2013-05-21T23:24:23-04:00 Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=elaine-howard-ecklund-phd Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1133958 2011-12-07T11:50:51-05:00 2012-02-06T05:12:02-05:00

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/
I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists at elite American universities, and approximately half expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not. Then I interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 of these scientists, to ask them how they feel about religion. I found that nearly one in five (17 percent) of those who are atheists and parents are part of a religious congregation and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year.

Why would this be? Research I conducted with sociologist Kristen Schultz Lee (University at Buffalo, SUNY) showed just how tightly linked religion and family are in the United States--so much so that even some of society's least religious people find it important to expose their children to different religious choices. Our research challenges the assumption that parents who engage in religious socialization always hold religious beliefs themselves.
The atheist scientists interviewed cited personal and social reasons for introducing and integrating religious traditions and institutions into their children's lives.

Their reasons include:
• Scientific identity - Study participants wish to expose their children to all sources of knowledge (including religion) and allow them to make their own, informed choices about a religious identity.
• Spousal influence - Study participants are involved in a religious institution because of influence from their spouse or partner.
• Desire for community - Study participants want a sense of community (moral or otherwise), even if they do not personally hold religious beliefs.

To me, one of the most interesting findings was the discovery that some atheist scientists not only want to expose their children to religious institutions, but they also cite their scientific identity as a reason for doing so.

We expected these individuals to be less inclined to introduce their children to religious traditions than they are. But it turns out they want their children to know about different religious traditions because it is more consistent with their identity as a scientist to expose their children to all sources of knowledge. They want their children to be "free thinkers." Yet it is also important to them that their children don't abandon skepticism in the course of their religious education.

One study participant, a chemist raised in a strongly Catholic home, said he came to believe later in life that science and religion are not compatible, but what he wants to pass on to his daughter-- more than this belief --is the ability to make her own decisions in a thoughtful, intellectual way.

"I ... don't indoctrinate her that she should believe in God," he said. "I don't indoctrinate her into not believing in God." Like other atheist scientists who are parents, he has exposed his child to a variety of religious choices so he does not inadvertently indoctrinate her with atheism.
We hope the study's findings will help the public better understand how our professional and family lives can interact with our religious lives. We also hope they will serve to remind us that there is greater diversity in how atheists approach religion and childrearing than stereotypes might lead us to expect.

Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University, director of the Religion and Public Life Program, which is part of the Social Sciences Research Institute, and a Rice Scholar at the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her most recent book is Science Vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press, 2010)]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.839161 2011-03-23T21:28:48-04:00 2011-05-25T11:57:15-04:00

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/ religion has no place in the modern academy.

But 42 percent said they believe religion can play some productive and enriching role on campus, such as helping students cope in situations that are personally difficult. Many of these scientists see religion as one among many possible knowledge sources, albeit one that does not directly impact the scientific method. Some think that religion can meaningfully intersect with their particular research and with the education of their students, viewing religion as important to science ethics and potentially helpful in guiding research questions.

What do we know about these scientists who think religion and science dialogue is important? Do any of them go so far as to discuss religion in their classrooms?

Some do believe they have a responsibility to talk with their students and colleagues about how religion interacts with their scientific field. I found that social scientists, who study human behavior, are more likely than natural scientists to think that religion ought to be part of their particular discipline. As one Catholic political scientist explained, religion often has an impact on the kinds of phenomena she studies. In her opinion, religion "should be discussed. ... As social scientists, we're talking about how individuals interact and how societies form, how politics work, and religion is a defining force."

There are also a number of scientists who think the moral and ethical foundations of religion might be helpful in dealing with complex and controversial scientific areas, such as human genetic engineering and embryonic stem cell research. One chemist I spoke with told me that he believes science at the university level involves teaching students to think beyond their own research, which means teaching them how to apply science, how to communicate it to a broader audience, and how to think about science from "some sort of moral and ethical standpoint." As he puts it: "Anybody can go learn about a topic pretty quickly on their own, but actually thinking about the discipline and what you're supposed to be doing in science is a very difficult problem."

