When I first entered this wonderful blogging world, two years ago now (!!), one of the most fun things I discovered was discussing the alleged conflict between science and religion with people. I call it alleged because, for the most part, real scientists really don't care all that much about religion, and most religious folks accept the fact that science is a wonderful tool that achieves marvelous results. It is the extremes, those at the certain ends of the spectrum of human action who push the notion that there is some kind of fight to the death between science and religion. Gasoline has been poured on this particular fire in the past couple years with popular works penned by British geneticist Richard Dawkins, American hack-cum-neurology grad student Sam Harris, and gin-soaked British journalist Christopher Hitchens (the last of whom, despite his apostasy of becoming a right-wing mouthpiece, still holds a special place in my heart because he is a writer of distinct quality).
Over time, however, I have come to realize that these kinds of discussions follow a well-worn path. One side makes an assertion, which is addressed directly by the other side, and the race begins, in which each side attempts to show the other is made up of immoral threats to the well-being of all humanity, irrational curmudgeons refusing to face up to reality, and anti-intellectual cranks. Both sides talk past one another, usually with the presumption that the opposition simply isn't intellectually capable of understanding the vastness of the subject at hand. What is left is a series of type-written shouting matches that can be boiled down to, "So's your mother!"
A good example of this kind of thing, at least to an extent, is this thread from ER, which began last Friday and is still active (like a terrier with a rag, some people just don't stop). I say "to an extent" because, revealingly or not, the individuals who claim for themselves the intellectual high-road, accusing the other side of being an obscurantist threat to western civilization are revealingly ignorant on all sorts of matters, religious, philosophical, and (as Alan notes in comments) scientific. As usually happens when it is pointed out that someone is expressing an opinion based upon incorrect facts (e.g., that science refutes the existence of the Christian God, thus invalidating all religious belief), the one so accused falls back upon the time-worn retort that he or she is being misinterpreted, the statement was never made, etc., etc. To my mind, these things are just tiresome.
Now, I am not trying to pretend that I am above it all. I contributed a few comments (which were never addressed; I think, in general, people like to have arguments with only one person at a time, and I came late and relatively rarely to this particular party), and exercised my right to show that I've read a few books on matters relating to the subject at hand. I think that is a fault of mine, a trap in to which I fall a bit too often; I have this odd desire to show people how wonderfully clever I am. Obviously, I think I come off sounding a bit, how can I put this, full of myself (or of something). I am embarrassed by this kind of thing, because I do not believe (despite appearances) that this means I have some inside track on the way the world really is.
At the same time, I am exercised by the ignorance on display by people who go out of their way to claim that people who claim some form of religious faith are dangerous, reactionary forces, bent on destroying everything from Enlightenment rationalism to the Constitution of the United States. While I do not have any insight on the "Truth" of "Reality", I believe that I at least understand that "science" and "religion" are a bit larger, more complex phenomena than the caricatures presented by those who want to destroy the latter in the name of the former.
This is the crux of the problem, at least for me. I have no problem with people who insist that there is no God. I do not have a problem with people who advocate for a reduced role for religion in our public life (in a free country, I see no reason in the world why this position should be attacked as inherently out-of-bounds). My only problem lies with those who, in making one or another argument allegedly bolstering their own position, reveal their utter lack of understanding, not just of Christianity, but "religion" as a human phenomenon and science as a practical tool for understanding the world. I also find it amusing that the bigotry on display, revealed through the loaded vocabulary of moral approbation heaped upon the heads of religious folks, passes not only unremarked but is denied strongly when pointed out.
I know these kinds of things will go on, whether I approve of them or not. I know that people like Steve Zara and Lee will hold their views despite all sorts of arguments and evidence that their views are (to be polite) misguided. Yet, I cannot help but feel that real science, real social cohesion and beneficence, is not helped by people who claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority, yet refuse to acknowledge that they are, ahem, wrong sometimes.
