So I’m searching out science education sites, and I come across the AAAS site (that’s American Association for the Advancement of Science, if you didn’t know). Right at the top of the site under the heading “Latest News” is a link to an article about “What Scientists Think about Religion.” Naturally, I’m intrigued. So I follow the links and end up here. What followed was the biggest bunch of horseshit I’ve seen in a while that was paraded as science, so I simply had to shred it in the manner of that most awesome of all shredders of dross, PZ Myers. Here goes:
A Sociologist and a Journalist Assess How Science and Religion Get Along
Although nearly a quarter of Americans think scientists are hostile to religion and about 30% of scientists surveyed by a Rice University sociologist consider themselves atheists, the true picture of what scientists think about religion and spirituality is more complex than popular conceptions, the sociologist told a recent AAAS gathering. [So far no problem, most issues, especially social ones, are typically very complex. Let's see what the analysis shows.]
Elaine Howard Ecklund, who surveyed nearly 1700 natural and social scientists [shouldn't natural scientists and social scientists have been separated: biologists kind of need to be evolutionists in the same way that cosmologists probably need the Big Bang or a similar theory, both of which ideas offer great consternation to many religious folk; a social scientist, on the other hand, could ignore natural sciences altogether and be basically OK] at leading research universities and conducted in-depth interviews with 275 of them [Her sample size, considering the specialized nature of her study population seems very good; I'll happily give credit where it's due], said that nearly half of the scientists identified with a religious label and even 22% of the atheist scientists in her survey expressed feelings of spirituality about nature and the mysteries of the world [Now wait a second, we're starting to see weasel words here: what is meant by "feelings of spirituality?" Is "spiritual" necessarily "religious?" Also, identifying with a religious label is completely irrelevant, there are plenty of Jews, Catholics, and Buddhists who identify themselves as such, but in actuality are atheists. This makes it sound like half of scientists believe religious ideas and one-fifth of the atheists are closet religionists. In reality, all we've learned so far is that, in her sample, nearly half of scientists call themselves by a religious label (though their actual beliefs are unknown) and that 22% of the professed atheists expressed "spiritual" feelings about nature and its mysteries (which could be simply the numinous (thank you Carl Sagan) awe felt by many (I'm one of them) with regard to the natural world). But let's remain hopeful, maybe it gets better.]
Ecklund spoke at a 15 December session co-sponsored by the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion and the AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology [So all appearances seem to indicate that the AAAS takes this research seriously].
“Americans have a love-hate relationship with science,” Ecklund said. She noted their admiration for figures such as Albert Einstein and their interest in new scientific discoveries. But surveys have also shown that as many as half of Americans believe that “we depend too much on science and not enough on faith” and 40% would like to see creationism taught in public schools [This isn't much "evidence" for the American love-hate relationship on science. I could give an equally valid spin on all of this: Einstein is admired because he has become a cultural icon of intelligence (in much the same why that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are icons of leadership or honesty); most people have no idea what Einstein *actually* did, but they know that he was very intelligent. People could love scientific discoveries because they love the products derived from science rather than the scientific process -or- because they simply love novelty (which would explain why many find pseudoscientific "discoveries" equally exciting. The fact that many Americans want to depend more on faith and have creationism taught in schools could have less to do with a hatred of science as much as an unthinking love for the tenets of their faith.].
As for the scientists, there has been a small but vocal group of confirmed atheists who speak of religious belief as “irrational” and “dumb.” [OK, so?] A physicist in Ecklund’s survey told her that “as a child I was infected by religion, but now I am immune.” He said his view was shared by other scientists “who are all astonished at this sort of viral nature of faith-based thinking [which] only exists because parents infect their children and then there’s a new generation and they go on to infect more.” [ yes, I'm sure that there was a particular individual that professed this view (which I basically agree with, though it definitely won't win any rhetoric awards); so what? Is one person's view supposed to be representative of all atheists? Is it shared by other scientists simply because he says so?]
Given such attitudes, some scientists who are religious tread softly on the topic of faith when they are in the scientific environment, Ecklund said. Another physicist told her that “it is really hard to be a religious academic because the public opinion [is the "public" referred to the scientific public or the public at large?] is such that you’re either religious or you’re a scientist. To say you are religious might mean other scientists would question your work.” [Who cares what they *might* do; the question is what do they *actually* do? Also, just to be clear, between this example and the last, this researcher does know that anecdotal evidence means precisely dick, right? RIGHT?!]
Still, there are some scientists with deep religious beliefs, such as National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins [every time people want to promote the fusion of science and religion they always seem to name Collins (in my admittedly anecdotal experience); if such religious scientists are really so common why is he the only one you ever hear about, though it could just be because he has the highest profile. Also, if you want to know why non-religious scientists may sometimes look down on believers, look no further than Collins himself: while he does fine practical work, his book makes it clear that at some point he just *has* to interject his faith beliefs into the scientific process], who have managed to straddle both worlds and were mentioned frequently by participants in Ecklund’s survey.
Ecklund, author of Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press), said she undertook her research because previous scholarship on scientists’ attitudes was incomplete [by definition isn't all scholarship incomplete? I mean if an area of study had ever been completely researched, then there would be nothing new to say about it and no reason to further research it.] and often relied on narrow measures of religiosity [from what I can tell, her measures are wicked wide, so I guess...uh...mission accomplished?].
