What do you think?
Rate this book
Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think
That the longstanding antagonism between science and religion is irreconcilable has been taken for granted. And in the wake of recent controversies over teaching intelligent design and the ethics of stem-cell research, the divide seems as unbridgeable as ever.
In Science vs. Religion , Elaine Howard Ecklund investigates this unexamined assumption in the first systematic study of what scientists actually think and feel about religion. In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion. The book centers around vivid portraits of 10 representative men and women working in the natural and social sciences at top American research universities. Ecklund's respondents run the gamut from Margaret, a chemist who teaches a Sunday-school class, to Arik, a physicist who chose not to believe in God well before he decided to become a scientist. Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion.
Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion.
With broad implications for education, science funding, and the thorny ethical questions surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and other cutting-edge scientific endeavors, Science vs. Religion brings a welcome dose of reality to the science and religion debates.
In Science vs. Religion , Elaine Howard Ecklund investigates this unexamined assumption in the first systematic study of what scientists actually think and feel about religion. In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion. The book centers around vivid portraits of 10 representative men and women working in the natural and social sciences at top American research universities. Ecklund's respondents run the gamut from Margaret, a chemist who teaches a Sunday-school class, to Arik, a physicist who chose not to believe in God well before he decided to become a scientist. Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion.
Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion.
With broad implications for education, science funding, and the thorny ethical questions surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and other cutting-edge scientific endeavors, Science vs. Religion brings a welcome dose of reality to the science and religion debates.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published April 8, 2010
About the author
Elaine Howard Ecklund
11 books29 followersElaine Howard Ecklund is the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences and Professor of Sociology at Rice University, as well as founding director of the Religion and Public Life Program. Her current research addresses how individuals use race, gender, and religious identities to bring changes to religious and scientific institutions. She is the author of dozens of research articles and four books. She has received grants from the National Science Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Her research has been cited thousands of times by local, national, and international media. In 2013, she received Rice University's Charles O. Duncan Award for Most Outstanding Academic Achievement and Teaching and in 2018 she will give the Gifford Lecture in Scotland. She has directed over 70 undergraduates in conducting research.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 20, 2011
In this book sociologist Elaine Ecklund does a large study with 1000 scientists at elite universities including personal interviews with 250. The fact that this is such a massive study should be commended. The reason I only give this 3 stars has nothing to do with her methodology, which seems to be rather solid to me, but because the results are so uninteresting. I didn't learn anything new about the attitudes of scientists from this. IT has already been establishesd through polls that most scientists are actually atheists and about a quarter some sort of believers. The only potentially interesting finding was that many scientists, including from the atheist category, choose to identify as 'spiritual'. It's also no surprise that scientists fall onto a spectrum when it comes to what they think about religion and specifically a religious presence on campus. I didn't find that her categories added much to understanding this. The one observation she made which I did find new and insightful was that while most scientists are secular, very much unlike the general population, it doesn't seem because studying science did it- rather it is the same reason that most religious people are religious, that is, most scientists were brought in a non religious, or a low religiosity, household. I would have loved to see her pursue this, why is it that people from a non or low religiosity household more likely to go into science such that scientists aer so bizarrely unreligious as compared to the general public?
Another qualm I had is more related to a personal bias I had. She included in the scientist category political scientists, economists,e tc., and honestly, I didn't pick up the book to see what they think. But that is a different argument.
Overall, a solid study, but it didn't seem to yield much to write about, which made for somewhat dry and repetitive reading.
Another qualm I had is more related to a personal bias I had. She included in the scientist category political scientists, economists,e tc., and honestly, I didn't pick up the book to see what they think. But that is a different argument.
Overall, a solid study, but it didn't seem to yield much to write about, which made for somewhat dry and repetitive reading.
April 15, 2010
I will start by admitting that I know the author and she is now someone I would consider a good friend. This book is the culmination of a five year project to survey scientists about their religious beliefs. Ecklund surveys over 1700 scientists from elite universities, followed by over 200 person interviews to determine whether scientists are religious. Results show a large percentage of scientists as "spirtual athetists" which is a unique finding since athetists population in mainstream is rather small. I found the book's findings interesting and the writing engaging. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in sociology, science, or religion.
August 14, 2010
This was interesting off and on, but Ecklund was too redundant. This already-short book should have been half as long as it turned out to be.
