I commend Murray Peshkin for his personal involvement in educating the public about science ( Physics Today, July 2006, page 46). Arming nonscientists with even the most basic scientific reasoning goes a long way in dispelling much of the misinformation propagated by religious fundamentalists. However, I think Peshkin’s explanation of boundaries between science and religion is wrong, and even though his education of nonscientists is amiable, his message to the religious among them is condescending.
Peshkin’s presentation to religious nonscientists is conciliatory through the claim that science need not overlap with their beliefs, and that they can be safe from scientific scrutiny because science and religion have “different rules of inference, and different definitions of truth or reality.” The statement comes without explanation and seems like it is intended to be accepted without question by a receptive audience. Then he writes, “Science is based entirely on experiment,” which emphasizes a narrow scope of science and implies ample room for religious belief. This second statement is wrong because it disregards the role of observation, something responsible for astronomy and much of evolutionary biology, to name just two areas. By neglecting to mention observation in this context, he leaves out the essence of science most directly responsible for unease with religion. Specifically, observation means that many religiously motivated claims about nature can be subject to scientific scrutiny even if they are not experimentally accessible; the origins of the universe and of humans are prime examples. Science has cornered religious assertions about the natural world, and the tension arises not when scientists step over some imaginary line into religion but when religion trespasses by trying to explain the natural world. Any supernatural cause that has an effect in the natural world is subject to validation or refutation by science.
Peshkin does give two examples where science cannot tread: “The world was created three hours ago with all our memories and everything else in place,” and “No observational evidence can disprove some subtle supernatural intervention.” But those statements are just specific examples of the general rules; we can’t know the unknowable, and we can’t disprove the existence of something. Peshkin seems to imply that these kind of fantastical ideas are a refuge for the religious, without enlightening them to how extremely small a perimeter it leaves them to roam. He does not show, for example, how this fence surrounding religion means the effectiveness of prayer, existence of the soul, and interaction between a deity and the natural world are subject to scientific scrutiny. Instead, his misrepresentation of science appears deliberately designed to comfort those with beliefs in the supernatural.
My charges present a dilemma for Peshkin and for all of us who want to have an honest debate about science education, health care, medical research, and other avenues in which science and religion have rubbed elbows. Either we run the risk of alienating religious people by explaining how little room science leaves for mysticism, or we treat them like children by sugarcoating our empiricism so they can feel comfortable in their beliefs; the latter stance is often mistaken as respect for religion. Perhaps Peshkin’s middle ground is good diplomacy, but it is not completely forthright.
