I ran across a reference or two to this op-ed from the Times but have only now had time to glance at it.
Taking a step back for a moment, I wonder just how "grand" a bargain this is. In the first place, as a stakeholder in this debate - I'm a Christian, and someone who sees no conflict between my religious beliefs and the scientific explanation for the diversity of life - there seems no place for me. Second, atheists are asked to surrender their atheism and get . . . what, exactly, in return? Those fundamentalist Christians who refuse to accept the findings of science also surrender their beliefs and receive a patronizing pat on the head.
The thinking behind this, if I could hazard a guess, is that there is actually a way via some kind of public policy to offer a seat at the table to two groups that are at odds. The problem with this view is that it supposes the issue is one that can be accommodated through compromise. It cannot. This isn't a public policy issue, nor is it one amenable to social or cultural compromise. The worst part of this "grand bargain" is it sounds good, but it's really nothing but a confession by the author that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Virtual Tin Cup