June 17, 2024
A STUDY OF THE RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL ATTITUDES OF MANY SCIENTISTS
Author and professor Elaine Howard Ecklund wrote in the Preface to this 2010 book, “As a college sophomore … I witnessed a debate between William Provine… and Philip Johnson… They were there to debate the merits of the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design, and the two men clearly disagreed vehemently with one another… I came away thinking that discussion about controversial topics surrounding science CAN happen… nearly 15 years later, I was… as a faculty member, watching a prescreening of ‘Flock of Dodos,’ a film … [whose] premise … is what while most scientists find the intelligent design movement unequivocally wrong… those who support intelligent design have a greater spirit of dialogue than the scientists who act instead like a ‘flock of dodos’… As the film ended… I watched incredulously as some of the scientists … erupted with totalizing criticisms of religion and religious people, calling them ‘stupid fundamentalists,’ oblivious that there were religious academics seated in the room. Sadly, when dialogue breaks down, those scientists with the loudest voices seem to drown out… those with a different, sometimes more open perspective. That’s why I have written this book. At its core, it’s about the scientists whose voices have been thus far overlooked in the science-and-religion debates …”
She continues, “Until now, no one has explored how religion and spirituality enter the lives of scientists at the nation’s best universities… this book offers a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves… To tell their stories, I draw on data collected during four years of intensive research I conducted between 2005 and 2008 as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study, including a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists, one-on-one conversations with 275 of them, and notes from lectures … where top scientists talked about matters of faith.” (Pg. 5)
She continues, ‘Throughout my research and … discussion, certain voices stuck out… so I decided to structure the narrative around the lives of a few scientists who embody many of the major findings and themes revealed by the larger study.” (Pg. 6) She adds, “The message of this book for Americans of faith is that even the most secular of scientists struggle with the implications of their work for religion … Moreover, there are scientists who share your faith and who work to maintain their traditions in the midst of the demands of their scientific career.” (Pg. 10)
She summarizes, “while nearly 28 percent of the American population is part of an evangelical Protestant tradition, about 2 percent of natural and social scientists at elite universities identify themselves this way… While a little less than 2 percent of Americans identify as Jewish, about 16 percent of academic scientists do---with many of these considering themselves ethnically, rather than religiously Jewish… Fifty=-three percent of scientists have no religious tradition compared to only 16 percent of Americans… for the majority of scientists I interviewed, it is not the engagement with science itself that leads them away from religion. Rather, their reasons for unbelief [include]… they were not raised in a religious home; they have had bad experiences with religion; they disapprove of God or see God as too changeable. For others, religion is simply irrelevant to their life’s passion of science.” (Pg. 15-17)
She notes, “Scientists who do practice religion can face intense pressure to give it up as they are sometimes harshly judged by their secular peers. They might be viewed as not fully engaging the scientific part of their brains, simply putting their reason on hold to find comfort in religion… For some… believing in God actually puts research at an incredible risk. That is why, for the sake of the profession, they think other scientists should give up religion. Believing is the opposite of exploring; it means to leave questions unanswered that are simply too difficult to ask.” (Pg. 24)
She observes, “the scientists with a faith tradition whom I interviewed… if they can survive the struggles… [can] provide religious scientists with enormous potential to translate the value and benefits of science to religious nonscientists as well as to nonreligious scientists. Yet this potential is rarely realized. Scientists with faith often struggle over how public they should be with their colleagues about their faith. Many… have the perception that their secular colleagues are universally negative toward religion… what religious scientists fail to realize, however, is that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about matters of faith.” (Pg. 47-48)
She explains, “distinctive rhetoric contrasting spirituality with religion was most evident when listening to the group of scientists whom I would call ‘spiritual atheists,’ a category that is nearly exclusive to scientists… Many scientists who clearly see themselves as spiritual… have no connection to a particular belief in God or, in some cases, even in the transcendent… these spiritual atheist scientists see the very act of deciding NOT to believe in God … as an act of strength. Their spirituality makes room for this disbelief and so it, again, more congruent with science than religion is… Many spiritual atheists were attracted to eastern religions, particularly Buddhism… Spiritual atheist scientists are not, however, practicing a particular form of Buddhism… and most do not even call themselves Buddhists. Instead scientists borrow concepts that they perceive to be part of Buddhism and appropriate them through the lens of their lives as scientists.” (Pg. 58-59)
