Sir

Your News Feature “Studies of faith” ( Nature 432, 666–669; 2004 ) is right to call science “the orthodox worldview” of the industrialized world and in many ways, it has also become, to use Tom Wolfe's phrase, “a court from which there is no appeal”.

As you note in your Editorial, “Where theology matters” (Nature 432, 657; 2004 10.1038/432657a), this is perhaps most clearly seen in medical research. It is often presented as being carried out purely to relieve pain and maximize personal autonomy. Yet most religious traditions would disagree with these aims, suggesting that well-being additionally depends upon other, ‘spiritual’, factors such as expressions of love and fulfilment of purpose.

Critical dissent has played a central role in advancing scientific understanding, and the right to dissent should be held in high esteem by scientists. In the past this dissent has primarily been by thinking scientists against the religious establishment. It seems ironic that these roles have now been reversed, with much dissent coming from thinking religious communities against the scientific establishment.

Like it or not, such dissent should be accepted, perhaps even embraced, since it may provide a means to a more balanced view of the place of science in society.