More

HuffPost Social Reading

Religion And Science Can Coexist, Scientists Say In New Survey

Religion And Science

First Posted: 09/21/2011 5:40 pm Updated: 11/21/2011 4:12 am

A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University.

The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interviews with scientists at universities whose fields range from biology and chemistry to social sciences like political science and economics, dispels the widely held notion that religion and science are incompatible.

“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,” said Rice sociologist Elaine Ecklund. Yet, a majority of the scientists Ecklund and her colleagues interviewed saw both religion and science as “valid avenues of knowledge” she said.

Ecklund and her team interviewed 275 tenured and tenure-track faculty members from 21 research universities in the United States. Only 15 percent of respondents said religion and science were always in conflict, while 15 percent said the two were never in conflict. The majority, 70 percent, said religion and science are only sometimes in conflict.

Those who were interviewed were pulled from a broader survey of 2,198 scientists. About half of those in the original survey population said they identified with a particular religion, while the other half did not have a religion.

The resulting report, “Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science,” which was published in the September issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, comes as politicians have sparked conversations about the overlap between religion and science in the U.S. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican presidential candidate, for example, has caused controversy -- and gained fans -- for his statements that evolution is merely a "theory that's out there" and his belief that climate change is "all one contrived phony mess."

“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “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.”

Through her interviews, Ecklund said she found that the way scientists view the compatibility of religion and science is influenced by how they view religion itself. Scientists who see the two fields are incompatible are more likely to have a narrow view of religion, identifying it most with conservative strains of American evangelical Christianity. Meanwhile, Ecklund said, scientists who say science and religion as never in conflict often were of the view that "science comes from God, and God created it ... or that science and religion are completely separate ways of viewing reality." Overall, those who said religion is compatible with science tended to have a broader view of religion that included non-institutionalized spiritual practices, such as meditation.

"For some scientists, maybe a particular strain of evangelicalism is conflict with science, but spirituality and other religions are not," Ecklund said.

In 5,000 pages of transcribed interviews, she said that scientists who view religion as compatible with their professions frequently cited religious scientists as examples of how the two fields can work together. Scientists most often spoke highly of Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who is the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins has spoken frequently about being a Christian and a scientist and released a book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," on the topic in 2006.

Meanwhile, the scientist who interviewees most frequently discussed negatively was evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who is best known for being an outspoken atheist.

"Scientists didn't like the impact Dawkins is having on the broader public world of how people understand scientists. Scientists are very concerned about how the public views them because of how budgets toward science are being cut," Ecklund said.

The study also found that:

  • Scientists who say they are spiritual or religious are less likely to see religion and science as being in conflict.
  • Nearly all scientists interviewed, whether they are religious or nonreligious, said they did not agree with teaching "intelligent design" in public schools.
  • The most religious scientists were, overall, described in positive terms by their nonreligious peers.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University. The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interview...
A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University. The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interview...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,309
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc NL
47,3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
08:35 AM on 11/08/2011
I wonder what the percentage of scientists that think religion and science are only sometimes in conflict would be if you take away the fear of DE-funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter010908
The easiest way to control people is through fear.
11:47 PM on 11/07/2011
How can something that's a fairy tale co-exist with fact?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter777
01:20 PM on 11/03/2011
Having worked with hundreds of scientists and engineers closely for over 50 years, I am not surprised at the result of the survey. The perception that scientists and science are inevitably in conflict with religion is mainly fostered by a minority of scientists that are very vocal anti-religion (Dawkins) and by mostly fundamentalist religious dogma that denies the truth of science, but is accepted by millions of believers. Thus, the perception is fostered by ignorance of truth (even spiritual truth), in the case of the two vocal extremes who attempt to exacerbate the imagined conflict by trying to impose their own limited view of God.
02:32 PM on 11/03/2011
What is your definition of ignorance of truth, as if there were an accepted objective truth that some are missing that you are a party to? I could argue this would have to be subjective, which would make it totally inaccessible to anyone else unless they could occupy another's brain in order to share an experience.
And you say limited view of god as if there is a non-limited objected view of god that I am also not a party to because I must be one of those unfortunate beings with a limited view?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter777
10:24 PM on 11/04/2011
Ignorance of truth is difficult to define, but ignorance is often indicated by refusal to look at data or by denying that data exists. Limited view of God usually, in my opinion, is indicated by putting arbitrary and unfounded limits on God and what He, She, or It can do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc NL
47,3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
08:25 AM on 11/08/2011
Most scientist and non-believers just don't care about Religion.
It's the religious that struggle with the ever expanding knowledge we have of this world.
06:04 PM on 10/23/2011
SCIENCE VS RELIGION
-- James Ph. Kotsybar

Einstein was brilliant, we all can agree.
He opened up new possibility
with the Theory of Relativity
he found in his quest for simplicity.

