come together.
I’ve had a lifelong fascination with science. My eighth-grade yearbook listed “zoologist” as what I wished to be when I grew up, and my childhood best friend became an entomologist. But a big part of my fascination with the natural world is that it is the handiwork of God.
You speak of morals evolving because they’re useful to society. That’s a huge difference from morals being actually right and wrong. Here is one of my favorite examples. When a male lion takes over an established pride, he kills all the cubs. That allows the lion mothers to go back into estrus so that he can mate with them and the territory he defends will be sheltering his own offspring and not that of other males. Is it morally wrong for the lion to kill those cubs? Would it be morally wrong for a human to do this? I’m not asking whether it feels icky, but is it actually morally wrong in each instance. Any thought at all tells us that it is not wrong for the lion but it would be wrong for the man. Why? Because God gave mankind a moral code in which murder is sin. And God, the One who created us and told us His laws for our behavior, is also the One who gave us the way to deal with our sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in our place. The Bible explains it in much more detail than I can give here.
Cheryl, regarding science and faith, what we really want to know is what we should believe about anything and by what methods we use to determine what is true. Faith, or belief in something for which there is no evidence, is not a reliable method because of human cognitive biases and the fact that we're fallible beings. Even something as seemingly subjective as love is not based on faith. It's based on evidence. As the singer-songwriter Tim Minchin jokes, "Do you know what you call love without evidence? Stalking."
Cheryl, You mention "morals being actually right and wrong." Were it so. There is no such thing as objective moral truths outside of humans and societies. What most theists mean by "objective" is something outside of human nature or culture, even something outside the world or universe; i.e., God. But even if there is a God that cannot get us objective moral truths for two reasons: (1) If murder is wrong because God said it is wrong, what if He said it was right? Would that make murder acceptable? Of course not! If God commanded murder wrong for good reasons, what are those reasons and why can’t we base our proscription against murder on those reasons alone and skip the divine command stage altogether? In other words, if murder is really wrong in the moral universe, then it doesn’t matter what God thinks, or whether or not there is a god—it’s still wrong. (2) How do you know what God thinks is right or wrong? Holy book? Prayer? Hearing voices? Unfortunately for theists, there are many holy books with conflicting moral values. Which one is right? All faithful followers think their holy book is the right one, so how is an outsider to adjudicate conflicting moral claims?
Great! Let's agree to disagree and co-exist in peace! I'd love to hear from the Evolutionists what existed before the Big Bang and what sits outside our ever expanding Universe? Stunning to see the personal attacks around this subject.
TW: there is nothing outside the expanding spacetime bubble we call the universe. It isn't expanding into anything. It's like asking what's north of the north pole, or what time was it before time began. These are meaningless questions. In any case, pursuing this line of reasoning then we can ask: where does God sit outside our ever expanding Universe?
Evolutionists (whatever you mean by the term) don't have any explanations of what existed before the Big Bang or is outside of our universe. That's because they don't need them. People who hold reality-based worldviews are able to accept that we simply don't know the answer to such existential questions. They generally accept the well-founded physical evidence for how the world works, and where there is no clear answer, they can say: "Well, we don't know now, but maybe someday we will".
Evolution deniers, on the other hand, require the mental comfort provided by made-up answers to such questions. They'll even deny irrefutable evidence to avoid a seed of doubt infiltrating their strict worldview. That's how the world's many religions got started and how they perpetuate.
As for questions for which science has provided no answer, no one is right or wrong, we each are entitled to our own personal philosophy. Everyone should be able to accept that.
In my simplistic view, we are all scientists--to a point. We gather physical information, apply some sort of logic, and make predictions and decisions, which we might then modify as we get more information. But we avoid this approach when it might challenge our moral beliefs and emotional preferences.
Sure, evolution vs. christian fundamentalism is the classic science vs. religion conflict, at least in the western world. And it does reveal some basic truths about our societal intellect.
But before atheists and liberals get too uppity, they should recognize their own ideological limits to personal science. For example, can they even talk about cognitive differences by gender? Or does the very idea of (subtle) variations between the ways that men, women, and others think and feel strike them as heretical if not evil?
And I appreciate Michael's point #8, and have used the same rhetorical challenge: why should people who support evolutionary market economies prefer creationist biology? But again, I also have used the inverse rhetoric: why should people who embrace (or at least claim to support) evolutionary biology, including academic experts, embrace creationist economics? Along with the graph of support and denial of biological evolution through time, I would like to see a graph of support and denial of free market economics.
Excellent essay, Michael! Thanks for writing and sharing.