In her survey, which garnered a strong 75% response rate from the 2200 scientists contacted [not surprising that so many responded, it's just scientists supporting science], Ecklund found that 30% of the respondents identified themselves as secularists with no religion [OK]; just under half identified with a religious label [again, who cares about their labels; if I call myself a duck-billed platypus, it doesn't mean I am one] and 1 in 5 of those were actively involved in a house of worship [the other 4 out of 5 could be in-the-closet atheists; fuck, for that matter, so could the 1 out of 5]; and 20% of respondents described themselves as spiritual, although not religious. [again, what does "spiritual" even mean? Since apparently, according to the first of the article, 1 in 5 non-religious atheists are spiritual, couldn't all of these people be atheists too? I've known many an agnostic who described themselves as "spiritual, but not religious." So she seems to think that what we have here is 30% atheist, 50% religionist, 20% neither; personally, it could just as easily mean 100% atheist, or for a little benefit of the doubt, how about 30% atheist, 20% agnostic, 10% religionist, 40% unknown. This would be just as valid.]
Among the secular scientists, 13% were raised in homes without religion [sounds right, many atheists are either deconverts or are raised by parents who might label themselves religious but never take any initiative to pass along their beliefs]. Among the 50% who called themselves religious, just 2% were evangelical Protestants, compared to 28% of the U.S. population, Ecklund said. [Why isn't she asking equivalent questions? She asked how non-believers were *raised* but then asked what believers *are*? Isn't it possible that they too were raised in a different believer category (since she's singling out Protestant evangelicals). What do you want to bet that almost all of the current believers were raised as such in one flavor or another.]
[...] I have left out the remarks given by a journalist who was also featured in the story because I wanted to focus on only the sociologist’s views; so in the future, “[...]” indicates left out remarks from or about the journalist.
Scientists need to realize that conservative Christianity is diverse [maybe in denominations but not so much in attitude toward science] and that—as Ecklund noted—70% of the U.S. population does not identify as evangelical. [of course, that means that one third of the population *is* evangelical] They also should recognize that a strategy of simply ignoring the religious public is not working, she said. [I point that science popularizers have taken to great heart.]
[...]
While many scientists say they just should be doing science and consider religion to be irrelevant [which it is], Ecklund said, a small segment of those she surveyed did feel that religion’s impact on the public’s view of science is so large that it is impossible to ignore. [again, this is why science popularizers and pseudoscience debunkers are so important]
For religious communities, Ecklund said, there also is a message: Scientists can ask difficult questions that can force believers to grapple in a more open way with their religion. She urged religious believers to respond to the concerns of one of the biologists in her survey who felt religion had let her down. “When I asked hard questions I was told just to make a decision to believe,” the biologist told Ecklund. In her experience, she said, religion “was a way that judgment was passed on people who are different.” [Does this dumbass researcher not realize that this is the font from which the fundamental conflict flows??!! Religion's answer is always "have faith"; if they ever actually had authentic proof, then they would cease to be religion and become a science! Science requires substantiated proof for belief; religion requires belief without proof. They are, by definition, fundamentally, logically, and in every other way incompatible.]
Stereotypes about science also persist in religious communities, Ecklund said, including the notion that “it’s just frankly impossible to be a scientist at a top research university and be religious.” Her research demonstrates that is not the case, she said. [Of course it's not the case, but the moment you try to interject your religious beliefs into your professional scientific work, you will become a laughingstock.]
More generally, Ecklund said, her research findings “complicate what we think about secularization, the idea that as our society learns more about science, it necessarily becomes less religious.” [Whoa, Nellie! Secularization is simply becoming less religious not necessarily more scientific. Look at Europe, it has become more secular (less religious) in recent decades but isn't really any more scientific than it ever was in the same time period (at least from my perception)] When asked whether science ultimately will trump religion [who says it was ever trying to do so?], Ecklund responds that it is more appropriate to ask in what areas science holds sway and it what areas religion holds sway [Fuck, not NOMA! No, come to think of it, she's right: science holds sway for believing in things for a provable reason, religion holds sway over believing in things for no reason at all]. “We need to move beyond narrow conceptions of secularization,” she said. [said the researcher with the narrower than normal conception of secularization]
[...]
In seeking areas of common ground, Ecklund noted that science can be seen as a vocation or calling, a view that might resonate in religious communities [Great. It can either be just a job with no original thought that might damage the oh so precious faith, or it can be an assignment from god]. She suggested that religious scientists act as ambassadors to religious constituencies that may be having difficulty understanding aspects of science and how it is pursued. Both speakers agreed that in these kinds of efforts, it is important for scientists to begin to feel free to speak more openly about their various religious beliefs [unless, of course, those scientists are non-believers because that would scare away the faith-heads].
Alright, that’s it. I’m hoping that the research was crazy mischaracterized by the Earl Lane person who wrote the article, but I’m afraid that a glance over at Elaine Howard Ecklund’s wikipedia page shows that the report on her “findings” is probably spot-on. Granted, I haven’t read her book, but if the above report was any indication at all of her work, it sucks a bucket of dicks.
35.301220
-98.987953
