Customer Reviews

Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a model of in-depth sociological research, based on extensive in-person interviews with a rare (and rarefied) set of subjects: scientists at elite academic institutions. Ecklund clearly has a gift for getting beneath the surface in her interviews, and she puts the results together in memorable and succinct ways that sometimes confirm and sometimes undermine stereotypes of how scientists view religion--the adversarial title of the book (for which an author can never be held fully responsible) does little to convey the nuance and surprises of the analysis. The results, to be sure, are not entirely surprising: most elite scientists are indeed distant from traditional religion, as one would expect, even while a substantial minority are much more engaged with faith (both traditional and self-constructed) than even their own colleagues would guess. The decision to include social scientists among the sample seems to me a bit counterproductive, given how much methods and scholarly temperaments differ in the social sciences (even the "hard" disciplines like economics) compared to the natural sciences. Still, this is important work with an empirical clarity that has been needed for a long time in a field often mired in stereotypes and assumptions. It will serve the ongoing conversation about science and religion well for many years.

In this recent study, sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University moves beyond common cultural rhetoric to social scientific reality. During a four-year period from 2005-2008 she surveyed roughly 1,700 scientists from seven natural and social scientific disciplines who were randomly selected from twenty-one elite research universities. In addition, she further interviewed 275 of these scientists in person or by phone. She structures much of her narrative around ten scientists who embody many of the broad themes that emerged from the study.

"Neither a polemic nor a manifesto," she writes, "this book offers a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves" (p. 5), although in the last chapter she sheds her scientific neutrality and assumes the role of an "arbitrator" (p. 149) to suggest how both scientists and religionists can engage in "more productive dialogue." Ecklund's study documents how the common assumptions of many people are wrong.

In the first half of the book she explores the personal religious beliefs of scientists. About 53% of the elite scientists have no religious tradition, but this likewise means that almost half of them do subscribe to some sort of spirituality. Those who reject religion often do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science (eg, family background or the problem of evil). Roughly twenty percent of atheists and agnostics still describe themselves as "spiritual." In the second half of the book, Ecklund describes how these scientists engage public issues. How do they handle religion in the classroom? Do they actively suppress it, passively ignore it, or constructively enage it? Another chapter examines the secularization of the university. As a former campus minister, I especially enjoyed her chapter "God on the Quad" (40 percent of the scientists thought that "religion could play some positive role on university campuses").

This book should make for an excellent conversation starter among scientists and people of faith. You can give it to anyone in either group with the confidence that it is scientifically reliable, fair minded, and nuanced. Everyone gets to have their say in their own words (although the results are not always flattering). You learn why scientists distrust religion. Others talk about the rigid secular orthodoxy that they experience on campus, and how so-called "diversity" is often very limited. One unbeliever feared that science was doing itself much harm by its dismissive attitude toward religion. None of the scientists she surveyed supported the theory of intelligent design. One of the biggest problems is when both sides, because of their limited experiences of the other group, have no "cultural scripts" and so resort to shallow stereotypes. In a short, final chapter Ecklund tries to "shatter myths" that her study uncovered, like the myth that all atheists are hostile to religion, that there are no religious scientists, that religion will go away if you ignore or suppress it, or that all religion is fundamentalist. Three appendices conclude the book by describing the study, the survey, and the interviews in person and by phone.

I was able to read this book a few weeks ago. Ecklund did an amazing job surveying over 1000 US scientists (natural and social scientists) to determine if scientists were religious. She then followed the survey up with personal interviews of scientists to help give depth and help understand the survey responses. In her book, she uses the interviews to shed light on different ways scientists view religion as well as spirituality.

As expected, there is a higher percentage of athetists and agnostics in science than you find in the general public. What was facinating was her findings that many athetists still had a sense of spirituality, very few were actually hostile towards religion, and most who were atheists either grew up in families without strong religion or moved away from organized religion long before becoming scientists (as opposed to the myth that science makes people reject religion).

Ecklund concludes with recommendations for how scientists should address religion , how religious leaders should engage scientists, and why both should care about what the other thinks. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the subjects and hope it will increase more thoughtful discussions on the topic.

