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

102Society and Broader PublicsI asked Margaret what the bottom line is for how her faith commitments influencehow she lives her life. She replied, “I guess . . . [I am] a little bit moreunderstanding or forgiving perhaps than some of the others.” Again, her answerdealt mainly with the personal aspects of her faith.Implicitly, Margaret’s views of religion as private and science as public (andso, in a sense, opposed) match those of many of the scientists I talked with whohave very negative attitudes toward faith. So their models can be called similar.But the reasons behind them are very different. Margaret spoke of inconvenientor troublesome controversies that can result from religion, not thepossibility that religion is dangerous to science. The controversies and awkwardnessshe fears, however, are undoubtedly connected to the fact that othersaround her do see religion as a threat. In her own way, then, she shares andreinforces their Model of Opposition—most notably through her closeted faith(see Chapter 3 ).Like Margaret, the scientists who subscribed to the university models ofOpposition, Secularism, and/or Pluralism dealt with religion by privatization(keeping their own religion secret), separation (keeping religion out of theclassroom), and, to a lesser extent, suppression. Different from discrimination(and not illegal), suppression can manifest as anything from disparagingremarks to aggressive confrontation.Surprisingly, both the highly religious and the highly secular among scientistshad a difficult time thinking of ways that a scientist might productivelyinteract with religion on a university campus. Those who found religion personallyirrelevant or dangerous considered engagement not worth the risk.And for those like Margaret, who have a difficult time imagining how religionwould intersect with science, it would be hardly worth the trouble.Nonreligious scientists who practiced separation said that they worry aboutoffending their highly religious students and colleagues—mostly students,since both religious and nonreligious scientists did not suspect their colleaguescientists to be highly religious. A chemist, for example, doesn’t talk about religionor matters related to religion in university settings because he is afraid ofoffending others. He told me in no uncertain terms that he is simply “afraid ofretribution” from those who are religious, mentioning that society does notlook favorably on individuals who do not have a religious tradition or belief inGod. His feeling has some empirical grounding; the nonreligious—and atheistsin particular—are among the social groups from which other Americans mostwish to distance themselves. 47A psychologist48who, when pressed, described himself as an agnostic, saidhe personally gives very little thought to religion. Private things (his sense ofwhat religion is) do not generally come up in his department: