No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science
Abstract
Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.
... Early studies, influenced by the conflict model, contended that this was because of scientists' increased familiarity with scientific knowledge (Leuba, 1934(Leuba, , 2013(Leuba, [1912; Larson and Witham, 1998). Elaine Howard Ecklund and colleagues (see, among others, Scheitle, 2007, 2017;Ecklund et al, 2011) have, however, questioned this supposition in a variety of ways, asking questions like: are there alternative explanations for this pattern -such as hostility towards religious people in the sciences , or the dynamics of professional identity (Ecklund et al, 2008)? 2 Even though scientists tend to be non-religious, do they actually support the conflict thesis (Ecklund and Park, 2009), and those who publicly affirm it (Johnson et al, 2018)? When they do, is this influenced by their scientific work or factors such as the home they were raised in? ...
... Indeed, socialscientific research on this topic has only recently begun to flourish in the UK and Europe; this collection thus contributes to an underresearched field. In the US, research into science and religion has been more prevalent, and the works of Hill ( , 2015, Evans (2011; see also Evans and Evans, 2008), Ecklund (2010; see also Ecklund et al, 2011), Scheitle (2011; see also Scheitle and Cornell, 2015;Scheitle and Ecklund, 2017), Baker (2012) and others continue to be influential. ...
... For example, the 2014 Pew Research Centre survey mentioned earlier in the chapter finds that when US adults are asked at a general level whether they think science and religion are 'often in conflict' or 'mostly compatible', 59% of respondents affirm the former and 38% the latter. When asked whether science 'sometimes conflicts' with their own religious beliefs, however, 30% say that it conflicts whereas 68% say that it does not (Funk and Alper, 2015; for other examples of this contrast, see Baker, 2012;Ecklund et al, 2011;; see also the review by Hill, Chapter 2, this volume). This marked variation suggests that the phrasing of questions can be revealing -whether one is exploring public, personal or normative dimensions -with each touching on subtly different themes. ...
... However, science and faith mindsets do not necessarily conflict. People can and often do rely upon both religious and scientific beliefs (Ecklund, Park, & Sorrell, 2011;Nelson, 2009;Pew Research Center, 2015a, 2015bScheitle, 2011;Watts, Passmore, Jackson, Rzymski, & Dunbar, 2020). Indeed, until about the 16th century, science and faith were indistinguishable (Barbour, 1998;Wootton, 2016). ...
... The correlations are shown in Table 2. The magnitude of the negative correlations was unexpected because science and faith are seen as complementary by many religious people (Ecklund et al., 2011;Legare et al., 2012;Longest & Smith, 2011;Pew Research Center, 2015a). However, our results seemed to suggest that many of the study participants viewed religion and science as conflicting-regardless of the measures used to assess faith and science mindsets. ...
... An additional, unexpected finding was the strength of the negative correlation between science and faith mindsets (r = − 0.61 at T1). This is surprising in light of previous research showing that scientific and religious explanations are often seen as complementary (Ecklund et al., 2011;Legare et al., 2012;Pew Research Center, 2015a), orthogonal , or in many ways overlapping (Watts et al., 2020). There are several possible explanations and important implications. ...
The COVID-19 pandemic allowed for a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of the relationship between faith and science mindsets and concern about COVID-19. Our goal was to examine two possible directional relationships: (Model 1) COVID-19 concern ➔ disease avoidance and self-protection motivations ➔ science and faith mindsets versus (Model 2) science and faith mindsets ➔ COVID-19 concern. We surveyed 858 Mechanical Turk workers in three waves of a study conducted in March, April, and June 2020. We found that science mindsets increased whereas faith mindsets decreased (regardless of religious type) during the early months of the pandemic. Further, bivariate correlations and autoregressive cross-lagged analyses indicated that science mindset was positive predictor of COVID-19 concern, in support of Model 2. Faith mindset was not associated with COVID-19 concern. However, faith mindset was a negative predictor of science mindset. We discuss the need for more research regarding the influence of science and faith mindsets as well as the societal consequences of the pandemic.
