The conference was hosted by the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion (DoSER) branch of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The goal of the
conference was not to reach consensus on any topic in particular, but instead
to explore venues where religious and scientific communities could engage in
discussion.
As a science communication student, I found my morning and
afternoon sessions very insightful. The panellists discussed different methods and
strategies for encouraging conversation between scientific and religious
communities, but I found that their suggestions might also be used in a variety
of situations where there are tensions between scientific communities and other
groups. However, one thing that was striking from a communication standpoint is
that the scientists were not stellar communicators. Many of them fell into
their classroom or conference lecture habits, which aren’t particularly engaging
for the general public.
Don’t get me wrong: there were some good communicators from
the science crowd (even one or two great ones), but few came close to the pastors
and reverends. If there is one thing that religion can teach to science, it is
how to reach a wide public audience in terms they understand.
When a reverend or pastor took the microphone they never started
by looking at notes. Instead they scanned the audience, getting to know the
crowd in those fractions of a second. They never used power point slides. Instead
they painted images with words. Often they spoke with a storytelling style: beginning,
middle, end. Short asides of personal experiences made things relatable. They
also knew they couldn’t cover everything, so they didn’t. By being focused and on
point they were easy to follow. At the end, a simple acknowledgement that there
was more left unsaid – something for a future discussion – left their talks open,
but not wanting.
If I may be so bold, I’d suggest that pastors and scientists
grab a coffee now and again. Scientists could pick up a few tips on public
lectures, while pastors would get a chance to pick the brains of experts on
some diverse and amazing topics.
This idea, of getting to know a person or a group that you
are dialoguing with, was a point on which all parties at the conference agreed.
Too often we are stuck in our little communities with no meaningful contact
with others outside these spheres. This leads to misconceptions, stereotypes and
wild assumptions that just don’t hold true. People talking at each other,
rather than to each other, is something of which both sides of the science and
religion discussion are guilty.
One parable told in the closing remarks stuck with me: Standing on the plains, I saw a monster on
the horizon. As it approached, I saw it was an animal. As it drew even closer,
I saw it was a human. When we were face to face, it was my brother.
It sums up a lot of strategies that came out of the conference
on how to start a meaningful discussion: to take risks and get up close to try
and understand a different point of view, to be willing to listen, to break
bread. This way you spend your time talking with a friend, not yelling at a
fictitious monster on the horizon.
