What place should religion occupy in a university? As I've written before, as part of a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists at elite American universities, I asked that specific question to a scientifically selected sample of 275. Many of them told me 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).
Elaine Howard Ecklund's "Science vs. Religion" - The Washington ...
Oxford University Press: Science vs. Religion: Elaine Howard Ecklund
1. Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Park, Jerry, “Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists¬?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Jun2009, Vol. 48 Issue 2, pp. 283, 286, 288. (These are the pages that disprove Lucy0808’s spurious comments.) This article is not available for free online but if you google the quotes I gave in my post you will find them (the publisher allows quotes to be searched but only one quote at a time).
2. The links to the NAS and PEW surveys are found in the post by Rahonavis:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
A close reading of the PEW survey shows that it supports Ecklund's findings.
3. Rahonavis’ conclusions are contradicted not only by Ecklund’s research but also by the University of Chicago survey citing the very high rate of religious belief among medical physicians:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml
These are fascinating surveys, especially given the current debate over creationism. I accept evolution and the validity of science. I also accept the validity of religion and spirituality (though I do not accept the authority of clergy). I think the more carefully we follow both scientific and spiritual principles the better.
Impressive. I think Ecklund owes you a beer. I'll check these out. Thank you.
Isn't that a problem?
You are doing a better job of undermining your argument than I ever could.
Religion and education are opposites and their combination should be forbidden! Particularly those used to indoctrinate and perpetuate the religious superstition and ignorance of our children! I can not think of a single evil as great as religious schools for children! The destruction these schools have done to our youth and the world can not be calculated!
In that case, education would be about 800 years backward, since most of the great universities in the western world, from Al-Azhar in Egypt (the oldest still running) to Harvard and Yale were founded by religious authorities to promote both religious and secular studies.
Although we differ about religion itself, I agree about clergy: no need for them now, and probably never was.
Someone is research evolution, comes across something so complex that they think it couldnt have evolved on its own. BAM. You have irreducible complexity which is used as "proof" of creationism.
The whole reason that people are annoyed with this study is because they think that it could be used to promote religion in physical science which should never be allowed. Regardless of what happened in the past.
This fact supports Ecklund's conclusions.
Moreover, the survey notes that culture plays a significant role in this: "Although physicians are nearly as religious as the general population, their specific beliefs often differ from those of their patients. While more than 80 percent of patients describe themselves as Protestant or Catholic, only 60 percent of physicians come from either group. Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2%vs. 0.2%) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7% vs. 0.5%)."
This cultural difference might help explain the strongly secular beliefs of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. I had suspected that since NAS is predominately Western (especially American) academics, and its new members are nominated and then elected by senior members, it would tend to represent only one kind of scientific subculture in the world. I argued that there are many highly accomplished scientists in other cultures that tend to be more religious, and their religious beliefs do not reduce their scientific abilities. This UChicago supports my view.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml
The heading/question implies an investigation of the faith of scientists; and by extension, into the practise of science.
However, this isn't the case; it is actually an investigation into whether scientists believe there is a role for religion in universities, ie not in the lab - two entirely different areas of relevance. I like tigers, but I wouldn't want them in my garden.
The question asked was: “What place should religion occupy in a university?” The question should have been: “What place should religion occupy in science?”
Whatever the results of the survey, can anything meaningful be extracted other than what scientists think about religion in universities?
Does the opinion of a scientist (not to be confused with a scientific opinion) have greater resonance than an electrical engineer, architect, philosopher, fine artist, musicologist, etc?
Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?
Images
Authors:
Ecklund, Elaine Howard1
Park, Jerry Z.1
Source:
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Jun2009, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p276-292,
Thank you for the details.
I can't find answers to my questions, and as you suggest, reading the book may be the only solution. However, my interest here is only in exchanges of views (the philosophical, if you like). Given my passing interest, I won't but the book. If you do, I hope you enjoy it.
It is a book and she makes money on the book.
Of the 1,700 surveyed, 275 were asked the question, ie only 16% of the total , of which 42% or 116 said religion had a roll. However, 116 represents only 7% of the total surveyed.
Of course, these 275 represented the “scientifically selected sample.” So what was the criterion for a “scientifically selected sample” of 275?
“social scientists...are more likely than natural scientists to think that religion ought to be part of their particular discipline.”
a) So what was the numerical breakdown of natural scientist and social scientists in the whole survey population?
b) And what was the numerical breakdown of natural scientist and social scientists in the 275 population?
Why wasn’t the same question put to all 1,700?
Of the 1,700 surveyed, how many failed, or refused, to respond? Should these have been accounted for, possibly as negatives?
Also, people must understand the logical separation between the Jewish/Christian god and the subject of discussing the god that created the universe and everything in it, and caused the big bang . In other words, stop hijacking science to attempt to prove god exist, because that only prove the Jewish/Christian god does not exist.
