by Juan Antonio Aguilera Mochón, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and in the Instituto de la Paz y los Conflictos (Peace and Conflict Institute) at the University of Granada, Spain
The longstanding science-religion confict continues to be a highly topical subject—for two reasons especially. First, advances in science and technology often force religion to revise old opinions and adopt new ones. And second, education is an arena in which science and religion may confict. (And it will likely remain so.)
by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Professor of Psychology at the University of Haifa, Israel.
Sigmund Freud identifed two major blows to “human megalomania”—blows that destroyed our long-held self-image as unique and superior. The frst blow was the Copernican revolution, which deprived humans of their place at the center of the universe, telling them that earth was in a remote corner of one galaxy among billions. Then came Charles Darwin, putting us in our place as part of the animal kingdom, with no special creation needed for our appearance on earth.
by David E. Henderson, Professor of Chemistry at Trinity College, Hartford
The central problem for public secularism has been identifed by Cobern as a philosophically naked public square. In this chapter, I shall pursue this theme further in three areas. These are, frstly, the problem of philosophical secularism; secondly, how the science courses I have been developing with the support of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) meet Cobern’s four rules for implementing methodological secularism in the classroom; and, fnally, how we can advance this debate.
by William Cobern, rofessor of Biological Sciences and Science Education and Director of the Mallinson Institute for Science Education at Western Michigan University
The United States is a country in which, according to the Constitution, there can be no religious test for public offce. On the other hand, we have a Bill of Rights that guarantees the free exercise of religion. We call this a secular system of government, and sometimes go so far as to use Jefferson’s phrase that there is a “wall of separation” between church and state. For the most part, this secular system of government comports well with the Christian teachings based on Jesus’ remark that one should render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and unto God that which belongs to God.
“Science” and “religion” are foundational concepts in Western thought. They are widely spoken of, and conceived of, as monolithic and adversarial phenomena. They are both, however, in the words of anthropologist Beatrice Whiting, incredibly complex “packaged variables.” As such, they are meaningful generalizations, but also misleading and sometimes counterproductive ones, rather than homogeneous realities. They are particularly counterproductive in the form, “religion versus science.” Upon close scrutiny it becomes apparent that—depending upon the defnitions of “religion(s)” or “the sciences” being employed—there is no necessary or wholesale confict between something called “religion” and something called “science.” There are, rather, particular “religious” ideas and ideologies of time, place, and culture that have conficted with particular facts, fndings, or theories emerging from the natural sciences on particular subjects.
by Austin Dacey, contributing editor with Skeptical Inquirer magazine and a representative to the United Nations for the Center for Inquiry
Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, a 400-page polemic on the irrationality of supernatural theism, and the absurdity and immorality of much traditional religion. Perhaps it should not surprise that the most commercially successful book by Dawkins is also the book worst received by his colleagues in science and science education. Although many reviewers spoke admiringly of his intellectual integrity, they criticized him for what they regarded as a confrontational, combative stance on religion.
by Jon D. Miller, John A. Hannah Professor of Integrative Studies at Michigan State University & Robert T. Pennock, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Michigan State University in Lyman Briggs College, the Departments of Philosophy, Computer Science and Engineering, and the Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior program
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, there has been an uneasy truce between science and religion in the United States. During the 60 years since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been viewed as the most scientific nation on the planet. American universities and laboratories have developed an extraordinary array of technologies, and are responsible for a substantial portion of our modern scientific understanding of nature. More Americans have been early adopters of new technologies—from automobiles and airplanes to antibiotics and new medical technologies—than adults in any other country. Nine out of ten Americans think that science and technology have made their lives “healthier, easier, and more comfortable.” And yet, on particular issues such as evolution and stem cell research, there has been active political resistance to scientific advancement from at least some religious quarters. Such religious opposition has led to a low-level but ongoing struggle over the content of science education.
by Ariela Keysar, Associate Research Professor of Public Policy and Law and the Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) at Trinity College, Hartford & Barry A. Kosmin, Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture and Research Professor, Public Policy and Law Program at Trinity College, Hartford
As this book went to press in early 2008, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was weighing a request by a Bible-based creationist institute to offer online master’s degrees in science education. The Institute for Creation Research aims to challenge the standard teachings of evolution and (according to its website) “equip current and future Christian leaders with practical tools to effectively influence their world with the truths of Scripture.” Its goal is to staff classrooms with science teachers sympathetic to religious fundamentalism, educators who believe in the Biblical account of the world’s creation. This is an open challenge to the normative model of Western science, which is based on the secular principles of free inquiry and empiricism.
by Ashgar Ali Engineer, Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Secularism in Society, editor of the Indian Journal of Secularism, and director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, Mumbai, India
Secularism in India has unique implications and meaning. In the Indian context the word secularism has never been used in the way in which it is often used in Western countries (i.e. a purely this-worldly approach, rejecting other-worldly beliefs).
McGill Teaching Fellow in International Studies at Trinity College
In a country where honest responses to simple questions such as “Are you a Muslim? Do you believe in God? Is the Holy Koran the word of God? Do you pray and read the Holy Koran? When you were growing up did your father pray, fast, and read the Holy Koran?” led to mass executions in the late 1980’s, it is very difficult to know who is secular and to what extent. In this kind of situation people do not trust each other easily and often deny their true identity. It is infinitely more complicated to conduct a survey that asks questions like “What is your religion, if any?” Therefore, this assessment of religious identification among Iranians has shortcomings in terms of a quantifiable evaluation.