She comments, “it seems, ironically, that those scientists I interviewed who most prize the vision of the university as committed to plurality are actually the most opposed to the entrée of diverse religious views into the fabric of the intellectual life of universities. In particular, it is difficult for these scientists to figure out how they will engage with religion without appearing intolerant of one and supportive of another… students, faculty, and university programs can be irritatingly partisan… Scientists wondered aloud how, if religion is to be brought into the university, it could ever be discussed in a civil manner.” (Pg. 99)
She suggests, “One serious impediment to fostering more open dialogue on questions of science and religion is the current fear among scientists about how religion might endanger science. To the extent that they talked about how scientists ought to respond to religion in the public sphere at all, some 75 percent of scientists mentioned specific ways that religion could have a negative impact on science and science education. A majority of scientists mentioned the role religion has played in popular resistance to the teaching of evolutionary theory in the public school systems.” (Pg. 128)
She points out, “Philosophers of science and scientists themselves have discussed what they call ‘scientism,’ a disciplinary imperialism on the part of scientists that lead them to explicitly or implicitly assert that science is the only valid way to knowledge and that it can be used to interpret all other forms of knowledge. Scientists who want their colleagues to do more to advance the public transmission of science… mentioned rejecting scientism and developing a more publicly acceptable philosophy. Religion is of significant consideration in this view, because true scientism potentially disregards religion altogether.” (Pg. 137-138)
She concludes, “My goal is to see religious nonscientists and scientists (both religious and nonreligious) engage in more productive dialogue. I would like to see their conversations lead to more acceptance of some parts of science among people of faith and, among scientists toward a better understanding of the diversity of religion. So I would be remiss if I did not directly point out how of the assumptions of the present religion-science debates simply do not hold up under the weight of research data.” (Pg. 149) [In Appendix A, she explains the parameters of her study.]
This is not a work of ‘academic’ sociology, and her statistical data is often outweighed by the long quotations she includes from her interviews. However, it is a fascinating book, and will be of great interest to those wanting to study the attitudes of many scientists toward religion and spirituality.
Author and professor Elaine Howard Ecklund wrote in the Preface to this 2010 book, “As a college sophomore … I witnessed a debate between William Provine… and Philip Johnson… They were there to debate the merits of the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design, and the two men clearly disagreed vehemently with one another… I came away thinking that discussion about controversial topics surrounding science CAN happen… nearly 15 years later, I was… as a faculty member, watching a prescreening of ‘Flock of Dodos,’ a film … [whose] premise … is what while most scientists find the intelligent design movement unequivocally wrong… those who support intelligent design have a greater spirit of dialogue than the scientists who act instead like a ‘flock of dodos’… As the film ended… I watched incredulously as some of the scientists … erupted with totalizing criticisms of religion and religious people, calling them ‘stupid fundamentalists,’ oblivious that there were religious academics seated in the room. Sadly, when dialogue breaks down, those scientists with the loudest voices seem to drown out… those with a different, sometimes more open perspective. That’s why I have written this book. At its core, it’s about the scientists whose voices have been thus far overlooked in the science-and-religion debates …”
She continues, “Until now, no one has explored how religion and spirituality enter the lives of scientists at the nation’s best universities… this book offers a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves… To tell their stories, I draw on data collected during four years of intensive research I conducted between 2005 and 2008 as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study, including a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists, one-on-one conversations with 275 of them, and notes from lectures … where top scientists talked about matters of faith.” (Pg. 5)
She continues, ‘Throughout my research and … discussion, certain voices stuck out… so I decided to structure the narrative around the lives of a few scientists who embody many of the major findings and themes revealed by the larger study.” (Pg. 6) She adds, “The message of this book for Americans of faith is that even the most secular of scientists struggle with the implications of their work for religion … Moreover, there are scientists who share your faith and who work to maintain their traditions in the midst of the demands of their scientific career.” (Pg. 10)
She summarizes, “while nearly 28 percent of the American population is part of an evangelical Protestant tradition, about 2 percent of natural and social scientists at elite universities identify themselves this way… While a little less than 2 percent of Americans identify as Jewish, about 16 percent of academic scientists do---with many of these considering themselves ethnically, rather than religiously Jewish… Fifty=-three percent of scientists have no religious tradition compared to only 16 percent of Americans… for the majority of scientists I interviewed, it is not the engagement with science itself that leads them away from religion. Rather, their reasons for unbelief [include]… they were not raised in a religious home; they have had bad experiences with religion; they disapprove of God or see God as too changeable. For others, religion is simply irrelevant to their life’s passion of science.” (Pg. 15-17)
