Dan Brown Explores Faith, Science in Assembly Speech
Bestselling author Dan Brown ‘82 shared his insight on the interplay between science and religion at assembly on Friday.
Emeritus Math Instructor and Dan Brown’s father Richard Brown delivered opening remarks, recounting several humorous anecdotes from his son’s childhood and the way they had shaped his character and writing. “Growing up on the Exeter campus as a young boy and then as a student, Dan was exposed to all kinds of religions, cultures and different socioeconomic classes,” he said. “I’d like to think that this worldly and diverse environment sparked Dan’s fascination with international settings and also helped to inspire the progressive and open-minded ideologies that fuel his novels.”
“His experiences coming from a family where one side was very religious and the other was not as much gave him an interesting perspective,”
The ideas that Dan Brown shared in his speech were very upsetting to many community members, however, particularly to those who practice a religion. Far from expressing “progressive and open-minded ideologies,” several students in Catholic Exonians found Brown’s presentation to be “contrived,” “uncomfortable” and “antagonizing.”
Brown began his speech by describing his experience growing up in a household where his parents harbored different religious convictions. “Living in a house with a God-fearing mother and a math-crazed father was something of a schizophrenic childhood. I lived a very paradoxical kind of life—a world between science and religion,” he said.
The author subsequently voiced his claim that “the two players of science and religion are as different from one another as they could possibly be.” He recounted various historical events and examples of science contradicting religion or vice versa to support his argument. “We no longer turn to God for answers to why the tides flow or why plagues spread. Science has answered those questions. We now turn to God for answers to a handful of questions that science has never been able to answer: where do we come from, why are we here, and what happens when we die? And in asking these questions, we realize that like our ancient ancestors, we still worship the gods of the gaps,” he stated. “We still call upon God and religion to fill the gaps in our understanding of the human experience. At the same time, those gaps have shrunk dramatically over time. Nowadays, with the big exception of existential questions which still remain very much in the realm of religion, science rather than religion is the lense through which we increasingly see our world.”
Of the many visiting alumni who were in attendance, Davis Robinson ‘57 commended Brown for his thorough and thoughtful approach to a complex topic. “The assembly was just outstanding. He’s a genius in the amount of research that he does. He asks all the theological questions of life,” Robinson said. Upper Adrian Venzon agreed, commenting, “[Brown] and his father were wonderful and engaging as speakers.”
Lower Saskia Braden felt that the younger Brown had effectively addressed multiple viewpoints in his speech. “His experiences coming from a family where one side was very religious and the other was not as much gave him an interesting perspective,” she said. “A lot of people have very black-and-white viewpoints on this issue. He addressed it in a way that was accessible to many. Even a number of students I was talking to who are very religiously devout said they appreciated his way of speaking and efforts to target everyone in the audience so they could see things from another perspective.”
Many Exonians disagreed, however. One such community member was upper Elliot Diaz. “The topic of the assembly was very interesting, but I thought it was better suited for a Harkness discussion than an assembly topic,” he commented. “There are so many valuable perspectives when talking about religion. As someone who sees the intersection of religion and science differently than Dan Brown, it was frustrating not being able to provide a different perspective.”
Several students in Catholic Exonians approached Reverend Heidi Heath after the assembly to express their distress. “I interpreted his argument to be that all the questions you have about religion can be answered by science and that science proves religion wrong. It didn’t just target the Catholic faith—it targeted all religions and anyone who practices religion,” lower Maggie Smyth said.
Senior Anna Clark expressed similar sentiments. “The delivery of his argument was what frustrated me,” she commented. “At this school, we don’t try to impose our ideas on others. We try to foster discussion. Yes, that includes stating your opinion, but what I found problematic was that he went up there and shamed people who might have disagreed with him, discounting all religions as just a way to fill in gaps.”
Many students stated that while they were in support of exchanging views on the relationship between science and religion, they did not believe a required appointment such as assembly was the best platform in which to do so. “Religion is such a touchy subject,” senior Tricia Moriarty explained. “It was a bold move to talk about religion so strongly in a room of not only students but also faculty and alumni. It was a very strong decision on his part and it wasn’t necessarily the right one.”
Heath sent out an email to all students in Catholic Exonians on Sunday, acknowledging the upset that the assembly had caused and expressing her support for any students who felt uncomfortable during the speech. She declined to comment for this article.
Many faculty members, especially those in the science department who were aware of the controversy around the assembly, did not share these views, however. “As a Christian and a scientist myself, I was not bothered at all to hear Mr. Brown’s assembly talk. As I understood it, it was an open-minded and question-provoking personal view, which is what freedom to think and speak is all about. If one studies history enough, one will see how Mr. Brown’s words were neither unreasoned nor unreasonable,” Science Instructor Tatiana Waterman said. “Reasoned dialogue is what PEA students are known for, and it is the essence and base of a free society.”
Science Instructor Townley Chisholm further elaborated on the importance of sharing potentially controversial ideas, saying, “The assembly was funny and thought-provoking, as Mr. Brown intended it to be. I value free speech and freedom of thought very highly. People who didn’t like his comments and conclusions are free to write and argue against them. I hope they will, but I see no controversy at all here. Education is not a danger; it’s an opportunity.”
Science Instructor Sean Campbell said that while he disagreed with Brown’s arguments, “[Brown] is a human with opinions, and we invite all sorts of people with all sorts of opinions onto the assembly hall stage.”
Robinson found the assembly to be a valuable educational opportunity. “To me, the fact that people are upset doesn’t mean that the assembly was a mistake or wrong or inappropriate,” he said. “We’re in an institution in which we are hopefully debating big ideas. If we only listen to things that aren’t offensive, we’re going to miss a lot of ideas. I want us to get better at being more inclusive, but I would also like us to have thick skins when it comes to hearing different opinions.”
The speech culminated in Brown’s contemplation of the future of religion and science and the collective impact of the two fields on our society. “If we look at this historical trend of science eating away at the claims of religion, we have to wonder if the same process of demystification and dereligionization will continue into the future, extending itself into the final few existential questions. Will science and religion ever learn to get along?” he asked. “As our technologies race forward, will our philosophies keep pace?”