THE WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION

There is a common view that religion has been at war with science--and in this case, religion refers to Christianity. There was a Stargate SG-1 episode where the archaeologist Daniel Jackson speculates that Earth in an alternate reality could well be much more advanced than our Earth because the church held back science in medieval Europe. But if the church did so much to hold back science, and the church was pretty much restricted to Europe, why didn't Europe become the most scientifically backward region of the world instead of the most scientifically advanced?

The most reasonable conclusion to draw with regard to science and the church is that the church, on the whole, provided an environment which helped the development of science. A belief in a God who created an ordered universe would naturally be something that would encourage people to look for order in the natural world, and such a search is the foundation upon which science is built. If there were some conflicts, that is hardly surprising. The best of marriages have some conflicts over the course of a lifetime.

In statistics we talk about selection bias. Both news and history have a selection bias in favor of things that seem newsworthy. This can mean we focus on things that seem particularly important or unusual. Focussing on important things can mean we overlook a lot of little things in one direction which together may be more important than one big thing in another direction. Focussing on the unusual can lead us to believe that rare things are really rare are common because they are given so much attention, while common things may escape our attention altogether if they were so common that they were never deemed worthy of mention.

With regard to science and religion, we need to look not only at things that seem important or unusual, but also at the more mundane everyday reality--and this more mundane everyday reality shows us science and religion operating within their respective spheres without a great deal of interaction and with very little conflict. But that is not the impression we get from the things that make news, or the things that make the history books.

I believe it is important to make a distinction between scientists who defend science from religious attacks, and scientists who attack religion. Writing for EDGE THE THIRD CULTURE, John Horgan expressed the view to an official of the Templeton Foundation "that--given all the problems created by religion throughout human history--I didn't want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion". Given the strong views that John Horgan has regarding religion, it seems reasonable to describe him as being at war with religion. There are others who are not at war with all religion, but do seem to be at war with more traditional Christianity or Judeo-Christianity. The Clergy Letter Project could be seen as an example of the latter position. What is important here is not whether we describe the situation as a kind of warfare--but whether truth is a casualty. More precisely, the important question is whether truthfulness and fair play are casualties of this view of religion.

Because of this war against religion, we need to look at the claims mace by scientists with a critical eye aimed at making the distinction between truth and propoganda. In this regard, it is very important to try to look at the whole picture--or, at least, make a point of giving a fair hearing to oposing views. This is not something that supporters of evolution generally want to do. I was surprised to recently that the inaccurate Haeckel emryo drawings, or similar inaccurate drawings are making a comeback in American biiology textbooks. In my next post, a look at the use and/or abuse of these drawings will make a good first topic in our study of the war between science and religion.