This is a well-researched and thoughtful book. Those looking for a screed- either pro- or anti-religion- will be disappointed. However, as a distillation of what college and university professors think, it is quite illuminating. Though most authors on the interminable science vs religion debate claim to speak for one side or the other, Dr. Ecklund lets those who are (often unwittingly) on the front of the conflict speak for themselves. You can cite a study that says X% of scientists are atheists, but what does that mean? What does that X% actually believe? Or the population that's not in X%? How do they reconcile the advancements of their field with whatever their spiritual beliefs are, if reconciliation is in fact called for?

If you want a confirmation of your own beliefs, read Dawkins or Hitchens or Spitzer or Craig or any number of other authors. If you want to be informed, if you want to learn something, if you want to read a different take on the debate, then I highly recommend this book.

As a scientist with a deeply engaging spiritual life, I very much appreciated this book and the careful research that is reported in it. The title does not do the book justice, though, since this is not an account of the tiring debate between those who advocate a wholly scientific view of reality and those who reject science whenever it conflicts with their beliefs. In fact, this book has nothing to do with that debate and is about the private and, at times, secret beliefs of real scientists.

I have recommended this book to many people, mostly scientists, since it shatters the widely-held "belief" that scientists cannot be religious or spiritual. It turns out that many of us are. The study reported in this book is one of those myth-shattering types of studies that ought to make people question the assumptions of many of the publicity seekers who make the mistake of claiming they speak for all scientists. I hope Dr. Ecklund continues in this vein with her research, since the data reported here have mainly made me want to know more.

No finger-pointing, no hidden agenda. This book gets into the lives of top researchers and professors and presents what they have to say about their personal relationship with religion. At the end Ecklund offers some suggestions for ways to improve science's communications with the (religious) public. If you see dialogue between the worlds of religion and science as at all important, you will find Science Vs. Religion thought-provoking and encouraging.

Insightful, well planned and structured research, very disruptive and challenging to the preconceived notions of many (and outright lies of some), deep analyses. An amazing read. Destined to shape many discussions on this very sensitive issue.

This book is one of the most balanced books I've ever read. Dr. Ecklund show through careful research what scientists really think about religion. Yes, there are some out there like Richard Dawkins who hate religion and think it needs to disappear from the face of the earth. Most don't. Most are much more nuanced. There are a number of scientists who do not subscribe to a particular religion but consider themselves spiritual. Then there are number of scientists who are religious, though many of them are hesitant to discuss their beliefs to their fellow scientists. I would hope that all scientists and many religious and non-religious people would read this book.

Elaine Ecklund "surveyed nearly 1700 scientists and interviewed nearly 275 of
them" to determine "what scientists really think and feel about religion". She
presents some overall statistics and a representative sampling of the interviews. She also offers advice on how instructors should engage with religious
students.The Templeton foundation funded her study. It seeks to further our
understanding of science and faith, gives both fairly equal weight, and wants
very much to bring the two into harmony. Ms. Ecklund's study adds to some
science-vs.-faith thoughts of somewhat well-known persons that the foundation has put on the web. Some of the people Ms. Ecklund interviewed were very critical of religion, but she (along with the Templeton foundation) is careful to never personally disparage religion. For instance, she wants to make sure we realize that Galileo was neither thrown into prison nor tortured by the church,
but neglects to add that the church placed him under house arrest and their
threat of torture forced him to deny the earth goes around the sun.

The sciences Ms. Ecklund covered fall into two very different groups: Natural
sciences (concerning mother nature), and social sciences (mostly concerning
human nature). Unfortunately, she lumps the two in her overall statistics, but
does include the scientific specialty of each person in the interviews she presents. Ms. Ecklund finds spirituality to be wide spread among scientists, maybe more than is warranted. In one survey question, for
example, she assumes that if you do yoga you are necessarily being spiritual.
Ms. Ecklund believes science professors should take the time to educate
themselves in religious thought so that they may better engage with religious
students. I spend some time below to make a case for why this won't be productive, at least in regard to the natural sciences.

Fundamental Religion has tenaciously resisted those advances in natural science
that it feels threatened by. Taking the earth out of the center of the universe was felt to demean humans. Extending the age of the earth farther back than five thousand years or so was -- and by some still is -- felt to conflict with the bible's genealogy. Noah's flood was -- and by some still is -- believed responsible for many geological features. It is believed that embryonic stem cells have had a soul inserted in them, so should not be manipulated. And then, of course, there's evolution.

