Accommodationalism
From - but not to be confused with:
accommodationist (plural accommodationists)
1. someone who accommodates an opposition and compromises their own stance in attempt to discredit their opposition.
An accommodationalist (coined term in atheism) is one who implores atheists to moderate their attacks
on Christianity (as they see it) and be more accommodating towards it.
This is in the same ballpark as “agnosticism” which is a misuse of the term to mean someone who is in between organized god –belief and atheist disbelief. It encompasses “agnostic –fundamentalism" which is a misuse of both terms to denote someone who, while they do not belong to a church, believe in a god of some kind (and almost always of the monotheistic cosmic – creator kind) and thus fear and decry atheists whom they see as threatening their faith. Because these people, make no mistake about it, are "agnostic theists". Which, being interpreted, meaneth, they believe in a god, but not as approved by any of the organized churches.
I am still investigating this fascinating mental aberration, but it comes in a belief -demographic that is astoundingly common. Those who believe in a god, but pick and choose what god - claims they believe and which they don’t. Some will find they can believe in enough of the dogma –claims to belong to a church, even if they secretly disagree with some of the teachings.
Others cannot belong to a church, but believe in the Bible or JesusGod at least. They include acommodationalists within science (1), as in the ones who rewrite Genesis to make it fit evolution, or reinterpret Jesus to make him something they can 'Believe In’. Because it is the maintaining of faith – belief that is important, not what that Faith – belief is about.
It doesn’t matter too much of all the nonsense of the Gospels is rejected, Jesus as an admirable and inspired teacher will do. It is something you can have a religious Faith –belief in. But atheists who will argue that none of it is believable and Jesus may not have existed at all; well.. that is an attack on the residual sortafaith. And as we shall see, the dogma may have been watered down but the Faith -belief is just the same touchy serpent ready to strike.
It is the same with an agnostic sortagod - cosmic being who has no interest in any particular church and may not even micromanage the earth, though accommodationalist agnostic fundies will often strongly suggest mental contact of the inspirational kind (there is a reason for this..later..) with this "Sky daddy" and His having some kind of input into evolution.
Thus the accommodationalist of the 3r kind (atheist -hostile) is is really part of the whole theist apologetics coalition. They are God –believers, I argue, even if they put “God” in quotes. And their belief, as well as being faith –based, is in a god that thinks exactly as they do. The same facts, the same opinions, the same dogma or rejection of it. They tell themselves they are agreeing with God, but I will bet my ass that, when God talks to them, the same bits of their brain light up as when they talk to themselves.
This is why even those Theists who don’t believe in Religion (and often use that as an irrelevant cheap tactical point scorer when their opponent attacks Christianity) share this need to fight for faith in this sorta god of theirs, and who believe (whether they realize it or not) just like all the other apologists (other than a hypothetical one [citation needed] who does not invest faith but believes purely on the facts) that they are being inspired with the truth.
This is the key. This is what causes the religious and with some (not all of them, by any means..later...) “agnostics” to fight with all kinds of putrid and irrational arguments, abuse, sneering at science and needing to ‘prove’ God in any way they can:- fiddling science, fiddling logical argument (Kalam, n.b) and even fiddling dictionary definitions. They fear (wrongly) that accepting that they are wrong about anything they secretly feel to be inspired truth will shatter their illusions. This is why they insist that they won the debate, even when they lost. Just as Religious apologists do. This is why they cannot admit that atheists have good reasons to disbelieve and that their own beliefs are based on faith and not much else.
They know that faith isn’t good enough and so have to prop up their non –religious god –belief with all sorts of tricks, as we saw with the attempt to prove a god with cosmic origins and then, dammit, a thread claiming that God was proved in that way when it absolutely had not been proved in that or any other way.
I believe that people do want to believe that their beliefs are based on good reasons. Faith is sometimes cited as good enough and even better when not weighed down with mere mundane evidence and in its purest an most praiseworthy form in denial of validated fact. (2) But that is in itself only used as a debating tactic to win. Because it is not validating religion that is the main object of the debate, but validating themselves. Their beliefs of important to them, not because they are about God but because they are the beliefs they believe.