... En un proyecto posterior que entrevistó a 275 participantes de las ciencias sociales y naturales, Ecklund y Long (2011,258,264) comentan que sus "resultados muestran una amplia espiritualidad no religiosa entre científicos". Agregan que aquellos que se consideran espirituales perciben "la espiritualidad y la religión en claramente diferentes términos", donde "el impulso espiritual está marcado por una búsqueda de la verdad compatible con el método científico, una coherencia que unifica varias esferas de la vida" que los investigadores resumen como una "espiritualidad consistente con su identidad" de ser científicos. ...
... Sorpresivamente esta opción fue bien recibida pues siete personas la eligieron. Sin embargo, soy consciente que en términos de creencias religiosas no siempre es tan claro ni fácil elegir entre una opción u otra y por ello Beltrán (2019), Ecklund y Long (2011) comentaban que hay "ateos y agnósticos espirituales". Cuestión que incluso fue encontrada también en la presente investigación como se verá más adelante. ...
... A pesar de que la opinión de este participante parece contradecir la teoría de Stoeger (1996), que dice para algunas personas la astronomía puede conducir a una clara autotrascendencia y a nuevas perspectivas personales, se ve que para otros este proceso puede no ser tan claro y sólido, aunque existente. En resumen, el dudante muestra un escenario complejo en la relación que ve entre la astronomía y sus nociones de lo espiritual y lo religioso, pero plantea un vínculo entre la ciencia y la búsqueda de "sentido" que para Ecklund y Long (2011) se acerca más hacia la espiritualidad que hacia la religión. ...
This paper presents the results of an exploratory research aimed to investigate the
spiritual and religious beliefs of a group of twenty-nine Colombian people who have
formally studied astronomy. It was explored if they consider that this science has
influenced their ideas of the “spiritual” and/or “religious” and how these perceptions
are related to the nature of their research. The quantitative results show a very high
trend of non-religious people (atheists, agnostics and people without religious
affiliation). Those that were interviewed (4 out of 29) revealed differences between
their notions of spirituality and religion, and in three of them a two-way relationship
between astronomy and their ideas of spirituality was evident. The relationship is
based on the fact that they are looking for explanations and answers in nature,
especially in terms of the origin of the universe and the emergence of life, and this
gives meaning to their lives and investigations.
... While approximately 65% of the American public identifies as Christian (Pew Research Center, 2019), only 25% of biologists identify as Christian (Ecklund and Scheitle, 2007;Pew Research Center, 2009), making Christians a severely underrepresented group in biology. Past research with undergraduates and biology faculty suggests that one reason Christians are underrepresented in biology is that there is a stigma against Christians in science, which has made Christians feel unwelcomed in the biology community (Ecklund et al., 2011;Scheitle and Ecklund, 2018;Rios et al., 2015;Barnes and Brownell, 2016;Barnes et al., 2017bBarnes et al., , 2020b. However, those in the biology community may not know when someone is Christian, because it is a potentially concealable identity. ...
... However, mental illness is highly stigmatized in an array of environments, including among the general public, whereas Christianity may be somewhat uniquely stigmatized in academic biology compared with other environments (Ecklund and Scheitle, 2007). Despite Christians' majority status in broader society, there is increasing evidence that Christians in academic biology are stigmatized, specifically those that biologists characterize as "evangelical" and/or "fundamentalist" 2 (Ecklund et al., 2011;Rios et al., 2015;Barnes et al., 2017bBarnes et al., , 2020bScheitle and Ecklund, 2018;Henning et al., 2019). We recently conducted an experimental audit study that showed that biology faculty rate an evangelical Christian graduate school applicant as less hirable, less competent, and less likable than an identical applicant who does not signal an evangelical identity (Barnes et al., 2020b). ...
... We recently conducted an experimental audit study that showed that biology faculty rate an evangelical Christian graduate school applicant as less hirable, less competent, and less likable than an identical applicant who does not signal an evangelical identity (Barnes et al., 2020b). Further, biologists themselves report that they have negative attitudes toward evangelical and fundamentalist Christian religions (Ecklund et al., 2011). Undergraduate Christian students perceive that Christians are seen as less competent in science, and these students even experience stereotype threat based on their Christian identities on assessments they think are measuring their science ability (Rios et al., 2015). ...
