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

No God on the Quad 97other professional is similar to a law school saying that it would be neutral totrain grassroots labor activists.” By this he meant that any good law schoolwould not train lawyers to have an inherent agenda about the law just as a gooduniversity should not train students to have an inherent agenda about religion.He links what he sees as the dubious legitimacy of divinity schools to his ideathat the “place that religion is allowed to fill in most American universities isreally detrimental to the mission of the university, which is to educate.” Hetakes his views from what he calls “all kinds of Enlightenment junk, to educatepeople in human knowledge, of which religion is certainly a part.” He makes astrong distinction, though, between just teaching people religion as an object ofstudy and “building a university around religion, like a Methodist college . . . .I’m not comfortable with this aspect of things at all. And I think it leads toproblems.” This physicist believes that some knowledge of religion and religioustraditions is required for a broad liberal arts education, in which one canaccord “religion the respect you accord French baroque literature,” for instance.His phrase that this is part of “all kinds of Enlightenment junk,” however, indicatessome underlying cynicism. He is sure that to have divinity schools orconfessional faith be part of the university environment, or to take any kind ofstand on religion—as those do who teach and study at divinity schools—shouldnot be allowed. To do so would mean that religion might be allowed to opposethe reason of science.THE MODEL OF SECULARISM: UNIVERSITIESOUGHT TO BE BASTIONS OF SECULARISMThe group of scientists discussed above think universities ought to be committedto reason alone and that the most sincere expression of such reason is scienceitself. Other scientists have a somewhat different, yet related, model of theuniversity; they see within the purpose of the university a mission to be distinctivefrom religious institutions. Instead of relying on rhetoric of science asembodying the supreme form of reason, they generally employ the rhetoric ofseparation of church and state. This view is predominant among both socialand natural scientists and does not seem to be concentrated in one disciplinemore than another. These are the professors who contribute both actively andpassively to the social movement to secularize the academy. Scientists who talkextensively about the separation of church and state argue that there are enoughplaces in the broader society where religion has taken hold and that universitiesshould be places where knowledge is protected from its grip.