This chemist, an assistant professor, tries to address the impact of religion and ethics on science in subtle ways. For example, he will not directly give students or colleagues his opinions on embryonic stem cell research, but he might direct them to a lecture on campus, perhaps by a law professor who deals frankly with the issue. He feels constrained, he explained, because his campus is an "amazingly homogeneous environment. ... Everything. Politically. Religiously." He's been in faculty meetings, he said, where colleagues made comments about politics or religion with "just the assumption that everybody there absolutely agrees with them, and they really have no idea." For example, he offered, "the vast majority of them don't think there's any issue with [embryonic] stem cell research. It's just inconceivable to them that there could be any sort of important philosophical or ethical questions."

The truth, however, is that nearly 50 percent of academic scientists have a religious identity (although this identity is very different in character than the rest of the religious American population) and a majority of them are interested in spirituality. So why don't we hear more about them? Why don't they speak up in faculty meetings? And why isn't there more meaningful dialogue about religion and science on the campuses of our nation's elite universities?

Well, for one thing, those scientists who think religion is both an important form of knowledge and a compelling belief system say they sometimes experience bias within their universities. They feel as if they're discriminated against -- or they would be, should they share their views. So they often feel as if they have to keep these views a secret. Which means these scientists are only rarely engaging students in meaningful dialogue about their faith, to the point where students -- and colleagues -- often cannot even tell that these scientists are religious in any sense.

I found that most religious scientists manifest their faith in small ways, mainly by spending more time caring about students' personal needs. Although positive, such a role is quite limited. These scientists are potentially crucial commentators and mentors to students who are searching for ways to make meaningful connections between religion and science. But because of their unwillingness to talk about their own views on religion and spirituality, scientists with faith could be partly to blame for uninformed conversations about religion and science on university campuses.

One task of all science professors is to educate students in such a way that they will be capable of using their knowledge in a variety of public environments. And religious scientists have a unique and important role in the lives of religious students of science. A particular calling for religious scientists might be to foster dialogue about religion and science more broadly on their campuses, encouraging students to think through and reevaluate the frameworks with which they were raised, equipping them as ambassadors of scientific knowledge within their own faith communities. Such an initiative could be a forceful step toward waging peace on the science-and-religion battleground and advancing the transmission of science more effectively to people of faith.

Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University, director of the Religion and Public Life Program, which is part of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research, and a Rice Scholar at the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her most recent book is 'Science Vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think' (Oxford University Press, 2010).

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.811658 2011-01-25T23:18:08-05:00 2011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/
U.S. scientists appear to have good reasons for these views. Americans are much less likely than people in other countries to accept that human beings developed from earlier species or that the universe began with a big explosion. According to a recent report by the National Science Foundation, more Americans agree than disagree that "intelligent design" should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. It's easy to see why scientists at elite universities might view the academy as the only place in America where science is safe from the encroaching impact of religious conservatives.

But religion appears to be advancing on university campuses. There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science. Yet, perhaps because of how busy their research keeps them (the working hours per week for research university professors has steadily increased over the past 40 years) or their inherent lack of interest in religion, many elite scientists do not know about such efforts.

And since those scientists who are religious often keep their faith closeted, their nonreligious colleagues have little reason to think there is any place for religion in the academy, or any way for science and religion to be reconciled. This is too bad because many scientists who fear the encroaching impact of religion generally fear the most fundamentalist forms of it. And since their fellow scientists with religious views are reluctant to talk openly about their own beliefs, such stereotypes are rarely dispelled.

It is important to understand how scientists at the country's top schools view the place of religion in the academy because these schools form what scholars call an "organizational field" -- a group of organizations that influence one another in terms of ideologies, structure and practices. These schools accept and produce similar types of students and knowledge; the way in which scientists at these schools perceive the proper model of the university is consequential for the broader institution of American higher education and the place of science (and religion) within it. If the scientists at elite universities fail to successfully engage with religion on their campuses, other American universities might follow suit. And if the current resurgence of religion on college campuses collides with persistently antireligious models of university life, might a collision or an explosion of some sort be inevitable?

