The Problem Presented by the View on the Street

John H. Evans

One of the most important articles I’ve read in science and religion comes from the pen of the UC San Diego sociologist, John H. Evans. Its title: “The View On the Street” (in the book, The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea That Wouldn't Die).

Evans notes that most treatments of science and religion focus on the epistemic conflict—that is, how we arrive at knowledge about the natural world? How do we assess the truth claims that religion and science present?

As quick and dirty research to assess Evans’s claim, I googled “science and religion” and found this article in the top five from the American Humanist Association, “the War Between Science and Religion Over?”

“It appears to be a widely accepted opinion in America that the long conflict between science and religion is at an end. It is often assumed that science and religion are two nonconflicting bodies of knowledge, equally valuable complementary paths leading toward an ultimate understanding of the world and our place in it. The conflicts of the past are said to be due to excessive zeal and misunderstanding on both sides. Peaceful coexistence and even a measure of syncretism are assumed to be possible as long as each concedes to the other’s authority in their separate worlds of knowledge: that of matter and facts for science, and that of the spirit and values for religion.”

Here I’ll insert that it comforts me to hear that the long-standing putative conflict, part of our national consciousness, is decreasing. And the top hit in my Google search was an excellent, short article from UC Berkeley, “Science and Religion: Reconcilable Differences.”

That is not, however, the conclusion of the these two writers from the American Humanist Association.

"Let us be blunt. While it may appear open-minded, modest, and comforting to many, this conciliatory view is nonsense. Science and religion are diametrically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels.And, because the two worldviews make claims to the same intellectual territory— that of the origin of the universe and humankind’s relationship to it — conflict is inevitable.”

Please notice—which is easy because I bolded particular words and phrases—their authors’ emphasis on bodies of knowledge, deepest philosophical levels, and same intellectual territory.

And this is where I, as an academic in science and religion, live. But it has distorted my views. The public, according to Evans’s sociological research, simply doesn’t overly worry about systematic truth claims. Those who write about science and religion, however, represent an unusual frame for this discussion because we hold PhDs in academic fields. “In sociological terms, certainly every person with a PhD,” as Evans writes, “is a member of the social elite.” And he adds, “This elite reasoning can be described as an ‘ideology’ or ‘worldview.” And the work of elites resides in their ability to see whether their worldviews and ideologies are consistent. 

“But, the public has much less logical consistency than elites do. This is not an insult but a matter of sociological realism. The reason for the difference is that the only people who have the time and motivation to develop airtight, logically consistent beliefs all the way back to first principles are those rewarded for doing so. Academics are rewarded for this with tenure—analytic philosophers are an extreme case.” John H. Evans

And so the study of science and religion has gone askew. The problem is that we’ve taken one approach from a particularly limited perspective.

What to do next? Will this resolve the fight that the Humanists presented? For now—that is, for this entry—I’d like to let the problem sink in. 

I'd also like to know: What do you think? Is Evans right? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.