Colossian Blog
December 6, 2012 | Daniel Camacho

Book Review – Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think

Book Review – Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think

Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund. Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 228       

 

 

 

December 6th, 2012                                                      
By Daniel Camacho

 

Once upon a time, Galileo was tortured at the hands of the Inquisition in a moment that would come to exemplify the age-long conflict between science and religion—at least, this is how the story often goes. But Elaine Ecklund, a sociologist from Rice University, argues that this recounting of the story is more of a myth. Not only was Galileo never tortured but misconceptions about religion and science continue to abound in contemporary discourse. In order to better explain the relationship that scientists have with religion, Ecklund turns to today’s elite scientists and examines their religious lives.

Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think is the culmination of an unprecedented study that tracks the religion and spirituality of scientists at America’s elite universities. Over a span of four years, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists, personally interviewed 275 of them, and visited public events where scientists addressed matters of faith. The one thing that became clear to her after four years of research was that much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong.

Ecklund’s findings sketch a portrait of a scientific community that is much more religiously diverse than previously thought. While there are still significantly more scientists who are atheists in comparison to the number of atheists in the general U.S. population (34% vs. 2%), about half of scientists identify with some type of religion. Additionally, a little over 20% of scientists see themselves as spiritual but not religious in a traditional sense. In terms of age, her study also found that younger scientists were more likely to believe in God and attend religious services.

The majority of religious scientists practice what Ecklund calls a “closeted faith,” rarely sharing their views with their colleagues due to strong cultures of suppression surrounding religious discussion within departments. Interestingly enough, many of these same scientists find it difficult to open up about their work in their houses of worship. However, there are a smaller number of scientists whom she would describe as “boundary pioneers.” These are scientists who are willing to talk openly about how they have successfully reconciled religion and science. Among the spiritual but not religious, Ecklund found “spiritual entrepreneurs,” and even “spiritual atheists,” whose spirituality meaningfully engages their science without reference to God or organized religion. On the significance of all of this, Ecklund writes:

[div id=”blockquote”]Scientists have been perceived as carriers of the secularist impulse, a group responsible for building the modern research university and undermining religious authority by their success in deciphering the mysteries of the natural order without recourse to supernatural aid or guidance. But I argue here that elite scientists who are boundary pioneers and spiritual atheists might actually be carriers of a new religious impulse, one characterized by a deep commitment to the scientific enterprise and the achievement of elite status among their scientific piers.[end-div]Ecklund’s groundbreaking research is aided by her nuanced approach to religion. Instead of using a singular definition of religion or reducing religion to traditional markers, she allowed respondents to define religion in their own terms. This enabled her to uncover a greater degree of complexity in the religious lives of scientists.

In the course of her research, Ecklund was able to shatter some common myths held by religious people about scientists. First, atheist scientists are not always hostile to religion. Only a small proportion of atheists and agnostics in the study were hostile and actively opposed to religion. This reveals that the hostility expressed towards religion by some scientists (think Richard Dawkins)—which may loom large in the public imagination—is actually far less representative of what most scientists believe. Second, spirituality is still often important for a number of scientists who do not identify themselves as religious. While not traditionally religious, these scientists express a quest for truth and a wonder for the universe that is an important part of their work. Lastly, for non-religious scientists, science is not the major cause of unbelief. Bad experiences with religion, issues over the problem of evil, and one’s upbringing (i.e. parent’s religious commitment) are more likely causes.

In addition to shattering myths about “godless” scientists, Ecklund also discovered that some scientists held views about religion that were simply inaccurate. For one, many scientists expressed a low level of religious literacy. In other words, they would often reduce all religion to fundamentalism. Secondly, many scientists assumed that all evangelical Christians were against science—not knowing sometimes that some of their colleagues at school, who were also included in the study, were evangelicals.

Going beyond scientists’ personal beliefs, Ecklund also spends some time showing how scientists’ different conceptions of the university and of the scientific enterprise itself play an important role in how they understand religion. For example, some see science as the only valid way to knowledge while others are much more willing to admit the limitations and biases that factor into science. Beliefs on these matters are just as crucial and happen to be as diverse as the personal religious beliefs of scientists.

