Suppose you have a religion and are interested in science. Do you
a. Have to give up your religion
b. Have to abandon your effort to find out about the natural world through science
c. Try to find some accommodation?
Now suppose you are a member of a scientific body, and want to suggest to members of religions that they can be part of the scientific enterprise. What do you do?
a. Tell them they can do so only if they abandon their religion
b. Tell them they cannot be part of the scientific enterprise
c. Tell them that some religions have no apparent problem accommodating science?
According to a certain kind of atheist of my acquaintance, the answer to both questions is a. According to some theists of my acquaintance, the answer to both questions is c. According to antiscientific fundamentalists, of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu and various other religions, the answer is b [no links are necessary; you know who they are].
But both these theists and atheists share the view that science is worthwhile and should not be put on the same level as religious belief in public education, policy or discourse. What is going on here? Russell thinks that this is a philosophical matter, and scientific associations should not engage in philosophy. Wesley thinks that scientific associations must do so or they concede the field to the antiscientists and their faux framing of “he yelled, she yelled” (i.e., setting up the argument so that because they have no reason for their view, neither does anyone else, and it’s just a matter of who can shout the loudest).
What do you all think? I think that if one has a religion, one has to deal with the factual aspects of the world as best one can, and come to an accommodation, but does that transfer to the scientific associations themselves? Can they state that some religions are accommodationists? Can they advocate accommodationism?