Science vs. religion : what scientists really think - File PDF

80Society and Broader PublicsFor all these scientists who employ scripts of engagement, not to examinethe connections between religion and science—especially when students raisesuch topics—would be to abandon their (sometimes spiritual) commitment toquality teaching. All of the political scientists I asked about it said that studentshave raised matters of faith with them. This might mean, for example, discussingthe various ways in which Christian ideas form the basis of Western politicalthought. Among biologists, three-quarters said religion entered teaching atsome point. Biologists might talk about the ways in which public debates aboutevolution have a religious basis, transitioning to a discussion about the differencesbetween religious and scientific understandings of “truth.” 13Joel, the political science professor introduced near the beginning of thechapter, is an example of a scientist deeply committed to his religious traditionwho intentionally converses about religion in order to help his students morethoughtfully consider the connections between religion and political theory.Another political scientist 14 who teaches at a prestigious university near a largecity offered an explanation of why his teaching also demands intersection withreligion. Unlike Joel, he does not have much personal experience with mattersof faith, but he does spend a lot of time connecting the research he does withhow to “improve the quality of real people’s lives.” By linking his own researchon social services to the real-life social service efforts of faith communities, hehas discovered that religious organizations are fundamental to the growth ofcivic life in the inner-city area near his university. As we talked, he reluctantlyexplained why he feels compelled to share these insights with his students andhow he goes about deliberately bringing religion into the classroom.According to this political scientist, talking about religion is simply a practicaland necessary piece of the research that he does. He makes it clear to studentsat the beginning of the semester exactly how he will talk about religion,telling them that he is not interested in proselytizing and does not even go tochurch himself. “But, if [you] are interested . . . in public life or [you] are interestedin urban politics . . . you must be in relationship with church folk,” heexplains to them. “This so-called wall between church and state isn’t a wall thatprevents you from communicating and being in relationship with folks inchurches . . . . It doesn’t mean you can’t talk about faith and religion.” For thispolitical scientist, a broad understanding of religion makes one better ableto help and serve the larger community. Although he teaches at a large stateuniversity, he rejects the idea that separation of church and state means thatscientists cannot bring religion into the classroom, even at state schools, andespecially when it is relevant to their subject matter. The differences betweenhow scientists interpret the need for separation of church and state reveal justhow important it is for them to have open dialogue—not just with the general