At Point of Inquiry, Communicating about Science & Religion

In this week's Point of Inquiry podcast, host DJ Grothe and I share a wide ranging discussion about the relationship between science and religion in the United States and the impact of the New Atheist movement. Much of the discussion revolves around the themes that I explored in the presentation at the AAAS panel on "Communicating Science in a Religious America."

From a description for the show:

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled "Communicating Science in a Religious America." He details his ideas for the most effective strategies to engage the public about science issues, and debates whether the warfare metaphor of science versus religion undermines science education, and contrasts the approaches of leading scientists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. Nisbet also explores why it might be advantageous for secularist activists to re-prioritize when it comes to working in coalition with the religious around certain issues of concern to the science-education community.

In the presentation at AAAS and in the Point of Inquiry interview, I use a metaphor first coined by the journalist Andrew Revkin in describing the communication dynamics of climate change, but as I explain the metaphor can also be applied in understanding the influence of the New Atheist movement.

In this case, when it comes to communicating about science and religion, there is a vast invisible middle of perspectives emanating from both atheist and religious scientists, religious leaders and various traditions, as well as organizations such as the National Academies or AAAS. This perspective--that focuses on the many shared common values and goals between science and religion--rarely if ever gets prominently heard.

Instead, on the bell curve of perspectives, by far the loudest and most visible messages originate from the extreme tail ends of the spectrum. On the one end you have religious fundamentalists who claim that science undermines moral values and therefore should be opposed and at the other tail end of the distribution you have the New Atheists who claim that science undermines the validity of religion or even respect for religion.

The result is polarization and a constant drumbeat of conflict in news coverage. In fact, in the analysis I presented at AAAS looking at close to thirty years of news coverage of the relationship between science and religion in the national press, the results show that the major spikes in attention overwhelmingly occur around creationism court cases and that within this coverage, a dominant lead metaphor for these stories is one of warfare.

As you will hear at the end of the Point of Inquiry program, I talk about how the New Atheist movement confronts atheists and secular humanists with some hard choices. In fact, we may now be at a crossroads in the movement.

-->Do we embrace the Dawkins model, further intensifying the beliefs of people who already agree with us, but otherwise only contributing to polarization in society? In other words, just one more loud voice in the argument culture.

-->Or do we pursue the EO Wilson and Carl Sagan model, understanding that we may always have different worldviews from other Americans, but that we otherwise share far more in common in terms of many core values and goals?

There's another even more central question: how long will it be until we realize that in emphasizing these common shared values that we can achieve real social progress, tackling major issues such as education, climate change, poverty, income inequality, and/or the weaknesses in our electoral and democratic system?

As I argue in the interview, by working with a diversity of groups on these latter problems while also building up new forms of cross-cutting community interactions, secular humanists may actually best achieve their goal of promoting a secular America.

In the end, the choice boils down to this: Do we want more of the same in terms of identity politics and polarization or do we want to come together with a plurality of groups in society to work for real change that will make a difference.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Brain study finds circuits that may help you keep your cool

Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.

Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP/ Getty Images
Mind & Brain

MIT News

The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.

Keep reading Show less

34 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
  • The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
  • According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Keep reading Show less

How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system

When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.

Top Video Splash
  • When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
  • When this happens in the pharmaceutical world, certain companies stay at the top of the ladder, through broadly-protected patents, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
  • Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation — "tweaks" — the same as product invention.