When I read Theology and Social Theory I thought I knew what Milbank meant about scientists of any sort making their academics their religion, all the while criticizing religion as most think of it. Now that I'm at Columbia, I am amazed at how true Milbank's words ring. Every day I am surrounded by people assuming Christianity and science must be at odds. (Frankly, while this frustrates me, it is a bit refreshing to be exposed to this side of the argument after so many years facing the anti-intellectual fundamentalist side of it.) I love and respect my new friends, but I also have to appreciate how poorly science serves as a religion.

All of this Radical Orthodoxy nostalgia was brought about by a book a friend recently pointed out to me, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett and an excellent review of it in the Times by Leon Wiesteltier. I wish my philosophical acumen were as sharp as it used to be, because I'd like to lay out critiques as salient as this one. It is certainly worth the read.

Now, let me say that just because this one book has been torn down doesn't mean this discussion is over. In fact, a large amount of the critique is likely a result of overstatements rooted in Dennett's pompous condescension. But let me conclude by saying this: religion and science need not be at odds. Indeed, religion will find itself well served by science when it comes to accept its tools for learning of God's creation. Likewise, science should come to terms with the metaphysical claims it makes and realize it makes poor religion. When more Christians accept the value of science rightly positioned under the authority of God and scientists treat religious folks as ignorant imbeciles, a lot more good will come to the world.