From Cornelius Hunter at Darwin’s God, discussing The Real Conflict Between Science and Religion:
But as Henry Kissinger described academia, the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small. From the outside the conflict between atheist evolutionists and theist evolutionists is rather meaningless. For the atheists, in spite of all their bluster, are no different than the theists in their religious beliefs. They call themselves atheists, but their convictions about god are as strong as anyone’s. (see examples here and here).
So yes many evolutionists are atheists, but as usual the theology rules. Evolutionists are either theists who hold strong religious convictions or atheists who hold strong religious convictions. Either way the science suffers. I guess you could say there is a conflict between religion and science after all.
Interesting perspective. But does the science have to suffer? I’m not necessarily convinced.
He also states (earlier in the post),
… a recent poll showed that a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power. And that is up from the 42% who responded similarly almost a century ago in 1914.
The problem is not so much that religion conflicts with science as it co-opts science.
Again, interesting perspective – and I’ll let it go at that.
In recent comments to a prior post, my friend Mike once again raised the issue of whether religion was compatible with science (or vice versa). With incredibly perfect timing, Bradley Monton (who I have identified in the past as one of my favorite atheists for his very open and honest views) authored a post that is right on point, Bias in academia. The post is relevant on 2 fronts: First, it addresses the issue of “bias in academia” (obviously a very appropriate title), this time referring to philosophy as opposed to science. His brief comments on this issue speak for themselves, so I suggest you head over there (when you’re done here) and read them.
Monton’s post was motivated by the introduction to a live-blog review of a debate between atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, known for his pro-evolution, anti-religion views, and Alvin Plantinga, a well-known Christian philosopher who the author identifies as “one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period.” At the debate, Plantinga presented a paper on the issue of whether theism was compatible with science. Dennett was there to respond.
I was pleased that Plantinga opened by stating that Theism is not incompatible with science, it is incompatible with naturalism, a point that I’ve raised (it’s always nice to know that you agree with really smart guys). And, Dennett, for the most part, agreed. Of note, Dennett said:
- Evolution is compatible with theism
- We don’t have to have a conception of randomness that is incompatible with theism
- The theistic hypothesis can’t be refuted
- Contemporary evolutionary theory can’t rule out ID
Dennett appears to have behaved exactly like I would have expected him to, and in keeping with much of the science v religion debate that I’ve seen. Overall, he failed to address most of Plantinga’s points, and resorted to ridicule and insults (the comments tended to agree with the reviewer’s assessment). It makes you wonder why he even bothered to show up, except that it did illustrate the current state of the science v religion debate.
