A recent HuffBlog "The Spiritual Lives of Atheist Scientist" by Adelle M. Banks generated a lot of comments, including references to my own 2007 book God: The Failed Hypothesis. The article describes the work of sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund on the so-called "spirituality" of atheist scientists. Let me provide some background that was not mentioned by Banks or any of the hundreds of comments.
In 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle published a study "Religion Among American Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics" [Social Problems 54, no. 2(2007): 289-307]. They asked thirty-six questions of 1,646 randomly selected natural and social scientists from twenty-one top research universities and found that 31.2 percent were atheists (do not believe in God); 31.0 percent were agnostics (no way of knowing); 15.5 percent believed but had doubts; 9.7 percent were sure there is a God, 7.2 percent believed in a higher power that is not God; 5.4 percent believed in God "sometimes." Disbelief is greatest among physicists and biologists, each with about 70 percent atheists or agnostics and only 6-7 percent "true" believers.
In 2010 Ecklund published a book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think that received considerable media attention because of its conclusion that scientists are more "spiritual" than we have been led to assume. While based on the same study of elite universities mentioned above, Ecklund seems to contradict her own data when she writes: "Much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. The 'insurmountable hostility' between science and religion is a caricature, a thought-cliché, perhaps useful as a satire on groupthink, but hardly representative of reality." On the next page, however, she says that many academic scientists practice a "closeted faith" because of the hostility of their colleagues. She provides no data, just a personal impression from her interviews. Many more are "spiritual atheists who practice a new kind of individual spirituality -- one that has no need for God."
Ecklund adds, "The institutional infrastructure of the academy has changed to allow more of a place of religion." This is misleading, because she fails to make the important distinction (although she does so later) that is made in these institutions themselves between "religion" and "religious studies." I have visited many religious studies department around the country and find a common story. The majority of religion studies professors in secular universities are nonbelievers, to the great distress of students who enroll in these courses expecting to have their faiths strengthened only to be told what the Bible really says an how it really came to be written. Many atheist scholars, notably philosopher Daniel Dennett, have urged that religion be studied scientifically as an important social phenomenon. As far as I can tell, it already is in these vibrant religious studies departments.
Ecklund's book does not spend any time dissecting the data reported in her paper with Scheitle mentioned above. Rather she is more interested in whatever significance she can glean from her 275 anecdotal personal interviews. She concludes that scientists are more spiritual than we think while admitting that "spirituality" is a difficult term to define.
Ecklund notes, "Religion scholars think that Americans tend to link spirituality to interaction with some form of higher being." She refers to a study reported by sociologist Robert Wuthnow in his 1998 book After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s . Wuthnow asked Americans to define spirituality: they mentioned near-death experiences, unseen spirit guides, belief in angels, meditation, and prayer groups. That is, the general public associates spirituality with the supernatural, as do most dictionaries..
Presenting data from a 1998 General Social Survey (she gives no exact reference), Ecklund reports that nearly 29 percent of Americans say they are "very spiritual," compared to only 9 percent of scientists. On the other hand, 32 percent of scientists consider themselves "slightly spiritual" compared to 21 percent of the general population. Ecklund calls this "thin spirituality."
The thin spirituality of scientists is clearly poles apart from the thick spirituality of the general public. Two out of three scientists are still atheists or agnostics and only 6-7 percent are committed believers. The spirituality Ecklund attributes to some scientists is not supernatural. A biologist's response is typical: "I get my spirituality . . . from being in nature. But I don't really believe there's a God, so I don't consider it's necessary for what I do or how I behave."
I was looking in Ecklund's book for some evidence of the New Age quantum spirituality. Apparently there is little among scientists. The word "quantum" does not even appear in Ecklund's index. Evidently quantum spirituality lives outside the mainstream scientific community and is mainly found on the pseudoscientific fringes under designations such as "parapsychology" or "neuroquantology."
Behavior rather than belief seems to be the defining factor of the spiritual atheist. Those who call themselves spiritual are engaged in helping others, caring for the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and generally spending time meditating on central themes. We can't fault that.
