Scientists' views on the relationship between science and religion

[rug]

Posted on: September 22, 2011 2:04 AM, by Josh Rosenau

Elaine Howard Ecklund has a new paper out, building on her survey of scientists' views on religion, research she reported in a book last year, and in a series of papers over the last few years. In this paper (press release for those of you who haven't got access to the journal), she looks specifically at how scientists perceive the relationship between science and religion.

As she reported in the book, 15% of scientists she and her colleagues interviewed reported seeing an inherent conflict between science and religion. Another 15% saw no conflict at all, while the remaining 70% saw some conflict sometimes, but not an inherent conflict.

You may have noticed that many of the loudest scientific voices on the topic of science and religion tend to fall into that first 15%, who see conflict everywhere. Ecklund's account (co-authored with Jerry Park and Katherine Sorrell) squares with my own sense of these folks' attitudes:

the group of natural and social scientists who saw religion and science as irreconcilably in conflict saw religion in direct opposition to their work as scientists. On an institutional level, science and religion were utterly incompatible epistemologically, and on a personal level, these scientists could not embrace religion because it ran counter to their ways of understanding truth. In most cases, these scientists had a restricted, fundamentalist notion of religion. Scientists who adopted a conflict perspective tended to see science in an ideal-typical Mertonian form (Merton 1973), rather than having a particular version of science related to their specific discipline. Indeed, as with religion, we found no broad differences between the natural and social scientists in terms of views on science. Those who adhered to an unwavering conflict position held religion under the light of science, and religion failed. In addition, beyond just seeing science as attached to empiricism, these respondents saw empirical knowledge as the only true kind of knowledge.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/09/scientists_views_on_the_relati.php

[mike_c]

1. I'm a 15 percenter....

See if you can guess which 15 percent. :rofl:

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[saras]

3. I'm in both 15% groups - go figure that

There is a marvelous book, called Fringeology, wherein a journalist goes looking at the whole fringe world and tries to figure out what's going on there (i.e. if something IS wacky, why do people believe it anyways, and if it isn't, why isn't it accepted?)

The author has a website - http://stevevolk.com/fringeology - but it doesn't say much about the book. Amazon reviews convey its tone and quality pretty well - http://www.amazon.com/Fringe-ology-Tried-Explain-Unexplainable-Couldnt/dp/0061857718

It goes well with this fabulous, though rather old, article from Bill Beaty's weird science website on "why weird science?"
http://amasci.com/freenrg/wbelief1.html

[Jim__]

4. "Other scientists ... simply referred to their scientific colleagues who are religious."

The existence of religious scientists is a strong argument against the position that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science.

Other scientists, rather than redefining religion, simply referred to their scientific colleagues who are religious. While the scientists who Ecklund found employing this method were often not religious themselves, they would point to examples of religious scientists (including Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and a website on radiometric dating by Keith Miller) to show the possibility of non-conflicting approaches to science and religion. These scientists especially seemed to find those examples useful in talking about science and religion with students or nonscientists with concerns about science and religion.

[trotsky]

5. Not necessarily.

"The existence of religious scientists is a strong argument against the position that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science."

The human brain is remarkably talented at compartmentalization.

[edhopper]

6. So are these scientist saying

"I don't give much thought to the illogical ideas that are the basis of religion, but I know some religious scientist who seem to keep all that voodoo out of the lab. So I guess they can exist without conflict."

Of course the term "conflict" is loaded. If religion is immaterial to your life and work, and doesn't intrude, you would say there is no conflict. On the other hand, if you asked if there was any validity to religion I think you would get a big negative response.

[laconicsax]

7. The existence of wealthy Christians is a strong argument against the argument that there is an...

Inherent conflict between Christianity and wealth.

The existence of religious child rapists is a strong argument against the position that there is an inherent conflict between religion and child rape.

The list goes on...

[rug]

8. It does indeed.

The existence of atheist child rapists is a strong argument against the position that there is an inherent conflict between atheism and child rape.

The existence of atheist war mongers is a strong argument against the position that there is an inherent conflict between atheism and war.

Oh wait, these are not arguments at all.

[laconicsax]

17. No, they aren't. Good job recognizing that. n/t

[Jim__]

9. The existence of wealthy Christians is a strong argument that there is no inherent conflict ...

... between Christianity and wealth.

