Tag Archives: creationism

Creationists can’t be scientists

Creationism is back in the news, following the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate and the recently released HBO documentary, “Questioning Darwin.” Many writers, including myself, have argued that creationism is neither religion nor science, but rather a thinly veiled political doctrine. In contrast, William Saletan sees creationism as “harmless” because scientists who espouse it can “compartmentalize” their beliefs. He recognizes its absurdity, but writes that, “You can be a perfectly good satellite engineer while believing total nonsense about the origins of life.” But creationism is part of the larger crusade within the religious right to make “biblical literalism” Christian doctrine and federal law. To espouse it is to preclude practicing science.

Saletan believes that a distinction between historical science and modern science is what exculpates the creationist:

The core of Ham’s worldview, which Nye attacked again and again, is a distinction between “origins or historical science” (the fictional stuff) and “experimental or observational science” (the real stuff). “Bill and I all have the same observational science,” said Ham. He spoke with perfectly modern delight about satellites, mobile phones, and vaccines.

But this distinction actually obfuscates the deeply political motives of the creation movement, expressed by Ham here:

As the creation foundation is removed, we see the Godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation — lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc — logically increase. We must understand this connection.

This statement shows the operative premise of the young-earth creationist, and from where such creationists draw their power: a literal interpretation of the Bible. Augustine warned of these charlatans, writing of men who, “try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case.” While Saletan thinks that creationism can be largely “compartmentalized” and that a young-earth creationist can still happily vaccinate his or her children, I am far more fearful than he that such an approach to science could easily bleed into the realm of something like vaccines or climate change (as it already has). Ken Ham argues in “Questioning Darwin” that to accept evolution is to abandon absolutes, which will bring a host of sins upon the world, (one wonders how war, rape and murder existed before Darwin).

What should make us terrified of the creationist movement is this political mobilization. The movement is deeply intertwined with right-wing fundamentalism. Among the terrors Ham worries about are abortion and gay marriage.  Across the country creationism has tried toforce itself into science curriculums, with political maneuvering and outright lies. But Saletan glosses over this concern, mentioning only briefly that seeing creationism as harmless “doesn’t mean we should teach creationism in schools or pretend it’s a scientific theory.” I agree we shouldn’t, but the creationist movement is trying to do exactly that.

To believe that someone whose starting premise is profoundly unscientific will practice good science could well be dangerous. Saletan argues that,

From the standpoint of scientific literacy, it’s galling to listen to absurdities about the distant past. But what matters in daily life isn’t whether you believe humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. What matters is whether you’ll agree not to use antibiotics for your kid’s sinus infection after your doctor explains how germs, under the selective pressure of these drugs, evolve resistance.

But modern biology is based on evolution. Modern astronomy requires a scientist to understand that the universe is far more than 6,000 years old. In order to make creationism work, Ham has to deny radiometric dating. Paleontology is functionally impossible if you accept the disaster-based explanations that creationists offer. The fields of linguistics and psychology are intimately tied to evolution, as is the field of neuroscience.

“Questioning Darwin” makes clear the distinction between those, like Pastor Peter LaRuffa, who states, “If somewhere within the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2+2 =5, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible, I would believe it, accept it as true and then do my best to work it out and understand it” and Darwin, who says, “I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it.” One is the mindset of free inquiry, the other of dogmatic quackery. Science requires ambiguity. A scientist must weigh competing claims and she must understand complex systems. Creationism rejects all of this. In one telling quote, Angel Dague says, “I can’t even fathom coming from this little thing that crawled on the ground to apes, to being human, it just doesn’t, it sounds crazy to me.”

Consider the story of Kurt Wise, a brilliant student of geology (he studied under the eminent Stephen Jay Gould). Wise writes that in high school he dreamed of a Ph.D from Harvard.  He studied evolution intently but struggled to reconcile it with his literal reading of the Bible. Eventually he went through the entire Bible and cut out every verse that he felt could not be true if evolution were true. He concluded,

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture… With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

That is not someone who has compartmentalized his creationism. It is someone for whom creationism is the overarching lens through which he sees the world. Given how much one must give up to be a creationist (legitimacy, honors, awards, respect), could holding onto these beliefs really be a small detail for scientists? I suspect very much the opposite. Saletan concludes that while “Nye portrayed creationism as a cancer” which threatens scientific institutions, in fact, “It doesn’t. You can be a perfectly good satellite engineer while believing total nonsense about the origins of life… Just don’t let it mess with your day job.” Given that creationists like Wise have agonizingly determined that this is not true, I think we should take them at their word. At the end of “Questioning Darwin,” the narrator says, “Darwin himself never stopped asking questions about his science and about God.” Creationists have, and that is why they cannot be scientists.

