Society & Culture - Posted by Amy Hodges-Rice on Thursday, September 22, 2011 14:47 - 13 Comments 
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...US profs: Religion, science not in conflict
"Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases," sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund says. "Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science." (Credit: Photos.com/Rice University)
RICE (US) — Only 15 percent of scientists at major US research universities see religion and science as always in conflict, a new study finds.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
A majority of the scientists surveyed viewed both religion and science as “valid avenues of knowledge” that can bring broader understanding to important questions.
“When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth, and how life developed on it, many have seen religion and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable conflict,” says Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund.
Ecklund summarized her findings in an article published in the September issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Her co-authors were sociologists Jerry Park of Baylor University and Katherine Sorrell, a former postbaccalaureate fellow at Rice and current Ph.D. student at the University of Notre Dame.
They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities.
Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict.
Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.
“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund says. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”
Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.
The study identified three strategies of action used by these scientists to manage the religion-science boundaries and the circumstances that the two could overlap.
- Redefining categories: Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include noninstitutionalized forms of spirituality.
- Integration models: Scientists deliberately use the views of influential scientists who they believe have successfully integrated their religious and scientific beliefs.
- Intentional talk: Scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion.
Religion-friendly science
“The kind of narrow research available on religion and science seems to ask if they are in conflict or not, when it should really ask the conditions under which they are in conflict,” Ecklund says.
“Our research has found that even within the same person, there can be differing views. It’s very important to dispel the myth that people believe that religion and science either do or don’t conflict. Our study found that many people have much more nuanced views.”
These nuanced views often find their way into the classroom, according to those interviewed. One biologist, an atheist not part of any religious tradition, admitted that she makes a sincere effort to present science such that “religious students do not need to compromise their own selves.” Although she is not reconsidering her personal views on religion, she seeks out resources to keep her religious students engaged with science.
Other key findings
Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.
Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.
Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict.
Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.
Ecklund says the study’s findings will go far in improving the public’s perception of science. “I think it would be helpful for the public to see what scientists are actually saying about these topics, rather than just believe stereotypes,” she says. “It would definitely benefit public dialogue about the relationship between science and religion.”
The study was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and additional funding from Rice University.
More news from Rice University: www.media.rice.edu/media
Please wait
13 Comments
Richard D. Stacy
The appeal of religion was, is, and always will be to provide consoling and understandable answers to life’s many unanswerable questions. The acceptance of these answers is popularly called “faith”.
Don Gilmore
“Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”
Predigested findings. You didn’t include the questions or answers, only your conclusions about what you think the undisclosed answers to the undisclosed questions proved to you. Did you find what you were looking for? I think so.
Brian
This study’s conclusion as it is presented here seems rather wrong if I may say so. Don’t the results of 70% believing science sometimes conflicts with religion/spirituality and 15% believing it always conflicts add up to 85% of those surveyed who think religion/spirituality and science are in conflict? Yet the article frames it as if there is not much conflict…? How about some specifics?
Also, if you do not define a specific religion then it might as well be any spiritual idea someone comes up with, which one could construct him or herself to be for or opposed to popular religion or science. This article, because of lack of specificity, means nothing and really seems to support the belief that science and spirituality don’t mix.
Pierre
The article states something rather simple: It is okay to be a scientist and have some sort of faith. It also says that both sides are entitled to their own beliefs. The problem with this world is the imposition of two ideals:
1) God is the only answer
2) There is no God, Science is the only answer
Both of these statements are false. You cannot prove nor disprove God, so as a true scientist you have to leave that .00001 possibility out there. As a believer with faith, .00001 is enough for many to grasp on to and use to believe in God.
No one is wrong here. The people that are wrong are those that want to smite God out of the public light and those that don’t want atheists to have a choice. Both those extreme ideals need to die, and quickly. The 70% shows a tolerance, and that is what this world needs – tolerance for God and Science.
What is so wrong that?
whoiam
“Both those extreme ideals need to die, and quickly. The 70% shows a tolerance, and that is what this world needs – tolerance for God and Science. ”
Wow…that’s ironic.
burak
It is not made clear if the scientists answering the question ‘are science and religion in conflict?’ are refering to conflict between religious and scientific institutions, religous and scientific theory, or the religous and scientific approaches. Without distinguising between these contexts the answers/results do not have much meaning.
One could potentially believe that religous and scientific intitutions are just about always at conflict. While at the same time believe that the theory of religion and science do not conflict, precisely because they use different approaches to address different issues, i.e., faith to determine the existence of God and the meaning of life, versus reason to determine the mechanisms that operate the physical world.
George Pomonis
One has to separate the difference between “Science and Religion” and “Scientists and Preachers.” The conflicts arise between people and not the two “magistaria” of Science and Regligion.
Durant
I think that most people are “closet agnostics”, but afraid to admit it, since if God (or gods) heard them, they would lose their reservations on the “heaven (paradise, Valhalla, etc,) bus”.
Part of the problem with science and religion is the definition of terms. Until there are precise definitions of all words that all sides agree on we are playing a game called “Show me a pound of time”.
Dave
The problem is that, yes, you’d expect scientists to be open-minded and reasonable about possibilities. Unfortunately with religious people, that’s usually not the case. Understanding is a two-way street.
Warren Buffett
Note how comments bashing “religion” have been removed from this post.
Religion is human fantasy.
Gods in world include Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Ram Vishnu, Sun-god Moon-god Kitchen god in china.
Gods for All nationa. all people all occastion..
No facts/evidence/experiment will ever prove god
Censorship of posts will NOT prove gods of Zeus, Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Ram Jesus, Buddha or Kitchen-god exist.
Most scientists are either Christian or don’t deny that there is some sort of greater design.
I find it encouraging that this work points to patterns of attitude that I had already expected and hoped for among fellow scientists and people of faith, but fear that the Templeton foundation’s involvement will cause the results to be instantly called into question by those convinced that belief in science has nothing in common with belief in anything else.