Media-hungry atheist, creationist and religious fundamentalist provocateurs have successfully dominated the science and religion narrative for the past decade or so. In doing so, they have created the false impression of an ongoing unavoidable war between the two camps. A recently published large-scale survey of college students, however, finds that the call to arms has fallen on deaf ears. For the vast majority of American university students, there simply is no conflict between science and religion.
Christopher Scheitle, a Penn State sociologist, analyzed survey data from more than 10,000 students at over 200 colleges and universities across America (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50, p. 175). The students were surveyed both as freshman and juniors so that attitudinal change over the course of their university years could be assessed. Among the many items on the survey was one that asked the following: "For me, the relationship between science and religion is one of..." Four possible responses were provided: (1) Conflict -- I consider myself to be on the side of science, (2) Conflict -- I consider myself to be on the side of religion, (3) Independence - science and religion refer to different aspects of reality and (4) Collaboration -- each can be used to support the other. Students were also asked about their religious beliefs and affiliations and their course of study (i.e. major).
Results showed that nearly 70 percent of college freshman saw the science/religion relationship as one of either independence or collaboration. The minority who saw science and religion in conflict were roughly evenly split between those who sided with religion (17 percent) and those who sided with science (14 percent). Even more interesting was the fact that when students changed their opinion over time, the most likely change was moving from a conflict position to one of non-conflict (either independence or collaboration). For example, 70 percent of those who as freshmen said they were on "religion's side" had changed to a non-conflict position by the time they were juniors. Similarly, 46 percent of freshmen who said they were on "science's side" had adopted a non-conflict position by the time they were juniors. By contrast, only 13 percent of freshman who took a non-conflict position changed to one of conflict by their junior year (5 percent to religion's side, 8 percent to the side of science). For most students, more education means less science/religion conflict, not more.
The above results also reflect the fact that the pro-science point of view appears to be more entrenched than the pro-religion point of view. In other words, once someone has adopted "science's side" in a perceived science and religion conflict, it is harder to move them from this position compared to when someone has adopted "religion's side." Exactly how to interpret this is unclear. Are religious people actually less dogmatic on the issue? Maybe. Maybe the evidence more clearly confirms the rightness of the "science" side and this is why fewer people switch. Then again, if the evidence so clearly supports the "science side" then why don't the majority of people see a conflict to begin with, and why do nearly half of the pro-science folks defect over time?
The apparent greater willingness of "religion side" students to re-examine their stance can also be seen in another interesting finding. Students at religious schools were actually less likely to claim to be on "religion's side" than students at secular schools. This pattern held true even after the results were adjusted for the students' degree of religious commitment and religious conservatism. The author suggests that students at religious schools may feel less threatened than equally religious students at a secular school and that the conflict narrative may be more salient at secular schools.
The breakdown of findings by major also showed some interesting trends. Business and education students were most likely to adopt a conflict approach, with nearly 40 percent doing so, most of whom claimed a pro-religion stance. The conflict approach was endorsed by just under 30 percent of natural science, math and engineering, social science, and arts and humanities students. However, while the majority of "conflict" students in natural science, math and engineering sided with science, the majority of arts, humanitie, and social science students sided with religion. While it is important to keep in mind that most students of all majors saw no conflict, this pattern across majors was somewhat troubling to the author:
"The finding that scientists and engineers are among the most likely to have a pro-science conflict perspective could mean that some of the most influential voices in these public debates might be more likely to fuel the debates than attenuate them. Similarly, future educators are among the most likely to hold a pro-religion conflict perspective. Given that classrooms and school boards have been one of the central forums for the struggle over religion and science, this does not bode well for a reduction of those struggles" (p. 185).
A shrill alarm cry naturally attracts attention and the few extreme voices promoting a science and religion conflict have taken full advantage of this. Seeking common ground or respecting distinct domains are not sexy, but this is where the majority of educated people are when it comes to science and religion. As the author of this survey points out, the non-conflict position firmly established among college students is only a reflection of what has already been found for most working scientists.
The majority position is not always the right one. It is not always the wrong one either. But one is justified in being wary of those who promote conflict (whether in science and religion or in politics, society, etc.) when: (a) it not obvious to most people why the conflict is necessary and (b) those promoting it have something to gain by doing so. Crass opportunism could be afoot just as easily as sincere disagreement.
College students: religion and science aren't enemies after all!
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
"You'd better pay attention or this world we love so much\
Might .. Just ..Kill .. You."
Who Created It?
"Business and education students were most likely to adopt a conflict approach, with nearly 40 percent doing so, most of whom claimed a pro-religion stance."
I Really Do Not Want these people educating my grandchildren.
The people who actually know something are those actually studying scientific subjects, or engineering - which imposes a requirement to recognise reality.
But one reason in the USA that so few see no conflict, even among those who trumpet We Believe the Bible, is that they don't read it.
For instance, God condemned all humanity to die because Adam disobeyed a seemingly trifling order-- or was it a tyrannical command that they NOT know the difference between Good and Evil?
Well, anyway, then He lets us all off because a group of reactionary religious leaders and a conscienceless functionary of Empire, with the approval of the mob, tortured to death God's innocent "only begotten" Son?
