Politics
Open Forum Friday: Are accomodationists dragging us down?
This Week’s Topic
Ever since the resurgence of outspoken atheists, led by the so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris and others, an oft-repeated refrain has been that the New Atheists are somehow hurting atheism’s common cause (which at a minimum is greater acceptance of atheists and atheism).
This new breed of atheists, who don’t seem that much different from an earlier breed of atheists to me, are called loud, shrill, and ignorant of theology. They tear down grotesque charactictures of what most religious people really believe; taking extreme fundamentalist, literal interpretations as the norm. Those damn New Atheists alienate and frighten religious moderates into supporting more conservative agendas, so accomodationists argue. Instead, we should be nicer and try to understand the rich intellectual history of religious belief and try to understand what benefit people derive from their religious belief.
So it goes.
Anyone who has been around politics for a while though recognizes the debate. It’s not an uncommon one and basically boils down to the proper role of extremist rhetoric in political discourse. Moderates are afraid that extremists will sabotage collective efforts toward progress and extremists are afraid that moderates won’t push the agenda forward enough to make any meaningful difference. What many fail to realize though is that both camps have their role to play and can’t exist without the other.
That’s where the Overton Window comes in. The Overton Window is a conceptual device first created by Joe Overton, former Vice President of the free-market loving think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Overton believed that public opinion on any given topic laid within a window ranging from what was current policy to the unthinkable. Toward the middle was the sensible and what was just beyond sensible but still acceptable. The trick was in crafting extremist rhetoric that was beyond the current outer fringe, while excluding the status quo. That makes positions, once considered extreme on their own, actually seem acceptable. Keep shifting that window and pretty soon you’ve remade the political landscape into something unrecognizable from what it was just a few years ago.
Do you recognize the tactic? You should. It’s what the right wing has used to tremendous success, especially since the early 1990s. If you have Rush Limbaugh and other right wing clowns saying outrageous things daily then pretty soon things that may have sounded extreme in the past, say, things like torture or curtailing civil liberties, become the new norm.
So when people like Madeline Bunting or Greg Epstein worry themselves over the New Atheists and bandy about nonsensical terms like “atheist fundamentalist” I have a tendency to just shake my head and roll my eyes. While people like PZ or Dawkins may occasionally say things that cause me to cringe in anticipation of the negative reaction they’ll provoke, they’re playing their part. They’re advancing the Overton Window, and instead of kvetching so much the role of the moderate should be to make sure that what we really want is played up as the sane and sensible solution while excluding the old status quo.
But does it always work? No. It’s only a model after all, and not reality. Obviously for the right wing their extremist rhetoric had become so divorced from reality, so at odds with what people were actually experiencing, that it backfired on them in the 2006 and 2008 elections. That’s one way the Overton Window can fail as a tactic.
There’s another, less talked about, way it can fail though. Remember, for the Overton Window to be successful, you have to both redefine the previously unthinkable as acceptable while excluding the status quo. If you aren’t successful in either casting the status quo as unacceptable or, better yet, eliminating talk of it from public discourse altogether, then the Window essentially gets jammed and no progress is made.
And that’s what Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and others have been accusing groups such as the NCSE of doing lately. While I encourage you to read what everyone is saying for yourself, the gist of it is that Eugenie Scott and the NCSE have been criticized for not taking a positive stance on the incompatibility of religion and science (particularly evolution since the NCSE’s purpose is to defend the teaching of evolution). However, lately, so Coyne et. al. argue, the NCSE has been going beyond that position of neutrality and has been actively publishing and selling materials that show how science can be reconciled with religion. And it’s not just the NCSE either. The National Academy of Sciences is doing it too.
Are groups like the NCSE being too nice to theists? Are they now jamming up the Overton Window and preventing progress (which I think has to be defined as public acceptance of science)? Or are they merely making the previously unacceptable acceptable by playing it as the reasonable alternative to the “scientific extremists” who believe there can be no reconciliation between science and religion?
For my own part, I think both accomodationists and nonaccomodationists are playing their respective roles in advancing the Overton Window just fine. As an atheist, and metaphysical naturalist who doesn’t see science and religion as reconcilable I am a little discomforted by the language the NCSE is employing here, but then I’m not their audience. The moderate religious believer is, and anything they can do to get religious believers to accept science then I’m all for it. Just don’t expect me to be happy about it.
So what do you think? Are the accomodationists dragging us down?
Open Forum Friday Ground Rules
- Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
- We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
- Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
- If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
- This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: This member has moved on from FFW for other pursuits. Read more from this author
The Open Forum Friday: Are accomodationists dragging us down? by l, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tags: Discussion
9 comments for “Open Forum Friday: Are accomodationists dragging us down?”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
I agree that the NCSE is going out of its way to accomodate theists. A Faith Project director? At the National Center for Science Education? That’s a little much. Is he going to be analyzing consecrated hosts to look for the DNA of Jesus or something?
I’m being snarky, I know. But there’s a difference between being nice and being accomodating. There are plenty of people I interact with on a daily basis who are pretty darn Christian. They know I’m an atheist and I know they are not. Sometimes we even talk about church, the bible, and the other day one Christian friend told me how funny it was when we crashed the News-Sentinel poll. (Although, in case you weren’t following, we really can’t take credit.)