Nowadays, evolution bears the brunt of fundamental Christian's science
denials. While the great majority of biological scientists are focused on
uncovering nature's secrets, a small minority of scientists, along with some
non-scientists, is focused on proving God is responsible for life's various
forms. What's behind this is a felt need to protect their basic belief that
we are made in God's image. The great majority of natural scientists, in carrying out the details of their work, don't dwell upon whether or not God is responsible for the workings of nature. It's not going to be any more or less difficult to tease out nature's secrets either way. In addition, it would be counter productive to think: God must have done it by fiat; so trying to figure how Mother Nature did it is useless. Ms. Ecklund found that ignoring God in the details of your work by
no means insures a disbelief in God. Many natural scientists believe that 'The
Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go'.

To prosper in the world economy, the US needs to do well in higher-paying technological areas. This requires being in the scientific
forefront. Biology has become of prime importance here, and evolution is
central to its study. Unfortunately, religious-based objections to it are wide
spread enough to be detrimental. Ms. Ecklund's suggestion that science
professors should educate themselves in religious thought so that they may
better engage with religious students is naive where evolution is concerned. As long as someone believes evolution denies we are made in God's image, and his or her belief system won't tolerate this, then nothing is going to convince that person that evolution is true. Professors would be better off spending some time figuring out how to minimize distractions from deniers. Some web sites actually
encourage and offer suggestions for such distractions. Also, evolution deniers
can unfortunately find lots of backup in a host of books written to disparage evolution, including many by about 40 'fellows' at the 'Center for Science and
Culture', based in Seattle. The center's manifesto, the 'Wedge document', is on
the web. They are trying to use the idea of 'intelligent design' -- switched to after the supreme court ruled 'creation design' to be religion -- to slip by the courts and 'wedge' creationism into the public schools as an alternative to evolution. They believe this to be a necessary step toward re-Christianizing science. The center's guiding light, retired law professor and born-again Christian Phillip Johnson is behind their strategy. He has written that if evolution is true, then the bible is false, there was no resurrection and there is no sin, only bad behavior. Thus evolution stands to frustrate his expressed ultimate aim, which is to get as many people as possible to know jesus. Luckily, "Nearly all the scientists [Ms. Ecklund] talked with -- religious and nonreligious alike -- had
a negative impression of the intelligent design movement" (as does the Templeton foundation). Unfortunately, high school textbook writers sometimes fear that addressing evolution would restrict their sales. Many politicians disbelieve evolution, or think that enough of their constituents do, so that they'd best not seem to be in favor of it.

Meanwhile, back at the book, Ms. Ecklund covers a lot of ground with a choice of wide-ranging and detailed interviews. If you have an interest in what scientists think of religion, you may well want to get her book for that. There apparently is little equivalent material out there. Her overall statistics would be more useful if those for the natural and social sciences were given separately. Her suggestion that science professors should educate themselves in religious thought so that they may better engage with religious students may fit in with the Templeton foundation's outlook, but would be useless in natural science classes.
Fundamentalist students will reject anything they hear that they believe would undermine their faith, no matter how it's presented. No instructor can overcome that obstacle. It's best to minimize any related distractions and get on with the subject at hand.

I've attached below an anonymous, strongly-felt criticism I received regarding my above review.

"Ms. Ecklund believes science professors should take the time to educate
themselves in religious thought so that they may better engage with religious
students. I spend some time below to make a case for why this won't be productive, at least in regard to the natural sciences."

That is so pernicious as well as so false, I feel I cannot refrain from speaking to it. Despite the arguable inappropriateness of arguing with what someone posts in a book review. But publically voiced opinion on crucial public policy, as opposed to one's literary preferences, is a choice to contend in the arena that determine's the public's good; and that is a public arena and I too may enter it, and in this case fell I must.