Originally published on Salon.

William Saletan’s understanding of creationism is deeply deficient

I’ve written a lot about creationism and its genesis, which I see as a desire, deep in this country, to avoid complexity and ambiguity. In contrast, William Saletan sees creationism as “harmless” because the scientists who espouse it “compartmentalize” their beliefs. He’s dead wrong. Creationism is merely part of the larger crusade within the religious right to make “biblical literalism,” an absurd and dangerous idea, Christian doctrine. Saletan believes that a magical distinction between historical science and modern science is what exculpates the creationist:

The core of Ham’s worldview, which Nye attacked again and again, is a distinction between “origins or historical science” (the fictional stuff) and “experimental or observational science” (the real stuff). “Bill and I all have the same observational science,” said Ham. He spoke with perfectly modern delight about satellites, mobile phones, and vaccines.

I think this is a well-placed dissemblance forwarded to obfuscate the deeply political motives of the creation movement:

As the creation foundation is removed, we see the Godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation — lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc — logically increase. We must understand this connection.

Can one be a good creation scientist? Saletan argues that,

From the standpoint of scientific literacy, it’s galling to listen to absurdities about the distant past. But what matters in daily life isn’t whether you believe humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. What matters is whether you’ll agree not to use antibiotics for your kid’s sinus infection after your doctor explains how germs, under the selective pressure of these drugs, evolve resistance.

I’ve been told by more than a few science people that this isn’t true, and I think I can prove it. For instance, in order to make creationism work, Ham has to deny radiometric dating, which seems to me very important for other areas of science. I’m sure this isn’t the only instance where creationism bleeds into other parts of science (I doubt you can do biology, paleontology or astronomy properly, to name three).

I’ll end this blog post with this story from Kurt Wise, a brilliant student of geology (he studied under the eminent Stephen Jay Gould). I humbly request Saletan consider it when next writing on creationism: 

Eighth grade found me extremely interested in all fields of science. For over a year, while others considered being firemen and astronauts, I was dreaming of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard University and teaching at a big university. I knew this to be an unattainable dream, for I knew it was a dream, but … well, it was still a dream. That year, the last in the series of nine years in our small country school, was terminated by the big science fair. The words struck fear in all, for not only was it important for our marks and necessary for our escape from the elementary sentence for crimes unknown, but it was also a sort of initiation to allow admittance into the big city high school the next year. The 1,200 students of the high school dwarfed the combined populations of three towns I lived closer to than that high school. Just the thought of such hoards of people scared us silly. In any case, the science fair was anticipated years in advance and I started work on mine nearly a year ahead of the fair itself.

I decided to do my science fair project on evolution. I poured myself into its study. I memorized the geologic column. My father and I constructed a set of wooden steps representing geologic time where the run of each step represented the relative length of each period. I bought models and collected fossils. I constructed clay representations of fossils I did not have and sketched out continental/ocean configurations for each period. I completed the colossal project before the day of the fair. Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.

At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, “What if the days were millions of years long?” After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not—at least not completely.

What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth—or at least at the same time—and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.

It didn’t work. Over the next couple of years, the conflict of order nagged me. No matter how I tried, I could not keep the matter out of mind. Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.

In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought—that science couldn’t be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.

That, Mr. Saletan, is not someone who has compartmentalized their creationism. It is someone for whom creationism is the overarching lens through which they see the world. Given how much one must give up to be a creationist (legitimacy, honors, awards, respect) do you really believe this is a small deal for these scientists? I suspect very much the opposite.

 

 

An unedited, likely heretical and certainly underinformed answer to Mike MacRae

Mike MacRae asked me on Twitter:

First off, I don’t accept a literal reading of the New Testament, I also read the New Testament as a document influenced by the culture and politics of its time. The interpretation of the New Testament was further influenced by politics (see: Arianism and Constantine). I don’t really worry that much about the “historical Jesus,” nor do I worry about the “historical Plato.” All of these seem to me to be side discussions. I also try to be non-parochial about my approach to religion. My Christianity, as I’ve noted elsewhere has been influenced by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Muhammad, Tagore, Confucius, Marx and Wilde (among others).

