Why Efforts to Unify Science & Religion are a Waste of Time and Money
-->
Nobody expends time trying to unify bird watching and playing chess, or cleaning the pantry and pole dancing. Why? It is because they serve different functions in human society. I've been amazed over the years at how many conferences have been convened, time and money spent on efforts to unify science and religion. It is a well-intentioned endeavor. But I've never quite understood the point.
Science represents the human exploration of nature and the cosmos, in hopes of answering fundamental questions. Religion (or I will qualify this statement by saying "western religions") may on the surface appear to answer questions. But their job has nothing to do with untangling the mysteries of nature. It is about soothing our existential anxieties about life itself, its unpredictability, impermanence, and inevitable extinction. Our religions do not help us understand the physiology of death, but in some cases they allow us to face it with greater courage.
A GOOGLE search using the keywords "conference on science and religion" turned up 142 million sites, some vastly more interesting than others. One of the more noteworthy was held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California in 2006 and entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival." Described by The New York Times as a "free-for all on science and religion," the meeting discussed a number of provocative issues, summed up by New Scientist in the following three questions:
Science represents the human exploration of nature and the cosmos, in hopes of answering fundamental questions. Religion (or I will qualify this statement by saying "western religions") may on the surface appear to answer questions. But their job has nothing to do with untangling the mysteries of nature. It is about soothing our existential anxieties about life itself, its unpredictability, impermanence, and inevitable extinction. Our religions do not help us understand the physiology of death, but in some cases they allow us to face it with greater courage.
A GOOGLE search using the keywords "conference on science and religion" turned up 142 million sites, some vastly more interesting than others. One of the more noteworthy was held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California in 2006 and entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival." Described by The New York Times as a "free-for all on science and religion," the meeting discussed a number of provocative issues, summed up by New Scientist in the following three questions:
- Can science help us create a new rational narrative as poetic and powerful as those that have traditionally sustained societies?
- Can we treat religion as a natural phenomenon?
- Can we be good without God? And if not God, then what?
The conference underwriter, Robert Zeps, explained that the meeting was an attempt to counter the efforts of The Templeton Foundation to reconcile science and religion. This Foundation spends $70 million in grants each year to fund research projects, conferences and seminars, whose principal goal is to explore the intersection of science and religion. Critics have insisted that research undertaken with Foundation support is tainted, even when conducted by legitimate scientists. But scientific funding can be hard to come by. And some researchers who have received Templeton grants counter that their particular projects had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
If I were a scientific researcher, I'd have no qualms about accepting funds from an organization like Templeton. The only caveat I would offer is a recognition of the fact that science does not need religion to legitimize what it does. But religion does indeed need science to make it appear more acceptable to the contemporary mind.
RELATED POSTS: Do Humans Require Religious Fairytales in Order to Behave Morally?
In the Battle Between Science & Religion in the West, Asia is the Winner
If I were a scientific researcher, I'd have no qualms about accepting funds from an organization like Templeton. The only caveat I would offer is a recognition of the fact that science does not need religion to legitimize what it does. But religion does indeed need science to make it appear more acceptable to the contemporary mind.
RELATED POSTS: Do Humans Require Religious Fairytales in Order to Behave Morally?
In the Battle Between Science & Religion in the West, Asia is the Winner
Comments