Recent research has begun to explore the experiences of Christian undergraduates and faculty in biology to illuminate reasons for their underrepresentation. In this study, we focused on the experiences of graduate students and explored Christianity as a concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) in the biology community. We constructed interview questions using this CSI framework, which originates in social psychology, to research the experiences of those with stigmatized identities that could be hidden. We analyzed interviews from 33 Christian graduate students who were enrolled in biology programs and found that many Christian graduate students believe the biology community holds strong negative stereotypes against Christians and worry those negative stereotypes will be applied to them as individuals. We found that students conceal their Christian identities to avoid negative stereotypes and reveal their identities to counteract negative stereotypes. Despite these experiences, students recognize their value as boundary spanners between the majority secular scientific community and majority Christian public. Finally, we found that Christian students report that other identities they have, including ethnicity, gender, nationality, and LGBTQ+ identities, can either increase or decrease the relevance of their Christian identities within the biology community.
... It is also important that we make a distinction between perceived and actual bias against Christians in science. Prior studies have explored perceptions of bias against Christians in science among the general public, psychology students, and scientists, but have never documented actual bias among scientists [14,15,19]; the majority of scientists do not think they hold negative attitudes towards Christians broadly [19]. Therefore, it may be that the perception that scientists are biased against Christians is greater than the reality. ...
... It is also important that we make a distinction between perceived and actual bias against Christians in science. Prior studies have explored perceptions of bias against Christians in science among the general public, psychology students, and scientists, but have never documented actual bias among scientists [14,15,19]; the majority of scientists do not think they hold negative attitudes towards Christians broadly [19]. Therefore, it may be that the perception that scientists are biased against Christians is greater than the reality. ...
... Finally, it is unclear whether any potential bias against Christians in science is specific to certain groups of Christians. In interview studies, some scientists have reported negative attitudes towards Christians broadly [19] and some biologists have reported holding negative stereotypes about Christians that could prevent them from teaching evolution in ways that are effective for Christian students [22]. Most frequently, scientists say they only have negative attitudes towards religions that are "fundamentalist evangelical" in nature, partly because of the perception that this type of religion tries to encroach on the authority of science [19]. ...
Christians are one of the most underrepresented groups in science, and one potential explanation is that scientists have a bias against Christian students, which could discourage and actively prevent Christian students from becoming scientists. Although there is a general perception in society that there is bias against Christians in science, we do not know whether science students, who frequently interact with scientists, perceive this bias. Further, no researchers have attempted to experimentally document the existence of bias against Christians in science. To address these gaps in the literature, we designed three studies. In the first study, we found that college science students report a perceived bias against Christians in science and that evangelical Christians perceive greater bias than Catholic and non-Christian students. Then in two studies, biology professors evaluated Ph.D. program applicants and we examined whether the professors rated a student less favorably when the student revealed a Christian religious identity. We found no statistically significant differences in how biology professors rated a student who was President of the Christian Association compared to a student who was President of the Atheist Association or a student who was President of the Activities Association. However, in Study 3, biology professors did rate a Christian student who went on a mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ as less hireable, less competent, and less likeable than a student who did not reveal a Christian identity. Taken together, these studies indicate that perceived bias against Christians in science may contribute to underrepresentation of Christians but actual bias against Christians in science may be restricted to a specific type of Christianity that scientists call fundamentalist and/or evangelical.
... Longest and Smith (2011) suggest that viewing science and religion as compatible may involve a reconstruction of 'religion' and an openness to alternative spiritual perspectives. Indeed, Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell (2011) found that many scientists report moving away from religion, but toward spiritual beliefs and a "feeling of something outside themselves and a deep, compelling other-centered worldview" (p. 562). ...
... Critically, awe and self-transcendence have been shown to be associated with belief in abstract, but not personal representations of God (Johnson et al., 2017). Perhaps not coincidentally, these abstract representations of God are also similar to the non-religious spirituality and other-centered worldviews many scientists report adopting (Colburn and Henriques, 2006;Ecklund et al., 2011). People can also be uncertain about God's attributes or think of God as beyond comprehension or ineffable (Johnson et al., 2018). ...