The following is impossible to overstate:

There is little that is as discrediting -- and indeed discreditable -- in a scholar and teacher as obvious ignorance coupled with an obvious failure to comprehend that ignorance. Little, but not nothing. Even worse -- damningly worse -- is awareness of one's ignorance coupled with a total disinclination to bother amending it. "Why should I trouble myself to put some fact and knowledge in place of the errors, prejudices, and misinformation are my (failure of) understanding of something as characteristic of our species as language?" is not an attitude that it is possible to respect. In anyone. It's not really excusable in a garage mechanic; and in a garage mechanic, at least it does not affect his ability to do his job, narrowly defined. It is *completely* inexcusable in someone who represents him/herself as a member in good standing of a profession whose entire purpose and moral charge is the dispelling of ignorance in place of understanding. Science professor is one of very few fields of work with a clear, known, and accepted ethical mandate to value truth, knowledge, and understanding; as others, not called to and/or not professing the service of objective knowledge, are permitted to value the monetary profit or easiness of, or sloppiness and laziness tolerated at, their jobs. Permitted but not esteemed; the wise buyer famously does not simply accept and pay for whatever such people urge on them. And the wise student does not trust a teacher who deems his/her ignorance and believed falsehoods, though remarkable, to be so nonproblematic that, when encouraged to amend it, he/she scoffs, demurs, and gives as the reason for his/her refusal, the supposed hopelessness of even trying to educate the kind of students who'd think less of a science professor for being ridiculously unable to grasp anything about a phenomenon present in abundance anywhere she/he might teach.
There is nowhere where humanity is that religion and spirituality are not. In the U.S., almost all students fall into the category you say it's not worth science professors' bothering to even throw the bedspread over the disarray and slop that's their concept of a fundamental, universal human social reality, because, hey, they aren't going to believe what you have to say anyway.

So, heck, why not nail down the coffin lid and guarantee that any potential educating dies stillborn?

Because, sir, that is what we who believe in the importance of science and scientific literacy in the citizens of a democracy and what sets scientists apart so that one does well to send the nation's children to them for teaching. Because in spite of having, in your view, wasted some of my own time learning about the religious/spiritual beliefs and practices of my fellow citizens, since nearly all of them have some and hold them sacred, as literally as anything was ever literal, I have not spoiled my mind utterly for the appreciation of science; indeed, I work in the field of science education, and am not unesteemed in it. And I could not do that at all if (and this is not sufficient; just the most basic prerequisite) I were as slatternly about correcting my own ignorance as you urge science professors, who must be much more trustworthy than a science journalist; and a science journalist has and deserves no credibility who ever harbors such thoughts as, "It doesn't matter if I'm ignorant, because all I'm responsible for is to teach science to a bunch of yahoos I'm stuck teaching but am not going to bother trying to actually teach, even as minimally as making some attempt to seem less clueless than I am."
And I don't. And that is what matters. Not that I harbor some tendencies towards theism like the majority of my species. I can perfectly well keep certain things I know out of my science writing because they aren't science. I could not and should not write science if I were contemptuous of my audience for being ignorant of one great area of human thought, and had no ambition to amend that, especially if it meant doing something like learning a minimal amount about my fellow humans and thus demonstrating I can observe and grasp information all around me, rather than tuning it out from an unexamined conviction it's all too stupid for me to bother checking out, and so is humanity generally.
Science professors who think as you do are bad science professors because of it.
And that's the last thing we need.
If it took a Christian to tell you that, well, you have been educated by someone you thought unteachable let alone with something to teach you.
Which may suggest that it's not as beneath you as all that to bother to acquaint yourself with the mores and values and beliefs of your own society, at least; nobody's asking you to learn about people elsewhere. Or be able to understand rocket science.

The ignorance so many of the "new atheists" display about religion and spirituality, when coupled with their insistence that they know an essential truth about all manifestations of the latter that no believer of any stripe can grasp -- namely, their self-evident idiocy -- is ludicrous and so indefensible in a public intellectual and remarkably offensive. It thoroughly undermines their intellectual credibility.

Elaine Howard Ecklund's Science Vs. Religion delves into a topic that has become particularly controversial in recent years--the role of religion in scientific life. Despite this, Ecklund presents a remarkably deft and impartial look at what scientists really feel about religion--and the results are often surprising. Many of the scientists Ecklund interviews are religious and many of those who aren't still profess a commitment to spirituality. The book is well-written and engaging and the final chapter suggests a new way forward that is both provocative and thoughtful. A must read!