In reality science is based on the scientific method of observation and statistics. Religion there is no observable scientific value. It not only conflicts with science, it completely negate any scientific aspect of science education.
Strange how you claim to be advocating strict scientific thinking, and yet you are not practicing it yourself, whereas Ecklund at least has solid research evidence published by Oxford University Press. Carry on.
Regarding the first part of what I've said. I was just illustrating how subjective opinion polls can be.
And they could not offer any counter-argument to the sourced facts I cited refuting their claims.
Interesting that CWonAHHP in particular claims to have a degree from a top 5 university. I think he must have meant top 5 in the state of Oklahoma. As for Lucy0808, she claims to be a geneticist who understands science very well, and yet she saw fit to make a claim without any factual support whatsoever.
Just goes to show that Huff Po discussions are often not at all about honesty and truth-seeking but about propaganda. I believe in science and ongoing scientific development (my BA is in physics), but I don't believe in whatever people say that is unfounded or deceptive. That's actually the purpose of scientific reasoning: to throw out the falsehoods that deceptive people try to propagate in society. Too bad CWonAHHP and Lucy0808 don't understand this. I'm beginning to think there are many who claim to be moral and righteous atheists, and yet who are quite - how shall I put it, disingenuous as these two characters are.
http://web.williams.edu/registrar/geninfo/curriculum.html
Ecklund's study is poor research. The problem with such studies is they are not statistically valid and worse the categories for the people (scientists included people like political scientists). Such work is very suspect and poor. You can not dilute your subjects with different types of people and then come up with a "50%scientists of faith" value. It is absurd.
I think you aren't reading all of the posts people have been posting counter to your postings. Perhaps the 24hr rule you've put on everyone else, doesn't apply to you.Furthermore, I work for a living and long hours in a biotech startup (genomics/genetics focuued on human disease). I cannot respond at will to posts on a blog within a particular time period. .I think you need to lighten up and also learn what science is.
Wikipedia is not an acceptable scholarly source. You cannot compare a marginally relevant Wikipedia article to a research monograph published by Oxford University Press.
What are you talking about?
What do you call it when people criticize without reading what they are criticizing?
I take it you have published books with a more prestigious press? LOL
In scholarship Oxford University Press is second to none, and for you to say otherwise says more about you than about OUP.
Oh wait, maybe you mean a different Oxford, like in Mississippi or something? If so, my bad.
2. She indicates that there is a great difference between the methods of natural scientists and the work of social scientists, and that the former scientists are far more rigorous than the latter.
3. She concludes, if I understand her correctly, that Ecklund’s research is fundamentally flawed because she did not account for the great difference in attitudes between natural and social scientists.
From Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Park, Jerry, “Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Jun2009, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p276-292.
(This article is the first publication of findings from the RAAS study that is the basis of Ecklund's book.)
p. 283: "over 51 percent of scientist respondents reported no religious affiliation,
natural scientists more so than social scientists (55 percent vs. 48 percent, respectively)."
p. 286: Table 2 gives the findings social scientists and natural scientists in separate columns. Prayer at least once/week:
social scientists: 30.8%
natural scientists: 23.8%
p. 288: "more than 36 percent of the
scientists reported they were moderately or very spiritual, social scientists slightly more so than
natural scientists (37 vs. 35 percent, respectively)."
The author is attempting to justify her funding (the Templeton foundation) by spinning really bad numbers for her person belief system (if you take there is no god, I don't know and I believe in a higher power but its not god together you get 69.4 % of social scientist and 74.4% of natural scientist, only 20.8 % of natural scientist and 25.3% of social scientist actually have faith in god, any god).
Your numbers seem wrong, but if you cite your sources (page numbers, website, etc.) I'd be happy to read them. And if I'm mistaken I'll glad say so right here on this thread. ; )
From Gaskells’ paper, Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.
“Jesus was involved in the creation and that more things than just our visible universe were created. This is precisely what modern astronomy is finding.
“Genesis starts: “In the beginning...” This is an important and powerful phrase because modern astronomy says very strongly that there was a beginning...“Big Bang.”
“I personally have no theological problem with the idea of God doing things in the ways described in modern theories of evolution (i.e., “theistic evolution”).
“one cannot say “science disproves Genesis.”
“I believe that there are “secret things that belong to the Lord.”
Subject headings for his bibliography:
The Bible
Bible Study Helps
Introductory Books About Christianity
Books Discussing the Evidence for Christianity
Genesis
Genesis and Science
History of the “Young Earth” movement
“Organizations”:
The Affiliation of Christian Biologists
The Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Chr-astro (Christian professional astronomers)
Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences
Christian Engineering Society
The Society of Christian Philosophers
Leadership U
Reasons to Believe
List of religious affiliations of Nobel prize winners