Reconciling religion and science

Scientific American published online part of a conversation between Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins titled Should Science Speak to Faith? which can also be found in the July issue of the magazine. Richard Dawkins recently published the book titled The God Delusion in which he zealously protects science from incursion by religion and judging from the readers' reviews is very ardent in his rejection of God.

It must be pointed out that for someone who clearly professes to be an atheist, he certainly appears to have a very solid perception of just what it is he is rejecting. In other words, he does not appear to give quarter as to how any individual who does profess to believe in God actually interprets God. Therefore his own faith is very strongly entrenched.

Now, I am personally opposed to explaining reality in non-scientific terms, for I firmly believe that natural forces created the Universe and natural forces perpetuate reality, end of story. But, believe it or not Richard Dawkins, I believe in God. Just not your God, because it is very apparent that you must indeed have one so that you can profess to not believe in Him.

I place Richard Dawkins in the same category as the mathematician who believes that mathematics is the holy grail. They are both a respectable and scholarly kind, many even decorated for their contributions to their respective fields, but it is still fact that because mathematics can prove the impossible, it is obviously not the holy grail, and then it follows that neither is pure science the holy grail.

Which of course begs the question, can we reconcile religion and science? It is my considered opinion that scientific subjects should occupy only the realm of science in academia, and that religious subjects be placed under the umbrella of theological academia, and that never the twain should meet. There should be no conflict between the two but that they should exist only in the minds of fundamentalist creationists who find themselves drawn to scientific pursuits and vice versa. I think it immature and unprofessional for a master of one discipline to embroil himself critically in the affairs of another's, no matter how polar the relationship between the two disciplines.

Richard Dawkins has committed a professional faux pas.