Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think

by Elaine Howard Ecklund

That the longstanding antagonism between science and religion is irreconcilable has been taken for granted. And in the wake of recent controversies over teaching intelligent design and the ethics of stem-cell research, the divide seems as unbridgeable as ever.In Science vs. Religion, Elaine Howard Ecklund investigates this unexamined assumption in the first systematic study of what scientists actually think and feel about religion. In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion. The book centers around vivid portraits of 10 representative men and women working in the natural and social sciences at top American research universities. Ecklund's respondents run the gamut from Margaret, a chemist who teaches a Sunday-school class, to Arik, a physicist who chose not to believe in God well before he decided to become a scientist. Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion. With broad implications for education, science funding, and the thorny ethical questions surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and other cutting-edge scientific endeavors, Science vs. Religion brings a welcome dose of reality to the science and religion debates.

Genres: Science, Religion, Reference, Sociology

241 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 8, 2010

About the author

Elaine Howard Ecklund is the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences and Professor of Sociology at Rice University, as well as founding director of the Religion and Public Life Program. Her current research addresses how individuals use race, gender, and religious identities to bring changes to religious and scientific institutions. She is the author of dozens of research articles and four books. She has received grants from the National Science Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Her research has been cited thousands of times by local, national, and international media. In 2013, she received Rice University's Charles O. Duncan Award for Most Outstanding Academic Achievement and Teaching and in 2018 she will give the Gifford Lecture in Scotland. She has directed over 70 undergraduates in conducting research.

Reviews

[Rachael · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book sociologist Elaine Ecklund does a large study with 1000 scientists at elite universities including personal interviews with 250. The fact that this is such a massive study should be commended. The reason I only give this 3 stars has nothing to do with her methodology, which seems to be rather solid to me, but because the results are so uninteresting. I didn't learn anything new about the attitudes of scientists from this. IT has already been establishesd through polls that most scientists are actually atheists and about a quarter some sort of believers. The only potentially interesting finding was that many scientists, including from the atheist category, choose to identify as 'spiritual'. It's also no surprise that scientists fall onto a spectrum when it comes to what they think about religion and specifically a religious presence on campus. I didn't find that her categories added much to understanding this. The one observation she made which I did find new and insightful was that while most scientists are secular, very much unlike the general population, it doesn't seem because studying science did it- rather it is the same reason that most religious people are religious, that is, most scientists were brought in a non religious, or a low religiosity, household. I would have loved to see her pursue this, why is it that people from a non or low religiosity household more likely to go into science such that scientists aer so bizarrely unreligious as compared to the general public?

Another qualm I had is more related to a personal bias I had. She included in the scientist category political scientists, economists,e tc., and honestly, I didn't pick up the book to see what they think. But that is a different argument.

Overall, a solid study, but it didn't seem to yield much to write about, which made for somewhat dry and repetitive reading.

[Kirstin M · Rating 5 out of 5]

I will start by admitting that I know the author and she is now someone I would consider a good friend. This book is the culmination of a five year project to survey scientists about their religious beliefs. Ecklund surveys over 1700 scientists from elite universities, followed by over 200 person interviews to determine whether scientists are religious. Results show a large percentage of scientists as "spirtual athetists" which is a unique finding since athetists population in mainstream is rather small. I found the book's findings interesting and the writing engaging. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in sociology, science, or religion.

[Hilmar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book with excellent data collected; however, it pretends that Theistic Evolution is the only intellectually-valid choice for Christians. It misrepresents Intelligent Design and completely ignores other positions in the Old Earth Creationism perspective. Would still recommend it due to the dearth of such books.

[Corinne Cammarata · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I can appreciate where she's coming from, I find it horrifying that people should have to be convinced as to why science matters. What an indictment of our education policies. While she talks about scientists' obligations to translate science to non-scientist religious, she uses the word 'dialogue', but there's so little discussion about religious people's ability or willingness to listen.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Ecklund has advanced the discussion of science and religion through this book. It's the most comprehensive sociological survey to date of what scientists really think about religion. It's very much worth reading if you work in or around the academic science community. My biggest critique is that Ecklund lumps together natural scientists with social scientists. But there's a huge difference in methodology and underlying assumptions between these professionals. So IMHO it would have been better for the study to separate these two groups.

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post on some of the book's findings:

Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.

Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, "the academy is really doing itself a big disservice," worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.

[Malvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Presenting the findings from a study between 2005 - 2008, through interviews and surveys on various elite scientists belonging to top research universities in the US on the role of religion in academia and world of science, it contains some fascinating statistics and comments from closeted faithfuls to hardcore secularists. Typically antagonising over darwism vs intelligent design, scientists are having to deal with religious-based questions in class while coping with highly critical colleagues into scientism out of class. The study highlights a percentage identifying themselves as spiritual but not in the theological sense, some recognising religion's moral influence on science and willingness to assist students, and some acknowledging that science and religion addresses distinct-non-competitive areas and last but not least, accepting that science itself is constantly being revised and not to be viewed as the ultimate truth. With prestigious schools such as Harvard or Princeton founded on religious roots changing its tune to fact-based, there is a need for these learning institutions to create a constructive environment for dialogue, rather than treating religion as a taboo. With the last chapter on dispelling myths from both camps, the book is a bit repetitive and lacks any detailed conflicting arguments. Overall, an easy read and offers insights into the what some scientists think and feel about religion.

[Daniel Ragsdale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply put - a well-rearched and well-written book on an important topic.

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was interesting off and on, but Ecklund was too redundant. This already-short book should have been half as long as it turned out to be.

[James Chappell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This study, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, revealed some interesting results, as did the writer's interviews that revealed that the tension between science and religion exists in more shades of grey than in black or white. Other than that, though, this was a monotonous read for the most part and read more like a dissertation.

The one other thing I will say in the book's defense is that it doesn't deserve all of the mudslinging it has gotten on its Amazon page. One-star reviews accusing it of twisting facts and confirmation bias are hardly warranted and are a prime example of the genetic fallacy. It seems some literally WANT science and religion to be in conflict, whether or not they are.