Matthew Chapman: The Atheist in the Closet
David Lose: Has Atheism Become a Religion?
Jeanne Ball: Dispelling Meditation's Most Common Myths
What do students end up doing when they have to read novels in high school and college?
They debate the moral points being modeled by the authors as embodied by the conflicts between the fictional characters.
And the characters can be fictional to the point of being supernatural or even absurdist or surreal. Like for example, the father in Donald Barthelme's masterpiece of non-real realism, "The Dead Father."
What is the conflict in Jane Austen? The oppressive gender economics of 19th century Britain vs. the power of human emotion as expressed in love between a man and a woman.
Humans have always used fictional narratives as a foundation for the moral debates that shape society.
It's interesting that scientists don't attack novelists for shaping the human moral conscience using events that never took place or couldn't possibly ever take place.
Is that because they understand the role of fiction in helping us cope with reality?
Or is that because they underestimate the function and power of fictional narrative altogether?
Simple questions would be the best tactic I thought to, maybe, pushing her into making some kind of false statement. In a few short minutes, however, she had charmed me with her warmth and cordiality. Ego no longer played a part in my decision to ask simple questions of her. Nor, did I have any real desire to prove her false. Advice and counsel seemed to be her strong qualities.
In my opinion, spirituality is just powerful emotions seen through the filter of language that doesn't have appropriate secular words for such deep emotions.
Most scientists come from the white upper middle class, so they grew up feeling like someone real did care about them.
So they tend to feel like they don't need that face up in the sky to give them love and understanding.
If you grow up feeling like nobody cares, like you're just trash, then having that imaginary face up in the sky supposedly caring about you can mean a great deal.
At least Robert Wuthnow started with the basics and tried to research what people actually think it means. What did he conclude? Most people think it has something to do with spirits.
Given that it's very unlikely that the interviewed atheists believe in anything supernatural, we can throw that definition out as well.
We have at least one study and a couple articles and I challenge anyone to define what characteristics a "spiritual atheist" has that other atheists necessarily do not.
I can't see anything gained by using the word "spiritual" at all, especially as part of a scientific process unless accompanied by a clear definition or as part of another study on semantics. Lets just stop using the word altogether. Nothing lost.
Spirituality and religion have to do with our emotional relationship with the fact of our existence.
If those issues don't intrigue you, then fine, so be it.
But why disparage other people for not being strict materialists like you are?
If evolution really favored materialism, then your kind would be the only kind of people on the planet.
The fact that people with other points of view are here means that our species needed some non-materialists in order to make it this far.
Let me give you an example: When you are driving do you look for "signs"?
Now, it may not occur to you, but when I say "signs" I may not mean road signs. I may mean signs from God. Unless we can agree upon a definition we have no idea what the other person is saying.
So it is with the word 'spiritual'. It means radically different things to different people. So what is the point of simply asking an atheist if they use the word "spiritual" to describe themselves, unless there is an agreed upon definition?
If I feel an elated, emotional experience while drinking water after nearly dying of thirst, I might call that spiritual. Or lie down on a beautiful day and listen to Mozart. I could call that spiritual. Or look into my baby boy's eyes... you get the point.
But there are many people in the US for whom the word 'spiritual' refers to some sort of experience that has something to do with the supernatural. Again, it's a vague definition, but it necessarily excludes the above examples I gave.
Any useful method for studying or debating, whether that involves the scientific method or basic theological discourse, requires definitions. It's as fundamental as language. And unfortunately for the word "spiritual" it has virtually no consistent meaning in everyday conversations. I say either define it, or use another word.
At 0:30, you got the truth with a little comedy XD.
The atheists in the religion department were like a lot of athiest who presently post comments. They had a very elementary understanding of science. And, the religionists in the science department had a very elementary understanding of religion. However, it seemed as both groups were content and happy with their basic knowledge and understanding.
I became a little jaded. So, I decided that I didn't want to pursue either as a career path. Not that I didn't still have deep religious convictions or not because I couldn't find the answers in science. I excelled in both fields setting the curve in the classrooms.
And, coming from a blue collar family meant I had to work fulltime while attending university fulltime...so, in some respects I was of that world and not in it at the same time. Upon graduation I shocked my professors and peers by entering the world of business.