So, onto the question at hand. My definition of “quackery” is adapted from Mencken, who writes,

The agents of such quackeries gain their converts by the simple process of reducing the inordinately complex to the absurdly simple.  Unless a man is already equipped with a considerable knowledge of chemistry, bacteriology and physiology, no one can ever hope to make him understand what is meant by the term anaphylaxis, but any man, if only he be idiot enough, can grasp the whole theory of chiropractic in twenty minutes.

So I’m referring to a specific thing – in modern society we have to trust experts to explain incredibly complex systems. Quacks are people who just throw this all out of the window. They say, global warming? Nah man, that’s just the sun! Evolution? Nah man, that’s just God. That’s what I think is dumb and quacky and needs to be condemned. Okay Sean, but what about people who accept evolution by natural selection and say God guided the process. Why? We know about Mendelian genetics. We know about how natural selection and the environment produces gradual changes. Is our God so small he has to tinker with mundane things (Oh shit! I have to go make some minor adjustments so a giraffe can eat). I see no reason to add this belief other than to make God banal.

Anyhow, why is the Resurrection not quackery? My understanding is that it is a metaphysical one-off. Now, if some scientist developed a way to bring people back to life, and a bunch of Christians said, no, you aren’t bringing people back to life, God is doing that they would be quacks. I think religion concerns itself with metaphysical, not physical claims. So if you want to say that the Son of God, a metaphysical being, came back to life, that is fine. If you want to claim that he is what causes volcanoes to explode, you are a quack (this is my NOMA coming out). The Catholic Church says we have souls. I can’t disprove that with science. Ken Ham claims the Earth is 6,000 years old. I can disprove that with science (that’s why he relies on this weird historical science bullshit). Some (most) Christians say a divine being walked among us, was killed and was raised from the dead. Well, I think we can say that a human couldn’t do that. But Christians don’t claim a human did it. I don’t think you can prove it happened, and you can certainly use a Humian logic to say it’s pretty unlikely, but I don’t think you can disprove it. You can accept the scientific method and believe the resurrection. You can’t accept the scientific method and accept creation.

Biblical literalism is quackery because it does exactly what Mencken warns us about, it “reduc[es] the inordinately complex to the absurdly simple.” The Biblical literalist says anyone can open the Bible and read it and instantly understand it without any work or training or thinking. I worry that this way of reading the Bible is primarily concerned with what I call “weaponizing Christianity.” At the risk of vulgarizing my own position, I read the Bible to begin an investigation of deeper truths, not end one.That’s what separates me from Ham. Can I make the claim that this “true Christianity”? As Nietzsche remarked, “there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” I gave an example of how you weaponize Christianity in the Salon piece:

The fundamentalist is not interested in deeper truths, but rather weaponizing the Bible. A perfect example is women having authority in church. The verse fundamentalists cite to support this view is from, 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul tells the church of Corinth that women should be silent during the service. In many fundamentalist churches, this verse is used to deny women the right to become pastor, or even pray aloud during the service. Biblical scholar Ken Bailey notes that during this time in the Middle East, services were often held in classical Arabic, which women could not understand (most spoke a local dialect). Throughout the service they would begin to gossip, often so loudly that the minister would ask them to be silent. Paul, Bailey argues, was repeating this injunction in his letter. As Nye notes in the debate, Ham and other fundamentalists are rather selective with the verses they choose to interpret literally. The Rev. Cornel West put it bluntly, “Fundamentalists want to be fundamental about everything except, ‘love thy neighbor.’”

So, two answers. I think people who really wrestle with these questions deserve praise, it’s very clear Ham doesn’t. Ham and these guys read the Bible as a series of true or false, entirely testable propositions. I see the Bible as the beginning of deeper investigation into what it means to be human. I see religion as a humanism (As Bacon noted, ‘”If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”) I also think you can entirely accept science and the scientific method and believe in the Resurrection, because it’s not a claim about the natural world that is testable and repeatable. But if someone were to say, hey, we should ignore medicine because God can raise people from the dead. I would say that is quackery. That’s what Ham is asking us to do; he wants us to throw out biology because of the creation narrative.  But maybe I’m a quack.

 

Drew Miller misunderstands my argument

Drew Miller has a piece on Policymic about my piece on Salon (you can see my newer piece on Salon, essentially restating my position here). I think he misunderstands my argument and I want to correct it, and offer some points, but I also want to note that I looked at some of his work and found it enjoyable. So, yeah, this won’t be a rant (I know, I’m sorry).

He writes,

One common opinion is that meeting fundamentalists in debate only serves to strengthen their position; by giving them the platform of equal footing, the fundamentalist position is given the same weight as the litany of scientific fact proving otherwise. Richard DawkinsMark Joseph Stern, and Sean McElwee all make this argument.

