Some interesting new findings about religious faith in the science community, from a new study mentioned at Livescience.com:
Scientists are less religious than the general population, a new study shows, but the reason has little to do with their study of science or academic pressures.The findings challenge notions that science is responsible for a lack of faith among researchers, indicating that household upbringing carries the biggest weight in determining religiousness.
“Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform,” said Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study.
The last paragraph in particular caught my eye, as I’ve often heard it suggested in Christian circles that scientists in many fields face insitutional pressure to distance themselves from religious faith. Sounds like it might not be quite so simple.
Some of the study’s other findings, mentioned at the end of the article: younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists; only 2% of scientists identify themselves as “evangelical” or “fundamentalist,” and over half of the surveyed scientists professed no religious faith.
Loading ...
July 2, 2007 at 09:25
Reading between the lines a bit, I gather that this study is saying that religious families are less likely to have children go into scientific careers. (Or academic careers in general—which I was already quite sure of.)
So my question is this: why don’t religious families produce scientists and academics?
I see two easy answers.
First, religious children may expect hostility to their faith, or sense it at work very early in their educational careers, and so go into other fields instead. (Certainly, growing up in an evangelical family, I was taught to expect this. I have experienced far less religious hostility in the social sciences than I was told to expect.)
Second, religion may teach thought patterns that don’t allow much in the way of scientific inquiry. (In some fields and denominations, I find this explanation implausible; in others, highly plausible.)
Either way, here’s my initial take on that report. I was homeschooled, in part because my parents wanted to shelter me from ideas they disagreed with. Then I went to a conservative evangelical college, where most people still wanted to avoid ideas they disagreed with. In other words, I grew up around a lot of people who were sure they were right, and were not especially interested in checking their opinions. If they dealt with other ideas at all, it was mainly to ridicule and condemn them.
Because the outside world was so different in its thinking—not necessarily right in its thinking—most of us didn’t even know how to begin interacting with the academic and scientific communities. But we were convinced that the problem was only on their side; the non-evangelicals were closed-minded. No doubt many of them were; but being closed-minded ourselves was only compounding the problem.
July 2, 2007 at 11:42
I’ve had the personal experience of a Professor (Fluid Dynamics) privately tell me that he believes in Intelligent Design and that “someone” set up the laws of the universe in a very specific way. He was just starting to learn about Jesus, but didn’t quite know what to think. He confessed that if his coworkers were to find out, he would be out of his job and possibly any job!
July 2, 2007 at 14:45
the “inherent conflict between science and faith” doesn’t exist. I don’t see anything in scripture that is at odds with what science tells us.
July 3, 2007 at 00:08
A great book that is pertinent to this subject is Roaring Lambs, by Bob Briner. Briner encourages Christians to pursue careers in areas that the church has unfortunately abandoned (such as politics, the arts, entertainment, and science).
I also grew up in a somewhat sheltered home, but fortunately my parents encouraged exploratory thinking and questioning. Also, my time as a biology major at an evangelical Christian college was a great opportunity to interact with professional scientists who also were faithful Christians.
Christianity truly does need to embrace science once again. I am hopeful that it is beginning the process.
July 3, 2007 at 08:37
In agreement with the referenced article, I wouldn’t expect scientific discipline to eliminate faith. The scientists I know consider themselves skeptics, people who ask questions and inquire about all things. In a Human Anthropology (aks Human Evolution) class I took last fall at an Ivy League college, our award-winning research professor stated that religion and science don’t belong in the same discussion, but that they don’t exclude one another.
While I found the perspective a little inconsistent, I appreciated her position—-she was allowing people of faith “in” without allowing us to disrupt her classroom. I was ok with that, given the looooooooooooooong experience I’d had in churches similar to the ones Wilson surely attended.
Unfortunately, the athiests I know attended them, too and eventually rebelled against pharasaical (controlling and fearful) leaders who repeatedly and consistently shut down and offended the intellect of their young membership.
How sad that these churches are so close-minded to what’s appropriate in their church clubs that their own children’s questions are cut off, silenced in fact, so that they must go outside Christian community to find validation—and subsequently accept the secular answers.
Is there any wonder then why Barna reports that there is a “revolution” happening in church attendance and worship styles (—-see http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=167 – 35k) Not for me.
Is the referenced study a surprise? Not in the least.
How much more would God be glorified by introducing the church’s young scientists to other paradoxes and “inconsistencies” cited by secularists and atheists while the church’s answers will be heard?
