Literature

Nature's editorial linked to the work of the Templeton Foundation (blogged here) has stimulated a response from two scientists who think that only scientists can make truth claims about the world around us. Adherents of religions, in their view, have no business encroaching into this territory. The authors identify a "fundamental conflict" which "can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality".

Who can make claims with integrity about the nature of reality?
(Graphic source here)

In their view, religions should be the subjects of scientific enquiry. This is necessary to deconstruct the socially-constructed nature of religious systems.

"The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world's belief systems."

Cobb and Coyne are in no doubt about the findings (but for a related blog, go here). They distance themselves from the approach adopted by Nature's Editors:

"The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or 'spirituality') any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism."

Three points are worthy of note about this correspondence. The first is the complete absence of any historical perspective. There is no acknowledgement that Science emerged from a Christian culture, and that many of science's fundamental concepts are underpinned by Christian theology. Most of the early scientists were Christians, and regarded scientific work as their calling before God. (For more on this, go here).

The second point is the apparent inability of Cobb and Coyne to distinguish between "religion" and underpinning philosophies. This means that they lapse into yet another tired old polemic to set up "science" against "religion". We expect more discernment and substance from intellectual leaders. These matters are well-documented by Christian philosophers of science and ought to be known to anyone wanting to engage in constructive debate over these issues.

Thirdly, Cobb and Coyne confuse cause and effect when the say: "the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism." From the Enlightenment onwards, there has been a secularising trend in science. This is not inherent to science, but it reflects cultural trends among the intelligentsia. This trend is apparent today in the way atheistic scientists redefine science to suit their own philosophy. They write: "Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world". This definition presupposes that "the world" is entirely material and that it can be explained wholly in terms of natural causes. However, to presuppose this is not to prove the point! To presuppose it actually closes up avenues of enquiry that might conceivably lead to design inferences being made, thereby revealing that any explanation of the real world that does not incorporate intelligent causation must be deficient. In terms of methodology, Cobb and Coyne are undermining the integrity of science - to be open to evidence wherever it leads. What they should be recognising is that atheism emerges from a mutant science that has first presumed atheism.

Atheism could be science's contribution to religion
Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne
Nature 454, 253-254 (28 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/4541049d

First paragraph: We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253-254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world - explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.