A Framework for Sharing Reality

In November 2006, a science advocacy group called The Science Network gathered luminaries in science, philosophy, and the humanities for the first Beyond Belief symposium at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The event was a response to recent popular efforts to reconcile the tenets of science and religion so that they might be viewed as equally valid explanatory systems, with the result of blurring the distinctions between the two and obscuring the essence of science. Among the presenters was Richard Dawkins, a celebrated evolutionary biologist and easily the most famous advocate of antitheism on Earth. His talk was vintage Dawkins — brilliant and accurate in content, acerbic in tone.

Also attending the event was the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who asked for the microphone after Dawkins' talk. After acknowledging that Dawkins' words had come out beautifully and articulately "as they always do," Tyson added, "Let me just say, your commentary had a sharpness of teeth that I had not even projected for you. So I felt you more than I heard you.

"You are Professor for the Public Understanding of Science," Tyson continued, leaning on the word understanding, "not professor of delivering truth to the public. And these are two different exercises." "Being an educator is not only getting the truth right," he argued. "There's got to be an act of persuasion as well. Persuasion isn't always, 'Here are the facts — you're an idiot or you are not,' but, 'Here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind.' And it's the facts plus the sensitivity [that], when convolved together, create impact. I worry that your methods, and how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective."

It's significant that Tyson didn't complain that Dawkins' approach was unpleasant or disrespectful. He said it was ineffective. His argument is that Dawkins' own presumed goal of convincing others that his ideas are worthy and important is short-circuited by a failure to consider the state of the mind on the receiving end of those ideas.

The conflict between religion and science is often described in two very different ways. Some believers insist that the conflict is nonexistent — that religion and science can and do coexist perfectly, often by claiming that religion and science do not overlap. At the other extreme are some of the so-called New Atheists who consider the conflict both real and utterly insoluble by any means short of the end of religion.

This book focuses on a third path, one that acknowledges the problem and offers a solution that doesn't require the (highly unlikely) dismantling of religion. Instead, it relies on a practice that already exists — the ability of religions to adapt — to evolve their positions in light of new knowledge. Atheists who scoff at such an idea have failed to recognize the profound changes in many religious expressions in recent decades. This includes both a liberalizing of social positions and a growing awareness of the importance of embracing scientific truth. The best way forward is by promoting and encouraging the expansion of this crucial process within contemporary religion — a process that happens first for individual members of religions before it is embraced by religious leaders.

Humans are social animals and they will always form social groups, some of which will continue to call themselves "religious." The prediction made over a century ago that religion would soon fade away has turned out to have been wrong. However, religions will change and adapt to avoid conflict with science and secularism. The open question is how long this process will take.

Sharing Reality is a book with two purposes: to convince the reader that accepting science and secularism is essential to building a better world, and to help the reader in turn convince others of the same. If anything, the authors' task is easier than yours. The fact that you've picked up this book means your mind is likely receptive to the values of science and secularism already. At the very least, you are open to being convinced. But if you are like most people, your family, your workplace, and your Facebook feed all include many people who are not so inclined. For you, more than for us, there is a necessary act of persuasion involved in promoting these vital ideas. So, in addition to building the case, we will examine time-tested ways to cultivate a receptive mind in your listener.

We will explain how those with religious beliefs can further evolve their thinking to be consistent with science while retaining some of their religious beliefs about values, and why it is important for them to do so. We will look at how much humans have progressed through cultural evolution and make specific suggestions for furthering cultural evolution through the spread of secularism and science, from one person to another and through media and culture, without ending religion. The overarching message is that an accurate understanding of reality can make an important difference for each person, for societies, and for all humanity.

Because religions offer many benefits to their adherents, they cannot be eliminated. Some New Atheists ask everyone to leave their religions. This is unachievable and unnecessary. We should help all religions evolve to be consistent with a modern understanding of both political and scientific reality by directing our sharing of secularism and science to both religious people and their leaders. We should change the definition of religion so that any group that accepts all the conclusions of science can also call itself "religious," even if the group's beliefs are atheistic.

Finally, we argue that it is not enough to be a skeptic and a critical thinker and a secularist and an agnostic. To make progress in our cultural evolution, it is important that each person accept the scientific consensus on all topics, including such topics as homeopathy, astrology, fate, karma, unlucky days or numbers, and safety of vaccines and fluoridated water supplies. Accepting science on these topics is more important than becoming an agnostic or atheist. Once people accept the evidentiary basis of science, they usually eventually give up their god beliefs. The most important cognitive transition that a majority must achieve to move cultural evolution forward is not from theism to atheism; it is from using only traditional ways of knowing to also using every day the scientific way of knowing.

In chapters 3 and 4, we offer twenty-five specific suggestions for how you can help your friends, family, religious leaders, and the entire world learn to accept secularism and science to make further progress with their cultural evolution. Some of these suggestions are old, but most of them are new. (See the appendix for the full list of suggestions.)

Beyond the Tribe

Tribalism — a strong loyalty to one's own group and hostility to other...