Or, let’s “sic” these brilliant minds on end times metaphors?
Jesus encouraged the scientific method with his use of nature as illustration for his parables. He was encouraging us to study the world around us—and Paul affirms this in Romans 1 that men are without excuse because the natural world gives witness to God’s existance.
July 4, 2007 at 09:30
Perhaps many scientists do believe, they just don’t get the professorships, awards & grants from our government & state and federally funded universities because these entities have a vested interest in making sure the Genesis account is not held over any other “religious” account of creation. Truth is ultimately not the defining issue; separation of church (read: religion) and state is. And I think this will only intensify with time.
As noted by Wilson & evidenced by Kim’s post, the scientific closed mindedness is not merely from the church arena. When an award winning professor states that “religion and science don’t belong in the same discussion” in order to ”[allow] people of faith “in” without allowing us to disrupt her classroom” that is closed mindedness, for what she is really saying is ‘You must listen to what I teach, but I will not have any critical discussion of evolution, at least not from a religious perspective.’ That’s just as nonsensical as believers rejecting the scientific inquiries of non believers. Both sides are assuming that certain classes of people have nothing intelligent to bring to the scientific table.
July 4, 2007 at 18:05
I wonder what fields the scientists who were surveyed worked in. Dr.Hugh Ross and astronomer and paster who operates a ministry to attract scientists claims that a great many scientists in the hard sciences are believers and very few in the soft sciences are believers. He finds a high percentage on astronomers believe because they are the only science that has the ability to actually look back in time and can see what the bible says about creation happened the way the bibles says it happenned
July 6, 2007 at 01:56
Astronomy doesn’t validate the creation story. Belief in God and accepting the Bible as literally true are two different things. There is certainly a lot of wonder in the exploration of science and this in itself can be a spiritual experience.
There are so many things in the Bible that have no application to the scientific method. They deal with human relationships and motivations. These are very subjective experiences. The scientific method relies on observation not on authority of a written word.
The reason science is hostile to religion, at times, is based on a very well documented history of religion being fatally hostile to scientific truth at times. As far as I can tell that hostility is still present in the Christian Church.
July 6, 2007 at 09:34
Lee Strobel, in his book, A Case for Faith, and also Dr. Jason Lisle, in his book, Taking Back Astronomy, point out that many scientists in the “hard sciences” are increasingly turning to Intelligent Design, if not Creationism. These books point to the studies that show most people in the hard sciences come with a belief that God is not needed to explain the universe, but as their studies intesify to actually studying the proofs for themselves, if they are honest, and humble enough to throw out disproven ideas, they come to the realization that naturalism is insufficient to explain many deeper issues. This is very noticeable in Physics and Astronomy. Physics and Astronomy are inundated with problems that naturalism cannot support, and that only an Intelligent Designer outside of naturalism could produce. So the problem is not science – it is naturalism – the belief that everything we see today has a natural cause. This belief leaves no support for a virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, or the Creation of the World as told by Genesis. Many scientists wrongly equate Naturalism with science, leaving no other options when faced with obstacles such as the baryon number problem in astronomy or irreducible complexity in Physics. True science is stifled then when Naturalism is the religion of the scientist.
July 6, 2007 at 11:48
Both friends and foes of the Christian faith have been involved in scientific endeavor. Copernicus would write a page on astronomy and then a page of praises to God. His battle was with religion, not truth. All too often, a legalistic approach to interpreting scripture deafens the ear to the rich metaphors of God, revealed by the Spirit of Christ. The literal interpreter defends the faith, often at the expense of truth.
A study of the history of mathematics will show that even the casual reader that many famous mathematicians were highly spiritual people. The expression of their faith, however, did not always coincide with the conventions of their time. Those who are involved in serious research are less likely to accept someone else’s cookbook of ideas. God has no grandchildren. A genuine respect for truth will break down many barriers, as Jesus is the truth.
For a glimpse at metaphor in our creation story, I offer the following: http://pages.suddenlink.net/bread/The_Creation_of_Man.html
July 7, 2007 at 21:07
As an atheist and actual scientist I find the desperate rationalizations here quite sad. The straight jacket of so-called christian thought simply doesn’t allow one to be any good at science. I should like to know the rate of christians that flunk out of science. I’m guessing it’s high, because thinking for yourself just isn’t the christian way.
