Instead, you need the sophistry to make it sound like something less obviously pro-religion to your atheist or secular allies. For instance, you could try to make a case that pretty much anything, even playing golf, could be a “way of knowing”.

Hmm, now that I’ve put it this way, I am actually seeing some possible ethical issues here… If you suggest to one group that religion is like science, and to another that it’s like watching Buffy, you’re not entirely being honest to at least one of these groups.

Indeed, there’s room for both informal discussion and more academic, philosophical arguments. I have to say, though, that when reading stuff on a site called “scienceblogs”, I do have slightly higher expectations than talking to a random person on the street.

On the other hand, calling academics like theologians on using the everyday meaning to give themselves wiggle room when speaking academically or trying to reason objectively–that’s absolutely necessary. We just need to know which we’re doing at any given time. There’s room for both.

There’s also the factor that there are two issues involved: education about evolution and science in general on the one hand, and the push back against religion on the other. Not everybody who supports the former will support the latter as well, which may be a serious difference of opinion – and clearly, that’s the case here. And that’s fine. People can be allies on one issue, and still be having discussions about an issue they don’t agree on. And so they should. Clearly, the NCSE and its allies aren’t planning to stop talking publicly about how they think religion is a way of knowing. Why should we (the people who also want to oppose the authority of religion) stop talking about how we think religion is totally unreliable as a way of discovering knowledge?

Admittedly, the two positions may not be mutually exclusive: we may grant that religion is a way of knowing, but it just so happens to be a useless way of knowing. Maybe that’s what the NCSE people secretly think? But out of strategic considerations, they just tend to leave the last bit out? Then of course this would become a discussion about the ethics of hiding your true position for strategic reasons.

As an aside, if religion truly had a source of knowledge that would be unique to religion, not available to any other discipline, that would give religion that special authority, wouldn’t that have to be divine revelation? Then why would we grant that religion is a source of moral knowledge, but couldn’t possibly be a source of natural knowledge? What limits divine revelation to moral knowledge only? Just the fact that it has a lousy track record for natural knowledge? Then why would one assume it has a better track record for morality? It just doesn’t make sense.

But I’m also happy to see that the discussion is still going on, and has been reasonably civil and constructive, as these things go. For instance, I’m happy to see that people are getting more careful about defining their terms.

That’s saying that a widespread belief can be mistaken for knowledge very easily, and that “knowledge” can be turned back into belief, and that belief can be shaken, with a few well-placed facts that run counter to it. Because of this, there IS only one “way of knowing”, and that’s believing what also happens to be true. You could falsely believe that your grandfather adored ice cream, because he never let on that he was secretly just choking it down the whole time. And that belief can become “knowledge” in your family, such that long after he’s dead, you’d be talking about how much your grandfather just loved his ice cream. You’d be wrong, and what you thought was knowledge was actually an unfounded belief. Likewise with religion. People think they have empirical knowledge that Jesus existed and talked to them and loves them because of X, Y and Z, but really they just misinterpreted what X, Y and Z actually mean, and have come to an erroneous belief that they have 100% certainty in.

So when Genie Scott says there’s multiple “ways of knowing”, I tend to disagree. And that means I’m agreeing with her detractors to a degree. But that does not mean I intend to drum her out of the movement by any stretch of the imagination. Again, I’m really not fond of anything that might lead our already barely cohesive group to splinter. So, bitching and moaning about other people’s 1% difference is definitely counterproductive. Sometimes that 1% difference can be damaging (e.g. Mooney/Kirschenbaum’s “maybe we should sit down and shut up and not rock the boat so much”), but that doesn’t mean they’re not pure enough to be a “true Scotsman”, so to speak.

Bah. These escapades are so draining.

I wouldn’t call you an elitist prick (unless you thought it was a compliment), but I would argue that you do have a certain privilege. Your students come to you. That’s huge. Even the students who may be hostile to what you teach are there for a reason, and that reason generally keeps them engaged.

The NCSE is dealing with people who do not have even that engagement with science education, who don’t understand why it’s necessary and who actively believe it might be harmful. That requires a certain amount of travel on Mohammed’s part, and I’m not talking about any statements about religion (in part because I have my own problems with strong statements from the NCSE on that topic). I’m talking about even just the basics of getting people to think about learning and knowledge. We can say that this ought to happen in our language instead of theirs, but will it? To temporarily take religion out of the question entirely, would you chide elementary school teachers who got students interested in learning your subject for being imprecise in their language in ways you can and will correct later?

Now, to put religion back in, if we want to release that chokehold, we’re going to have to look at where it comes from and what’s effective in changing it. That means looking at voting blocs that can be counted on, and that means fundamentalists and evangelicals. And when we’re looking at fundamentalists and evangelicals, we’re looking at low levels of education and biblical views of creation. So which is going to help more, focusing on the purity of the language of those who already agree with us or focusing on education in whatever language is required to reach the people who need reaching? (There are several steps missing from that argument, but I think they’re generally agreed upon.)

And yeah, I know I’m an annoying pragmatist.

Insightful post with an engaging way to bring to religious sects, purity, and the current blogument ways-of-knowing meme. Now I might be accused of purism, but I think the specific meme doesnt necessarily fit into the purity issue. In part, I think much has to do with your audience. This debate is an offshoot of the accommodation debate and distills down (in my opinion (and revelation is a way of knowing ) someone getting their undies in a wad over the perceived attack on a friend’s way-of-knowing speech. This led to the whole way-of-knowing issue, which is subject to some purity. As argued in a variety of posts is usage of terms in this debate is a floating variable and unfortunately this makes an argument next to impossible. Based on Rosenau’s usage, the monster bowel movement I had last week could be a way-of-knowing (I knew I had too many nachos). Others have jumped on this sloppy usage as essentially making the phrase and idea useless.

I guess this can devolve into a who controls the language debate, but terms matter and usage matters otherwise we’re not much more than monkeys with type writers. And I know Im an elitist prick.

Also, I would argue that this is not about education. For some yes, but for others no. When Coyne attacks the accommodationist position, it is not as to be a knight for public education and defense of evolution. Some people want to go after the stranglehold religion has on this country and nodding up and down to a poorly reasoned position which makes the religious feel justified with their beliefs is not the way this is done.