Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / August 2008

My beliefs are different from most folks on this mailing list, as
while conscious of scientific thought and critical thinking, I am not
a believer in being a non-believer.

Still, this is interesting if not inspiring:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/full/4541049d.html

   We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton
Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253-254; 2008). Surely
science is about finding material explanations of the world --
explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and
reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.

   Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe,
wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built
Universe. (The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality',
which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses
'intelligent design'.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that
can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about
the nature of reality.

   The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions
that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is
negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could
consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and
believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of
religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the
world's belief systems.

   Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such
research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science
and religion (or 'spirituality') any closer to one another. You
suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological
thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to
the ideas of religion is atheism.

_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
Skeptix@lists.opn.org
http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org