... Therefore, in Study 1, we also assessed several related constructs not germane to our model in order to demonstrate discriminant validity for the two constructs. We expected to find a positive association between an interest in science and spirituality (Longest and Smith, 2011), and also between an interest in science and the belief that science and religion are compatible (Colburn and Henriques, 2006;Ecklund et al., 2011). We expected to find a positive association between commitment to scientific logic and analytical thinking style, and between scientific logic and the belief that science and religion are separate domains or in conflict (Preston and Epley, 2009). ...
Science and analytical thinking have been linked with atheism. We propose dual pathways whereby scientific engagement may have paradoxical effects on belief in God. Logical aspects of science, associated with analytical thinking, are associated with unbelief. However, people can also be awed by scientific information, and awe is associated with feelings of self-transcendence and belief in a mystical God. An exploratory study (supplemental material; N = 322) and Study 1 (N = 490) demonstrated that people interested in science often hold abstract (but not personal) representations of God. This effect was mediated by a predisposition to feel awe. In Studies 2 and 3 (combined N = 570), people experimentally exposed to awe-inspiring scientific content were more likely than control participants to endorse abstract God representations. These findings suggest that scientific engagement does not always erode belief in God. Instead, science-inspired awe can increase representations of God as a mystical cosmic force or as being beyond imagination.
... It was significantly more frequent among scholars who declared atheism, did not attend religious services, treated the Bible as a collection of fairy tales, and had been brought up in families in which little attention was paid to matters of religion. Elaine Ecklund, who has already been mentioned, conducted 275 interviews with randomly selected scholars in order to learn more details about their attitudes toward religion, academic work, and teaching (Ecklund, Park, & Sorrell, 2011). About 15% of the interviewees believed that religion and science were always in conflict, 15% claimed that there was never a conflict between them, while 70% gave examples of situations where there was a conflict between them and situations in which there was no conflict. ...
... Determining whether this hypothesis is correct would probably require using the interview technique, as Ecklund et al. (2011) did in their study. The results of their study can also be seen as a source of other hypotheses seeking to explain the denial of a conflict between faith and science, namely: (a) some unbelieving scientists are distancing themselves from issues that may generate conflict, deciding that these issues do not interest them personally; (b) a certain group of believing scientists highlight the limitations of scientific knowledge and assume that religion makes it possible to go beyond these limits; (c) there are scientists who treat the concept of religion more broadly -as similar to the concept of "spirituality"; for them, conceptions connected with the idea of spirituality may be an inspiration for a new understanding of the reality they study; (d) some scholars, even those who are not believers, know that there are outstanding scien-tists who emphasize their faith in God 14 ; (e) some scientists think that in their teaching activities they should not avoid the issue of the relationship between science and religion, all the more so because students come into contact with discussions on this subject. ...
... The subjects in the study byEcklund et al. (2011) often named Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, as an example of such a scientist. In the present study, some respondents pointed to the Templeton Prize winner Michał Heller. ...
The paper presents selected results of a study on the religious views of 279 Polish scholars with a doctoral or higher degree. The percentage of scholars who declared belief in God was 56.3%. The four groups with the highest indices were chemists (80%), geographers and Earth scientists (76.2%), mathematicians and information technology specialists (73.1%), and medical scientists (64.5%). A small proportion of respondents (6.5%) chose the following option: "I don't believe in a personal God but I believe in a higher power of some kind." The percentages of atheists and agnostics were 18.3% and 7.2%, respectively. The subjects' views on the relationship between science and religion were categorized according to the Barbour's typology (Barbour, 1990). The largest proportion of the subjects (41.9%) denied the inevitability of conflict between science and religion; 13% held the opposite view. Some scholars (19.6%) expressed the view that science and religion should be treated as independent areas of inquiry. The relationship of dialog seemed to be the best form of their coexistence to 2% respondents, while 3.6% were in favor of the cooperation of science and religion in building a comprehensive worldview.