There are Christians who explicitly make that argument:

Yes, it is perfectly fine for Christians to become wealthy, and there is nothing in the Bible that forbids Christians from gaining large amounts of money. The problem is that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). Jesus said that you cannot serve both money and God at the same time: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (wealth),” (Matt. 6:24). Jesus is not saying that it is sinful to be rich. Jesus is telling us that the problem is when Christians start putting their faith, hope, and security in their money (and it becomes their master) rather than God. At this point, they become idolaters and fail to serve the true God.

Of course, there are Christians who would argue otherwise; and these 2 types of Christians could be divided into Christian subclasses. But, given that there are sincere Christians who argue that there is no inherent conflict between Christianity and wealth, it is certainly wrong to make the categorical statement that Christians agree that there is no inherent conflict. A subclass may say there is, but not all Christians.

And, yes, given that there are religious scientists who live a life where they both do science and practice a religion, that is an a fortiori argument that there is not an inherent conflict between science and religion. There may well be an inherent conflict between some religions and science, but that is a different issue.

While there are religious child rapists, your claim on this is childish. I doubt you can find any religion that will not condemn child rape and that representatives of any religion will state unequivocally that it is an egregious violation of their religion.

[laconicsax]

19. Was the point to subtle?

Religion and science are in direct conflict on a wide number of issues. That religious scientists can compartmentalize and ignore this says nothing of the conflict itself.

Look at the Abrahamic faiths: they present a model of the universe that is fundamentally wrong. To solve the conflict, one must, reject the model that science gives us (as creationists do), reject the model that religion gives us, as sane believers do (see: "it's a metaphor"), or compartmentalize the conflicting models so that the inherent contradiction can be ignored.

That religious scientists largely choose the latter two doesn't indicate that there isn't a conflict, it indicates that they've found a way to live with it.

The line about child rapists was meant as an over-the-top example of this. Clearly religion and child rape are in opposition, and that religious people can be serial child rapists indicates that they've found a way to live with the contradiction--not that it doesn't exist.

[darkstar3]

10. Um, no.

You see, there are a ridiculous number of different types of scientists. The question of whether a scientist is religious, or sees a conflict between religion and science, is dependent highly upon the field in which the scientist works. Molecular biology, theoretical physics, biochemistry...these and other fields of science are under constant attack by religious throwbacks. Meanwhile, all types of engineering, quality analysis and control, weapons research, and many other fields find themselves free or relatively free of religious interference (yes, I did say weapons research). Therefore, it is entirely possible to be a scientist in a field not "on the front lines" of the clash between science and religion, which would allow one to be both religious and completely unaware of any inherent conflict.

[Jim__]

11. Yes, we're talking about an unqualified claim that there is an inherent conflict between ...

... religion and science. You're talking about potential conflicts in subfields of science. That's a different question. 70% of scientists acknowledged that there are some conflicts; but that is referred to as a nuanced position - not the position of the 15% who say there is an inherent conflict between religion and science - a categorical claim. From the article:

But for all that, if I had been interviewed, I'd have placed myself in her 70% who see no inherent conflict, but recognize the potential for conflict.

[darkstar3]

12. Science is made up of all of those sub-fields,

but that is often misunderstood. It's important to note that religion doesn't make claims that defy the results of all of those fields, but rather only a few of them.

This is the entire reason behind the debate. Religion is most certainly anti-thetical to certain scientific fields, but says nothing whatsoever about many others, and because so many people refer to science as one monolithic idea, both sides get to be right when they assert their view on whether or not religion and science are in conflict.

In short, oversimplifying the concept of science is the reason this fight exists.

[Jim__]

13. No. As noted in post #11, the article is specific.

As she reported in the book, 15% of scientists she and her colleagues interviewed reported seeing an inherent conflict between science and religion. Another 15% saw no conflict at all, while the remaining 70% saw some conflict sometimes, but not an inherent conflict.

[darkstar3]

14. If the article were specific, it wouldn't use the loose term "science".

[cleanhippie]

15. We are alking about something that Josh Rosenau wrote, quite the accomodationist...

Might help to explain the ambiguity.

[onager]

18. Yes he is...

...accommodationism is not necessarily "nice". As Rosenau demonstrates by example, accommodationists can be as snarky, unfair, and obsessed with scoring cheap points as anyone else.

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/gnu-atheist-does-not-mean-nasty.html

[Deep13]

16. So 85% see religion as an impenement to science. nt