She notes, “Scientists who do practice religion can face intense pressure to give it up as they are sometimes harshly judged by their secular peers. They might be viewed as not fully engaging the scientific part of their brains, simply putting their reason on hold to find comfort in religion… For some… believing in God actually puts research at an incredible risk. That is why, for the sake of the profession, they think other scientists should give up religion. Believing is the opposite of exploring; it means to leave questions unanswered that are simply too difficult to ask.” (Pg. 24)
She observes, “the scientists with a faith tradition whom I interviewed… if they can survive the struggles… [can] provide religious scientists with enormous potential to translate the value and benefits of science to religious nonscientists as well as to nonreligious scientists. Yet this potential is rarely realized. Scientists with faith often struggle over how public they should be with their colleagues about their faith. Many… have the perception that their secular colleagues are universally negative toward religion… what religious scientists fail to realize, however, is that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about matters of faith.” (Pg. 47-48)
She explains, “distinctive rhetoric contrasting spirituality with religion was most evident when listening to the group of scientists whom I would call ‘spiritual atheists,’ a category that is nearly exclusive to scientists… Many scientists who clearly see themselves as spiritual… have no connection to a particular belief in God or, in some cases, even in the transcendent… these spiritual atheist scientists see the very act of deciding NOT to believe in God … as an act of strength. Their spirituality makes room for this disbelief and so it, again, more congruent with science than religion is… Many spiritual atheists were attracted to eastern religions, particularly Buddhism… Spiritual atheist scientists are not, however, practicing a particular form of Buddhism… and most do not even call themselves Buddhists. Instead scientists borrow concepts that they perceive to be part of Buddhism and appropriate them through the lens of their lives as scientists.” (Pg. 58-59)
She comments, “it seems, ironically, that those scientists I interviewed who most prize the vision of the university as committed to plurality are actually the most opposed to the entrée of diverse religious views into the fabric of the intellectual life of universities. In particular, it is difficult for these scientists to figure out how they will engage with religion without appearing intolerant of one and supportive of another… students, faculty, and university programs can be irritatingly partisan… Scientists wondered aloud how, if religion is to be brought into the university, it could ever be discussed in a civil manner.” (Pg. 99)
She suggests, “One serious impediment to fostering more open dialogue on questions of science and religion is the current fear among scientists about how religion might endanger science. To the extent that they talked about how scientists ought to respond to religion in the public sphere at all, some 75 percent of scientists mentioned specific ways that religion could have a negative impact on science and science education. A majority of scientists mentioned the role religion has played in popular resistance to the teaching of evolutionary theory in the public school systems.” (Pg. 128)
She points out, “Philosophers of science and scientists themselves have discussed what they call ‘scientism,’ a disciplinary imperialism on the part of scientists that lead them to explicitly or implicitly assert that science is the only valid way to knowledge and that it can be used to interpret all other forms of knowledge. Scientists who want their colleagues to do more to advance the public transmission of science… mentioned rejecting scientism and developing a more publicly acceptable philosophy. Religion is of significant consideration in this view, because true scientism potentially disregards religion altogether.” (Pg. 137-138)
She concludes, “My goal is to see religious nonscientists and scientists (both religious and nonreligious) engage in more productive dialogue. I would like to see their conversations lead to more acceptance of some parts of science among people of faith and, among scientists toward a better understanding of the diversity of religion. So I would be remiss if I did not directly point out how of the assumptions of the present religion-science debates simply do not hold up under the weight of research data.” (Pg. 149) [In Appendix A, she explains the parameters of her study.]
This is not a work of ‘academic’ sociology, and her statistical data is often outweighed by the long quotations she includes from her interviews. However, it is a fascinating book, and will be of great interest to those wanting to study the attitudes of many scientists toward religion and spirituality.
March 10, 2018
Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund gives some insight to what people who are not theorist or academics. It is interesting to see the answer religious people answer the questions, What does science mean for the existence and activity of God? and what does science mean for the sacredness of humanity? It adds to the discussion and debate information lacking before. It also seems to get rid of the idea that science and religion and God can not coexist. It was compelling reading.
I won a copy thru a Goodreads Giveaway.
I won a copy thru a Goodreads Giveaway.
March 26, 2019
This book is not for everyone as it is a serious investigation into the popular belief that all people of faith revile/reject science and that all scientist are cold robotic atheists. The data collected is as good as I have seen on this subject and the conclusions (read this chapter even if you read nothing else) are far from what the media (both sides) would like you to believe.