I became very, very successful in business - a field that I hadn't studied. What does this post mean? There's a deeper message contained here.
This sounds like it is intended as a parable of some sort. And it seems that you've drawn some rather bogus conclusions from your personal parable, though you never made your conclusions explicit so I'm frankly unable to further comment on that.
To pick at one thing, so what if scientists have an elementary understanding of religious studies and visa versa? It seems implicit in your story that there was more that in principle they ought to have been knowing. Firstly, of course one has an elementary understanding of a discipline they don't study compared to someone studying it in detail daily! Secondly, I don't see why they'd need a deeper understanding. The burden to understand religion, beyond an anthropological interest esp as one's career, lies not with the atheist but with religion. Until religion is demonstrated as providing genuine knowledge, an elementary understanding of what religion is and that it's nonsense is more than sufficient for most people's lifestyle.
Since, you told me atheists are smarter I am sure you will understand.
That having been said, you go on to say that "both groups were content and happy with their basic knowledge and understandÂing". One of lessons you seem to be implying (yet frustratingly never make explicit) is that their happiness justified their lack of understanding. This is an argument for ignorance. No, ignorance really isn't okay, not on the basis of happiness. The only reasonable justification for a level of ignorance is that we can't know everything, there are severe practical and physical limitations to this. That is why an elementary understanding of several important/interesting topic is often appropriate. A scientifically literate public needn't know the details of biological research, but should know the basics of the science of evolution. If they don't know those basics, they shouldn't be content with such ignorance. Of course, one must be judicious in what one studies, evolution is only so important and astrology (and theology for the same reason is far far less important beyond knowing it is BS.
The problem is that we remain on some unknown point of the learning curve. Even the highest of existing knowledge is partial even fragmentary. The is to say all understanding is incomplete. However valuable or pretentious the relative measure of human knowledge may appear from within any cultural construct at any particular time, it remains only a portion of a much greater and as yet undiscovered whole. So long as this is the case, a gullible humanity will be susceptible to the easy paths of empty promises, intellectual vanity and spiritual confectionery. http://www.energon.org.uk
Well, strictly speaking, you can't even steal the word 'quantum'.
But then again, the reason some folks use this word is because they want to scare others by invoking the associations that come from reading scary physics books.
:-)
So what if when I listen to great music or if I meditated my emotional and brain state changes? It's just a brain thing, nothing more.
Now I get the feeling that many atheists saying they are "spiritual" aren't a whole lot different from me. Those atheists who are dramatically different or honestly disagree over labels are free to call themselves what they want. But I feel as if some atheists, being surrounded by religious people, feel questions about whether they are religious/spiritual and shrug their shoulders saying "Well, I do feel a sense of awe at nature. I guess I'm kinda spiritual" rather than admitting that they are as bold as to not engage in the spiritual practice of almost everyone else. Well, I don't think atheists should shrug shouldn't and provide socially pleasant responses. I'm good with not only god but without religion or spirituality. That's fine and I'm very happy with that. So as much as I like nature, I'm not spiritual. That's that!
I'm an atheist and I don't regard my self as spiritual. Partially as for example TomMartin remarks, the term spiritual comes with some baggage that I don't associate with. But there's a bigger reason. I simply think my approach to appreciating the world is of a very very different character from that of the religious, mystics, Eastern religions, and other forms of spirituality. I don't have any practices such as prayer or meditation. I am not so much in a worshipful awe of nature as much as an intense intellectual fascination with nature. It's just different.
If God appeared in Central Park, while others were worshiping or basking in the presence of the divine, honestly I'd take some measuring devices to try to figure how the heck there is a supernatural god and how that works. It would fascinate me to no end. I might bask in the presence briefly, but as Saturday afternoon entertainment, like good music or a movie, after which I go about my way....
Thats a question I have always pondered. I think that the words spiritual or religious in reference to someones state of being could be replaced with the word unknowing.
A true scientist cannot say, " there is not god" merely, "the evidence suggests, there is no god".
"That's it?"
"That's it."