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

106Society and Broader Publicssity life. Arik is on the far end of the spectrum of scientists who hold negativeviews about religion, because he actually thinks it should be expunged fromuniversities completely.Unlike his colleagues who think that religion is only threatening if discussedpublicly, Arik believes that even the personal practice of religion could have thedangerous consequence of eroding reason in the practitioner. He specificallysingled out campus ministries, saying that he is “disgusted by the number ofreligious organizations that buy properties around campus.” In Arik’s opinion,these ministries are dangerous to the cause of teaching reason, because theypull “little, fragile people, . . . vulnerable people away from home, people whoseimmune systems, sociologically speaking, are low, and ensnare them.” Hethinks of these organizations as sinister and is “disgusted by the way they[advertise] by putting signs that make their buildings look like they are parts ofthe university.” He finds the mission of such organizations antithetical to a“genuine institution of higher learning.” He is not even sure why universitieshave departments of divinity, and he commented, “I think they should be inthe pathology department,” as religion is actually a disease. He tells me passionatelythat he would “resign if there were any violation of the establishmentclause that [his] institution sanctioned.” Interestingly, Arik sees no inconsistencybetween his quest for rational, empirical scholarship and his volatileresponse to religion on campus.