Religion is imbued in society. Faith is a factor in presidential elections. School prayer divides communities, religious leaders fight for their symbols to adorn public buildings during holidays, and it influences Biology courses in high schools.
The last one -- religion’s foray into the scientific realm -- is at the crux of the division. In "A Free-for-All on Science and Religion," Times Reporter George Johnson describes the growing gap between the diametrically opposed camps of scientists and the faithful. And now, people in science are beginning an offensive, as some are moving in direction of the firebrands of faith, according to Johnson.
"Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told," wrote Johnson.
One scientist in the article, Carolyn Porco, advocated mimicking the verve and influence of churches, creating scientific churches. "Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know," Johnson quoted Porco.
Stepping into the milieu is Dr. Richard Dawkins, who is a evolutionary biologist from Oxford and a ardent athetist. Dawkins is known to inflame almost anyone of faith. Johnson describes Dawkins as having "take-no-prisoners approach" by comparing religious education to "child abuse," calling it "brainwashing." Nonetheless, his books have been very successful.
Dawkins' popularity and rhetoric drives fear into the heart of the religious, as they see him as a sign of a concerted effort to drive religion out of society.
But is it? What makes Porco's idea any different than the proselytizing of many evangelical movements? Not much, but it is need to impel truths that is the problem, rather than exercising compromise and tolerance. As long as either side remains entrenched, expect the war of faith to rage on.
The problem with these types of depictions is that the media doesn't portray any shades of gray. Where is the scientist who believes in God? Or the devout Christian that believes in the process of evolution with God providing the spark? Often they are nowhere to found.
Tracy Bratten @ November 22, 2006 - 1:03pm
Good point, Michael. It seems the media often assumes there exist only two possibilities: science or religion, thus excluding a large portion of the population from rhetoric on the debate. With regard to this controversy, especially, there is extensive gray area.
I find it interesting that Dr. Dawkins so adamantly opposes religious education and even goes so far as to call it "child abuse." If his approach is, indeed, "take-no-prisoners," then isn't he just contributing to the problem? Only instead of evangelical education, he advocates an aetheist agenda. What of incorporating both ideas into the discourse on the subject? Yeah, right.
»