Can Scientists Believe: Some Examples of the Attitude of Scientists to Religion

Only two of the 13 comparisons find a difference of less than 10 percentage points. There is no single direction of differences between the groups. The remainder of this chapter looks at attitudes of the public and scientists on each of these issues.

In addition, we look at opinions on several issues asked only of the general public related to bioengineering, genetic modifications, and perceptions of scientific consensus on evolution, climate change, the creation of the universe, and health effects of genetically modified organisms GMOs. More details on views among the general public by subgroups, including by education, science knowledge, religion and political groups, are forthcoming in a separate report. The general public also tends to be skeptical about the scientific understanding of GMO effects.

Among the general public, those with a college degree are closely divided over whether eating genetically modified foods is safe: Views about GMOs are roughly the same among both younger ages 18 to 49 and older 50 and older adults. About half of U. Not surprisingly, those who consider GM foods unsafe tend to check for GM food labels more often: The general public is closely divided when it comes to the use of animals in research. Among the general public, men and women differ strongly in their views about animal research.

Six-in-ten men favor the use of animal research. College graduates, especially those who studied science in college, tend to express more support than do those with less education for using animals in scientific research. A similar pattern occurs when it comes to the safety of eating foods grown with pesticides. As with views about the safety of eating GM foods, those with more education are more likely than those with less schooling to say that foods grown with pesticides are safe to eat. There are no differences in views on this issue by age. Beliefs about evolution also differ strongly by religion and political group, as was also the case in past surveys.

A detailed analysis of religious and political group beliefs about science and technology topics based on these new survey findings is forthcoming. Three-quarters of those who believe humans have evolved also see scientists as largely in agreement about evolution. Perceptions of scientific consensus around the creation of the universe are less uniform. Perceptions of scientific consensus on both evolution and the creation of the universe tend to vary by education. Perceptions of scientific consensus also tend to vary by age with younger generations ages 18 to 49 more likely than older ones to see scientists as in agreement on these topics.

Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society

Scientists are more likely than the general public to say that such vaccines should be required for all children: Opinion about childhood vaccines among both the public and scientists is about the same as in Younger adults are less inclined than older generations to believe vaccines should be required for all children: Men and women hold similar views about requiring vaccines. There are no significant differences in views about this issue by education or race and ethnicity.

Public attitudes about climate change have become increasingly contentious over the past several years. The new Pew Research survey included two separate measures to gauge public attitudes about climate change. An overwhelming majority of AAAS scientists from all disciplinary specialties believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity. Scientists are also considerably more inclined than the general public as a whole to see climate change as a problem.

There are a number of ways to canvass opinion about climate change issues. In a separate series of questions, adults in the general public were asked whether or not there is solid evidence that the average temperature of the earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. Since , roughly two-thirds or more of Americans see solid evidence the earth is warming, up from roughly six-in-ten in to Views about climate change tend to differ by party and political ideology, as also was the case in past surveys.

Democrats are more likely than either political independents or Republicans to say there is solid evidence the earth is warming. And, moderate or liberal Republicans are more likely to say the earth is warming than are conservative Republicans. Past Pew Research surveys have also shown more skepticism among Tea Party Republicans that the earth is warming.

Attitudes and Beliefs on Science and Technology Topics

Consistent with past surveys , there are wide differences in views about climate change by age, with adults ages 65 and older more skeptical than younger age groups that there is solid evidence the earth is warming. These public perceptions tend to be associated with individual views on the issue. For example, those who believe the earth is getting warmer due to human activity are most inclined to see scientists as in agreement on this point. As with perceptions of scientific consensus on other topics, public perceptions that scientists tend to agree about climate change tend to vary by education and age.

College graduates are more likely than those with less formal education to say that scientists generally agree the earth is getting warmer due to human activity. Younger generations ages 18 to 49 are more likely than older ones to see scientists in agreement about climate change. By comparison, AAAS scientists are particularly likely to express concern about world population growth and natural resources.

• Facebook Wealth: 5 Steps to Success?
• Islamic attitudes towards science!
• Philosophy of Fighting: Morals and Motivations of the Modern Warrior!
• Homosexuality.
• Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures ATTP 3-21.9 (FM 3-21.9) SBCT Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad.

African-Americans are more optimistic that new solutions will emerge to address the strains on natural resource caused by a growing world population. Whites and Hispanics, by comparison, are more likely to see the growing world population as leading to a major problem. There are no differences or only modest differences in viewpoints about this issue by gender, age or education. The opposite pattern occurs in views about nuclear power. AAAS scientists show more support for nuclear power: A majority of scientists support more nuclear power plants regardless of disciplinary specialty.

One newer form of energy development — increased use of genetically-engineered plants as a fuel alternative to gasoline — draws strong support among both the public and AAAS scientists. By comparison, opinion about fracking among AAAS scientists is more negative: An earlier Pew Research analysis found that opposition to increased fracking has grown since particularly among Midwesterners, women, and those under age Men express more support than women for building nuclear power plants, more offshore drilling, and increased use of fracking.

T he notion that science and religion are at war is one of the great dogmas of the present age. For journalists, it is a prism through which to understand everything from the perennial kerfuffles over teaching evolution to the ethics of destroying human embryos for research. To many scientists, religious belief seems little more than a congeries of long-discredited pre-modern superstitions. For many religious believers, modern science threatens a deeply held faith that man is more than a mere organism and that our status as free beings bound by natural law implies the existence of a transcendent deity.

But this is not the whole story. Every year, countless new books try to reconcile the claims of truths revealed by divine inspiration and those that are the product of earthly reason.

Relationship between religion and science

His new book, The Grand Design , which posits that the universe may have created itself out of quantum fluctuations, is but the latest in a long line of volumes by prominent physicists and cosmologists translating scientific theory for a popular audience. Along with volumes by biologists with a flair for explaining complex concepts, these books have become a locus of debate about the place of God and man in our understanding of the universe.

One writer who has brought ambassadorial finesse to this contentious subject is John Polkinghorne. Since leaving his Cambridge physics professorship in to become an Anglican priest, he has written some two dozen books about science and religion. In one such book, Science and Theology , Polkinghorne proposes a taxonomy based on the work of scholar Ian G.

Barbour of the various ways science and religion can relate. Sometimes, however, science and religion can be considered independent , two distinct realms of inquiry.

• Estelita Faces the Dark and Horrible Isolation Room?
• Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes?
• Religion and Science!
• Chapter 3: Attitudes and Beliefs on Science and Technology Topics.
• Einsteins Question.
• 1. What are science and religion, and how do they interrelate?;
• Io ballo da solo: Autobiografia comica (Ingrandimenti) (Italian Edition).

Sometimes they are considered to be in dialogue or are consonant , overlapping but not necessarily conflicting, especially as regards the deepest of mysteries, such as creation and consciousness. And sometimes the two are integrated or one assimilates the other , and they are unified into a common quest for understanding the universe and our place in it.

What Scientists Believe

This taxonomy is worth keeping in mind while considering two recent books, each of which takes up the subject from the perspective of scientists. The first is a nuanced portrait of the religious beliefs of scientists working in the United States today; the second is a collection of writings from scientific luminaries, both historical and contemporary, laying out their thoughts on religion.

Taken together, these books proffer an answer to the following question: Just what do scientists — including the most influential scientists — actually believe concerning religion? I n Science vs. Between and , Ecklund and her associates randomly selected researchers from across seven natural and social science disciplines at twenty-one elite U. Of the 2, faculty members to whom Ecklund sent questionnaires, 1, responded. The respondents answered detailed questions about their religious beliefs and their views of the relationship between religion and science.

Ecklund and her associates then conducted in-depth interviews with of the surveyed scientists, again selected at random. Both the questionnaire and the interview guide are included as appendices to the book. Scientists tend as a group to be less religious however that term might be construed than the general population. About 64 percent of the respondents described themselves as atheists or agnostics, as against only about 6 percent of the general public. However, the views of many scientists turn out to be less rigidly doctrinaire and hostile to religious belief than the raw statistics might suggest:.

After four years of research, at least one thing became clear: Much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Ecklund concludes from her research that most scientists do not become irreligious as a consequence of their becoming scientists.

I n light of the fact that religious scientists constitute a minority — albeit a large minority — of academic scientists, how do they conduct themselves professionally? To what extent, if at all, do their religious beliefs affect and inform their professional lives? Ecklund reports that the prevailing view among scientists of faith is that it is best not to discuss their beliefs openly because of the generally negative opinion of religion held by most of their colleagues.

Navigation menu

Here again, however, Ecklund finds the lived reality to be more nuanced than the raw statistics might suggest. His bestselling book on science and faith, The Language of God , was reviewed in these pages by Thomas W. Collins is cited with considerable deference by a number of the non-religious surveyed scientists because of his impeccable scientific credentials and his willingness to speak openly about what he believes.

Whether a less accomplished — and untenured — openly religious scientist would be treated as deferentially by his colleagues is another matter.