The idea that evolution is a settled issue is a common misconception, and promotes a dogmatic scientism.

Evolution is settled in the same sense that the earth going around the sun is settled. It’s not “dogmatic” or “scientistic” to point this out. Rather, those who deny evolution usually do so because it contradicts some belief they have accepted for dogmatic rather than rational reasons, such as religious faith.

Darwinism as understood today is dehumanizing and anti-life, because it reduces life and its evolution to a mechancal process, as well as reducing it to a competitive rather than cooperative one.

Whenever I hear someone say “Darwinism” I know there’s going to be a load of BS to follow, and Meese surely didn’t disappoint. There is nothing “dehumanizing” about describing things in terms of mechanical processes, unless you automatically (and dogmatically) assume at the outset that “human” and “physical” are mutually exclusive. They are not, and the theory of evolution actually goes a ways in showing this. The claim that we evolved by a natural process is not dehumanizing.

Also, “darwinism” is NOT “reducing [life] to a competitive rather than cooperative” process. This misleading false dichotomy is common amongst those who have never really bothered to understand the theory. Competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Natural selection has plenty of room for both. Darwin states this explicitly on pg. 62 of the Origin, where he says that he means “competition” in a broad, figurative sense which includes interdependence of one being upon another. Meese here has betrayed some rather gross ignorance when it comes to evolution.

These issues are important to many Greens, not just religious people. If there is a spiritual, creative aspect to life, not just a mechanical one, then this aspect must be extended to all life and all being, not just to humans who see themselves as special and apart.

“Spiritual/Creative” vs. “Mechanical” is a false dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest Meese read up on some recent developments in cognitive science, especially the work of Douglas Hofstadter.

In my opinion, we can’t reduce living beings to mechanical objects on the one hand, and on the other hand value them as sacred, mysterious and inherently valuable.

That’s not just Meese’s opinion. It’s an uncritically accepted belief that one encounters very often: Providing a physical, natural explanation of things somehow “de-values” them. This is an unwarranted assumption. It’s based on the old dogma that, without religion (which Meese calls “spirituality”) your life has no meaning. It’s nonsense.

We know some spiritual things by means of experiences that aren’t easily testable by empirical science, though some kinds of science substantiate these experiences (such as the evidence that prayer works, evidence for ESP, etc. etc.).

Nonsense. Tests of ESP, prayer, etc. have repeatedly found that there is no evidence that they work. But the true believers (such as Meese) just ignore this. This is because they WANT to believe these things, not because there is any rational reason to think they are true. Quite the opposite, there is considerable scientific evidence to show that prayer, psychic powers, etc have no effect at all.

Comments like Meese’s are exactly why I side with DuWayne Brayton over Mooney on issues like this. People who believe in these kinds of things really are ignoring the evidence and grossly distorting the science in order to bolster their own wishful thinking. Meese’s “spirituality” is, in fact, directly in conflict with the scientific evidence, and rests on a gross misunderstanding of the relevant theories. There is no need to “accommodate” to his views any more than there is a need to “accommodate” to creationists or global warming deniers.

He is flatly, demonstrably wrong.

I do not intend accommodationist to mean anything more or less than what it means. Frankly, if you can let me know what you prefer, I would be happy to obglige – but quite honestly, I am generally inclined to use accommodationist, as I have since I actually accepted it as a reasonable descriptive for the views I used to hold.

And I would also have to say that regardless of who’s motives you are making assumptions about, you’re still making them. I don’t know very many atheists who make the sorts of fundamental absolute statements that Dobson and Robertson make on a daily basis – this is certainly not something I have seen from prominent “new atheists.”

When I am criticizing theism, I am not telling people they can or cannot believe something they obviously believe. I am merely pointing out the precariousness of their fundamental assumptions. And I honestly don’t care whether they are making claims that conflict with science or not – for me that’s largely irrelevant – as I suspect it is for a lot of the atheists you’re criticizing. Because while I think that your framing of it is rather provocative, I for one, am very interested in seeing society become less religious.

No, it’s not a Crusade and for my own part, I am only interested in a small segment of the religious community – though I’m not going to shed a tear if my rhetoric convinces other theists to let go their theism. But I understand and support those who take it much further. Supernatural belief is not a good thing. At best, magical thinking is neutral – doesn’t cause problems, but also doesn’t improve anything. In general though, it causes a whole lot of problems…

I haven’t made any assumptions about your motives. You might have noticed that I was responding to a different comment if you had bothered to read my post.

And whether you mean it or not, the word accommodationist is almost always used as as an insult intended to denigrate the character or intelligence of an opponent.

One direct reply was fairly interesting and surprising, considering that it came from a person, Eric Meese, whom I had known in an entirely different, political context.

The idea that evolution is a settled issue is a common misconception, and promotes a dogmatic scientism. Darwinism as understood today is dehumanizing and anti-life, because it reduces life and its evolution to a mechancal process, as well as reducing it to a competitive rather than cooperative one. These issues are important to many Greens, not just religious people. If there is a spiritual, creative aspect to life, not just a mechanical one, then this aspect must be extended to all life and all being, not just to humans who see themselves as special and apart. In my opinion, we can’t reduce living beings to mechanical objects on the one hand, and on the other hand value them as sacred, mysterious and inherently valuable. We know some spiritual things by means of experiences that aren’t easily testable by empirical science, though some kinds of science substantiate these experiences (such as the evidence that prayer works, evidence for ESP, etc. etc.).

. This was followed by several apt references to consiliance , both the concept and Wilson’s book, as well as a paragraph of epigenetics, now know to all acquired traits to be inherited.

Meese referred me to a paper he had written earlier, focusing on consciousness and the various mean of acquiring knowledge.

While I can’t say that I agree with all of this, there is a lot we don’t know and that is ample reason to resist dogmatism of any kind.

What it sounds like is a lot of personal issues you’re working out, a therapeutic matter, rather than an actual strategy for combating nonsense in the schools.

I’m not advocating my position as a method for combating nonsense in public schools. Indeed I accept that my approach runs square into conflict with those who are, just as those who are trying to combat nonsense in public schools are using methods that conflict with my own very different goals. While I am quite supportive of efforts to combat nonsense in schools, I am dealing with something else entirely.

And you peg right into it – I have a lot of personal issues I have worked out, with a great many more to deal with yet – I am quite open about having rather serious neurological issues and addiction . The thing is that as much as my ego might appreciate me being somehow unique in this, I am not. My experience with religion is certainly not the same as everyone elses, but it is also far from uncommon (see Ex-Christian.net for example – but keep in mind that is a safe place for people who have been abused by religion, not a debate forum).

I am more interested in helping people who are in the same position that I spent most of my life in. I could care less about the fundamentalists or the moderates who are at peace with their faith – except insofar as the fundies try to legislate their faith. I could care less about people who are comfortable with the precarious epistemological positioning that accepting certain aspects of a revealed religion, while throwing other aspects away. I am only concerned about helping people like me, finally find peace after faith.

So even while I accept the necessity of some people reconciling their faith with reality to some degree or another, the most effective way for me to help people like me, is to challenge those reconciliations. Because that is where a lot of people are stuck and I happen to know quite intimately what that place is like and I have experience with coming out the other side.

Jinchi -

This obsession about whether we should be “accommodationist” or not is both misguided and insulting. Worse-yet it inherently embraces the authority of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson to decide who is truly religious is and who is not.

No it doesn’t. You’re making an awful lot of assumptions about my motives – motives which would be quite clear if you actually bothered to read my post.