However, in the real world, outside the kooky fringes, science and religion co-exist just fine. There are obviously numerous stories of religion persecuting science (cited by opponents while deftly ignoring that religion is the reason a lot of science advanced and a lot of literature still exists) and stories of immoral rationalists committing crimes and blowing up ethical guidelines are numerous as well, (cited by opponents without considering that science has save literally billions of human lives).
Yet AAAS surveys show 60% of its science membership is not only not atheist but are actively religious. A new study by Rice University affirms that, and shows that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science as requiring distinct boundaries.
The sociologists interviewed 275 people pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict - 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.
Which seems to make sense. A researcher in physics, for example, may never be attacked by religious groups for work on quantum mechanics while an evolutionary biologist is far more likely to come across examples of activists trying to encroach on science. Social projection exists, so we are more likely to think the 'silent majority' is on our side, even if they don't speak up and network theory says a tipping point on issues can be achieved with a committed minority of only 10 percent. Thus, every person and every city and every school district counts - it's basically cultural herd immunity that various cultural camps are trying to achieve.
"When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth and how life developed on it, many have seen religion and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable conflict," said Rice sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund. A majority of scientists interviewed by Ecklund and colleagues viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge" that can bring broader understanding to important questions, she said.
"Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases. Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science."
Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (such as teaching creationism along with evolution) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.
The study identified three strategies of action used by these scientists to manage the religion-science boundaries and the circumstances that the two could overlap.
- Redefining categories: Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include non-institutionalized forms of spirituality.
- Integration models: Scientists deliberately use the views of influential scientists who they believe have successfully integrated their religious and scientific beliefs.
- Intentional talk: Scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion.
"The kind of narrow research available on religion and science seems to ask if they are in conflict or not, when it should really ask the conditions under which they are in conflict," Ecklund said. "Our research has found that even within the same person, there can be differing views. It's very important to dispel the myth that people believe that religion and science either do or don't conflict. Our study found that many people have much more nuanced views."
These nuanced views often find their way into the classroom, according to those interviewed. One biologist, an atheist not part of any religious tradition, admitted that she makes a sincere effort to present science such that "religious students do not need to compromise their own selves." Although she is not reconsidering her personal views on religion, she seeks out resources to keep her religious students engaged with science.
Other findings:
- Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching sectarian viewpoints like "intelligent design" in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of intelligent design.
- 68 percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.
- Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict.
- Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.
Ecklund said the study's findings will go far in improving the public's perception of science. "I think it would be helpful for the public to see what scientists are actually saying about these topics, rather than just believe stereotypes," she said. "It would definitely benefit public dialogue about the relationship between science and religion."
It is also well known that Ecklund in particular is making shit up:
"I’m getting weary of Elaine Ecklund’s frenetic framing. As you may remember, Ecklund did a study on the religious views of American scientists, a study that showed, by and large, that those scientists are far more atheistic than is the American public at large. Her research, which of course was funded by the Templeton Foundation, was published as a book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. [...]
Ecklund did her study at “elite” universities, but if you look at “elite scientists,” i.e., those who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the degree of disbelief is even higher: 72% are flat-out atheists and another 21% are doubters or agnostics, with only 7% accepting a personal god. (The NAS data are from an independent study.)
What else can one conclude but that American scientists are far more atheistic and agnostic than the American public, and that the more elite the scientist, the weaker the belief in God?"
And here she is frantically "finding" things again.