Quite a few people have mentioned the article by Michael Ruse in the Boston Globe to me. I've been slow to respond because this is the last week of classes, and hoo boy do I have a pile of grading to do. I also knew that if I dawdled someone would come along and do the heavy lifting for me.

So I could just announce that Ophelia has it exactly right, and stop right there. I have a weblog, though, so I've got to babble on a bit.

Ruse's argument is that we've got to avoid antagonizing the decent, moderate Christians if we want to make headway in the evolution wars. He thinks scientists who are atheists ought to be more cautious and politic in their comments about religion (which is quite the odd thing to hear from Ruse, who has a bit of a reputation for making statements that evolutionists have to disavow, and for collaborating with creationists).

Ruse, a self-identified agnostic, acknowledges the "thrilling quality" of Dawkins's writing but says he objects to adamantly anti-religion statements coming from a scientist. "I don't have any more belief than Dawkins," he says. "But I do think it matters that he is making it very difficult for those of us who care about evolution to put forward a reasonable face to the reasonable portion [of the public] in the middle."

This is a peculiar position he has taken. Is the "reasonable portion" of the public antagonized by the existence of atheists, or at the idea that we might speak up? Do we have to die or emigrate, or is it sufficient if we're just very, very quiet about our upsetting beliefs? Should we keep mum about any other ideas we might have that might possibly irritate the prejudices of the lay public?

Perhaps we have a different idea of what constitutes a "reasonable" Christian. I grew up in a whole family of them: a father who was brought up in the Church of Christ and gave it up for a kind of casual agnosticism, and a mother who was nominally Lutheran. We had Catholics and atheists and Baptists and Mormons and a few members of some weird cultie evangelical thing all mingled together in the big extended family; you know, America, where religious pluralism is supposed to be a fact of life. Half of them thought nine-tenths of the others were all going to Hell, but that didn't stop us from all liking each other and still inviting everyone to Thanksgiving diner.

Somehow, though, people have gotten this idea that the moderate, reasonable mass of Christians consists of people who will spit in the eye of an atheist and turn up their nose at anyone who follows a different sect. Ix-nay on the odlessness-gay, we mustn't inflame the mob—good American Christians despise those people.

That attitude is what's wrong, though. Such people aren't moderate, or reasonable, and we shouldn't be catering to their bigotry. Many scientists happen to be atheists, and that should be no more shameful or hidden than the fact that a few cousins on my father's side are LDS. My family hasn't disowned me because I'm an outspoken atheist, because they're good people who see beyond sectarian dogma—let's trust in those kinds of religious people who don't judge people by the god (or lack thereof) that they worship (or don't). Those poor Christians who think otherwise are the ones who should be ashamed and who should be discouraged from promoting the idea that intolerance and fear is a necessary component of religious belief.

Let's also promote common sense. Science is an atheistical endeavor; we don't invoke gods or pray for specific results in our work, and that's the way it should be. Many of us also take that attitude into our private lives away from the lab, and that's also reasonable, as is the fact that others are willing to set aside scientific thinking in other parts of their life. I think it's just as much a sensible matter that scientists don't use religion in their work as it is for other occupations. Who wants to hire a carpenter who relies on prayer to keep his constructions standing? Or a plumber who trusts in faith when he's knocking holes in your walls? How about an electrician who believes God will keep his work from shorting out and burning your house down? In the same vein, I don't trust a scientist who tries to solve problems by invoking invisible, intangible, omnipotent beings who hide in the blank spaces of our knowledge.

Godlessness is a good thing, a pragmatic thing, and most of the religious people in this country (I hope) recognize its value in part of their lives, if not the whole. I say we should build on that rather than squeaking in embarrassment when cranky ol' Richard Dawkins expresses his opinions forcefully.