Whenever I’m being lumped in with Dawkins, you know there might be a slight problem. My argument is in the same vein as Dawkins, but from a different angle. Dawkins said that Bill Nye does not represent him, nor the scientific community and should not debate Ham and give Ham scientific legitimacy. My argument is that Ham is not qualified to debate theology, does not represent the religious community and that the debate should not happen because Ham’s position should not be given religious legitimacy. As I’ve stated more recently, it is neither religion nor science, but rather it is bullshit.

I didn’t address this argument, but an even more powerful point is that Ham’s venture is hemorrhaging cash, and that by creating a new revenue stream for it, Nye is actively supporting the continued existence of the Creation Museum. That’s important because when children (children!) visit the museum which can now keep its doors open for another month or year, Nye won’t be there to disagree with them. Nye has brought up Ham’s public profile which may bolster efforts to get Creationism or ID back into schools, which would be a very, very destructive development.

Miller thinks engagement is the solution. I would encourage him to read the literature on cognitive dissonance (esp. Leon Festinger). This is part cult, part radical political movement and evolution is just a part of the iceberg. Reason simply isn’t going to win. And nor should it have to. We don’t engage the few people who still think interracial marriage is bad or that the earth is flat or that women are inferior. We don’t debate them because at a certain point we just move along. They can keep up or be marginalized. They’ll write angry Youtube comments, but for the most part, they are harmless. When they are on the national stage, they are very, very harmful.

Here’s a nasty fact. There are people out there who think women shouldn’t be allowed in the workforce. There are people who think Jewish people control the world. There are people who think the world will cease at the end of this year. There are people who think the government caused 9/11. We don’t debate them on the national stage, because at some point, you move on. Miller writes that,

As Staks Rorsh put it, ignoring ridiculous beliefs won’t make them go away. So while it may be a pain to actually take the time to explain why Noah’s Ark is utterly implausible, it’s a worthwhile task.

But at some point, that’s what we do. We don’t debate whether the Earth is flat, even though people believe it. We just let them marginalize themselves, because this simply isn’t a debatable issue. My dad always told me, “If you wrestle with a pig, all you get is muddy.”

A final note. Miller argues that,

Repressive systems do incredibly well when their adherents, whether willing or not, are prevented from conceiving of alternatives. How do the tyrants of Cuba and North Korea remain in power? By controlling the discussion.

This is a very bad argument for his case. Creationists do not live in a closed system. Had Bill Nye not come and discussed the issue, they would most certainly have been exposed, quite frequently to the alternative. Their children would hear the alternative in schools or see it on television. So this point is entirely irrelevant. If anything, Nye has allowed them more power to “control the discussion” by strengthening their organization.

Augustine literally predicted Ken Ham

I had this Augustine quote in my first draft, it got cut for being to verbose,

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

He might as well have added, “I’m looking at you Ken.”

 

Ken Ham and Bill Nye should not debate tonight

Co-written with Abigail Salvatore.

Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4, and it’s a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Ham’s young-earth creationism represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism. But these views aren’t actually inherent in Christianity — they’ve been imposed on the biblical text by politically motivated and theologically inept readers. The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness.

The vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals, followers of an offshoot of Protestantism. Protestantism is based on the premise that truth about God and his relationship with the world can be discovered by individuals, regardless of their level of education or social status. Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope), Protestantism today is still highly individualistic. In the United States, Protestantism has been mixed with the similarly individualistic American frontier mythos, fomenting broad anti-intellectualism.

Richard Hofstadter’s classic, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” perfectly summarizes the American distaste for intellectualism and how egalitarian sentiments became intertwined with religion. He and Walter Lippmann point to the first wave of opposition to Darwinian evolution theory, led by William Jennings Bryan, as the quintessential example of the convergence of anti-intellectualism, the egalitarian spirit and religion. Bryan worried about the conflation of Darwinian evolution theory and capitalist economics that allowed elites to declare themselves superior to lower classes. He felt that the teaching of evolution challenged popular democracy: “What right have the evolutionists — a relatively small percentage of the population — to teach at public expense a so-called scientific interpretation of the Bible when orthodox Christians are not permitted to teach an orthodox interpretation of the Bible?” He notes further, “The one beauty of the word of God, is that it does not take an expert to understand it.”