... Just as we may need different justifications for government's health policy and for mathematical claims, we may need different justifications for religious and scientific arguments. Preliminary evidence indicates that scientists who do not trust personal experiences in the field of science (Ecklund et al., 2011) or the Bible (Ecklund & Park, 2009) support the conflict view. These findings call for a more comprehensive assessment of the ways non-scientists justify knowledge in the realms of science and religion. ...
... They also scored markedly the lowest on the Religiosity dimension, implying especially low supernatural beliefs but also mistrust in religious authorities and in personal experiences over scientific research, among others. This is exactly what many scientists have been found to think about the relationship between science and religion (Ecklund et al., 2011;Ecklund & Park, 2009). This groups' views also align with Baker's (2012) and Scheitle's (2011) reports that non-scientists with a pro-science conflict view display the lowest religiosity. ...
Although the relationship between religion and science has long been the subject of discussion, investigations into the how and why of people's science‐religion perspectives are rare. This study examined how epistemic and ontological cognition predict agreement with four science‐religion perspectives: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Participants (N=3911) were Finnish, Danish, and Dutch adults who had answered an online study. Most people held views that were not well captured by the commonly used four categories. When more specific perspectives were examined, differences were found especially in supernatural beliefs, over‐mentalizing, and justifications for religious arguments and scientific knowledge. Thinking styles and epistemic sophistication played only a minor role. The results suggest that non‐scientists evaluate the relationship between religion and science more based on their ontological beliefs than their epistemic reflection.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Early studies, influenced by the conflict model, contended that this was because of scientists' increased familiarity with scientific knowledge (Leuba, 1934(Leuba, , 2013(Leuba, [1912; Larson and Witham, 1998). Elaine Howard Ecklund and colleagues (see, among others, Ecklund andScheitle, 2007, 2017;Ecklund et al, 2011) have, however, questioned this supposition in a variety of ways, asking questions like: are there alternative explanations for this pattern -such as hostility towards religious people in the sciences (Ecklund, 2010), or the dynamics of professional identity (Ecklund et al, 2008)? 2 Even though scientists tend to be non-religious, do they actually support the conflict thesis (Ecklund and Park, 2009), and those who publicly affirm it ? When they do, is this influenced by their scientific work or factors such as the home they were raised in? ...
... Even strong believers who held abstract views of God were more likely than nonbelievers to imbue abstract God-views with personal characteristics-which we referred to as multiple God-views discussed above. This is consistent with research showing that adults (Shaman et al., 2018)-and, possibly, more highly educated people (Ecklund et al., 2011)-often have relatively more abstract views of God which might be likened to panentheist views of the divine (the belief that God is greater than the universe but also permeates all things). ...
... For example, in a qualitative study of 34 teams of faith community leaders and health community leaders, some community leaders noted that faith-based organizations "lack credibility" in disseminating health information (Kegler et al., 2010, p. 673). Some scientists believe that religious beliefs are not based in verifiable facts and therefore are less valuable than scientific information (Ecklund et al., 2011(Ecklund et al., , 2016, perhaps leading to a less collaborative approach to dissemination of information in church settings. And while at times this skepticism may be warranted, its prominence in the medical community can prevent the recognition of possibilities for constructive collaboration. ...
Problematic substance use is a pressing global health problem, and dissemination and implementation of accurate health information regarding prevention, treatment, and recovery are vital. In many nations, especially the US, many people are involved in religious groups or faith communities, and this offers a potential route to positively affect health through health information dissemination in communities that may have limited health resources. Health information related to addiction will be used as the backdrop issue for this discussion, but many health arenas could be substituted. This article evaluates the utility of commonly used health communication theories for communicating health information about addiction in religious settings and identifies their shortcomings. A lack of trusting, equally contributing, bidirectional collaboration among representatives of the clinical/scientific community and religious/faith communities in the development and dissemination of health information is identified as a potential impediment to effectiveness. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) tenets of trauma-informed practice, although developed for one-on-one use with those who have experienced trauma or adversity, are presented as a much more broadly applicable framework to improve communication between groups such as organizations or communities. As an example, we focus on health communication within, with, and through religious groups and particularly within churches.
