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

No God on the Quad 105you would try to transfer to another discipline with a slightly higher degree ofrespect. And so, broadly speaking, although smart people can be religious, they’renot considered smart because of their religious convictions.Generally, scientists who endorse institutional separation of religion within theuniversity are not all that convinced that religion is a legitimate subject of studyto begin with. They surmise that those who do want to study religion shouldleave mainstream educational institutions and go to divinity schools. How theywaste their time when they get there is their own business.When Separation Becomes SuppressionThere is a small group of scientists (less then 5 percent of those I interviewed)who go beyond privatizing religion or separating themselves from it to activelysuppressing its expression. Because of their vocal bent, this group can appearmuch larger than it really is. They have been outspoken about the irrelevanceand danger of religion as well as the need to suppress it where possible, andtheir work and views have received a lot of public press because of their contrariannature. Suppression is most likely to be displayed by scientists with noreligious tradition and who hold most rigidly to the Model of Secularism.Insights from the highly influential anthropologist Mary Douglas—whowas herself a Catholic—are curiously related to this group of suppressors. Sheexplains that in what she calls more primitive cultures, individuals use religionto overcome ideas of dirt and pollution in their societies, calling things thatare dirty or dangerous “sin,” for example. Building on the ideas of É mileDurkheim, Douglas explains that religious rites provide societies with ritualsthat separate the sacred from the profane. 52 To scientists who suppress religion,religion is the profane, dirtying the waters of science’s rational transmission ofknowledge. These scientists do not see religion as benign, so privatization andseparation are insufficient—even cowardly—alternatives. They assert thatsomething ought to be actively done to get religion out of universities, becauseit is so dangerous to their educational mission.When asked for his definition of religion, Arik, 53 the physicist whom we metin Chapter 1 , explained that there are two different, “logically distinct” types ofreligion. One is merely cultural. The other involves belief based on “zero evidence”and is often used as “a convenient tool to exert power in political orsocial spheres.” Arik said that “logic plays no role” in religion except as “anopportunity for a sort of scorn and mirth.” He explains that religion ought to“be the target on the dart board” and that “it has absolutely no role” in univer-