Well, Michael, I taught human anatomy & physiology, equine animal science, and emergency medical services at the college level for 30 years. I have also been a Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor for nearly 30 years. I have read quite a bit of your writing here and respectfully disagree with you for so many reasons, both intellectual and theological. I am going to keep it simple here: I have purpose, I am here for a reason, I am not random. All of these are objections to my support of Darwinian evolution. I am, and will remain, irenic and respectful in my living out my calling from God to proclaim the wonder of His creation including me, a sinner who has been redeemed by God becoming a human man in space and time, and carried out the most pressing need of we who have rebelled:He died in my place, and rose again as the first fruits of our restored relationship with God. I look forward to working with you for the purpose of breaking down walls of hatred, misunderstanding, and pride. I can do that with integrity and transparency, and I pray you will work with me as well.
Sorry Padre, but it has been proven that God doesn't exist and the idea of Jesus' atonement is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity. If God did exist, he would never arrange for the torture and murder of his own son. How could you believe such a thing?
Oh, how silly! Seriously? I expected more within the FAIR Community.
You ought to expect skeptical, rational, intelligent, fair, and civil feedback. That's what I gave you. I you disagree, then make your case.
Greetings Michael,
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree with the arguments you put forth in this piece. I'm wondering how much credence you think should be given to considering the emotional intensity component of why a particular individual either accepts or rejects the theory of evolution, or one that's been modified through a theistic lens? It seems to me that this concept would be a valid one to pursue in a rigorous scientific study and would yield important results. Emotional attachment or connection could be quantified, and then a cohort could be surveyed to find out to what level their emotions (both positive & negative) are involved in either acceptance or rejection of the theory and various permutations of it.
You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix. It's possible that emotions (both for attraction & acceptance, or repulsion & denial) may ultimately hold sway in how far evolution is accepted by these folks, no matter how perfectly it's presented to their rational minds. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these observations. Q. Richlife
It depends on what you mean by "emotions". The best predictors of who rejects the theory of evolution is religion and politics, "tribes" people join primarily out of how it feels to be in those groups, that is, the sort of emotional support and reinforcement one receives from one's fellow group members for adhering to the tenets of a religious or political belief. Research shows that, for the most part, most people have a better "feeling" being liberal or conservative, based largely on temperament (see the Big Five personality inventory and studies done by political preference as a function thereof), then with the hindsight and confirmation biases fully engaged they find rational arguments to support the positions they've already staked out for non-rational reasons (and smart, educated people are even better at this). See, for example, Drew Weston's The Political Brain, George Lakoff's The Political Mind, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, and the several textbooks on political psychology. I devote a chapter to this research in my book The Believing Brain.
People don't primarily believe religions based on how they make them feel. The primary purpose of religion is to get real answers to real questions to life issues. How can my life have meaning? If there is a God, how can I please Him? Christianity offers a coherent, unified answer to those life questions--not because it makes us "feel" better, but because it is true.
Quest,
"You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix."
There is a very good discussion and analysis in the Junior Skeptic portion of Skeptic Vol.26 No.2 that addresses some aspects of the potential problem you are describing here. My view is that the problem is not just with considering emotions but has more to do with dealing with the problem of Cognitive Dissonance. I quote, "The way dissonance works, it's easy to keep going down the slope into stronger belief-and very difficult to turn around and go back up hill." I think that the discussion of the development and implications/application of Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory, as explained in the Junior Skeptic pages 67-73, would be a useful starting point for answering your question.
Greetings Ray,
Thanks for your reply, and the references mentioned for future investigation.
The questions I posed in my comments on this substack article by Michael Shermer were meant to be more rhetorical in that I was trying to nudge the discussion in a particular direction. That direction is a plea for those who approach evolution acceptance and related subjects strictly intellectually to take a step back and acknowledge that most humans want an emotional component to these types of larger questions we encounter in life. These folks want to feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful by believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., cares for them and personally answers their prayers, etc. I would venture to guess that most deeply religious believers feel that the theory of evolution is a deeply impersonal concept, the adoption of which would make them personally feel as if they were living in a very uncaring universe. For them, evolution would, as young folks say these days, "harsh their mellow", which is the warm fuzziness that most religious people get from their beliefs (whether they're in the presence of others in a church or not). Those charismatic folks who peddle in the "feel good" messages of fundamentalist religious fervor have a much better product to sell to the general public than all the Carl Sagan's, Michael Shermers, and other proponents of the beauty & wonders of science do combined. Make no mistake about it, I'm 100% in favor of ALL these folks on the science side; am a militant atheist/Bright, and don't believe in an afterlife. But we're at a decided disadvantage compared to those who are tugging at (or preying on) the ego-based emotional desires of the general public. That's why religious & spiritual folks have millions of followers on Twitter, while those who're promoting science, evidence, reason, rationality have just a fraction of that. Our society (and most others around the globe) are driven almost entirely by human emotion, but just a small fraction by intellectual reason & rationality. We have a tough row to hoe going forward. Q. Richlife
Quest,
"These folks want to feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful by believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., cares for them and personally answers their prayers, etc."
