SPONSORED BY:

Defenders of the Faith

Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

As soon as Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian geneticist who headed up the pioneering Human Genome Project during the 1990s, was floated as the possible new director of the National Institutes of Health—he was officially named to the post on Wednesday—the criticisms began flying. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for one, said Collins is too public with his faith. Collins wrote a book called The Language of God, frequently talks about his religious conversion during medical school, and recently launched the BioLogos Foundation, which declares, "We believe that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation."

The critics, though, have it exactly backward: the United States needs more scientists like Collins—researchers who show by their prominence and their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs. The stunning irony in the longstanding tension between science and religion in America is that many scientists who merely claim to be defending rationality from religious fundamentalism may actually be turning Americans off to science, doing more harm to their cause than good.

The poster boy for the so-called New Atheist movement today is biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the bestselling book, The God Delusion. He and other New Atheists attack faith without quarter, and insist that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable. In the process, they are helping to keep U.S. society polarized over science and likely helping to make it still harder for many religious believers to accept scientific findings in areas like evolution.

Although the New Atheists are not so numerous, and much younger as a movement than their polar opposite—the Christian right—they've amassed a powerful following, especially online, and have sold millions of books by prosecuting a culture war in precisely the opposite direction from the one waged by Christian conservatives. Science is their watchword, but it has always been about much more than that. The New Atheist science blogger PZ Myers, for instance, has publicly desecrated a consecrated communion wafer, presumably taken from a Catholic mass, and put a picture of it, pierced by a rusty nail and thrown in the trash, on the Internet.

The New Atheists are unswerving in their conviction that irrational religion is the source of many of our ills—especially when it comes to the public's poor understanding of science—and vociferous in their criticism of scientists who nevertheless retain religious belief, like Collins, even though Collins is himself a strong defender of evolution. But the truth is that religious scientists like Collins have the best chance of making religious Americans more accepting of modern science.

Consider the survey evidence, which shows that while most Americans want to have both science and religion in their lives, they'll only go so far to preserve the former at the expense of the latter. According to a 2006 Time magazine poll, for instance, 64 percent of Americans would hold on to a cherished religious belief even if science had disproved it. Many Americans who reject evolution—a stunning 46 percent, according to surveys—assuredly fall in this category.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:37:46 PM

    As a student of the sciences, I think it's important to disinguish between the idea of a higher power and the plethora of misinterpretations of a higher power. I am a huge fan of science as it is the pursuit of truth via the presentation of empirical evidence. But, even scientific evidence is insufficient in denying the existence of a higher power, not that that is at all what it aims to do. However, I think that the problem arises where scientific evidence is more than enough to distinguish some of the misinterpretations of a higher power, and this is where the two become irreconcilable. There will always be those--theologians and scientists alike--who are so deeply entrenched in their own belief system that they are completely unwilling to look at anything which might contradict it, however convincingly. It would appear that a practice of humilty would go a long way in such cases.

  • Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:36:16 PM

    I fail to see where this is relevant to the argument presented in the previous comment.

    That being said, I feel that your stating that '... the fact that most homosexuals are atheists doesn't say much for the validity of the doctrine of the Anti-Christ crowd.' is a blind claim. How did you arrive at the conclusion that most homsexuals are atheists? Can you provide proof of this? And even if this were the case, then wouldn't you think that maybe that might have something to do with homosexuals being alientated by many of those who hold certain religious beliefs? A thought worth considering I think.

    As to the earlier statistics you'd presented, it could also be said that the obese person loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan, or that the person with high blood pressure loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan, or that the person who fails to practice a healthy lifesyle, consisting of a healthy diet and regular exercise, loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan.

    This is the problem, in my opinion. Scientific data can be distorted, isolated to support just about any argument. And this is most unfortunate because it's little more than a perversion of the very objective of science, which is to examine all of the facts, as far as we can conclude that they're facts.

  • Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:13:39 PM

    I agree with your general line of thinking, but I also subscribe to the 'live and let live' philosophy. If a particular belief or set of beliefs brings an individual personal enlightenment and causes no harm to others, then I can see nothing wrong with it. If a belief or set of beliefs does cause others harm, or is forced upon others, then I see a huge problem with it.

    In short, it is my opinion that any one belief or set of beliefs should not be allowed to entirely determine the direction of an entire population, unless of course that belief or set of beliefs satisfies all within that population.

    It appears that many people either don't realize or forget that the world was not always populated by civilized charlatans, many of whom seem to think that they know what's best for everyone. By contrary, 'the live and let live' philosophy and ensuing wayS of life dominated the timeline of our existence on this planet... up until fairly recently, relatively speaking. For many of us unfortunately, it would appear that we know only what we see.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now