My research shows that religious scientists often already feel embattled in their academic communities. They struggle with how public they should be about their faith commitments, given that so many of their colleagues are negative toward religion (evangelicalism and fundamentalism, in particular). Yet because religious scientists rarely talk candidly about their faith while in the university environment, they have not yet realized that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about religion and matters of faith. In this way, both groups end up closeting faith and perpetuating the assumption that there is no safe place for intelligent discussions about religion on America's elite university campuses.

Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University, director of the Religion and Public Life Program, and a Rice Scholar at the Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her most recent book is 'Science Vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think' (Oxford University Press, 2010)
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.611905 2010-06-28T00:20:00-04:00 2011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/ really know about how scientists think about morality, spirituality and faith?

From 2005 to 2008, I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists on their views about religion, spirituality and ethics and spoke with 275 of them in depth in their offices and laboratories. It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month. While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.

Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with, more than 30 percent considered themselves atheists; however, less than six percent of these were actively working against religion. Many atheist and agnostic scientists even think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community. If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice -- and the way that it interfaces with religion for some -- they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists. The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people.

In fact, about one-fifth of the atheist scientists I spoke with say they consider themselves "spiritual atheists." Perhaps their stories are the most interesting. One chemist I talked with does not believe in God, yet she says she craves a sense of something beyond herself that provides a feeling of purpose and meaning and a moral compass. She sees herself as having an engaged spirituality, one that motivates her to live differently. For example, spiritual reasons keep her from accepting money from the Department of Defense, she says; for her, it's too linked to the military.

Given the presence of religion in the scientific community, why do Americans still think scientists are hostile to religion? Within their scientific communities, religious scientists tend to practice what I call a "secret spirituality." They are reluctant to talk about religious or spiritual ideas with their colleagues. I spoke with one physicist who said that he thinks universities are not always very accepting environments for scientists of faith. He believes that if he openly said he is religious, others would question the validity of his scientific work; it is his sense of things that at his elite school, he can be a scientist or be religious, but not both.

And within their faith communities, religious scientists often practice a "secret science." Sitting in the pews, they are often hesitant to discuss scientific ideas because they are afraid of offending those next to them. The result of this reticence is that people of faith are not aware of the religious scientists in their midst. More than that, these scientists fail to serve as role models for religious youth who might want to study science but fear science might lead them away from faith. As a result, these children lose out.

Research shows that the experiences students have with science in elementary and secondary school, and how well their science abilities evolve from there, help predict both whether they'll attend college and whether they'll enter into high-status professional fields. Other research has shown that those with stronger science skills and a better scientific understanding tend to have greater socioeconomic stability and overall success. So if religious folks want their children to succeed (as a scholar of American religion, I have every reason to believe they do) and if scientists want more children to consider a career in the field (as a scholar of the American scientific community, I know they do), there needs to be a better dialogue between people of faith and the scientists among them.

We need real, radical dialogue -- not just friendly co-existence between religion and science, but the kind of discussion where each side genuinely tries to understand why the other thinks the way it does and where common ground is sought. This dialogue should reach the rank-and-file in religious communities with the message of how to maintain faith while fully pursuing science. And it needs to reach the rank-and-file in the scientific community as well, providing them with better ways to connect with religious people.

Religious people need to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion. They need to know that even the most secular scientists struggle with the moral and ethical implications of their work. And scientists need to do a better job of communicating the importance of science to religious people -- especially in those areas in which religion might actually motivate them to care about science (like environmentalism, or "creation care"). Because if people of faith believe they have to become antireligious or completely secular to be a successful scientist -- when this is not a full reflection of the scientific community -- it would be a disaster. ]]>