The Fight of the Century: Science, Religion, Atheism and God

"In today's polarized world, the conflict between atheism and religion is shaping up to be the fight of the century." So whose side are you going to be on? Are you sure? David Sloan Wilson poses this question in his blog "Evolution for Everyone," recently moved from the Huffington Post to ScienceBlogs. He believes the scientific discourse here will be a bit better than what he got at the HuffPost. I hope so, because the science/religion debate he is tackling has the potential to be both fascinating and deeply frustrating. Kind of like the answer to this first question. Although the recent vocal champions of atheism like Dawkins and Hitchens would like to think that they have the sole claim to reason and science (and, by extension, a rational person should be on their side), their absolute certainty is a bit suspect. I dare say — a bit fundamentalist. As Wilson points out, the simplistic notion that all religion is just dogma and ignorance is naïve, if not plain arrogant. And given much of the recent work in the emerging field of evolutionary religious studies, it seems more and more probable that science (particularly evolution) may give us valid reasons to think that religion is not just what Dawkins calls "a great cop out." The debate is complicated, to say the least. The new atheists have pushed powerful and much-needed criticisms of religion into the public arena, and their voices should in no way be hindered. The more discussion the better. However, as participants in this discussion, they should be held to the same standard of accountability and accuracy that they denounce their religious opponents for lacking. And so far, they have not lived up to this standard — hence the criticism they have received from scientists and theologians alike. Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist and widely influential science writer, but he cannot use his science background as a shield or a pedestal. And perhaps he should hesitate to equate atheism with reason, given statements from people like Hitchens, who has said of religious people: "We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don't want to. I don't want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders and rapists and torturers and child abusers. It's them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It's a duty and a responsibility to defeat them." It's hard to see where this type of "us-or-them" mentality differs from that of a religious fanatic. Or how it is remotely scientific or rational. Intolerance and prejudice can be found on all sides of the debate, and it is a difficult task to pick out the bits of insight, wisdom, and critical thinking from the rest. But it's by no means impossible. A whole slew of recent books covering all different angles of science/religion debate give us a wealth of information to choose from: The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, The Case for God by Karen Armstrong, Reason, Faith and Revolution by Terry Eagleton, and to a certain extent, Unscientific America by Chris Mooney. In the next few blog posts I'll try to go through some of the arguments and theories presented in these books to see what turns up. I'll also return to more of David Sloan Wilson's work in the evolutionary study of religion, because his ideas overlap with much of my interest in the intersection of science and morality. Let the debate begin.