Diplomacy or Confrontation?

In a post at Scientific American, editor John Rennie addresses comments in a book review in the Sunday New York Times by Judith Shulevitz. Apparently, in the review, Ms. Shulevitz makes the argument that “evolutionary science embodies a philosophical system, secular materialism, and that the biological community does not recognize or care how much its advocacy of this philosophy clashes with the religious philosophies embedded in society. Hence, the scientists have themselves to blame for the anti-evolution backlash.”

Michael Ruse, one of the authors of a book being reviewed appears to support Schulevitz’s position. In a reference to the general stridency of Richard Dawkins (among others), Ruse says “while I would defend to the death Dawkins' right to say what he thinks, I do think that his stridency makes life very difficult for those of us who are trying to combat ID etc. I do not ask him to be a Christian, but I think if he would take a little time to see if there is some place for him and moderate Christians to fight the evils in the US today.”

I’ve run into this argument before that somehow there are “good Christians” and “bad Christians” and we should respect their beliefs and be polite so that an alliance between secularists and “good Christians” can be formed to fight the “bad Christians.”

I guess the “good Christians” are the clergy that signed The Clergy Letter supporting evolution and those “religious scientists” I keep hearing about and the “bad Christians” are those evil fundamentalists that want to push the teaching of Creationism into the public schools.

I have a number of issues with this philosophy. The first problem is that the meme that requires one, as a matter of civility, to respect religious beliefs is one of the most effective defenses ever devised. How can one choose when one only hears one side of the story?

This is called stacking the deck. It starts with the fiction that there is something moral about attending church and Sunday school where “truths” can be pounded into your head along with threats about what will happen to you if you don’t accept the “truths.”

But heaven forbid some school teacher or professor should espouse the opposite position, a position with a lot more evidence going for it, that religion is simply superstition in a fancy wrapping and the howls of indignation are enough to wake the dead.

If religion really has “timeless truths” to convey, then it should be able to sluff off questions, criticism and even ridicule like water off a duck's back. So what’s the problem? Let the skeptics and non-believers do their worst. Won’t they whither under the light of your “timeless truths?”

My second problem is that no defense ever won a war. That’s one thing the fundamentalists understand. They feel that their beliefs are under attack by what they see as the inexorable march of secularism and they’re fighting back. So to that extent I agree with Shulevitz and Ruse, but that’s no reason to let up on the attack. As a matter of fact, it’s a reason to step it up and convert what has essentially been an inadvertent assault upon religion into a purposeful and focused one.

So what about the idea of “live and let live?” Why does it have to be confrontational? Let the religious do their thing while us secularist heathens (is that an oxymoron?) do our thing and we can sort of ignore the fact that each other exists.

I used to think that could work but now I’m not so sure. Here’s the problem. I’m secure in my acceptance of a secular world view. I’m not threatened by the fact that others need religious doctrine nor do I feel any particular need to convert them to my way of thinking.

However can all religious folks, and all Christians in particular, say the same thing? Doesn’t Christianity require them to go preach “the word?” Can’t we trace the hostility of some Christians to things like evolution, homosexuality and abortion access to some level of insecurity? Somehow the very existence of different beliefs seems to be interpreted as an attack upon their faith and disagreement becomes equated to persecution.

Clearly this doesn’t apply to everyone but it appears to apply to too many for any “live and let live” strategy to work for very long. Before you know it we’ll be faced with another Scopes Trial or another Dover.

That being the case I now tend to look at “live and let live” as just allowing the enemy time to gear up for a new attack. Religion can’t seem to accept “live and let live.” If they’re not pushing creationism they’re fighting a woman’s reproductive freedom, trying to keep homosexual couples from marrying or trying to outlaw stem cell research. That isn’t “live and let live;” that’s trying to force your religious viewpoints on everyone else.

So you’ll excuse me if I don’t choose to respect your superstition when a) you’re trying to force it on me and b) you tell me I’m going to be toasted in a lake of fire after I die because I didn’t buy into your myths and fables.