July 8, 2007 at 22:11
Richard, evolution, the macro-evolution so vehemently and viciously proselytized by Dawkins & his ilk, is not based on observation. It is a faith-based stance, not scientifically observed & reproduced. While it is true religions have shown hostility to science, remember, Christianity in particular has provided some of the finest scientific minds. And…just wondering, but if “reason” is the basis of science – as opposed to those mere raving religionists – shouldn’t scientists be able to take a higher road and not return the hostility?
July 10, 2007 at 11:01
The continuous conflict between science and religion demonstrates a denial and territory process a work. The paranormal is ‘off limits’ to both camps. But…let science do science, and let religion struggle with the challenges facing it. The human race is still immature yet to the great mysteries of this world. Let’s go back to work and learn. There is too much to do.
July 10, 2007 at 11:26
Evolutionary biology is not based on faith, it is based on accumulation of tremendous amounts of hard evidence over two centuries. As Simon Conway Morris observed, in an interview with the Wittenburg Door (March 2007), it is an established fact. Disproving it is about as unlikely as disproving the existence of zinc. (Morris, a professor at Cambridge University, also fully accepts the Incarnation and the Resurrection).
“Intelligent Design” is neither science nor religion. It is a clumsy attempt to define God as a laboratory assistant in a white coat, reducing faith to what can be proved by science. It is not even a good explanation for much of anything.
Christian thought is not a strait jacket which gets in the way of scientific analysis. Science actually was made possible by a revolution in religious thinking called the Protestant Reformation—which did not prevent Roman Catholics from eventually becoming capable scientists either, because the Roman church survived by adapting to new circumstances, whatever its rhetoric.
Anyone who understands the basics of biology who re-reads the first two chapters of Genesis can only marvel that someone who obviously knew told Moses all about it, millenia before human science began to figure it out. “Creationism” is not faithful adherence to Scripture. It is faithful adherence to the most watered-down Sunday school stories we were taught at age 5.
The pageant of evolutionary biology proclaims the glory of God as much as do the heavens. There IS however a proper separation between science and faith. Science is a tool for studying the material world, by sight and not by faith. There is no scientific test for the hypothesis that God exists. We may walk by a well informed faith, but still, we walk by faith, not by sight.
July 12, 2007 at 22:39
If by evolutionary biology macro-evolution is meant, I will note again it has not been, and is not, provable scientifically. If we could go back in time and look at Adam – just looked at him, right after he was created – we would have seen a man, not an infant. So perhaps when we see things that scientifically look like they are a particular age, they aren’t the age they look – they may yet be much younger than deemed!
I have no problem with a literal six day creation; I also have no problem with a “gap” theory until the fourth day. Personally, I believe it was a literal six day creation. But scientifically all I honestly can state is man was created, he did not evolve. How do I know this for a fact? Because Scripture tells me so. This is not Sunday school pabulum and it is not against science, which has never disproved it. This creation of men & women is affirmed by Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Matthew 19:4 – and He even seems to place this creation of humankind at the beginning of something. Hmmmm….)
July 16, 2007 at 13:28
Christiane, the old nature of man evolved. The blood of a chimpanzee is barely distinguishable from that of a human. Without Christ, a person is nothing more than a beast—perhaps likable and intelligent, but still made out of clay. When we are born again, we receive the nature of God in our hearts, Christ living in us. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. The Genesis story tells the about the marvelous creation of the new person in Christ. The first day of our creation is when God says “Let there be Light” and Christ comes alive in us.
You can see progression throughout the days of our creation. For example, on the fourth day, we have the lesser light to rule by night, the greater light to rule by day. The nighttime of the soul always precedes the daytime. The lesser light is not a physical moon, but the Covenant of Law. The greater light, ruling by day, is the New Covenant of Grace, Christ ruling in our heart. The seventh day has no night; we are at rest in God, our Creator.
Scripture is alive with such parables and metaphors. Jesus spoke in parables and also gave us Genesis, wherein He gives us a marvelous parable.
July 16, 2007 at 23:10
Joe, I appreciate your response (and enjoyed your website) and hope you will not be too dismayed that I disagree with your assessment that the Genesis account is only metaphor/parable/
symbol.