His equation, E=mc2,
is a well-accepted reality;
there is no doubt how well it has fared
in destruction and practicality.

Most people know this, but don’t understand
the mathematics and don’t even try
to comprehend a mind that was so grand.
They claim their brains simply don’t qualify.

Yet these same folks don’t even think it’s odd
to claim they understand the mind of God.
11:23 PM on 10/21/2011
Professor do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

Professor: Sure, I'll play along.

Did you support Obamacare?

Professor: Yes.

Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

Professor: You just flunked this course pal.

Hey climate scientist, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

Climate scientist: I don't believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

AGW Skeptic: Einstein was right: Science without the [Creator] is blind and religion without the [Creator] is lame.

Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what's best for society as we see fit. Don’t you know science is a democracy fool!

AGW Skeptic Ben Franklin was right.

CRU emails Burn the Skeptic’s book!!

Hey Hillary, Nancy, Harry, Obama, progressive intellectuals and Dems, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

Choir: We must sacrifice the rights of the individual and do what’s best for society.

Who decides what’s best? Certainly not society -see Obamacare.

Choir: From one, many -see Obamacare.

Al Gore: e pluribus unum - from one, many. The science is settled! Everybody knows science is a democracy - the skeptics are trying to turn science upside down - leading to backwards conclusions.

Professor: The founders were racist capitalist pig slave holders.

