Biology, Culture, & Religion

Abstract

Scientists often point out that most of the beliefs purveyed by religious systems are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. That discussion has been going on since the Enlightenment, and especially since the publication of “The Origin of Species”. As a recent example, Dawkins (1993) has likened religion to a virus, and referred to religious belief as involving an “infected mind”. The implication of his writing is that humans would do fine if they trusted to scientists, who Dawkins defines elsewhere as “the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe”, and could reject “bad or silly traditional information”. Of course Professor Dawkins is right in saying that the basic beliefs, if taken literally, are simply unacceptable to most twentieth century minds. Stories of the Virgin birth, of Resurrection and Ascension, require more than a pinch of salt. And school teachers must no longer be expected to teach about specific gravity in one lesson and talk about Jesus walking on water in the next. Of course, science can do a better job in helping us to understand our origins than can Genesis or any comparable myth. Of course, science is better fitted to help us understand the relation between cause and consequence in everyday life. But to reject all religion because religious beliefs are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons.