ABSTRACT
A student submitted a paper in a course on ‘religion and science’. She was convinced that at the Resurrection, when Jesus became Jesus Christ, something of cosmic significance had happened. She had an idea what that might have been: physics’ most famous formula, E = mc2, only then became true to reality; before then, it would have been E = mc. Why? Well, Jesus became Jesus Christ – you see the extra c, of cosmic proportions? I rejected the paper. The student felt I had rejected her religious beliefs; I had not been sufficiently tolerant of religious and cultural differences, but rather followed my own prejudices. In popular culture there is the persistence of magic in popular TV pro-
grammes and elsewhere, as well as the emergence of fundamentalist versions of religious traditions. These are not just private aberrations as they may have social consequences. Alternative medicine is a public issue since public money is involved in health care. I am also concerned about false hope, paid for with real money. Pseudo-religion and pseudo-science reveal real desires and fears of people, in problematical forms. In the first chapter I spoke of two different contexts for ‘religion and sci-
ence’: secularization and the struggle against superstition. The apologetic agenda was prominent in the second chapter. This chapter will be more about the quest for quality. How to promote quality in reflections on ‘religion and science’? How to avoid the multiplication of nonsense, especially in an area loaded with personal preferences? Both in the academic and in the public domain we need to distinguish genuine spirituality from superstition. In my opinion, every sincere author on ‘religion and science’ should feel sympathy for the organized sceptics and secular humanists, since their criticisms are often made for the sake of rationality, integrity and prudence. We need to attempt as good as we can to differentiate between genuine spirituality and superstition. Are there any sensible criteria when we have to do with the reception of
science and the future of religious thought? What can be appreciated as genuine spirituality in an age of science and what should be dismissed as superstition? Universally accepted criteria for quality do not exist nor can they exist, just as a simple, univocal and context-free demarcation between science, bad
science and pseudo-science is impossible. Particular convictions about the nature of science and the character of theology are always involved. In articulating criteria I express my affinity with sceptical thinking, my
positive appreciation of the Enlightenment and of the modern habit of questioning claims. Science is not merely a collection of facts (knowledge), but it is also an attitude of testing knowledge claims. In this chapter, we will first consider the nature of science, and thus the standing as well as the provisionality of scientific insights. Thereafter, I will offer ten criteria, drawing on the Ten Commandments. Not that the criteria are of a similar significance, but this provided me with an inspiring framework. A critical attitude towards authority and speculation is, in my opinion, an
issue of intellectual, moral and spiritual sincerity. In this spirit, the criteria that will be proposed are open to criticism as well. Learning what someone else takes as professional norms in reflection on ‘religion and science’, and where it differs from another person’s view, may contribute to clarity on the issues themselves. A risk is that we humans easily apply double standards, so that the standards by which we judge others we do not apply to ourselves. In order to be sincere, we need to apply the same criteria to our own convictions as to the X-files. Or, to appropriate a biblical phrase, there is no greater command than: ‘You shall criticize yourself as your neighbour’ or, even more appropriate, ‘For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get’ (after Matthew 22: 39).