April 17, 2023
A very thorough treatment on the subject of "religions and science." The author presents the results of a survey of scientists (of all types) from elite universities in the USA. The results are presented in a very unbiased manner. If the topic of "religion and science" interests you then I would highly recommend reading this book.
July 4, 2019
As long as the taxpayer is giving them more money these people can spend countless hours "talking" to individuals.
January 10, 2022
XXXXX
Did you know that religion and science are best buddies? Praise the (well, you know who)!
XXXXX
“This is a book for scientists, for religious people, and for those who inhabit both worlds.
It provides insights for each of these groups, while also providing critiques of each group. This book is about the real story of the relationship between science and religion [in the United States and] in the lives of real people—based on data that take us beyond the stereotypes we so regularly hear from the media and pundits.”
The above quote (in italics) comes from this book by Elaine Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle. Ecklund is a sociologist whose research addresses religion in public life. Scheitle is also a sociologist who has examined a variety of issues related to the nature and role of religion in the U.S.
In this book, the authors reveal the results of a comprehensive survey representing a wide range of religious traditions and faith positions. They use this data to check the accuracy of certain stereotypical beliefs (or “myths” as the authors call these beliefs) such as “Religious people do not like science.” The authors provide commentary along the way. At the end of each of the main chapters are “lessons” we are supposed to take away.
I had a large number of problems with this book, four of which I will explain below.
First, we’re told in the acknowledgements that the funding for the research found in this book was provided by the John Templeton Foundation. We’re not told this but this foundation is a philanthropic organization that supports progress in religious and spiritual knowledge as well as research on methods to promote and develop moral character, intelligence, and creativity in people & to promote free markets. There has been some criticism for this foundation’s awards. One criticism is that it mingles religion and science. That is, this foundation seems to have a hidden agenda of reconciling religion and science, or blurring the line between religion and science.
Next, I asked myself why we should even bother to examine these stereotypical beliefs or “myths?” The authors give the answer that the majority of Americans are religious and pay taxes. If these people do not support science research and education, then they may not support the federal science funding. Therefore, science must acquiesce to religion in order to get proper funding. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY. Science only reports the evidence and if this evidence offends some groups, it’s not science’s fault.
Thirdly, you would think that a book on science and religion would include a definition of these words. But, believe it or not, there are no definitions. “Science” is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. “Religion” is a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. In other words, science is based on reality whereas religion is based on belief or fantasy. Religion supposedly works if you believe in it hard enough but science works whether you believe it or not.
Finally, the sample size for this study (buried in the first appendix) was “10, 241.” Do these authors really expect me to believe that this small sample size is representative of the entire population of the United States? I don’t think so.
In conclusion, this book has way to many faults, four of which I highlighted above. Thus, I would not recommend it.
(2018; acknowledgements; 8 chapters; main narrative 145 pages; 3 appendixes; bibliography; index)
XXXXX
Did you know that religion and science are best buddies? Praise the (well, you know who)!
XXXXX
“This is a book for scientists, for religious people, and for those who inhabit both worlds.
It provides insights for each of these groups, while also providing critiques of each group. This book is about the real story of the relationship between science and religion [in the United States and] in the lives of real people—based on data that take us beyond the stereotypes we so regularly hear from the media and pundits.”
The above quote (in italics) comes from this book by Elaine Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle. Ecklund is a sociologist whose research addresses religion in public life. Scheitle is also a sociologist who has examined a variety of issues related to the nature and role of religion in the U.S.
In this book, the authors reveal the results of a comprehensive survey representing a wide range of religious traditions and faith positions. They use this data to check the accuracy of certain stereotypical beliefs (or “myths” as the authors call these beliefs) such as “Religious people do not like science.” The authors provide commentary along the way. At the end of each of the main chapters are “lessons” we are supposed to take away.
I had a large number of problems with this book, four of which I will explain below.
First, we’re told in the acknowledgements that the funding for the research found in this book was provided by the John Templeton Foundation. We’re not told this but this foundation is a philanthropic organization that supports progress in religious and spiritual knowledge as well as research on methods to promote and develop moral character, intelligence, and creativity in people & to promote free markets. There has been some criticism for this foundation’s awards. One criticism is that it mingles religion and science. That is, this foundation seems to have a hidden agenda of reconciling religion and science, or blurring the line between religion and science.
