I recently had a chance to wrap up an independent term-long project, and the connections between my subject of interest and religion were simply too enticing to pass up. This year in Freshman Studies we were supposed to (I included supposed to because some people didn’t) read Matt Ridley’s The Agile Gene. This book is essentially a compilation and brief extension of primary and secondary scientific source material. Given my own interest and focus in the natural sciences, I was curious as to how this book got onto the Freshman Studies syllabus. I asked a professor, and I was told that The Agile Gene had replaced a (supposedly) similar book, Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. I had heard of this Dawkins character before, and being the curious and inquisitive scientist that I am, I had to read this work. I was somewhat struck by Dawkins’ “religious atheism”, as Professor Maravolo described it, and I will touch on this subject later, but I found the work to be almost unscientific in the way its arguments were constructed and presented. At the recommendation of two of my professors, Beth De Stasio and Nicholas Maravolo, I read a third book, Kennith Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. Miller’s book provides an interesting argument that is a good contrast to the absolutes presented by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. A comparison of these three texts prompted me to think about the relationship between the cultures of science and religion and how they are so often simultaneously intertwined and at odds with eachother.
Kennith Miller makes a valid point when he claims that both religion and science attempt to construct frameworks through which we interpret and assign meaning to existence. Given that science and religion often arrive at separate explanations as to why things occur/have occurred, it makes sense that there is often conflict between the cultures of science and religion. One doesn’t have to look far to find the byproducts of this cultural warfare; upset by the scientific claim that the earth is billions of years old (this is in conflict with their accepted Canon), Young Earth Creationists have reinterpreted and created scientific theories to explain their beliefs in a manner that is quite similar to the way that religions reinterpret themselves. Dawkins makes a clear argument in The Selfish Gene that this sort of thinking is foolish and pointless; according to Dawkins, we should simply disregard conceptual frameworks that are apparently wrong, even if they are useful and practical for some people (i.e. comfortable and conducive to a better/more fulfilled existence). Miller takes an opposite approach and argues that science and religion are not mutually exclusive; although there are obviously contradictions between some religious texts and currently accepted scientific knowledge, we can use our current knowledge to expand our understanding and appreciation of our religious beliefs instead of focusing on the contradictions and points of conflict(an almost Augustinian way of approaching the science vs. religion argument).
Given that science and religion both provide answers to one of the larger human questions (Where did I come from?) it makes sense that there is sometimes a conflict between the two. I was slightly bothered by Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene when I read it, as he almost seems to be pushing his own religion (if we can call atheism a religion) on his readers while he simultaneously criticizes the religious beliefs of others. I’m glad that I had a chance to read Kennith Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God as well, as it provided a nice contrast to Dawkin’s work; Miller’s argument that the different conceptual frameworks of religion and science are not mutually exclusive was well constructed and beautifully written. I don’t particularly agree with what any of the three authors argue, but I think it is interesting to note that individuals are capable of interpreting seemingly unbiased scientific information into their own conceptual frameworks for existence. As a student-scientist, I think that an awareness of this phenomena is paramount, and I’m very glad I had a chance to read these books in conjunction with taking Rlst 100.
No comments:
Post a Comment