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

94Society and Broader Publicsstudents in discussion about these topics. Their lack of interest in or even negativitytoward religion was not because of an absence of institutional supportsat their particular universities. Indeed, at the universities where I interviewedscientists, I found over 120 courses on “science and religion” or “science andsociety” that specifically discussed religion and science. But it wasn’t the scientistsI interviewed who were teaching them, of course. The courses were rarely,if ever, housed or even cross-listed as part of science departments. The courseswere more likely to be taught in history, religious studies, or American studiesdepartments.27According to one economist, 28 “there is absolutely no place for religion inscience or in the university.” Another economist 29 explained the big differenceshe sees between the natural and social sciences:Especially social sciences—they’re not too much at the front lines. But . . . the realsciences like physics, chemistry, biology, I think they need to do scientific, objectiveresearch. And those are the areas [that have] the most direct conflict withreligion. And for the sake of scientific progress, there should be protection againstreligious interference.For this social scientist, religion and specifically “religious interference” issomething from which natural scientists and science need to be protected. Achemist30explained that science departments absolutely need to be kept separatefrom religion. This assistant professor said that the “chemistry departmentis not a place where we want to teach anything about religion or spiritualitywhatsoever.” He went on, apparently concerned that he might offend mebecause of my disciplinary home in sociology: “So you might not be happy tohear this . . . . I’m not asking to talk about carbon and hydrogen in yourdepartment, am I? No . . . . Irrelevant. Just leave it to the church or individuals.University is no place.” He softened a little as he went on to suggest the possiblevalidity of a “department of religious studies, like your department and studentsthere or such who are enrolled in the classes you are offering. But otherthan that, no place. Don’t even bring it in.” He ended his heated monologue byproviding an analogy to the music department at his university. “We don’t askthem to teach or discuss chemistry at all,” he said. As with this chemist, themajority of faculty saw a place for teaching about world religions in a religiousstudies department, but they felt strongly that religion should never bediscussed in the same breath with science.These scientists particularly feared that religion could lead to irrationalityand poor-quality science if it were included in science education in any kind ofinstitutional way. Some scientists wondered aloud what might happen if there