It is demonstrable in observation and science that belief in a god is belief in one’s own rightness. That is why, as soon as the person changes their views – say on heaven and hellthreat, then the God that always threatened hell now says blandly that there is no such place and the Bible has to be re – interpreted.
Thus you will get people with more science degrees than you could paper a wall with and who are perfectly sound on their science, but who will get very angry about unbelievers and bash them as being stupid, ignorant, closed – minded..and then trot out the most vapid arguments. That the Bible may not be true, but it contains a lot of good. That there could be a god hidden somewhere in the universe. And - as in an article that prompted me to write this - someone who equivocates the creation of life in the natural way from the molecular matter all around as in some way validating resurrection, even though he didn’t seem to believe that the Gospel resurrection account was true. (3)
This explains why it is so important to these people to push, peddle and proselytize their belief in a Sortagod. There is no heaven to be gained (though some have a sorta-afterlife) or hell to be escaped. No benefits in belief and nothing to lose other than a sorta misconceived idea that skepticism hampers speculation.
This and the venom directed towards those they fear will prick their bubble of sortagodfaith is just the same as that we get from those in the organized religions. Their views may look more reasonable than those of Creationists, but their arguments don’t seem to be any more fact –based or logical.
Now I said this wasn’t all of them and I might mention my mate Troutdude who is a god –believer of the agnostic kind. He and I disagree on the case for a sortagod or cosmic creator. But he knows that I accept there is a case for a creator, even if it’s one I don’t buy. And he knows that he is opting for a creator as either a faith –based preference or a more probable explanation. I don’t know which and I don’t mind. Because it doesn’t matter and Troud-dude knows that we we have no need to quarrel about it and he has nothing to fear from me. Nor I from him.
This fear of atheism is largely unjustified. It is their own fears of their own faith collapsing under their own doubts that is causing them disquiet, and they blame us and find ways of begging us or telling us to shut up. Thus they hope that, if we are silenced, their doubts can be silenced too.
I am pretty clear on this. Our accommodationalists may have a beef with organized religion that ought to put them in our camp. But those who beat up on New Fundamentalist or strident atheism are sheep in wolf’s clothing. Their agnosticism is sortagod –belief in an pirate -hat. These people are fifth columnists attacking atheism from the inside.
The answer? No, save the cutlass and gangplank for later
. Right now it is understanding and talking that is needed. To let them see that they have nothing to fear from us. We are not attacking even religion’s rights to believe what they like, let alone the sortagod –agnostics We are fighting for the right of people to believe something other than this or that Church dogma and to have equal rights nevertheless.
They do have something to feat from their own doubts perhaps, and maybe our speaking out does help to cause those doubts to fester. But really, that’s their problem, not outs.and if they can’t do the accommodationalism that is needed – with us – then let them at least declare it and go to stand under the flag they really salute.
(1) There are Creationists within science too.
(2) I believe they have a sort of ecstatic feeling of vindicated martyrdom when they maintain their faith in spite of being shown to be absolutely wrong.
(3) . Well I can’t find that article, nor Matt Dilahunty on accommodationalist. No doubt they’ll turn up when I stop looking fior them. I did notice what a lot of rowing there is about this festering sore of the accommodationalists and their beef with "New" atheism.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wink from me (TM) after some new coined term in quotes (Trade mark' - "I invented it - need permission to use it" idea) because accommodation, in the def. given, is broader. compromising one's own position to keep things sweet. But the New Agnostics 
ou. (2) The fact is that compromise is not always right. Facts are more likely to be. The classic analogy (or ought to be) is a disagreement about whether the sun rises in the east or the west. The solution is not to say it rises in between and expect both sides to be happy with that. The facts as revealed by the best evidence is that it rises in ...
whichever bllooddy part of the horizon it does. I haven't seen it for months. 