Next, I asked myself why we should even bother to examine these stereotypical beliefs or “myths?” The authors give the answer that the majority of Americans are religious and pay taxes. If these people do not support science research and education, then they may not support the federal science funding. Therefore, science must acquiesce to religion in order to get proper funding. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY. Science only reports the evidence and if this evidence offends some groups, it’s not science’s fault.
Thirdly, you would think that a book on science and religion would include a definition of these words. But, believe it or not, there are no definitions. “Science” is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. “Religion” is a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. In other words, science is based on reality whereas religion is based on belief or fantasy. Religion supposedly works if you believe in it hard enough but science works whether you believe it or not.
Finally, the sample size for this study (buried in the first appendix) was “10, 241.” Do these authors really expect me to believe that this small sample size is representative of the entire population of the United States? I don’t think so.
In conclusion, this book has way to many faults, four of which I highlighted above. Thus, I would not recommend it.
(2018; acknowledgements; 8 chapters; main narrative 145 pages; 3 appendixes; bibliography; index)
XXXXX
April 27, 2011
I think Ecklund has advanced the discussion of science and religion through this book. It's the most comprehensive sociological survey to date of what scientists really think about religion. It's very much worth reading if you work in or around the academic science community. My biggest critique is that Ecklund lumps together natural scientists with social scientists. But there's a huge difference in methodology and underlying assumptions between these professionals. So IMHO it would have been better for the study to separate these two groups.
Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post on some of the book's findings:
Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.
Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, "the academy is really doing itself a big disservice," worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.
Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post on some of the book's findings:
Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.
Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, "the academy is really doing itself a big disservice," worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.
July 24, 2011
Presenting the findings from a study between 2005 - 2008, through interviews and surveys on various elite scientists belonging to top research universities in the US on the role of religion in academia and world of science, it contains some fascinating statistics and comments from closeted faithfuls to hardcore secularists. Typically antagonising over darwism vs intelligent design, scientists are having to deal with religious-based questions in class while coping with highly critical colleagues into scientism out of class. The study highlights a percentage identifying themselves as spiritual but not in the theological sense, some recognising religion's moral influence on science and willingness to assist students, and some acknowledging that science and religion addresses distinct-non-competitive areas and last but not least, accepting that science itself is constantly being revised and not to be viewed as the ultimate truth. With prestigious schools such as Harvard or Princeton founded on religious roots changing its tune to fact-based, there is a need for these learning institutions to create a constructive environment for dialogue, rather than treating religion as a taboo. With the last chapter on dispelling myths from both camps, the book is a bit repetitive and lacks any detailed conflicting arguments. Overall, an easy read and offers insights into the what some scientists think and feel about religion.
February 10, 2017
This study, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, revealed some interesting results, as did the writer's interviews that revealed that the tension between science and religion exists in more shades of grey than in black or white. Other than that, though, this was a monotonous read for the most part and read more like a dissertation.
The one other thing I will say in the book's defense is that it doesn't deserve all of the mudslinging it has gotten on its Amazon page. One-star reviews accusing it of twisting facts and confirmation bias are hardly warranted and are a prime example of the genetic fallacy. It seems some literally WANT science and religion to be in conflict, whether or not they are.
The one other thing I will say in the book's defense is that it doesn't deserve all of the mudslinging it has gotten on its Amazon page. One-star reviews accusing it of twisting facts and confirmation bias are hardly warranted and are a prime example of the genetic fallacy. It seems some literally WANT science and religion to be in conflict, whether or not they are.
May 14, 2019
Very interesting book with excellent data collected; however, it pretends that Theistic Evolution is the only intellectually-valid choice for Christians. It misrepresents Intelligent Design and completely ignores other positions in the Old Earth Creationism perspective. Would still recommend it due to the dearth of such books.
July 16, 2021
While I can appreciate where she's coming from, I find it horrifying that people should have to be convinced as to why science matters. What an indictment of our education policies. While she talks about scientists' obligations to translate science to non-scientist religious, she uses the word 'dialogue', but there's so little discussion about religious people's ability or willingness to listen.
May 4, 2021
It felt like I was back in school reading a text book,. Too many stats and comparisons between the religions, which I expected but, I wanted more interviews and quotes about why they thought this and that about the topics not just stats without explanations. It was hard to get through
April 5, 2011
Simply put - a well-rearched and well-written book on an important topic.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews