There is strong evidence that religion is resurging among students on America's top university campuses. Yet, a large number of academic scientists firmly feel that they should not discuss religion in their classrooms. I have spent the last five years surveying nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists working at elite U.S. universities -- talking with 275 of them in-depth -- in an effort to understand their religious beliefs and practices, or lack thereof. As I traveled the country, I asked scientists about the role of religion within the university. Many scientists believe that religion has no legitimate place in the modern American academy; 54 percent mentioned the dangers that religion could bring to universities (and in particular to science) when it goes wrong. About 36 percent of scientists I talked with said they have a model of university life that does not allow any positive role for religious people, institutions and ideas. And they have few models for how scientists (with or without faith) might sustain productive interaction with or respond to religious people and ideas. In their models of the university, such people and ideas exist primarily as a threat to science.
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)
Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman: Why Judaism Embraces Science
Some University Of Illinois Religious Studies Professors Vetted By ...
Are College Professors Less Religious than the General Population ...
nsf.gov - National Science Foundation - US National Science ...
"Science vs. Religion" discovers what scientists really think ...
And this woman wants religion in our science classes. Give me a break.
I think there are plenty of other better venues for talking about science and religion: religion classes, history classes, science and religion classes. And no one's stopping professors from having personal conversations in the coffee shop, etc. But if the conversations are about personal beliefs, they shouldn't take place in science classes. Science professors need to be objective about science.
There are two great books anyone interested in this should read, they will open the eyes to how science and religion can coexist, one is called God and the New Physics, the other is The Mind of God:The Scientific Basis for a Rational World; both written by Paul Davies well respected theoretical physicist.
There are plenty of atheists that know that and still regard science and religion as incompatible. Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne for instance. The issue is not whether people accept evolution, etc while holding onto their religious beliefs. The issue is that religion and science have conflicting approaches. Science requires that claims be judged based on the evidence, religion requires one to accept claims without evidence. Certainly one could demand evidence while in the lab and believe things without evidence while in church, but there is an obvious inconsistency here.
Moreover, there is this additional notion that God in some sense is a failed scientific hypothesis. Based on a scientific way of thinking and the evidence, there is a good case that God's existence is unlikely. Perhaps one my accept evolution as true, but by that same approach they should also conclude God probably doesn't exist.
In any case it is fairly well known that there are religious people that accept evolution (Francis Collins, Catholic priests). That isn't the point. People still regard religion and science as incompatible.
because science can't be bothered with made up stuff.
Not to mention, most science professors probably feel like ANY non-scientific subject is a threat to scientific education!
I have no problem with additional religious classes, subjects, groups, or whatever on college campuses. Although you would think the ridiculous amount of churches and religious buildings of worship we have in this country would be enough. But to me religion has about as much business in a science class as math does in an art class.
Sincere concern for American science education requires science teachers to be able to address religious issues when they come up in a respectful, informed, and level-headed manner. Unfortunately, those educators who are in the best position to do this - trained scientists who are also religious believers (most of whom support the theory of evolution, btw) - are actively discouraged from discussing religion and science in the same context.
Evolution can be taught quite effectively without bringing religion into the debate. Just like dinosaurs being extinct for millions of years can be taught quite effectively without bringing up the unsubstantiated belief held by many Americans that the earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus rode around on a velociraptor.
Science and religion DON'T mix. There are no religious issues that have to be addressed in a science classroom anymore than there are math issues that need to be addressed in an art class. I wouldn't expect evolution to be taught in religious classes or in Sunday schools, and I'm pretty sure most people would feel the same way.
But there's this mentality that for some reason scientists have to cater to religious dogma in the classroom. Which makes no sense whatsoever. Science is based on measurable and observable evidence. Religion is based on scripture and personal interpretation.
When it comes to science theories and evidence are tested and verified. If the evidence is found wanting, the theory or conclusion is discarded. Religion is based on faith, which is belief despite a lack of measurable evidence. The two are not compatible.
Whenever I read the comments with articles in the Religious section like this, I am stuck at how bad some Atheists have become. The comments that I have read on here are as bad as any that I have read from a Bible-thumping, hard-nosed evangelical Christian.
I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I will rub my way of thinking in your face if you are not of like mind. Anyone who believes in something other than what I believe in is stupid. I can prove any point I have with this book and I will dismiss any point, no matter how good or thought provoking, if it doesn't concede to my point. I will be rude, condescending, and disrespectful because I know I am right and since you are, obviously, wrong I will pass judgment on you accordingly.
Sound familiar? It seems to me that these Atheists are turning into the very thing they hate; A zealot religion of non-believers who look down upon those who do believe in something beyond what is known to them. It makes having any kind of meaningful dialogue impossible.
There are plenty of spiritual paths that embrace and encourage scientific thought. So must all other spiritual beliefs be disrespected because a few disrespected you?
You really should take your act on the road...
About 70% of High School Science teachers refuse to teach Evolution in the classroom. Of those who will teach it, a good percentage teach “Intelligent Design” as an alternative to Evolution.
Read more about this at my website...
http://www.under5cents.com/2011/01/evolution-not-taught-as-fact-in-us-high.html
Beyond an anecdotal tale of professors who claim they don't feel comfortable expressing their faith, there doesn't seem to be anything useful here.
That said, I completely agree that science classes (unless the study material begs it) isn't the time or place to inject religious material into the course study. A big no no.
That said, it is also not the place of the university to ridicule or grade lower because of their faith. Unfortunately, many university professors seem to be hostile to religion regardless of how minimal the expression. Simply wearing a cross or marking your forehead with ash can result in snide comments and out right screeds on the part of some sanctimonious professor.
But then again, they won't say a word if someone comes in covered from head to toe in a Burka.
Is this something you've actually seen or is it a Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Stein Christian persecution fantasy? I find it very difficult to believe a college professor would do such a thing. I went to one of the most liberal colleges in America and I can't imagine this happening.