متوفر باللغة العربية

Perhaps Daniel Sarewitz (Nature 488, 431; 2012) should read more Ludwig Wittgenstein. The philosopher opposed the view of religion as a flawed version of science, lacking in evidence, sophistication or predictive power. Rather, he considered religion a matter of shared practices, observance and ritual that has a special significance to its practitioners. To that extent, there is no meaningful opposition between religion and science: they do not even occupy the same logical space.

Sarewitz's account of what religion can teach science indicates a belief that the two activities are somehow similar and express the same aim. Viewing temples and falling in love can be moving experiences, but they don't reveal a hidden reality whose articulation eludes science.

I am not a believer in the Higgs boson (or related particles) merely because of a cultural artefact. I was born in a country that trusts theoretical physicists more than, say, astrologists (who need no physics for their predictions). That situation has arisen because of the divergent successes of the physical sciences and astrology in understanding the world.

Religion need not be bad science; science is not bad faith.