To the editor:

I am most pleased with James Robert Brown's positive review of the science in my book Why Darwin Matters, but I take issue with him on his critique of my approach to the relationship of science and religion as separate enterprises. Yes, of course, on matters ontological, science wins hands down and has antiquated religion in its former explanatory mode. But religion is so much more than just an explanation for how the world works, most notably its social aspects. One reason that I spent two chapters trying to convince Christians and conservatives that it is okay to accept the theory of evolution is that I have received a rather sizable number of letters from people from around the United States, most notably in the Midwestern (red) states, which say, in essence, "You are asking me to give up my religion, which involves my spouse, my children, my extended family, friends, coworkers, bowling league teammates and so forth, for this Darwin guy's theory? Forget it, it's not worth it." More painful to read are the letters from people who have taken an interest in science and as a consequence have abandoned their religion and ended up divorced or (on one level even worse) in quiet desperation in a marriage, family, job or town where everyone believes but them. What I am trying to say is "no, no, you don't have to give up anything—science is for everyone, not just for atheists."

Michael Shermer
Skeptics Society
Altadena, California

James Robert Brown replies:

I'm glad Michael Shermer liked much of my review; it was intended to be favorable. There were parts of his book that I thought wrong-headed, but I suspected that he didn't believe them himself. I took him to be attempting a rapprochement with religious conservatives by saying that Darwin leads to consequences that they might find congenial. I now see that I was mistaken. It was not just a ploy to keep moderate Christians from joining the anti-Darwinian camp; he was quite sincere in thinking that a Darwinian outlook could please religious conservatives.

But the problems with his view remain. Shermer thinks conservatives will like some features he takes to be part of the Darwinian outlook, such as monogamy or the sort of selfishness that capitalism embraces. But if he's going to embrace this sort of sociobiology, then he needs to face up to the common claims sociobiology also makes about the "naturalness" of homosexuality and male philandering—which won't please religious conservatives one bit. A much better strategy (because it's more likely to be true and to be effective in convincing people) is to point out that Darwin is compatible with a realm of culture that includes objective morality.

Shermer cites letters from the religious expressing deep anxiety. To embrace Darwin is, for them, to abandon family, friends, and all that brings meaning and joy to life. I'm not sure how to respond to this, except to say wishing doesn't make it so. No doubt many people are stressed at the loss of religion, but there are also many who aren't. Canadians and Europeans (whose religious beliefs are declining rapidly), are generally just as happy as Americans; indeed, most polls find them happier. As for feeling isolated, I can only report that in my own case, there is nothing of the sort. Among my friends and extended family, there are many who are religious and many who are not, but the interactions among them are as pleasant as could be regardless of religious sentiment. Deciding which hockey team to cheer for is much more likely to lead to discord.