May 29, 2007
Does science need religion?
Martin Rees, head of Britain’s Royal Society (i.e., national academy of science), thinks science needs all the support it can get from moderate Christians in these fundie-filled times. Unsurprisingly, Dawkins demurs: “If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there’s something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.”
Perhaps. But evangelizing that enlightenment to the more receptive end of the religious establishment can’t be all bad, can it?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
As a PhD scientist and novelist who tackles the hefty subjects of science and religion in my novels, I am often the target of irrational ire from both sides. Many scientists and the religious cannot identify with a character holding opposing beliefs, and thus my first novel has drawn mixed reviews. While some open-minded people understand that I’m attempting to portray the divisions within society by creating multiple characters (like the Booklist starred review), others see only the contradictions or the challenges to their own beliefs and refuse to consider the opposing viewpoint. I think it’s sad that people cannot rationally discuss the deep divisions between the secular and the religious (and the divisions are very deep here in the U.S.) without resorting to invective or coercion.
TK Kenyon, author of *RABID: A Novel*
“[D]ebut novelist Kenyon isn't fooling around. What begins as a riff on Peyton Place (salacious small-town intrigue) smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion… a novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice.” Starred Review, *Booklist.*
Posted by: TK Kenyon at May 30, 2007 12:40 PM