What Scientists Really Think About Religion

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post has a book review of Science and Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund, who spent four years doing a detailed survey of 1,646 scientists at elite American research universities. The study reveals that scientists often practice a closeted faith, worrying about how their peers would react to learning about their religious views. 'After four years of research, at least one thing became clear: Much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. The '"insurmountable hostility" between science and religion is a caricature, a thought-cliche, perhaps useful as a satire on groupthink, but hardly representative of reality,' writes Ecklund. Unsurprisingly, Ecklund found that 64% of scientists are either atheists (34%) or agnostic (30%). But only five of the 275 in-depth interviewees actively oppose religion; and even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves 'spiritual.' 'According to the scientists I interviewed, the academy seems to have a "strong culture" that suppresses discussion about religion in many areas,' says Ecklund. 'To remove the perceived stigma, we would need to have more scientists talking openly about issues of religion, where such issues are particularly relevant to their discipline.'"

Comments

Re:Particularly relevant

[pagaboy]

If you've got a full meal ahead of you, have a read of The Mind of God by Paul Davies or Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne (Physics).

With a bit less time, for a snack, nibble on the short article Creation and Evolution not Creation or Evolution by R J Berry (Geneticist) and you should start to have a few ideas for conversation with biscuits.

Re:Particularly relevant

[TeXMaster]

"Very few Christians believe much of the Old Testament."

Huh? The OT is part of the bible and is part of the basis of Christianity. Being a Christian REQUIRES one to believe the OT.

It doesn't require you to believe the literal text of any part of the Bible. The only requirement for being a Christian is following (the example set by) Christ. (Which, by the way, not many self-proclaimed Christians try to do at the best of their possibilities, and obviously even less manage to pull off).

Re:Makes sense

[jbssm]

Actually I did look it up: "A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]"

Einstein on Religion

[bezenek]

Some past scientists were in a position where they could speak about religion without fear. Unfortunately, I am not certain that is the case today. Examples from Einstein:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I think this one is of interest given our religious-values/anti-socialist Republican party:

One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)

-Todd

Re:Makes sense

[IICV]

Uhm. Have you read Genesis recently? Here's an online copy; let's go through it line by line.

• Gen 1: God creates the heavens and Earth. Before there is light. Meaning that the Earth was created before the Sun, or in fact before there was such a thing as electromagnetic radiation (depending on how you want to interpret it). This is objectively wrong either way.
• Gen 3: God creates light. Before the Sun. This means that there's light on Earth, without the Sun. This is objectively wrong.
• Gen 7: Apparently, the sky is made out of water? Must be why all our spaceships are built like submarines and have propellers. Except they aren't, because this is objectively wrong.
• Gen 11: Seed-bearing, land based plants and trees were the first kind of life on Earth? That's objectively wrong. Keep in mind that we still don't have a sun yet, either - plants and trees were created before the Sun, though oddly enough after there was light on Earth, which is simply ridiculous (and objectively wrong).
• Gen 14-18: We finally get the Sun! Man, now those plants have something to eat, besides this weird light that comes from nowhere. Note, however, that the moon was created after the first plant life, which is objectively wrong. Also, the Sun was created before the rest of the stars, which is objectively wrong. (oh yeah and the Earth was created before the rest of the stars as well, which is objectively wrong)
• Gen 20: Living creatures in the water? Cool, that's right (finally). But immediately from there we get birds? Not okay.
• Gen 24: Livestock were created before wild animals? Livestock existed before there were people to domesticate them? How is that even supposed to make sense? Also, this is the Garden of Eden, which in some interpretations means that there was no such thing as death and Adam and Eve wandered around naked. What would they do with livestock, unless God was already planning the Fall?

The rest of it is stuff about people which you've asked me not to mention; however, I'm sure you get the picture. There's plenty of stuff in in Genesis that's absolutely 100% wrong regardless of your interpretation.

Re:You don't need to prove anything

[Garwulf]

"Sure, but regardless of how contradicting they are, religions are still the source of most wars in the world."

Um, excuse me? Since when?

I'm working on a graduate degree in military history, and while religious wars do exist, religion tends to be the minority cause. Most wars don't start because of religion at all.

That said, religious wars are among the more brutal ones, right up there along with civil wars. But even when it comes to ethnic cleansing, ethnicity will frequently trump religion as an excuse for the atrocity.

If you want a single thing to blame warmongering on, then blame human ambition - that's about as close as you'll ever get to an explanation.

Re:The surest path to atheism

[bertok]

To remove the perceived stigma, we would need to have more scientists talking openly about issues of religion, where such issues are particularly relevant to their discipline.

The surest path to atheism is open discussion of religion.

That's a cute platitude, but since you're apparently a rational, scientific-minded person, I'd like to see your evidence of this. It doesn't comport with my personal experience.

The method used by the Communists to reduce the power and influence of religions was to change the school curriculum to teach all religions equally, side-by-side, instead of just Christianity.

It's brutally effective.

Once the students can't tell the difference between one creation myth and another, and everything starts to blend into an ever more ridiculous set of children's stories, very few are left that can still take their "own" religion seriously any more.