Should Scientists Accomodate Religious Sensibilities?

At his Why Evolution is True site, Jerry Coyne has been posting about the accommodation of religious sensibilities in materials and statements by American science organisations such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Center for Science Education, and American Association for the Advancement of Science. In all cases, these (valuable) organisations have considered it necessary to calm the fears of American religionists that science, particularly evolutionary biology, undermines religion.

...

Complete entry

Posted by jcs  on  04/28  at  06:37 PM

I agree with the position you stated in your closing paragraph, but I can't help but have some sympathy for these organizations. If your goal is to promote X and the main opposition to the acceptance of X is Y, then it seems to follow that you should address Y. However, it's clear that the way in which you address Y must not undermine X, since promoting X may not be truly served by winning battles using X's degenerate cousin Z.

The plain fact of the matter (and this has been pointed out by many philosophers and theologians) is that some things are simply unknown and possibly unknowable. Saying "you can't be sure of claim x" is often an appropriate response to people on both sides of this debate. Science is not some finished book we're trying to get others to accept. It's an ongoing process that is best practiced by those aware of the humility it's methods imply.

I think the key is to promote the virtue that both religious and scientific thinkers seem to agree on and that's honesty. It was a rather dogmatic adherence to honestly that laid the foundation for the version of religion that ultimately evolved into science and I think most scientists recapitulate this process during their own development.

Maybe we can best help those still lost in the maze of superstition by giving them the tools to grapple with questions as openly and honestly as possible in hopes that they'll eventually be guided, under their own power, to the same place that so many honest people have been guided to over the last few centuries.

Forcing these tools on them in an openly hostile way that makes all sorts of pretensions claims about the comprehensiveness and finality of scientific ideas is not the best way to achieve this. In fact, it seems to illicit their own pretensions claims to comprehensiveness and finality. We need those who accept scientific theories to do so through a genuine understanding of their powers and shortcomings. Otherwise, we may simply be replacing one fruitless dogmatism with another.

Posted by curious  on  05/11  at  05:54 PM

"It's fair to say that the science organisations have taken policy stances that science and orthodox religion are not incompatible."

Just for clarity, are these stances saying that they're not incompatible, or that they're not /necessarily/ incompatible?

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: