In Nature for February 24, Geoffrey Cantor of Leeds university, a philosopher, points out that the issues involved in science and religion are important to our civilisation, and their study and discussion should not be left to the tender mercy of either the devoutly religious physicist or the scoffing atheistic biologist. People holding different beliefs and experts in different branches of knowledge should work together to explain the many puzzling aspects of human experience, and not engage in sterile confrontation.
Cantor remarks that when modern science started to advance rapidly in the 17th century it was believed by many of its practitioners that their science would greatly assist religion in its impact upon human culture. Yet for many people more recently science is held to have played an active role in the decline of religious belief, some scientists even asserting that the two systems of philosophy are totally incompatible. This view is not supported by the evidence. Historians argue that the apparent decline of religion in Britain is more closely linked to social, economic and technological changes in society than to any scientific advances.
It has to be acknowledged that certain religious groups have been highly dismissive of science and have sought to impede its advance as best they might. We look at the examples of anti-evolutionary creationists and the periodical adversarial stand of the Roman Catholic church towards some social impacts of scientific theory and practice. Yet religion has often motivated those pursuing science, notably Newton and Faraday, who saw no conflict between nature and revelation. Many vicar-naturalists have been prominent in their scientific search for truth in the 18th and 19th centuries. Religion has offered those social and emotional values and comfort which science could never do alone.
"Taking cheap and uninformed swipes at religion", writes Cantor, "is hardly the best strategy to adopt when trying to encourage people to take science seriously and become better informed about its method and content. Likewise, they should not assume that the public at large should revere science and embrace it enthusiastically."