Common Sense: I see a pattern: Professor with all due respect the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t fight the Civil War before the American Revolution or shortly thereafter and remain United States. They were wise enough to put mechanisms in place though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter777
01:30 PM on 11/03/2011
God allow freewill- yes! But, the one who expresses free will must endure the consequences of that expression. You don't have to accept Obamacare- you can pay the fine for not having insurance- that is the price you pay for not cooperating. You can have a capitalist system run wild and wreck the economy, as has happened before. Seems you might make such a decision for the economy. But, you will have to experience the poverty of your descendants when the U.S is reduced to third world status.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
benseccorp
Semper Fidelis
11:31 PM on 10/06/2011
There has been a iconic debate between Science and Religion throughout the ages of man. There can be a nexus established and both sides will have to be open minded. To me the Christian values far outweigh many scientific manifiestations.. But then on the Christianity side one has to recognize that many past religious leaders have massaged the message of the Bible outside of it's original content to create man made religious beleifs. Either you beleive or you dont, there is no middle ground. However, I do not find it plausible that God is an alien..
04:22 PM on 09/30/2011
I found evidence of one of my earlier comments. Around 1680, Sir Isaac Newton read Dan 12:4 and remarked, "Personally, I cannot help but believe that these words refer to the end of the times. Men will travel from country to country in an unprecedented manner. There may be some inventions which will enable people to travel much more quickly than they do now." Eight years later, the French atheist, Voltaire, retorted, "See what a fool Christianity makes of an otherwise brilliant man! (Paraphrasing) Men cannot travel at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour, he would be suffocated, his heart would stand still!" Historical FACT! Science can coexist with anything but atheist will remain idiots, FACT!
07:49 PM on 10/08/2011
Yes a FACT! become so when you spell the word in uppercase and follow it with an exclamation mark.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SocBeat
Bald and proud
01:26 PM on 10/11/2011
It must be comforting to know that philosphers can speak of things scientific from positions of ignorance, no matter what their religious bent.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
Astronaut. Daredevil. Wabbit.
01:55 PM on 09/29/2011
Count me with the minority on this one. I don't believe one can fully commit themselves to a discipline based on rational thought, while also believing that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. Really? Out of all the world's gods and spirits and religious traditions, and out of all the planets and stars and 170 billion galaxies, one single group of people living in the Middle East managed to discover the entire basis of existence? Forgive me if the complete lack of empirical evidence makes this scientist skeptical.
04:10 PM on 09/30/2011
First of all, scientifically you are in "the minority" FACT! Second of all, if you are going to insult three of the world’s biggest religions, get your facts straight. Not one single group of people but "ONE MAN" discovered the entire basis of existence. Perhaps he could be considered the world's first “scientist,” FACT.
07:51 PM on 10/08/2011
another FACT! people
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
12:52 PM on 11/03/2011
You're not bright enough to discuss this subject. FACT. Go back to Baywatch. HOME.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gurinder Dhillon
Republicans thrive on false equivalencies.
10:46 AM on 09/29/2011
Richard Dawkins is a great person doing great things, and scientist around the world can cry about how Dawkins assertions regarding are damaging their standing among the public, and in turn causing their research budgets to be slashed. However the people that dislike Dawkins and his beliefs were already leaning towards religion over science, and lets not forget Dawkins didn't start this battle, he did however fire the first volley for the educated and rational against religious zealots. If you watch Dawkins documentary, Root of all Evil, he clearly lays out his reasons for taking up this crusade and says its because of the intelligent design movement taking hold along the Bible belt in America, and an arms race if you will in fundamentalism between Christians and Muslims, which is as Dawkins describes simply a race to the bottom. Science has been under attack for centuries by religion now scientists are fighting back and their is infighting amongst them. All Dawkins is saying is keep your religion to yourself, and definitely keep it out of the classroom.
photo
AdamYoksas
A political animal.
12:36 PM on 09/29/2011
I suspect that ambitious and power hungry individuals, who like conflict, have always used war as a means of asserting control. And when they don't have a war to fight, they usually invent one. I'm not sure this changes whether the person is a pope, a prophet, or an atheist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
George Genung
07:17 PM on 09/28/2011
Where is the breakdown to the field of study ? Pew research already did this. 48% of the "hard" scientists were either agnostic, atheist, or said they were nothing at all. Another 19% said they didn't believe in an active deity, but did feel there was something more to the universe. The balance were split among many denominations. This is vastly different from the general population that only claimed 17% to be atheist, agnostic, or nothing at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danek Greori
01:50 PM on 09/27/2011
"...whose fields range from biology and chemistry to social sciences like political science and economics" Political science is NOT a science. In fact, most of the disciplines that fall under the "social science" banner are also not sciences. Has the author, or maybe just the public, forgotten exactly what constitutes science and what is just a study.
photo
AdamYoksas
A political animal.
06:07 PM on 09/28/2011
What constitutes a science then?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danek Greori
06:17 AM on 09/29/2011
Empiric observation constitutes science. Or if youw ant a more general definition: "Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Political science has no testable explanations, and any data that they due use is often the result of statistical analysis of popular trends among peoples, which are volatile and often not even consistent.
09:39 PM on 09/26/2011
Eckland is another crank funded by the Templeton Foundation. Look at her CV.

Most would argue that "social" science is not science at all. Science depends upon gathering data from controlled experiments. Hard to do with humans.

This "study" expands the fields of science far beyond real science. (Economics? Science? Not so much....) She had to in order to get the result her funders wanted.

It is crap science at its worst.
photo
AdamYoksas
A political animal.
06:05 PM on 09/28/2011
If that is the case, then astronomers aren't scientists. Neither are most physicists. Most biologists aren't either.
08:53 PM on 09/28/2011
I understand your arguments re astronomers: they are observers. Modern physics is experimental. The arguments of the production (production is the operative word) of particles that may (or may not) move faster than the speed of light is proof. Your argument about biologists is a total mystery. I can understand if you include bone collectors and catalogers, but they are a very small minority. Look to the data collected from similar surveys of real scientists; members of the National Academy in true experimental science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
builder101
VOTE!
03:44 PM on 09/26/2011
If you and millions of others choose to believe in two thousand year old stories about any god then that is your choice, but just because you and others believe in the supernatural does not make it true. The empty implied threats toward non-believers must make believers in a sky god feel better about themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
02:50 PM on 09/26/2011
Religion and science are only compatible to the degree that they ignore one another.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DIridescent
09:52 AM on 09/27/2011
Ha! Yes, ignore or gloss over the details.
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people don't taste good.
12:57 PM on 09/28/2011
Love this Under.......only because its unfailingly true.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:00 PM on 09/26/2011
Who believes in a tomorrow? Remember, you can't see tomorrow.
Who else believes in things they can't see?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachelvis
There is a difference between "your" and "you're".
02:55 PM on 09/27/2011
You also can't see oxygen, but there are quantifiable ways to prove that it is there. You are trying to play devil's advocate, and failing.