Yes, like Padre Dave perhaps. I have lived, like you I am guessing, with and among these kind of folks all my life. Evaluating my experiences with "these folks" based on observations of their behaviors and voiced descriptions of their thoughts I have concluded that, "believing that a god, savior, Messiah, etc., who cares for them, is not bringing much of the ecstatic, joyful, good feelings of importance that you think they seek. I have also concluded that what they "want" and what they can delude themselves into thinking they are getting tends to be ill defined and varies quite a bit. I of course know a few nonbelievers like myself who compare most congruently with what you say is a believers pursuit of the ecstatic, joyful, good feelings of importance. Making a admittedly subjective assessment of this It is my view that living a fairy tale based existence achieves no measurable or observable improvement (feel good, important, ecstatic, joyful) over living non-fairy tale existence.
I do agree that we non-fairy tale folks "have a tough row to hoe going forward," trying to deal with the real world and the deluded beliefs about it held by the fairy tale folks. But then again what else is new?
Michael, kudos for a well-done essay, which reflects an understanding of Christian theology and ethics (perhaps informed by your own upbringing?).
I suspect St. Augustine would also appreciate your words: “The universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state, but was gifted with the capacity to transform itself from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of structures and life forms” (quoted by J. N. Wilford). Ditto Pope Francis in 2015: “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
With all good wishes for the new year.
Thanks David. Some theistic evolutionists think of it this way: the laws of nature come preloaded with information to allow the unfolding of complexity: atoms into stars and planets, molecules into self-replicating spiral chains, proteins into protein chains into proto-cells into simple procaryote cells into complex eucaryote cells into organs and organisms, etc. But that just pushes back another step the question of what gave rise to those particular laws of nature that come preloaded with information, and at some point in the regress we hit an epistemological wall where, for some, faith comes into play by positing an agent who preloaded the laws themselves. That is not my way (any longer!) but it is understandable and not unreasonable.
"Why Christians and Conservatives Should "Accept" Evolution"
Mr. Shermer,
Once again you have demonstrated that not only are you a careful and knowledge based observer and thinker but you also demonstrate a clear understanding that the words used to express your conclusions matter. Too often the acceptance of evolution is characterized as a "belief" when discussing the lack of acceptance of evolution by "believers." This is where I think things can and do go wrong in any discussion of any scientific conclusions be they about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of infection. In the actual doing and conclusions of any scientific endeavor belief should be and basically is suspended. The closest thing that a practicing scientist would have to a statement of "belief" is the hypothesis. This, as anyone knowledgable of the scientific method knows, is not the same as a belief because it is held only to be tested for denial or confirmation. I think scientists and writers about science should when speaking or writing publicly, like Mr. Shermer did here, avoid expressing their scientific acceptance, conclusions and promotions of hypothesis' and theories as "beliefs." The question should not be do you "believe" in evolution or climate change. The question should be do you accept evolution or climate change based on the scientifically based evidence available to you. In any discussion this would necessarily keep the focus on the evidence and conclusions from it rather than the natural human proclivity to draw conclusions or assert beliefs from a rather limited personal experience and knowledge base.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” —Philip K. Dick
While I enjoy and appreciate the truth in this observation I personally I find it unnecessary and somewhat problematic to have any sort of belief. Instead I prefer a data based probability hypothesis or supposition that is open to confirmation or denial based on more and better data.
One of my favorite historical examples of this is the French scientist Laplace,
Ball's description | 1888
The gist of which, accounted by British mathematician Walter Ball (1888), is as follows: [12]
“Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ ['I had no need of that hypothesis.'] "
Since the invention of the scientific method it has become increasingly clear that the god hypothesis is unnecessary and a dead end for explaining anything about the universe.
Beliefs are just a part of human psychology. A belief is a proposition held to be probably true (to different degrees) by any person. A belief is just a truth claim for which your certainty is lacking.
