Science and Religion Conflict?

Posted on September 24, 2011
Filed Under Sideblog | 6 Comments

Only 15% of scientists at major universities think there is a conflict between science and religion. I’m actually surprised it’s that low. I guess the New Atheists have been less persuasive than it appeared. More surprising was that a majority saw both science and religion as “valid avenues of knowledge.”

Related posts:

  1. Interesting Science as Religion Take
  2. Mormons and Atheists Most Knowledgeable About Religion
  3. Obama & Religion
  4. Religion and Brain Death
  5. Science Stoppers
  6. Hume’s Religion

Comments

6 Responses to “Science and Religion Conflict?”

Also interesting: Half the respondents were religious, so that means that at least 35% of respondents (maybe more) saw religion and science as at least partly in conflict, yet they believe in it anyway.

I’d probably say partially in conflict myself. Not because I think they are inherently in conflict. Just that I think religion unfortunately can encourage a kind of unquestioned dogma where views in conflict with science can persist.

Below are two quotes from the article that I think make the results seem different than I would have thought.

“Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.”

“Redefining categories — Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include noninstitutionalized forms of spirituality.”

I have a friend that I reconnected with at our 40 year class reunion. You might know of him. James (Jim) Catano. I think he writes articles for some news paper in the SLC area.

Jim used to be a very good member of the Church, but left about 5 years ago. He even taught at BYU, and I think his ex-wife still works there.

Anyway, he said he still believes in a god, just not a personal one like the LDS believe in. So I think that is the kind of religion the article is talking about. Much easier to square with science than say, Christianity.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that scientists more positive to religion adopt a position less akin to traditional popular theism and closer to deism. However I’m not sure that resolves the issue. The article was behind a paywall so I couldn’t read it but are they saying that science need not conflict with religion or simply doesn’t?

I’d be curious seeing the details of the study though. Anyone who has access to the JSSR via their library want to send me a copy?

I am not sure what the answer to your question is, but the way I read the article is, if one can redefine what one believes to be more in line with the science, then one need not believe that science and religion conflicts with each other.

I think that is an equivocation that most religious people are not willing to make. But is seems like a scientist can and does.

When it comes to evolution, I know of few lay members of any church that believe we and apes have a common ancestor. Yet for evolution to hold, that must be true.

I am still religious, but only because I am willing to redraw some lines in the sand that I used to believe to be set in stone. I don’t know about you, but I believe in very little that I believed in the mission field.

Honestly while I know more there aren’t a lot of beliefs I had on my mission that I dropped. I don’t know if that’s just because I knew I didn’t know much or because I came out of a pretty strong science background. I already believed in evolution for instance.

Leave a Reply