The Rift Between Atheists and Christians

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from The @Swamidass Model. What is "seeking peace"?:

@AndyWalsh

We’ve welcomed atheists on the forum. This is intentional, because atheists are not usually an more evil than Christians. Often they are friendly, and we find common values. We want to come to peace with atheists too.

This is the area which interests me the most. I would like to hear more about where you specifically see a lack of peace with atheists (and ‘nones’, the areligious, and anyone else who does not claim any particular religious beliefs or any identity defined with respect to traditional religion or beliefs) and how Peaceful Science can address those points of departure. I’m also curious how you balance coming to that peace with the part of following Jesus that involves calling others to follow him as well. I don’t think the two are exactly at odds; at the same time, any attempt to call someone else to a different belief can be perceived as confrontational. Of course, I am happy to hear the perspectives of other forum members on these questions as well.

This is a great question @AndyWalsh, and deserves its own thread.

First, the problem. Christians often demonize atheists. Atheists often demonize Christians. The two communities are at odds. That much should be obvious. One of the biggest surprises I had in science was discovering that the vast majority of atheists were “friendly”, and not precisely anti-religious. They were often surprised to find a Christian that was “friendly” and “intelligent.” The surprise was mutual. How did we get here? I think there has been a great deal of injury and fear on all sides.

The way I see it, Peaceful Science is seeking peace in the Creation Wars. Atheists are part of the Creation Wars too. There have been poor ambassadors of science (Dawkins), but also really admirable peacemakers (Eugenia Scott). Part of what have to do is seek peace with atheists too, as far as we can without loosing our integrity. We will still disagree at the end of the day on some things, but we can still serve the common good together if we find better paths to peace.

Second, the solution. I think this tension is resolved with honesty and empathy. We are to be very empathetic to those outside our community, but also honest with what we think. One example of how this plays out is this quote from a while back:

@swamidass

Believer: no evidence therefore God
non-Believer: no evidence therefore no God

…

I don’t believe in God because of a scientific argument, but science does not have a monopoly on reason and evidence. If you want public evidence, it’s there (see Peace Be With You).

The reason we are different…is not precisely about public evidence or reason, it is more about private evidence. I’ve seen something you have not yet seen. I’ve encountered a living reality of the world that you have not. If you saw it too, you might believe in God too. If I had never seen it, I might be an atheist too. The difference in us is this.

It is not that we think different about science, use different logical rules, or process evidence in a different ways. I just saw something you have yet to see.

I can treat atheists respectfully, honoring their path away from man-made religion, while at the same time confessing my experience with Jesus. There need not be a conflict. Of course, atheists can and will put forward an honest account of their view of the world too. There is a give and take, a back and forth. We don’t really have to try and change one another.

Instead, we work hard to understand and be understood. In that truthful exchange between fellow travelers, both can walk away changed in unexpected ways. That is what I aim for here at Peaceful Science. I know that this seems unlikely, but I see a hidden order that is beginning to emerge. This sort of community can become reality.

[AndyWalsh]

Thank you for these thoughts and elaborations.

My own experience is that my friends and colleagues from all stages of my education and career who have different religious beliefs from mine, including none at all, are universally respectful and peaceful regarding my beliefs. Sadly, I cannot say the same for all of my friends and colleagues who share my religious beliefs, when it comes to my scientific and nerdy passions.

@swamidass

There have been poor ambassadors of science (Dawkins), but also really admirable peacemakers (Eugenia Scott).

Indeed, which is why I think more amplification should be given to the peacemakers. To that end, I have appreciated how Sean B. Carroll has made efforts to extend an olive branch to believers in his writing on evolution. Bill Nye has also made some gestures in that direction; based on some of his comments, he may benefit from some more personal interaction with believers. Jonathan Marks had some interesting discussion of how religious beliefs can be respected in a pluralistic setting in What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, alongside a scientific defense of human distinctiveness. I’m not sure how mainstream of a voice he is. Rachel Gross, Science Editor at Smithsonian Magazine has a wide interest in positive science/religion interaction (e.g. How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution | Science | Smithsonian Magazine). To name just a few.