Hey, look who’s posting on the BioLogos blog. It’s Unscientific America authors Mooney and Kirshenbaum, writing about the “supposed ‘conflict’ between science and religion” (and endorsing BioLogos founder Francis Collins, although it’s conceivable that this endorsement was merely a requirement to get the post published on the BioLogos blog).
Based on the square quotes (and also the “supposed”) you’d probably guess that they don’t believe there’s a conflict, and you’d be right:
The common ground, instead, must be science in its broadest sense–a shared body of facts we can all agree about, however we may differ about the spiritual. Yet this common ground itself is at risk if we let science and faith be in conflict.
I see what they’re saying. We all agree on the age of the earth; the best explanation for the appearance of design in nature; whether there was a sudden, world-wide flood at some point in the past; the meaning of a frozen waterfall; and the existence of thetans. And so we shouldn’t let our “spiritual” differences get in the way of this common ground.
Because if there’s one principle that’s important to the practice of science, it’s majoritarianism:
After all, the vast majority of Americas want nothing to do with this conflict. They want compromise, and compatibility.
If that’s what they want, then who am I to argue? Tell me, Mooney and Kirshenbaum, how can I help?
Next time you see the news media cover “science versus religion” as if it’s a battle, write or call in and say why that’s simplistic.
I can do that:
Dear New York Times,
I notice that you have recently described “science versus religion” as a “battle.”
You seem to have bought into the claims of Canadian/American indie-rock supergroup The New Atheists that science and religion are somehow in “conflict.”
In fact, there are literally dozens of scientific claims that the religious and the non-religious can agree upon: everything from “vinegar has a sour flavor” to “if you rub a balloon with a wooly sweater it will stick to your hair” to “if you use the tip of your thumb to block off the top of a straw when you remove it from your soda, the liquid will stay in place and not run out of the bottom.”
But every time your paper references more contentious areas of science like biology and physics and chemistry and geology, you’re implicitly supporting the forces of anti-religion and making it less likely that we’ll ever reach our goal of a society where everyone knows you can use lemon juice as invisible ink.
If you could adopt this more restrictive definition of “science,” it would really help out new NIH head Francis Collins.
Joel Grus
Seattle, WA
Typically the NYT doesn’t print my letters, but I have a good feeling about this one.