Agreed Gary. Every human has beliefs because there is an ultimate limit on how much, and of what quality, complete information on any given subject is attainable. When there's a gap in information and a level of uncertainty exists, the psychology of the mind bridges the gap quite often with belief. The mental state of belief also comes about because of inherent weaknesses in communication. I can witness a car being stolen, and am certain of the details. But when I explain what I saw to another person (or the police), my certainty comes through incompletely. I can never convey my certainty to them. These folks will believe two things: 1) They will believe I'm conveying what happened, but won't be certain of it, as I am. 2) They will believe that I feel certain, but will doubt the certainty I have in my own head. This certainty/belief gap can be expanded to include religious beliefs, etc., and explains why people can get into heated arguments (or even violent confrontations) when certainty and beliefs can't be reconciled, or an "agree to disagree" truce can't be reached. Because of limits in communication, one person's certainty can only be viewed doubtfully by another as a belief. QR
I mostly agree with what you've written here. Even when we observe something, later on when we try to describe what we observed we may feel uncertain about what we observed. Our mental life is mostly one of probabilities.
Evolution is a fact, but fails to answer some fundamental questions. Scientists know the component cells and atoms of life but have failed to create life. How is it that the earth is just the right distance from its star, tilts in just the right degree. So far scientists have been unable to locate other planets that exhibit these attributes. Perhaps the Webb telescope will solve this mystery. Scientists believe almost universally in the “Big Bang” and if true it proves the universe had a beginning. Which is to say the “Big Bang” “proves” that the universe is finite. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution.
Evolution is a fact, and it is not supposed to answer all "fundamental questions." It is not an answer to the question "How did life begin on Earth?" or "Is there life on other planets?" or "Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe or just a transition event?" The Big Bang does not prove that the universe is finite in time. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution, but there is no good evidence in support of it.
I'm not a believer but during undergrad days took my meals at a boarding club operated by a Lutheran seminary. As a consequence I had a lot of discussions with divinity students. The Lutherans demonstrated a rather practical approach to this subject. When I quizzed them concerning their acceptance of evolutionary theory they responded that the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook and that the narratives found there were intended as lessons in life and faith, composed in such a way as to make a point (when related by a teacher) understandable to people who were mostly illiterate. While these students rejected creationism they did embrace intelligent design although my pointing out the numerous harmful, imperfect aspects of that design confounded them. C. S. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", attempts what I find a convoluted and ultimately circular (and, therefore, unsatisfactory) explanation for the perceived imperfection of "creation" but believers will often refer to this work as the definitive answer to challenges such as mine.
Those are some very high-minded reasons to doubt evolution! I would suggest a more cynical view on the part of the clergy, for if man is just the latest in a chain going back to the primeval ooze, how can he be specially created by God? How can he be liable to sin and be punished when his ancestors weren’t? And how can the church keep him in line with threats of eternal damnation? It all comes back to maintaining the fear of Hell, which I suspect is instrumental in keeping the donations rolling in. It’s difficult to convince a man of something, if his salary depends on not believing it.
That was a wonderful essay. I think a key issue is what of thought processes people use to accept things like scientific theories & results, as well as philosophies, political stances, etc. For example, I have many Mormon relatives who marvel at BYU's extensive dinosaur fossil collection and then ask "What are fossils, _really_?" As if God put fossils there to trick us - like a Latter-Day Loki (and remind me why you'd trust such a god?). I cannot comprehend their thought processes.
Their fall back defense is "God's ways are not man's ways"
Alas, giving up on making sense of it all helps people decide to fly planes into skyscrapers or, since they are Mormon, kill a wagon train of immigrants ... every man, woman and child above a certain age. Rational thought is a gate keeper against extremism - it stops us from committing atrocities in God's name.
I think there is much projection in the 21st Century about Darwin, and about his particular theological stance in light of the new ideas he was generating. From Wiki..."Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated, and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters"
But later in his life, Sheldon, Darwin self-identified as an agnostic, a word coined in 1869 by Darwin's friend and defender Thomas Henry Huxley. Here is what CD wrote in a letter to a correspondent who inquired about the matter:
“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
Here is what Huxley meant by "agnostic":
“When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist…I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. They [believers] were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis,’—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.”
Technically, agnostic means "insoluble" or "unknowable", although today it is often used to mean "unsure" or "waiting to get more information" or as Stephen Colbert defined it, "an atheist without balls."
I very much appreciate your engagement. Faith communities do not afffix the same level of secular sainthood, nor I believe sacralize Darwin's ideas to the extent evident among this generation of atheists. I view his theistic ideas no more inspiring than any other liberal unitarian Anglican.