To be fair, maybe science should stay out of religion, as religion should stay out of science. All I meant to justify in the end of the preceding post is this: one can always use facts to justify opinions but you can't use opinions to justify facts, so if science is akin to facts and religion is akin to opinions, you can see why I object more strongly to bringing religion into science than vice versa. Still this might be an oversimplification. After all I think the term "truth" is the key here, and may be more apt than "fact" or "opinion." Science isn't all facts and religion isn't all opinions (though for someone like me, it is difficult to find anything I consider to be factual in most religions--still I'll assume for sake of argument that factual information does exist in religion). Both seek truths of some kind. So perhaps we should just keep these sort of truths separate entirely since they use very different methods for uncovering their respective truths and require very different modes of mental processing (faith and belief vs. skepticism and proof).
This then just gets back to my assertion that it is often difficult to keep such realms compartmentalized. I admit that I personally could not do it. At first when learning basic science it was enough to simply address the areas in which my religious teachings seemed to conflict with science. In doing so, I took the Garden of Eden to be a figurative creation story. After all, surely the Bible has passages that no one takes literally (certain diet restrictions or harsh punishments), and there are even parts of the Bible that contradict other parts (I've read the whole thing). So it made sense to me that the creation story was symbolic and that the Big Bang and evolution were the actual tools god used to create the earth and man from seemingly nothing.
But the more I embraced the scientific way of seeking truth, the more untenable the religious way seemed to me, and I'm betting my story is not at all uncommon. Fortunately, the devout need not become a scientist and can remain in the stage I was in when religion and basic science coexisted in my modes of thinking, maintaining religiosity and scientific literacy. And if the devout is very deliberate, careful, and willing, he/she can maintain that compartmentalization while going on to pursue science more seriously. But this is not an easy task. And if folks like me are incapable of leaving the sacred immune to skepticism, it is quite conceivable that this often works in the reverse.
Indeed as an example, there is a certain professor in a certain department that I happened to be in as a graduate student who thinks other scientists loathe him because he is religious. Sadly, he doesn't see that those of us who do not respect him as a scientist could care less what his religious beliefs are, EXCEPT that he brings his religion into science. This is especially enraging because as a scientific "expert" he speaks with "authority" and tries to make the case for belief in the supernatural as being necessary to explain scientific phenomenon. Not only is this a departure from the scientific method, but because of his credentials, the average person is likely to think this man's unscientific conclusions represent science in general. I won't go into the sexist interactions I personally had with this professor, but suffice it to say that his perception that people do not like him due to his religious beliefs is far from true. There are valid reasons people avoid him.
Similarly it is also highly suspect when a religious school decides they only want religious scientists working for them. It wreaks of an agenda. An agenda that is also not scientific. For if you are truly teaching science, you cannot bring religious belief into it, as I have already argued. Otherwise, you might be teaching your sincere beliefs but you are not teaching science. And the logic can't work both ways. For example many Christians claim that their religion is separate from their science. And for some this is totally true--they rise to the challenge and keep religion out of science and vice versa. I have many scientific friends who are very religious and admirably keep those two spheres apart from one another in their thinking. But if this can be done, then could you not just make sure that anyone who teaches science in your faculty is doing the same with their beliefs, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, Wiccan, Pagan or whatever? If science has no place for religious beliefs in its teachings then what should it matter what the teacher's beliefs are, so long as they aren't being brought into the classroom and as a consequence, destroying the science. And if you argue that religion needs to be brought into science then: a. you are not really teaching science but rather an unscientific pseudoscience, and b. you should not be surprised, then, if the scientists you train fall under heavy criticism for their departure from the scientific method via the introduction of religious belief into their science. You can't have it both ways: Again I repeat, if you are teaching true science then a person's religious beliefs shouldn't matter as long as they can keep them out of their science and if you bring your religious beliefs into your science, you are necessarily betraying the scientific method.
With this in mind, we get to the crux of the issue. It would be completely reasonable for a religious school to ensure that its science faculty are not stepping outside science and teaching a belief system counter to their sacred beliefs. It would be appropriate to question candidates, therefore, as to their beliefs and how they might handle potential questions from students regarding matters of the divine. For example, if I was given this chance, I would tell the school officials that I respect their beliefs totally and that I would sign an oath if they wished, promising that I would never speak against those beliefs. I might even be willing to say something like this (as a stopgap in response to a student's repeated questioning), "the _____ denomination of the Christian religion teaches this: _____" and commit to learning some canned responses to common questions. That way I completely circumvent speaking on my own beliefs and align my response with the beliefs of the school. Most of the time; however, I would find it most appropriate to say something like "questions of religious belief fall outside my curriculum as a scientist. I recommend you speak with [insert religious mentor's name] for questions regarding religion." Since I do not have particular beliefs in the supernatural, it would be quite easy indeed for me to keep religion out of science even though I couldn't do the reverse with my own beliefs. But to refuse to even consider candidates like myself is something I find highly offensive (again, imagine the reverse situation), and makes me also question what they consider to be science if they believe it necessary for science faculty to have a particular religious belief in order to adequately teach science. And then this question ripples down the line of consequences: if it's suspect whether or not they are teaching true science then is it suspect that their science majors have a true understanding of science? And if growing numbers of science majors have an inadequate understanding of science, then how can we hope to spread scientific literacy in our culture?
Finally, you may wonder, if I am such a staunch atheist, why would I want to even teach in a religious school. The fact is that, in addition to financial pressure to find employment, there are certain things I like about religious schools. First, they tend to be smaller and more personable than huge universities. My first bachelor's degree (in music) was earned at one such college and I really loved that faculty made personal connections with your students. Education in such an environment is more efficient and effective. Second, I think it's important that religious folks have some basic understanding of *true* science (ie. NOT the pseudo-science taught when religion is brought into science). As an atheist I think I am in a unique position not to allow supernatural beliefs to be inserted into my scientific teachings, thus I would be able to give my students a true scientific experience. There is a growing problem of scientific illiteracy in our nation and we are falling behind in the STEM areas compared to other nations. I do not aim to try to destroy religious belief, only to outreach to those most in need in order to get them basic scientific proficiency. What they do with their religious beliefs is up to them, as it should be. They can reconcile any differences on a basic level as I once did, they can keep religious questions completely separate, or they can find themselves unable to resist questioning their religious assumptions. Religious school officials can teach what they feel to be important in regards to religion, but certainly they cannot hope to have their teachings stick if they are externally applied without internal faith. Whatever spiritual route students choose ought to be up to them, but I certainly do not mean to steer them in any particular direction, nor should this be the agenda of any scientist of any faith. I would like the chance to teach students about objective scientific truths, but I have no desire or will to teach them anything about religious truths. That is the job of the religious leaders, faculty whose expertise lie in religion, and ultimately their own hearts. And isn't that the essence of the ideal science faculty candidate?
No comments:
Post a Comment