This American distrust of experts isn’t confined to religion. It explains the popularity of books like “Wrong” by David Freedman (a book that purports  to show “why experts are wrong”) that take those snobbish “experts” down a peg.  The delightfully cynical H.L. Mencken writes,

The agents of such quackeries gain their converts by the simple process of reducing the inordinately complex to the absurdly simple.  Unless a man is already equipped with a considerable knowledge of chemistry, bacteriology and physiology, no one can ever hope to make him understand what is meant by the term anaphylaxis, but any man, if only he be idiot enough, can grasp the whole theory of chiropractic in twenty minutes.

Thus, an American need not understand economics to challenge Keynes, nor possess a PhD to question climate change, nor to have read Darwin to declare his entire book a fraud. One need not read journals, for Gladwell suffices, and Jenny McCarthy’s personal anecdotes trump the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences.

The irony of modern American Christian right-wing fundamentalism is that, for all its talk of tradition, it is a radically new way to read the Bible. The strict constructionist, or literal fundamentalist, biblical method of interpretation was invented in the 19th century. America at this time experienced rapid social change that played a key role in creating the fundamentalism that now lies at the core of the religious right. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to the idea that technological progress is the way forward. American Protestants worried that all this science would encroach on their religious beliefs, so they turned to the Bible as the source of all knowledge — scientific and spiritual. During a time when Darwin’s followers were trying to explain everything in terms of evolutionary theory, American Protestants refused to look for truth outside their interpretation of Scripture.

In “Fundamentalism and American Culture,” George Marsden describes fundamentalism as “essentially the extreme and agonized defense of a dying way of life.” The American Protestant response to the Industrial Revolution was engendered by the fear that a small cabal of experts would dictate to Americans how to live their lives and that science would somehow replace their religion. In truth, the Christian tradition provides little support for the fundamentalist doctrines that arose during this period. Augustine believed that science and religion need not be in competition, and the Catholic Church has long held that evolution does not contradict the Church’s teachings. Fundamentalists who deny climate change and evolution have simply read their simplistic understanding of science into biblical texts.

Because the “fundamentalist problem” is not rooted in religion, the answer can’t be found in anti-theism, the preferred response of commentators like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Rather, American Protestants must learn to read the Bible as a religious text rather than a series of logical premises to be proven. The irony of debates like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham is that they pit two fundamentalist readers against each other. The fundamentalist Christian and the atheist both read the Bible as a series of falsifiable propositions — what Terry Eagleton calls the “Yeti” theory of belief. Disproving the creation narrative should strike any theologian as absurd — the way a literature professor would react if a student claimed to have “disproven” “Sons and Lovers.”

Religious conflicts can serve to obfuscate base political or economic motives. Christianity was used to justify slavery in the South, but it’s doubtful that without the Bible, Southerners would have freed their slaves (it may be worth noting that science was also used to justify racism, most famously documented in Stephen Jay Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man”).

In the same way that racism was read into the Bible, modern American Protestant positions, like climate change denialism and anti-evolutionary thinking, are being imposed on Scripture. The religious justification for denying climate change is tenuous, while the economic justification, for someone worried about keeping their job or filling up their tank, is not. Americans whose economic interests rely heavily on fossil-fuel-intensive industries aren’t keen to lower their standard of living by abandoning coal.

The upcoming Nye/Ham debate, and other debates like it, are merely reiterations of the classic debates between Adams and Jackson, Burke and Paine, Lippmann and Chomsky: the philosopher-king vs. the democrat. By singling out religion as the genesis of these anti-intellectual outbursts, the New Atheist movement only takes us away from the solution: divorcing religion and science. By claiming that religion needs to be abolished, the New Atheist movement justifies the worst fears of the religious. When a religious person makes a political assertion or an economic argument or a claim about science, it is exactly that: a disprovable assertion. Within religious circles, fundamentalists must be challenged (with appropriate love) for manipulating true religion.

The religious right’s stance on climate change, economics and evolution is not informed by their religious beliefs. Rather, these political and economic views are imposed on Scripture, which is often read without theological rigor. It is not religion that is the problem, but rather the use of religion as an ideological weapon. But to respond by using science as a weapon is equally problematic.

The best way to address the problem is to confront the underlying political and economic concerns that are obscured by religious dogma, rather than attacking the religion directly. Our problems require an entirely new political and economic paradigm, one that rests on understanding and empathetic action between people of all faiths. Religious reformers, concerned environmentalists, scientists and economists must work together toward a more sustainable future. Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we. He should therefore ally himself with sane religious leaders, rather than debate fundamentalists.

Originally published on Salon.