Why I Am an Accommodationist

This volume presents Michael Ruse's sustained defense of accommodationism, the position that evolutionary science and religious belief can coexist without fundamental conflict. Writing as both a philosopher of science and a self-described atheist, Ruse challenges the prevalent view among contemporary scientists and philosophers that acceptance of Darwinian evolution necessarily entails rejection of religious faith, particularly Christianity.

The work engages primarily with the "New Atheist" movement, specifically targeting the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Ruse contends that these thinkers commit a category error by treating scientific and religious claims as competing explanations operating on the same epistemic plane. Against this conflictual model, he advances a complementarity thesis wherein science addresses questions of mechanism and empirical fact while religion concerns itself with meaning, purpose, and moral value.

Ruse's methodological approach combines historical analysis with philosophical argumentation. He traces the development of the science-religion relationship from the Victorian era through contemporary debates, demonstrating that the warfare metaphor popularized by writers like Andrew Dickson White represents a historical distortion. Drawing on the work of theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr and scientists like Francisco Ayala, Ruse argues that many thoughtful religious believers have successfully integrated evolutionary theory into their worldviews without compromising either scientific or theological integrity.

Central to Ruse's argument is his distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. While endorsing the former as essential to scientific practice, he rejects the latter as an unwarranted philosophical extension of scientific method. This position allows him to acknowledge the explanatory power of evolutionary theory while maintaining that questions about ultimate reality, consciousness, and moral obligation may legitimately invoke non-naturalistic frameworks.

The work's significance lies in its challenge to both religious fundamentalists who reject evolutionary science and secular fundamentalists who insist that scientific literacy requires atheism. Ruse positions accommodationism as a philosophically sophisticated middle ground that respects both the achievements of modern science and the existential concerns addressed by religious traditions. His argument contributes to ongoing debates about science education, public understanding of evolution, and the proper relationship between empirical inquiry and metaphysical speculation. By defending accommodationism from a non-theistic perspective, Ruse offers a unique voice in discussions often polarized between religious apologists and militant secularists.