I’m friendly and nice because otherwise, I know that if I freeze him out when he talks about something that’s obviously a big part of his life, he’s going to shut me out, and then not listen when I talk about my beliefs.
I can see Overton’s point. If moderate but devout Christians (for example) experience someone openly rejecting and mocking the beliefs they hold sacred, they’ll see that this person isn’t swallowed up by the earth and sent immediately to hell. And although this won’t be necessarily sway them to reject those beliefs, too, it will leave them open to the possibility that there is an alternate viewpoint.
However, I don’t want to be that person. I want to be someone to whom others feel they can talk about anything, and when I’m with friends, they don’t feel the needs to tiptoe around anything that has anything to do with religion and theism, for fear of setting me off on a tirade. I think that this would pigeonhole me and force me to play a role as Atheist Boy rather than just as Andy. Being an atheist is only a part of who I am.
I think we absolutely should not be accommodating. If we tiptoe around our beliefs, we reinforce the stereotype that atheism is something to be ashamed of. We needn’t be rude to do that. Consider Christopher Hitchens: He is willing to debate anyone and is quite firm about his views, but he never raises his voice or engages in name-calling. His example makes life a little easier for all of us. We should, in turn, make it easier for other skeptics to come out of the closet. That’s one reason I think crashing polls is a good idea.
@littlejohn Do you think there is a role for a more accomodationist position? Or do you think any and all accomodation drags down the collective effort?
What the Overton Window describes is the way that extremist and accomodationist/moderate rhetoric work together to advance public opinion on a given topic; i.e. they need each other.
For the record, if I’m not making it clear, I’m not advocating the adoption of one or the other but rather making an appeal for everyone to understand the dynamic. Just as I don’t think PZ or Dawkins hurt the overall cause, neither do I think the attempts by the NCSE et. al. to make peace with moderate theists are detrimental. They play to two different audiences.
Littlejohn,
I agree. I think that this highlights the difference between “nice” and “accommodating.” Being nice and friendly to theists isn’t the same as fitting the wishes of that population.
I fear that a lot of times, our vehemence about a relevant subject comes across as rude. And while that’s not really our problem, I think we do have a responsibility (if we want to maintain any amount of atheist outreach) to realize that and try to correct. There has to be a way to avoid eliciting that reactionary response in theists while maintaining a position that doesn’t compromise our stance.
@Andy Welfle That’s the big question isn’t it? Has the NCSE gone too far? Are they no longer a moderating influence but actively retarding progress? I’m not sure. I don’t think so, but I choked on the same phrase you did. “Faith Project”. That’s a hard thing for me to accept in a science advocacy organization.
Personally I think accommodationists (and for that matter antidisestablishmentarians) make baby jesus cry… and kick they puppies.
In practice, there are many religious people who accept common descent and natural selection. It is humbling and even new agey to say we are all related.
The important fact is that evolution is based on evidence but hey it is human to want to share in a vision such as we all share the huge universe and now relatives and if that causes one to loose their ego in a moment of appreciation then so be it. Now that is a religion I could sign up for! Ok maybe we shouldn’t use the word relgion for what I was implying but why do today’s fundies screw that up so bad? They keep their gods small, petty, vindictive and cannot accept any science.
I think it would be very unwise to say NCSE is moving in the wrong direction. They may be slightly over accommodating. They have done very well in the legal battles. Read Judge Jones summary of the Dover trial.
NCSE and others should focus on the facts and methods of science the most. It doesn’t hurt to say some religions are compatible with evolution and have religious scientists speak.
I think it is time that NCSE should be more inviting to the non-religious types too such as Coyne and Myers. The new atheists may be helping here. You can see an interesting talk with Laurence Krauss a (seductive style of science) and Richard Dawkins (bold about religion) but despite what the press says he is not foaming at the mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLctxRf7duU
Also, I have many religious people in my family and like Andy W said I don’t want to cut off communication with them over theology.
I appreciate the analysis of how the Overton strategy can fail, but I think there’s a bit of a false equivalence there. Specifically, this:
Obviously for the right wing their extremist rhetoric had become so divorced from reality, so at odds with what people were actually experiencing, that it backfired on them in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
The difference, of course, is that we happen to be correct, and actually have reality on our side. (Unless the Disco Institute goes out and buys a chemistry set tomorrow, and actually discovers something that supports their position.) And neither Dawkins, PZ, nor any of the other big names are, as far as I know, discounting the positive social and emotional aspects of religion that people are actually experiencing; Harris even writes about the neurological basis of some of it.
So it’s hard to see how the Overton strategy can fail that way for us, unless people are fed lies about what we’re actually saying.
@Butter:
They don’t have to be fed lies to have an emotional reaction. But that’s not our problem.
I used the New Atheists an example of what people perceive as extreme or unthinkable. I do have some disagreements with Dawkins and Harris, and sometimes PZ does make me cringe, but for the most part I wholly approve of their message. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I then presented the current controversy over the NCSE’s accomodationist outreach to illustrate the other end of the Overton Window. Even if the NCSE having a “Faith Project” causes my stomach to do the backflip, I don’t see it as big a deal as Coyne and PZ. In other words, I think they’re just fulfilling a moderating role by presenting an alternative to theists that is closer to our ideal.