ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Scientifically Correct Religion

Eugenie Scott believes science and religion can be compatible--with some compromises (Opinion, The Scientist, Jan. 9, 1995, page 12). John Maddox, the editor of Nature, recently wrote, ". . . many professional scientists are deeply religious, often justifying their belief on the grounds that 'science cannot know everything.'. . . it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti- science" (Nature, 368:185, 1994). As a practitioner of Christianity and science, I prefer

Forrest Mims III

Eugenie Scott believes science and religion can be compatible--with some compromises (Opinion, The Scientist, Jan. 9, 1995, page 12). John Maddox, the editor of Nature, recently wrote, ". . . many professional scientists are deeply religious, often justifying their belief on the grounds that 'science cannot know everything.'. . . it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti- science" (Nature, 368:185, 1994).

As a practitioner of Christianity and science, I prefer Maddox's rejection of religion to Scott's conditional acceptance, for his view is tempered with tolerance and hers is not.

The issue of Nature in which Maddox's tirade against religion appeared also carried a review of two books that describe Robert Boyle's Christian faith, and later Maddox printed letters from me and others who disagreed with him.

Scott's essay in The Scientist seems friendly to religious scientists, but in...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT