FRIESEL REPLIES: Most of these issues were addressed in my original letter, but it may be beneficial to provide some brief additional comments.
Stuckey replies with plausible statements. It may be true, for example, that Templeton awardees (or, more appropriately, those who aspire to such an award) are probably no more likely to compromise their scholarly standards than are NSF grantees, but the implications of such a saying are somewhat dark and unclear. It may also be a perfectly legitimate intellectual exercise for a philosopher to hold an “interdisciplinary study in science and religion,” whatever that may be.
I am disappointed that Sheldon Glashow could have made the statement Stuckey attributes to him. By 1999, the more complex aspects of the universe should have been widely known. One would also suppose it clear that Glashow’s inclusive statement about the faith of scientists is false and can easily be demonstrated to be so.
It would be good to nail down the meaning of the word “progressive” in Dyson’s reply: Nearly everyone responds sympathetically to activities labeled “progressive,” much as they do to those labeled “compassionate,” but both can mean significantly different things to different people. For example, some religious individuals may interpret as progress both a new law that biblical teaching takes precedence in the schools over scientific discovery, and a law banning the teaching of evolution theory. I see little grant money going to those who attempt to show that religion and science are immiscible, yet to my mind such an aspiration is truly progress, in both religion and science.
That the difference between religious belief and the conditional acceptance of observation is both simple and profound bears repeating. Absolute laws arising from the void by the will of a supernatural force, miraculous occurrences without cause other than a supernatural will, a book whose contents cannot be contradicted—in science, these things are wholly unnecessary and can easily be detrimental to progress. Science, in a sense, always uses the conditional—that is, “if this is true, what else is true?”—where the “truth” is no more or less than what can be repetitively observed.