One of Ecklund’s main goals in writing Science vs. Religion was to promote a more productive dialogue between religious nonscientists and scientists (religious and nonreligious). She shows that there is a greater amount of complexity and factors at work in the religious lives of scientists than is commonly assumed. She also persuasively argues that a lack of dialogue and understanding is a loss for everyone. On the one hand, religious people should not believe the popular caricatures that misrepresent scientists. On the other hand, if scientists truly want to communicate better with the general public then it will require a greater degree of sensitivity to the religious diversity that exists in our society.

 

Daniel Camacho is a Junior Fellow at The Colossian Forum.

 

Suggested Posts
Reflections on Unity
May 24, 2017 | Josh Webb
Reflections on Unity
As a soon-to-be college graduate who is looking forward to heading out into the world, I’ve realized that I’m inheriting an American society that is more polarized than ever. Republicans hate Democrats, Democrats hate Republicans, and all of us are suspicious of those Independents. As I think about where I may find my next church home, I often read the statements of faith that many churches now publish on their websites. I ask myself if it’s a liberal church or a conservative church. I wonder what position their members and leadership take on gay marriage or evolution. Sometimes, from just a simple glance at a church web page, I uncharitably conclude that, “These aren’t the type of Christians I want to worship with”. I assume that I am not alone in this. Yet are we not one church? Do we not eat at one table, kneel at one cross, praise but one name? Across political, socioeconomic, and geographic divides, all Christians claim the same good news: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us and was resurrected. How, then, do we account for the incredible differences in opinion among Christians today and what exactly do we do about it? The Apostle Paul compares the church to a human body. Like a human body, the body of Christ is made up of many parts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul writes, “Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit”. Each part of the body brings a different perspective, a different understanding, and has a different role to play. But no part can function on its own and all must work together to survive. Even in the tremendous diversity of the body, by God's power there is unity. This unity in Christ has been hard to see in recent times. Christians of differing theological understandings have resorted to schism and isolation rather than attempting the hard work of confronting conflict. And while it may seem easier for rival factions to simply go their separate ways, where is the Christian witness in running from difficult situations? Is our belief in God's power so small that we cannot fathom the bridging of our differences? Is our commitment to Jesus' command to love one another really so weak? Paul's words admonish our actions: "The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don’t need you.' The head can’t say to the feet, 'I don’t need you.'" Our Christian witness is not found in our ability to agree on all things. We are not called to be a church of mindless clones. That is the witness of human culture, which forces individuals to choose between agreement or exclusion. Instead, our Christian witness is found in the fact that we are one body of many disagreeing parts. Our witness is found in our diversity, in our humility, in our graciousness, in our love for God, and in our love for one another. This is something the world cannot offer, for only God can hold together such a messy, marvelous body. As it is written in Colossians 1:17-18 (TCF’s namesake verse), “in Christ all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church ….” Even with Christ as the head, disagreements will still exist among believers. But Christians have a choice when it comes to conflict in their churches. And when we choose to let Christ hold us together, we choose to receive the blessing of his saving grace and the power of his resurrection. The spiritual death that is enmity, division, and suspicion can be turned into a renewed life of love, unity, and understanding. I've seen it happen in my own life. I work at a church whose theological and political leanings differ from mine. Over the years, I've found myself becoming more critical and less gracious in my thoughts toward my church. But God has been working on my heart, and while I still don't agree with some of my church family, I've started loving them in a new way. Instead of loving my church family despite our disagreements, I've somehow come to love them because of those disagreements. I'm beginning to realize that my brothers and sisters who disagree with me are not some sort of trial or hardship, but an example of God's grace in my life. How else are we to experience God's grace and power if not through his ability to renew our lives in the midst of conflict and disagreement? I have been blessed with the time I've had as an intern at The Colossian Forum. My experience here has helped me come to a new understanding of what it means to be a part of the body of Christ. As I move forward into this next chapter of my life, I pray for opportunities to put this new perspective into practice, trusting that all things truly will hold together in Christ.
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
May 17, 2017 | Jennifer Vander Molen
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
