“On the side of science”?
Although the authors are both on the side of science, they have not always agreed about the best ways to oppose religiously motivated threats to scientific practice or instruction…. In a dialogue they re-create here, the authors explained their respective tactics for engaging the enemy
Scientific American, June 19 2007
“The authors” are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. This isn’t going to be about what either of them had to say, since I’m not actually all that interested in it. Rather, it’s that opening by the anonymous editor that really stood out.
They are “both on the side of science”. What’s the other “side”? Religion, of course. It’s well-known that you can’t possibly combine them - as Dawkins put it (speaking about Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist), “Of course Lemaître was very wise (although I must add that I am left wondering why he remained a priest at all).” I.e., if you’re a scientist - well, isn’t that enough? or, doesn’t that rule out being a priest?
As an undergrad, I took a class in science and religion. It was taught by scientists at a small Christian liberal arts college in the South, so perhaps it’s no big surprise that the general conclusion was the “separate worlds” view - that science is useful for understanding some things, that religion is useful for understanding others, and that while they can both be true it’s a mistake to use them to understand the same things in the same way at the same time. This is essentially Krauss’s position; Dawkins, of course, concludes that there’s no conflict because religion is completely false.
None of their “debate” that I’ve read makes any particular advance over what that undergrad class covered. One of the things about such discussions of “science and faith” that has rather put me off the subject (despite my strong interest in both) is that there isn’t much *new* about it. The same kinds of ideas showed up 60 years ago in C. S. Lewis’ book Miracles. (There are some changes, or at least new variations taken from recent research in evolutionary biology. Now “God” is a “meme” - similar to a gene, but spread socially/intellectually as a self-propagating idea comparable to a virus.)
Rather, the interesting bit was how the article itself was introduced:
- This is a discussion of “how scientists ought to approach religion and its followers”. Nice implication that scientists need to “approach [believers]“, since of course scientists will already be outside that camp.
- They “explained their respective tactics for engaging the enemy”. So, not only are scientists and “the religious” are in separate camps, it’s a hostile confrontation, or at best an uneasy peace.
- “Is religion inherently bad?” the editor asks. This seems to assume that science isn’t - or at least, we’re certainly not going to objectively consider the idea that science might at least be barking up the wrong tree. (In case you’re curious, Dawkins’ answer was “yes, absolutely”; Krauss took a more moderate “Well, it’s alright, for those who like that sort of thing” stance.)
There wasn’t much more in the way of material to pick at; it was a short introduction. And a good specific example of how someone approaching these topics with very definite opinions can be completely blind to any views other than their own. (Lest I sound biased on that, there’s definitely a tendency in “the other camp” to see science as “the enemy”. It’s something for everyone to watch out for…)