Now, how plausible is that?
Or we could ask what it means that Joshua got the Sun to stand still, and it isn't reported in the excellent ancient Chinese records.
Or for that matter, is it fair that God slaughtered all but two of every innocent species of animal in a Flood sent to punish the wickedness of Men, while allowing all of Noah's family to survive?
Biologists, according to some studies, are even more reluctant to believe in God than physicists and mathematicians.
Biologists know that Nature is cruel.
But in his defence of religion, a book called "The Age of Reason" (it's online), he declared
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."
"But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them."
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
It follows that there is indeed a conflict, not between science and religion, but between science and probably all of the prevailing religions, including especially the truly dominant one, the worship of Mammon, the god of Money.
Lenin's Communism too, which was certainly atheistical, nevertheless was condemned by the socialist Bertrand Russell as fanatically dogmatic. In the case of biology, also known as the conflict between the scientist Vavilov and the Party's Lysenko, it was no better than the anti-Darwinian Creationist ignorami.
The conflict is one sided. Science says, If I knock a pencil off my desk, it will drop to the ground. Science can tell me how long it will take to fall and how fast.
Religion tells me that if I pray, a little angel can catch it in mid-air and place it back on my desk.
The difference is Science is right about the time and the speed and the pencil hitting the floor - - EVERY TIME.
But you can pray til your fingers fall off, and the angel never comes. One is fact, the other is fiction. No conflict.
ON THE COMPUTER SCIENCE MADE POSSIBLE
It is because Religion is on the wane, and even the True Believers can sense it.
Every year Science grows greater and wider and ever more crucial to our very survival.
And every year Religion grows more irrelevant, more out of step with human knowledge, and more dominated by its worst attributes.
Make no mistake - there's a conflict, all right!
For most of recorded history, it was the True Believers that had the upper hand - and they weren't the least bit shy about seeing a conflict when anyone disagreed with them. Try telling Galileo there's no conflict between Science and Religion!
But the Age of Religion is slowing nearing its end - thank God.
Those who control the tech, get to remake the world in their own image...and I'm not looking for opposing points of view form people I consider irrelevant morons. As they do NOT have the ability to manipulate technology, why should they have a say as to it's application.
Trite as it may be, I could care less about what a bunch of dead old white men have to say about anything.
Let's take another look at this questionnaire.
In the first two of the four possible response choices offered, not only would you state that there's a conflict, but you have to declare on WHICH SIDE of the conflict you YOURSELF are on.
In the second two possible choices, you don't have to declare ANYTHING about yourself.
Well it's simply human nature that as a general rule we prefer to avoid choosing sides unless there's some sort of benefit in it for us. And questionnaires offer no benefit at all.
So it's not surprising that many people will prefer one of the second two answers.
But when Rossano published this article, of course HE wasn't being "media-hungry," was he? Well of COURSE not! The very IDEA!
For some reason it's always only the people who happen to DISAGREE with you that get called "media-hungry."
Worldwide floods
Giants
Resurrections
Jews being incapable of seeing yellow
How the world began
Evolution
Reincarnation
How salt water and fresh water mix
etc
In other words, science says NOTHING about religion, and when people realize this, they either reconcile their beliefs to conform to reality or refuse to accept reality. The people applying the scientific method continue to have little interaction with science until religion forces them to take notice (as in the ID attempts to supplant science education with religious education).
Science has nothing to fear from religion. You can't disprove science with Religion.
Same is not true the other way around. This is why religious people fear and shun science more than Scientists fear religion.
Even though there are more religious people than non-religious people here in the U.S they still act that they are the ones being "attacked"
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
If there is anything that I've learned about discussing religion that you need to nail down what the person talking about it means. People can mean quite radically different things when using the term 'religion'.
Both can co-exist.
Science deals with Facts that are testable and repeatable.
religion deals with Faith.
Facts and Faith are just different, not opposite. There is no need for a war between the two.
First, religion does purport (pretend) to know certain facts. Let's start with some of the many, competing, truth claims promoted by religions.
The world was created in seven days.
Person x has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
A man was born of a virgin.
A man was resurrected from the dead.
If you follow the prescriptions of a certain deity, you will be rewarded by entrance into Heaven
All of these are 'facts'. Religion teaches that heaven is a real and true place, and that Jesus was truly the son of God, born of a virgin. These are truth-claims, and demonstrating their falsity would be devastating for these religions' metaphysical paradigms. Would you agree?
Science: Can someone be born of a virgin? Can someone be resurrected from the dead? The unquestionable scientific answers to these questions are NO. (This applies to so many wildly imaginative religious claims, including gods).
Thus we see clearly that religion stipulates certain truth-claims which are in direct contradiction with science (facts). Science and faith represent opposing paradigms (evidence and faith); they are at war by necessity, by definition, and will continue to be as long as religion continues to make false truth-claims.
there is no need for you to convince me of that.
I just don't think there is a need to draw a line in the sand. Just respect each others differences.
Where is the "co-existence"?
And, as an added "LOL", your statement, "religion is deals with Faith" tells me that you understand that "faith" implies the opposite of "facts".
LOL