I think Genesis is more than parabolic because:
Jesus did not use names in His parables and not only is Adam named (by God Himself), but Adam names Eve in Genesis;
In Genesis 1:24 – 26 man is created separately and clearly set apart from mere animals, God specifically pointing this out for us;
Genesis relates that the old, fallen nature of man did not evolve, but happened in a real, linear moment of time when Eve and Adam deliberately chose to disobey God;
Although men and women can behave like animals apart from God, not all unbelievers do – some are very ‘good’ people outwardly – but because we are created in the Lord’s image, He holds us accountable for our unbelief in Him anyway;
Romans 1:18-24 points out that men are most wicked precisely because they do know deep down in the core of their beings that they are not animals at any level, yet choose to worship created things rather than the Lord of Creation;
Please see Ephesians 1:4 – 12, where the mighty plan of salvation and purpose of God before the foundation of the world was to make us His children (this, by the way, is one of the reasons I believe in a literal 7 days – there was simply no need for God to have millions of years elapse when He composed His creation with a specific goal in mind).
Having said all that, I do see metaphor, symbolism and parables throughout Genesis and the entire Old Testament. As the New Testament writer puts it, ’...These things are written as examples for us…’
And again, I thought your post was great – very thought provoking. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
July 17, 2007 at 08:57
Christiane, thank you for your kind response. Certainly the passage you cite in Ephesians affirms God as our Creator, but I do not find any details on the process in this passage. We have record of Jesus making an eyeball from clay, demonstrating that God can bypass any theoretical constructs of man without difficulty. God speaks and creation follows; the process may or may not be instantaneous. I have no doubt He could have made his creation in six literal days, but simply do not see this in the record of Genesis.
Adam is a word that comes from earth or clay, “adamah.” He was called a son of God, one whom Paul referred to as a living soul while our Son of God, Jesus, is referred to as a quickening spirit. I think of Adam as someone who came into a strong sense of “God consciousness.” As the kingdom of God, Eden, is within, Adam could have physically lived with many others who did not share his position in God’s kingdom. He was made in the image of God, but image does not refer to arms and legs. God is Spirit and we worship Him in spirit and truth. Eve was taken out of his side. Eve is typological of an ecclesia. The Church is taken from the side of Christ, reminding us of the river of water and blood that flowed from His side at the crucifixion, making a way for us to unite with God. Eden was not a physical location, but an inward connection with God that man lost with the Fall.
Even today, when an evangelist preaches, a body of new believers is taken out of Christ’s side. The new believers often pressure a pastor or evangelist to give them a rulebook to follow, Law, instead of opting for Grace. They want the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. We see this in the book of Galatians and in our local churches even today. When the preacher succumbs to this pressure and a body falls under law, grace is abandoned and paradise lost, at least until restoration is found in Christ.
With respect to parable, I find many examples in scripture where names are involved. One very important one is when God changes the name of Jacob to Israel, signifying a wonderful change in relationship to God. “All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them. (Matthew 1:34). Often, a parable is not marked parable. It is the condition of the heart by which we recognize and understand parables. I could preach to myself on this one for the need to be soft-hearted.
Finally, consider that after Cain killed Abel, he went into the land of Nod to find a wife. Certainly the earth had a population greater than three at the time. If one takes Cain’s search for matrimony seriously, the isolation of Adam and Eve needs to be reconsidered. My take.
July 17, 2007 at 10:01
If you try to read the original Hebrew, or ask someone who knows the language to explain, you will find that the Adam referred to in Genesis was androgynous, that God did not take Adam’s rib to make “the woman” (later named Eve), but took a side (tzela) and made therefrom the isha, while what is left was the ish (man, isha is woman). That alone gives some idea of how far we can stray from what God said by relying on an English translation as the literal truth.
Disclosures: I have had some interesting disagreements with the rabbi who explained this to me, since I conclude that the original androgynous Adam was a spiritual entity, made in the image of God, who was divided into two sexes to be linked to physical bodies already male and female. He insists there was a physical androgynous body, which was physically separated into two bodies.
As to “If by evolutionary biology macro-evolution is meant, I will note again it has not been, and is not, provable scientifically” ... I could just as well “note again” that I have 10 million dollars in my pocket. To repeat nonsense does not make it more true than the first time it was said. Try going through the entire mountain of evidence and then demonstrate that it is not true. If we could go back and actually see either the Adam or the ish, no doubt the latter would be an adult—but he may have grown from an infant before he was made into a man in the image of God. And the Adam? Might have been a double zygote for all we know. Did God separate Siamese twins? Of two sexes? Is it profitable to even speculate?