Are all scientists atheists? Do they believe religion and science can co-exist? These questions and others were addressed in the first worldwide survey of how scientists view religion, released today by researchers at Rice University.
“No one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion,” said the study’s principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. “This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between.”
The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.
“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”
The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.
When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.
In addition to the survey’s quantitative findings, the researchers found nuanced views in scientists’ responses during interviews. For example, numerous scientists expressed how religion can provide a “check” in ethically gray areas.
“(Religion provides a) check on those occasions where you might be tempted to shortcut because you want to get something published and you think, ‘Oh, that experiment wasn’t really good enough, but if I portray it in this way, that will do,'” said a biology professor from the U.K.
Another scientist said that there are “multiple atheisms,” some of which include religious traditions. “I have no problem going to church services because quite often, again that’s a cultural thing,” said a physics reader in the U.K. who said he sometimes attended services because his daughter sang in the church choir. “It’s like looking at another part of your culture, but I have no faith religiously. It doesn’t worry me that religion is still out there.”
Finally, many scientists mentioned ways that they would accommodate the religious views or practices of the public, whether those of students or colleagues.
“Religious issues (are) quite common here because everyone talks about which temple they go to, which church they go to. So it’s not really an issue we hide; we just talk about it. Because, in Taiwan, we have people [of] different religions,” said a Taiwanese professor of biology.
Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science.
By surveying and interviewing scientists at various career stages, in elite and nonelite institutions and in biology and physics, the researchers hoped to gain a representative look at scientists’ views on religion, ethics and how both intersect with their scientific work.
Ecklund said that the study has many important implications that can be applied to university hiring processes, how classrooms and labs are structured and general public policy.
“Science is a global endeavor,” Ecklund said. “And as long as science is global, then we need to recognize that the borders between science and religion are more permeable than most people think.”
The Templeton World Charity Foundation funded the study. The study also received support from Rice University and the Faraday Institute, housed at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge.
Reference link: http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/first-worldwide-survey-of-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/
Dear Brother, Friend, and Treasured Writing Partner Calbab: There is an organization known as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.
It is a group of Orthodox Jewish people who are scientists.
They see no contradiction in using the scientific method for matters where a reductionist epistemological model yields very useful information and results for humanitarian purposes.
They also see no problem with using the tools and values of Orthodox Judaism for matter which transcend the physical (metaphysical).
As a proud Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, A member of this fine organization and Chaplain there neither do I.
I would imagine the same is true in your community of wisdom, knowledge and and faith.
Similarly for other religions and spiritual approaches to life.
In sports, we do not play baseball by the rules of football, basketball or ice hockey.
They are all sports.
Each has their own importance, values, contributions, rules, ways and appeals.
We adjust approaches depending on what we are doing.
Is called pragmatism.
It works.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to You and Yours in this New Year of 2018.
Enoch.
Hello Enoch! I did not see you there just now. What a nice addition. I will have to look these folks up and visit with them online!
This is from Pew Research.
In short, in the USA, 33% of the scientists say they believe in God, 18% believe in an higher order (e.g. 'the force'), 41% are atheists and 7% no answer. This translates into 59% of the USA scientists are technically atheists. (A bit surprising given the heavily theistic culture of the USA.)
Note also that they drew from the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS) membership. This taps actual scientists.
Worldwide, the numbers in your survey are interesting because they move beyond the Christian definition of God and into Allah, Brahman and Buddah.
Anyway, your source does not give us a link to the survey so I had to find it. Apparently this is the survey. Note upfront how it defines 'scientist'
Where table 1 is:
It would have been a lot more informative if the survey had asked research scientists. That is, people who are gathering empirical data, formulating hypotheses, engaging in empirical analysis, publishing their findings and theories. As much as we all respect fields such as architecture, this is not science (except by a very liberal definition) - it is engineering - applied science. Very different.
So honestly I am not sure what to make of this survey. But apparently the lead researcher ("Elaine Howard Ecklund is the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences and Professor of Sociology in the Rice University Department of Sociology , director of the Religion and Public Life Program" ) wrote a book on this survey. Here is something from her Wikipedia page in reference to her findings:
34% atheist, 30% agnostic (from context seems to mean simply 'do not know' and that is technically agnostic atheist), 19% agnostic theist, 8% belief in a higher power but not a personal God (technically atheist). Finally 9% gnostic theists.
That translates into 74% atheist (not convinced there is a god).
I would think that a proclivity toward atheism and an attraction to science coincide in some individuals. Science doesn't convince them there is no god. They bring their atheist leanings with them into science.
In other words, I don't think this data necessarily indicates that science fosters atheism.
I agree. Indeed, the data does not suggest either case. Although I do not see why only atheists would find science attractive.
Exactly. The data are interesting... but we cannot be sure how much concerns "hard" scientists, as opposed to "science-related". Personally, I would not consider a "health technician" to be a scientist. One may operate a machine without many metaphysical questions... Medical doctors are very competent "technicians". We have all met doctors who have a purely procedural approach to their work.
When I see that 37.4% of "Evangelical Protestant Scientists" would "strongly favor teaching creationism instead of evolution in public schools"... I am dubious.
Then again... the advantage of having the detailed data is that one may note that the sample is small -- only 104 "Evangelical Protestant Scientists" including medical doctors and technicians, architects, engineers, and so on.
This me, it's how I turn on the hand dryer in the bathrooms... I wave my hand and the fan comes on.
I often reference the group BioLogos . This is a group of scientists who are also Christians. They are a good example of individuals who present science as it is (unlike the Ken Hams of the world) and seriously attempt to educate the religious community on science. Especially the areas of science that do not work well with the Bible.
These folks are trying to keep religion and science compatible. For the most part they do this by very careful (and clever) interpretation of the Bible. The science (except in rare circumstances) is not reinterpreted - it is the Bible that is reinterpreted. This is similar to how Dr. Hugh Ross (of Reasons to Believe ) operates. Dr. Ross gets into some very i n t e r e s t i n g explanations such as how (per his argument that is) Genesis accurately describes what happened over billions of years of cosmological evolution starting from inception (the Big Bang).
In fact, he and Ken Ham debated this. Ken Ham was not pleased to say the least.
No doubt there are serious efforts to reconcile the Bible with science. Indeed religions have been adapting to scientific findings for centuries and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
WoW! I like what Matt Crouch did with this! Very informative. I know of TBN, but do not follow any of the network. What good programming that. I watched and closely listened to the whole thing. TiG, be honest with me did you listen all the way through or 'check out'? Hugh Ross is very interesting. Ken Ham is interesting, too.
A+ spiritual discussion. We need a ton more of these! BRAVO!
I watched the entire debate. Why do you ask?
What do you think of his position? For example the discussion on the meaning of 'day' in Genesis vs. that of Dr. Ross?
Just wanted to know if you 'dipped' or 'swam.' Lots was said in this show. I will likely watch it again. It's not 'typical' TBN, from my knowledge of the network. Unless I have been missing out. It's a good look.
Swam. IMO skeptics will tend to swim and not shut their eyes when information is posited that does not support preconceived notions. It goes to the very nature of critical analysis. Critical analysis is not possible if part of the evidence is simply dismissed.
The question I asked you was rather fundamental to this debate. I thought it was an easy, open question and am a little surprised you did not weigh in.
Ken Ham had $ images for pupils.
I do not know anything about him beyond what you write (often) and expose about him. So this is my 'first impression': Ken Ham is intense. I can see Ham's dilemma, but I have not formulated a 'public position' on any of this yet. What I do see are three perspectives loosely called: Young earth, 'Milddle' earth, and Old earth.
You have 'pet' arguments and discussions about Young Earthers and evolution that extend past there "due" dates. Been there. Done that. Got T-shirts! (Smile.)
Wait, . . . "Skeptics will tend to swim and not shut their eyes when information is posited that does not support preconceived notions."
Surprised? Really, you are? I'm sorry, but I do not feel comfortable answering questions about these subjects at this time. How is that any different than a lack of critical analysis or continued silence on Dr. Peter Boghossian?
I did not ask you about Ken Ham personally - just about his position:
I asked because this was fundamental in the debate.
Just a simple question. Not really a call for establishing a public position. But, okay, I withdraw the question.
The middle Earth 'perspective' by Dr. Bloom was pure equivocation.
The topics of evolution and biblical literalism are not going to go away.
Here is the difference.
My question was directly about the topic that we are discussing - a topic that you are clearly interested in as evidenced by your opening raving of the video.
Your question on Dr. Peter Boghossian came out of the blue. I did not even know who the guy was until you mentioned his name.
To wit ...
In the first case I asked a spot-on-topic question about a video debate in which you have clearly expressed interest.
In the second case you are demanding I weigh in on some guy (Dr. Boghossian) you tossed into the discussion (the topic -your topic- was Dr. Bart Ehrman) even after I told you I do not know anything about him and had no interest researching the guy.
See?
You're doing it again. What's that you say? That thing you do where you are never wrong. ALWAYS RIGHT. Okay. I won't repeat the detraction from the other article verbatim. Let's just say it goes, 'No agenda to see here.' And, I brought up Dr. Boghossian. And, you sidestepped.
Furthermore, I explained to you, I do not know who Ken Ham or Hugh Ross are. Most of that panel of folks are new to me. The issues are not, but I do not have to open my soul to you about any issue anymore than you do for me.
(Okay, now this is getting weird. And, I like it.) (Smile.)
If there is a logical or factual mistake in my explanation then point it out. If not, then it is best to not get personal or simply make accusations.
R..i..g..h..t...
Please, stop pressing the unanswerable questions beyond reasonable stopping points. Let's just move on!
Hi, Calbab...
First... Your formatting is hard on the eyes. Black font on a white background is much gentler. Also, it is customary to give a link to the Original Article.
Now to the meat of the seed. I mistrust polls that don't give the questions that were asked. On a topic like this one, the wording of the questions can determine the results. How are words like "religion" and "faith" defined? As a result, I am very skeptical about the conclusions.
Perhaps these questions are covered by the Original Article, but because you didn't give a link...
I made a similar point. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/RU_AAASPresentationNotes_2014_0219%20(1).pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Here is the survey report .
Good points, all. I was trying to get the usual formatting right. Did you notice there is a table on the page? It gave me numerous distractions. By the way, I, too, mistrust the leading of percentages. That said, according to the title it is a first! Anyway I will give you the link:
(Sigh!) TiG! You are becoming my shadow! LOL!
I am on most articles of science or religion. An article on BOTH religion and science means you will absolutely find me.
Again, I have changed the text color to just two. It was a "whimsical" effect that I can ease up on. Thank you for your suggestion!
This scientist sees no avenues where science and religion can merge. The two are incompatible.
Merge is definitely out of the question. Co-exist is possible. Have you ever looked at the attempts by BioLogos to explain science to fellow Christians?
The study treats this topic. That's why it's helpful to have (and read ) the data...
I find this result troubling on two different grounds. Intrinsically, I do not think the "collaboration" response is possible except through the extreme intellectual gymnastics (sophistry??) that TiG cited for BioLogos. Second, there are in fine only 104 people in this segment of the sample, and we do not know how many of them are in fact not "scientists" but only "science related" (architects, and such).
I have not read through the comments this Monday AM yet. But if it adds any value to the discussion, let me say that my intent for posting the article is to informational overall. More later, after coffee!
As a scientist, I have no problem with science and faith working together to benefit mankind. Maybe it's just me, and my scientific friends, but we don't seem to have a problem with faith and science coexisting and helping one another. I mean we all know why water boils when it gets hot, and have faith that it will do so-- What's the big deal? I see scientific laws as God's laws-- always have. I have always seen the physical laws of nature as God's laws.
I have faith that the laws of nature work a certain way, and always will. If there is something we don't understand, yet, give us time, we'll figure it out, using existing laws of nature. Maybe we don't know, yet, how to measure something. Give us time, and with God's help, we'll understand it. I don't honestly think we're supposed to know everything. There has got to be some mystery going on in the world, or there wouldn't be those that work to understand it. It gives us something to strive towards...
A lot of this "battle" going on is invented, I think. And, it's silly.
Just my 2 cents.
Yep, that pretty much nails it for me as well.
Spot on!
This is EXACTLY the point I am making. Secularists are "stirring the pot" and then tweaking the data in every way they can to say they are gaining ground on the believers (whom they would like to see either diminished or totally eliminated, depending on the person.) Here is a short video: NOTE: That which is of interest to this article begins at about 12 minutes into the video and maybe continues to its end. You can use the settings wheel to speed it up if you wish.
This TED Talk was around 2007 thereabouts. I am not against Atheists, but for some here to confidently assert that Richard Dawkins and his fellows do not have an agenda is simply wrong-headed. (Early on in the video, inside the first 12 minutes, Richard tells the audience he, personally, is going after religion as a whole.
Calbob, please remember that I live in the middle of the bible belt, where there is a church every other block in my city, and the only people being mean to others are the christians. Why is evolution so scary to evangelical christians? It's just a way that animals have grown and adapted to their environments... It's 23o outside today, do you honestly expect a huge number of reptiles to be sunning themselves in the snow drifts? If you think of it as God's will, and I do, that animals have changed over time, it's not so scary, but part of a beautiful plan. A plan we can't fathom very well, but that we're a part of, for sure!
I don't personally agree with Mr. Dawkins, but he doesn't scare me.
You think this is some mass conspiracy? Honestly, is it so hard to believe that scientists generally (as a whole) trend irreligious? Seems to me the tweaking of the data is from those trying to downplay the fact that scientific findings do challenge a number of religious notions.
Yes there are religious scientists, but for the most part science has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. There is room for belief in a superior entity, for example, but to hold certain of the more common beliefs (e.g. the worldwide flood, young Earth, God directly creating extant species, etc.) given what science has discovered would introduce quite a cognitive dissonance in a practicing research scientist.
Dowser, for example, -and based solely on what she wrote- has presented a consistent view of faith with science. She has not (in her post) suggested that she would favor the Bible over scientific findings but rather that new scientific findings are revealing the work of God. Not unlike the view of Dr. Ross.
I do not understand. Your video shows a President of the United States denying patriotism, and even citizenship, to certain people because of their beliefs... but you say it is the "secularists who are stirring the pot". How does that work?
Personally, I find Dawkins a bit silly, because he is constantly trying to prove a negative, but that's a different matter.
All across America, Christians impose their customs on everyone, while whining that it is they who are being mistreated. It's nonsense.
And I do not think you understand Professor Dawkins. He is absolutely against creationism since it blindly ignores the findings of his field (biology). His problems with religion stem from this fact. He (and I agree) sees most religions as an affront to critical thinking. It is not so much the belief in a higher being (Professor Dawkins notes that such is indeed a possibility) but the specific counter-scientific beliefs held simply because of faith - simply because ancient hands wrote words on paper.
Professor Dawkins is an educator (and a scientist). His concern is misinformation and (in effect) mind control. Abstract belief that there is a supreme entity is not his beef.
This is the crux for inerrantists. They have become pagans, worshiping a Book. There's a word for it: bibliolatry . It requires turning off one's thought processes...
Hi Dowser, I wrote this in my comment, too . I am not against Atheist, I do not live in the Bible Belt, Richard Dawkins does not scare me either, but for some people here to keep "hawking", or carping Dawkins, is not a threat to people of faith is a bold-faced lie. Note the caption on the video: "Militant Atheism" Dawkins and humanist foundation members are actually working to destroy faith in this country and they will use any method up to and including inflating statistics, percentages, and data to boost their influence.
Now then, and this is most important. Has the Church in America and around the world been guilty of mistreatment and damages to Atheist? Has the Church been sloppy and derelict in development and conducting its spiritual truths and business affairs? Yes, to both! The Church needs to pass judgement on itself, look inward, and began to fix its brokenness. There is much corruption, ignorance, and neglect in the Body of Christ.
That said, as a believer, I can not stand by idly and watch any group of critics destroy the good that is the Church along with the bad. I say let's all get along. I do this by standing up and speaking out on behalf of good people of faith.
Seems like believers can't make up their minds about Dawkins (which is probably rooted in the fact that they really don't know anything about him). I've even seen some of them claim Dawkins has converted back to believer status which obviously seems not to be the case. But one thing is certain, believers have tried their best to inflate his power or influence in order to make him as scary as possible. Would it surprise you to know that this atheist pays almost no attention to him? I'm much more concerned with those militant believers in this country who'd like to make Margaret Atwood's fictional totalitarian world of A Handmaid's Tale a reality. And there are a helluvalot more of them than there are "militant atheists".
Please don't think, for one moment, that I am criticizing you, in any way. I'm not, nor do I intend to come off that way.
I do believe that there are militant atheists, as there are militant Christians, and probably militant Hindus, Buddhists, Druids, etc. too! I think just about everyone has some kind of 'agenda', and the atheists as well as the fundamental Christians, both bother me greatly. My thought is: Let's just all try to get along. If you want to play with a rattlesnake to prove your faith, go for it, just don't expect me to go to your church, OR to denigrate me for not going. If you don't believe in any kind of supreme deity, have at it. That's your path to take. Mine is different. So, let's not try to force our views on anyone else and allow each other to be humans. Perhaps our constant questioning of our faith is what we're supposed to do...
Yes! See my second post to Dowser. I agree with you. It is the reason I asked for the viewer to see the video at 12:00 minutes, because I realize that some evangelicals are playing into the problem specifically in our country . Some Christian leaders, dead and alive, are dangerous to civil liberties and civil rights. Please take time to watch this short two-minutes Dawkins Foundation video:
See, I get it. Conservative Christians have helped to ignite something both negative against themselves and the body of believers as well.
I, too, stand for social diversity. There are millions of believers in every faith that stand up for diversity, specifically in this country! For example: Christian progressives rise to the occasion:
Reverend William Barbers II and his Moral Mondays Organization is tireless in standing up to defend rights, liberties and justice in this land. This organization is not alone. There are many such groups with people of faith attending, who are pushing back against the internal conflicts in the Body of Christ (the Church).
Agreed. Emphatically.
I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone. Just to ramble for a minute: I sometimes feel that I stumbled into an on-going 'war' for the soul of America by joining social media! It occurred to me that every time I would write, "Jesus"—deliberately or in passing, somebody would try to drown me out with 'noise.' Well, I can not abide this. I have the privilege to say, Jesus, any time I want—just like they do to say otherwise. All this, 'pushing and shoving' online is really quite pointless:
Why CAN'T we all just get along, and let diversity win?
But, I digress. . . .
Well, what can I say to that? Perhaps, everybody on the extremes, should just drop their weapons. Let cooler heads prevail. There is enough country/world for all of us? (Smile.)
You know TiG, I don't think you understand what is going on with people who seek, and follow after God. Professor Dawkins, for all his charm powers of persuasion, is clear when he says:
And there is more of these types of statements (spiraling down) coupled with Professor Dawkins not so subtle insinuations, nuances, and negative innuendo about the mental faculties of people of faith spread across Youtube and beyond.
Last week, I asked you point-blank to comment on and condemn Dr. Peter Boghossian's caustic remarks for which I supplied a link:
TiG, you then replied:
Well TiG, I am no more misinformed about Dawkins intentions for God and faith than I am Boghossian's.
Is your faith unable to stand up to facts?
Should we suppress facts to protect your faith?
Now read what I wrote (carefully) and explain where you think I have it wrong. You highlighted this quote from Dawkins:
Now compare that with this from my post:
It is as if you do not read my comments. Best I can tell, my comment accurately describes Dawkins and matches quite well the quote that you highlighted in red. What did you think I wrote, Calbab?
This is not good Calbab. Here you quote me (from another article even) asking you to stop trying to force me to defend Boghossian (an individual I know next to nothing about).
Clearly you read this (you quoted it) and yet in another article (this one) you again play Boghossian games with me. Not good.
Don't really know anything about the guy. Try someone else.
"I wish I knew how to quit you." — Jack Twist
Featured Comment
Thanks!
Honestly, i'm not sure why it matters so much to some folks. Having spent much of my life in and around the scientific community i could care less what most of them thought about having "faith" in the existence of something greater than ourselves. The cynicism and angst in many of those folks is mind-boggling. No place is that more readily clear than right here on NT.
To that point i give you the Big Bang Theory. Love that show.
Largely because of how accurately it portrays many in the technical/scientific community, albeit very satirically. It still nails the core of many in that field. I've know many "Sheldons" in my life and while most of them were technically brilliant, like Sheldon their personalities and social skills were just as seriously lacking and stunted.
I for one certainly never paid much attention to what they thought of what i was or wasn't doing. It simply made no sense to do so. Still doesn't.
In your mind, maybe. But I suppose that's a lie you have to tell yourself. Tell me: do you believe in the coming apocalypse?
Yeah, eventually, the sun will outlive its fuel supply, fission will take over fusion, the sun will blow up and scorch the earth before settling down as a white dwarf. If we're even around, (as humans), we'll have a front row seat. And that's saying we don't blow ourselves up with a nuclear war.
Actually, it is in most minds that have experienced what I speak of. That is minds that are not already clouded by undue cynicism and bias.
Yes, someday this world will end. That is an undeniable, scientific fact. But take heart, it hasn't happened yet.
'coming apocalypse?'
1. It is already there in the vast expanse of the cosmos?
2. It is being created for the benefit of none?
3. Is it desired by some to justify their faith? And lack of it?
4. Or is it just another......................threat?
Guys, as I re-read my comments today, I do see all the errors with commas, lack of closing parenthesis, and adding of an extra letter to an individual's name (Barbers - oops) occurring. I will slow down and do better. I promise and I hope! (Smile.)
Hope is a good thing. A smile will warm the world.