One objective of this blog is to encourage productive discussion and debate within the "comments" forum. Leaving comments has been made easier. No registration is required. Comments can be left anonymously. A Hassle free and easy forum to leave a comment. However, any inappropriate comments will be deleted by blog administrators. Thank you for commenting so your voice can be heard.


Sunday, May 30, 2010

What Scientist Think About Religion - The Results May Surprise You.

I write often of religion and the short-comings of organized religion.  I have trouble believing in a "God" but at the same time realize I don't have all the answers and am awestruck by the complexity of our lives.

The Washington Post has a very interesting article (http://www.washingtonpost.com) about  "Science vs. Religion".  One quote particularly struck me.
Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize.
From the article:

Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund offers a fresh perspective on this debate in "Science vs. Religion." Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.

Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize.

The article points out that our misconception about scientist may be rooted with certain religious groups -- creationist movements in particular. Creationist attacks on evolution "have polarized the public opinion such that you're either religious or you're a scientist!" a devout physicist complains. Indeed, the National Science Board recently spiked a report on American knowledge about evolution, claiming that it was too difficult to tell the difference between religious objections to evolution and questions raised about the state of the science. 

I think Ecklund summed it up best.  The bottom line is recognizing and tolerating religious diversity, honestly discussing science's scope and limits, and openly exploring the disputed borders between scientific skepticism and religious faith.

2 comments:

  1. Openly exploring the boundaries between science skepticism and religious faith means looking for evidence for each camp's position. The faith people will say faith is the evidence of things unseen so science can't get into that. The current peace treaty between science and religion establishes two separate domains or territories and each camp has to observe the boundaries. These territories do overlap, however. Since the dark ages science has done more informing of religion than religion has informed science.Religion used to believe Earth was the center of the universe until a scientist dared to say otherwise and present the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A poem by Emily Dickinson:

    Faith is a fine invention
    For gentlemen to see;
    But microscopes are prudent
    In an emergency.

    Voltaire on microscopes:
    "One can be fooled by appearances, which happens only too frequently, whether one uses a microscope or not."

    ReplyDelete