Letters to the Editors; January 2000; Scientific American Magazine; by Staff Editor; 2 Page(s)

Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham's article, Scientists and Religion in America [September 1999], drew numerous--and highly varied--responses. Some expressed disdain for either science or religion; others lamented that conflict exists between them. Several readers criticized the methodology of the survey on grounds such as its neglect of the many religions other than Christianity, and a few wished the same energy that goes into the science-religion debate could be redirected to improving the world. "Belief means what you can bet on," writes Charles Walton of Los Gatos,Calif. "I will bet on the theory of relativity, I will bet on evolution and natural selection. One cannot bet that God will protect the innocent, or that God will save a deserving life, or that God answers prayers. The best thing for us to do," he opines, "is get on with our daily work and creatively advance humankind's understanding. In that way we can hope to find the truth about God or whatever is behind it all. "Additional comments on this article and others in the September issue follow.

With regard to "Scientists and Religion in America," by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, conflicts between science and religion are not initiated by science. They occur when science proves (or appears about to prove) false a "truth" claimed by one or more mainstream religions. Religion and philosophy simply must accept that if they claim to have special knowledge of the material world they are at risk of being proved wrong. Attacks on science are no different than the once acceptable practice of killing the messenger.