This article originally appeared on May 8, 2017, in Convivium, a publication of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca. Thanks for the mention! Controversy over religion and science is nothing new. That’s certainly true in the world of education. Indeed, a recent commentary in the Washington Post lamented 60 examples of what the author called “anti-science education legislation” that could affect what American students are taught regarding the evolution-creation debate and global warming. We may even see the odd flare-up of such conflict in Canada. So, it’s not surprising that public skepticism abounds regarding the ability of religious schools – evangelical Christian schools in particular – to teach science. However, new research by the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative (CRSI) at the University of Notre Dame offers evidence that such skepticism is ill founded. In their newly released paper, Blinded by Religion? Religious School Graduates and Perceptions of Science in Young Adulthood , researchers Jonathan Schwartz and David Sikkink examined religious school graduates’ orientations toward science. Using the latest Cardus Education Survey data from Canada and the United States, they analyzed graduates’ views on a range of subjects, including science, creation vs. evolution, and the number of science courses taken. They found that graduates of religious schools do sometimes hold distinct views on science as compared to public school graduates. But these distinctions aren’t uniform across the board. Neither are they the kinds of distinctions that would inspire popular caricatures of religious school grads as simpletons who believe in a flat Earth. In fact, when it comes to taking science courses, you’d be hard-pressed to find much difference between Canadian religious and public school graduates. Controlling for family background and parental education, Schwartz and Sikkink found that “students at private religious schools enroll in science classes at a similar rate to public school peers in Canada.” The distinction in the United States, meanwhile, is that only homeschoolers (religious and non-religious) were the least likely of all students to have taken courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, or to have had at least three science courses throughout high school. There was little to distinguish American graduates of private Christian schools from their public school counterparts in that regard. What about attitudes toward scientists? You might expect some animosity towards them from religious grads, but you wouldn’t find it in Canada. “Generally speaking, Canadians hold scientists in similar esteem regardless of their high school educational context,” say the researchers. It’s a slightly different picture in the United States. There, graduates of evangelical Protestant schools tend to be less trusting of scientists and assign a lower value to their social contributions than public school grads do. That’s a difference to be sure, but hardly a unique or problematic one from a social point of view. The battle over whether to teach creationist critiques of evolutionary theory is certainly sharper in the United States than in Canada. And that seems to emerge in the research as well. “In Canada, school sector does not on its own increase an individual’s belief in literal versions of creationism, but the U.S. case differs,” write Schwartz and Sikkink. American grads of evangelical Protestant high schools were found to be “more likely to adhere to a literal version of creation than their public high school peers.” What they couldn’t determine, though, was whether this was the result of teaching in science class, or an indirect result of the students’ religious and social lives. In short, it will take more research to draw conclusions about whether these schools actually make much difference in graduates’ creationist views. What about perceived conflicts between religious beliefs and science? On this question, both in Canada and in the U.S., there is little evidence to show that the type of school a student attended affects their likelihood to sense a science-religion conflict. However, the researchers did find that the more high school science courses Canadian students take, the more likely they are to perceive a conflict between science and religion. Notably, though, that holds regardless of which type of school they attended. So, this could be the result of a cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. While the science-religion conflict does not come up in a big way in this research, that’s not to say that perceptions of conflict don’t exist. Some educators are taking steps to equip themselves to handle such issues in the classroom, as evidenced by the creation of the FAST (Faith and Science Teaching) Curriculum developed by the Kuyers Institute and The Colossian Forum. The curriculum aims to help teachers lead their students into studying the intersection of faith and science, possibly reducing perceptions of conflict in the process. Meanwhile, William T. Cavanaugh, DePaul University theology professor, and James K. A. Smith, editor-in-chief of Cardus’s public theology journal Comment , have co-edited a new book that tackles related issues from a different angle. Evolution and the Fall examines the implications for a Christian understanding of creation and the entry of sin into the world if the widely accepted view of humanity’s evolutionary origins are true. Its provocative premise lays bare issues that Christians will inevitably have to deal with. All in all, we do see some differences between graduates of private Christians schools and public school graduates. But they aren’t all that stark or as shocking. If anything, this latest piece of CRSI research is perhaps our strongest indicator yet that Christian schools in Canada and the United States don’t have as troubled a relationship with science as many would expect. What’s more, there are efforts within the wider Christian community to bridge what perceived gaps do exist between faith and science.  In time, the research and bridge-building efforts may increase understanding and support for the vital place that religious schools hold in the education systems of both Canada and the U.S.