Some scientists suggest so. Before I can decide, I have a couple of questions: 1. What do they mean by science? and 2. What do they mean by religion?
Scientism dominates belief about reality these days. It's the idea that what is real is what can be studied by science. Science is universally applicable to every kind of knowledge pursuit. Empirical study is the most reliable kind of knowledge. That's pretty much how people approach things these days. The man the lab coat is the authority on every kind of subject.
But science can only study things that fall within its domain and methodology. And since naturalism dominates science these days, for science to study religion, religion has to be reduced to a purely natural phenomenon. Religion becomes behaviors, brain chemistry, etc. That's not religion. While science may be able to study certain aspects of religious phenomena, science just can't study religion. It falls outside its territory. But that's not surprising. Lots of important things do: morality, values, logic, consciousness, theology, etc.
If science cannot study religion because it doesn't have the resources to do it without fist reducing it to something else, that doesn't mean religion isn't part of the real world where facts and truth guide us to discover reality. It simply means it's another area of study. So I'm guessing I'll answer this question "no." We should use another area of knowledge to study religion.
How else can you create a synthetic religion like in Brave New World?
All hail his Fordship.
Posted by: Alex | May 22, 2012 at 03:01 PM
"Should Science Study Religion?"
They would rather laugh at it.
A better question would be should theists study science. If they did they might be able to cure their theism disease.
Posted by: Human Ape | May 23, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Looks like a Dawkinsian groupie decided to think freely and do what they are told.
Posted by: ArthurK | May 23, 2012 at 05:24 PM
I do hope this Human Ape poster is banned soon. I cannot stand trolls like this. They have no interest in conversation with anyone, they just come to mock. I doubt this person has read anything on STR.
Posted by: Mo | May 23, 2012 at 09:12 PM
I think that it is clear from the linked article that scientists think that religion has nothing to do with reason. No doubt that their exposure to those who are emotionally motivated within religious movements might have led them to that conclusion along with a lack of exposure to those who take a more reasonable approach to their theism. I think that this is largely due to the media latching on to the "it leads if it bleeds" mentality of reporting on matters of religion. Those in the media understand that emotion moves people to consume their content and thus bring in advertising dollar. It is the supply and demand that drives out most fair treatment of theology and consequently scientists, along with the rest of us, are treated to a McDonald's junk theological meal instead of a healthy diet of the truth about religion. It is no wonder then that they conclude, on the basis of their happy meal, that reason is not a natural part of a healthy theological diet.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | May 24, 2012 at 05:47 AM
Mo
It would be nice if everyone had at least a bit of an open mind, wouldn't it? But that's just my utopian dream. Mia Culpa.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | May 24, 2012 at 05:52 AM
Christians should use reason as a tool and not be led to believe that reason itself is a god.
Posted by: Billy Sparks | May 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM