Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15-Jun-06 10:15:37 AM >>> It has to go without saying (but maybe not) that one guy who is a famous biologist and also believes in God doesn't say anything about the likelihood of other biologists being believers or the compatibility of science and religious belief and a survey of evolutionary biologists' religious beliefs doesn't say much about the religious beliefs of scientists in general (but I was surprised that only 84% of evolutionary biologists are not religious persons and only 70% thought there was no evidence for a belief in God. I thought the percentages would be closer to the percentage of Michigan Militia members in the ACLU). Given the current cultural milieu and commonly accepted beliefs about science and religion, it is not even surprising to find that a smaller percentage of scientists have religious beliefs than the population at large. That percentage says less about any inherent incompatibility between the two approaches than it does about the current state of what many believe today about their incompatibility. The fact that the percentage of females in math and science careers is not evidence that being female is inherently incompatible with being a scientist. It is simply due to the way society is currently structured and the many subtle beliefs people hold about that incompatibility that lead to those differences. JC: I'm not sure I get the militia and ACLU comment, unless it was meant to communicate the expectation that there would be zero overlap between science and religion. Such an expectation is to me very surprising in anyone with experience with social science research, or even natural science research for that fact. Surely people have a rather remarkable capacity to live with contradiction between beliefs or between belief and action (e.g., "thou shalt not kill" with executions and war). With respect to the breadth of disbelief across scientific disciplins, I pointed out in my earlier posting that numerous other surveys are consistent with the one of evolutionary biologists. I included that one because of its recency and its more detailed questioning (e.g., that lack of belief is associated with lack of evidence ... more below). For a summary of another well-publicized study that was broader in scope, see http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm I was careful to use the word "association" for the relationship that I reported so as to avoid any implication of causality. And Rick's hypothesis is certainly one possible alternative explanation. My own hypothesis, in line with the responses of the biologists to the evidence question, is that there are profound and fundamental contradictions between religious beliefs and a scientific attitude. Religious conviction depends on either (a) a rejection of the idea that empirical evidence is necessary to substantiate such beliefs (i.e., it is pure faith-based), or (b) a considerable watering down of one's critical capacities when it comes to evaluating the quality of evidence (e.g., anecdotal reports, personal experiences, ...). And of course in the extreme there are direct contradictions about matters of fact, such as the age of the earth in young-earth creationists and scientists. To bring this back to teaching, I would be very interested in knowing whether believers who teach their students critical thinking would advocate that those same skills be brought to bear on students' religious beliefs, or that religion is beyond the scope of critical thinking, or that nothing should be said about the relationship between critical thinking and religion. I've always found it interesting, for example, that Myers (who is very religious) has subtle comments here and there in his intro text (7th ed) that could be taken as undermining or limiting somewhat the scientific worldview. On page 53, for example, he writes: "True, psychology cannot address all of life's great questions, but it speaks to some might important ones." And on page 306, "Although there remain questions that it cannot answer, science nevertheless helps fashion our image of who we are * of our human potentials and human limits." And in an extended section on pp 131-132 ... "What caused this almost-too-good-to-be-true fine tuned universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did it come to be ... 'so extraordinarily right'? Is there a benevolent super-intelligence behind it all? ... On most of these matters, science is silent." Science isn't silent ... it just has a different answer than Myers ... that is, lack of purpose + natural selection. Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