... In this article, we analyse how people in the two congregations framed the relationship between their faith and evolution, using boundary work as our analytical frame (Lamont and Molnar 2002;Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell 2011). We found clear examples of boundary strengthening mechanisms, which included both using and deconstructing the authority of science. ...
A number of evangelical Christian denominations and networks uphold a specific doctrine of Scripture, stating that the Bible is the ‘inerrant’ word of God. Those who adhere to biblical inerrancy tend to reject literary interpretations of the creation accounts in the Bible and therefore to reject evolutionary theory. Indeed, evolution rejection frequently functions as a key boundary for biblical inerrantists that must be strictly maintained. In this comparative study, we analyse interview data and other materials to uncover the mechanisms by which evolution rejection as a boundary is strengthened, maintained or weakened within two evangelical church congregations that adhere to biblical inerrancy: one in London, UK, the other in Texas, US. We find significant differences in boundary work between the two congregations and consider how the interplay of three factors—1) orientation of the congregation (internal or external), 2) religious context (minority or majority), 3) boundary salience—may lead to boundary strengthening or weakening.
... In a similar vein, it can be recognised that religion has an important historical role and is often readily acknowledged in schools. Religion can also be seen to be addressing common community values, which are important to maintain (Wuthnow, 1987;Eckland et al., 2011). ...
... This idea that science cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural has been called the bounded nature of science and assumes that science is limited to investigating natural phenomena using natural explanations (Southerland and Scharmann, 2013;Nelson et al., 2019). Although there are vocal scientists who believe that science can disprove the existence or influence of God (Harris, 2005;Dawkins, 2009;Coyne, 2015;Krauss, 2015), the majority of scientists and philosophers of science agree that science does not address supernatural entities (Barbour, 1990;Miller, 1999;Collins, 2006;Ecklund and Park, 2009;Ecklund et al., 2011;Gould, 2011). ...
Although many scientists agree that evolution does not make claims about God/god(s), students might assume that evolution is atheistic, and this may lead to lower evolution acceptance. In study 1, we surveyed 1081 college biology students at one university about their religiosity and evolution acceptance and asked what religious ideas someone would have to reject if that person were to accept evolution. Approximately half of students wrote that a person cannot believe in God/religion and accept evolution, indicating that these students may have atheistic perceptions of evolution. Religiosity was not related to whether a student wrote that evolution is atheistic, but writing that evolution is atheistic was associated with lower evolution acceptance among the more religious students. In study 2, we collected data from 1898 students in eight states in the United States using a closed-ended survey. We found that 56.5% of students perceived that evolution is atheistic even when they were given the option to choose an agnostic perception of evolution. Further, among the most religious students, those who thought evolution is atheistic were less accepting of evolution, less comfortable learning evolution, and perceived greater conflict between their personal religious beliefs and evolution than those who thought evolution is agnostic.
... And as Blickenstaff (2005) explained, observed biological differences are not sufficient to explain patterns of gender representation in STEM fields. More likely, the cultural ascription of subjectivity to femininity symbolically justifies particular social boundaries (Lamont and Molnár 2002;Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell 2011) manifesting as and contributing, in part, to the gender gap in vocational science. While Enlightenment scientists rejected spirituality and subjectivity in order to assert epistemological independence from traditional authorities of their day (Oliver 1991), such conflict is arguably no longer necessary to validate scientific work. ...
Women tend to be both underrepresented in science and overrepresented in organized religion, yet the connection between these two phenomena is rarely examined. With survey data collected among 6,537 biologists and physicists from four national contexts—the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and India—we test whether science as a social field shapes religious expressions and attitudes differently for men and women. Findings reveal a religious gender gap in India and Italy but not in the United States and the United Kingdom. Further, except in Italy, men had higher odds of perceiving religion and science to be in conflict, believing that their colleagues have a negative attitude about religion, and reporting that science made them less religious. Evidence suggests that men in science may disproportionately internalize normative pressures to masculinize by eschewing religion. Our findings have implications for selection into academic science and the practice of religion among men and women in science.
... El desarrollo del pensamiento moderno lleva a una superación del conflicto entre ciencias y religión. Según los resultados de una investigación hecha recientemente con 250 científicos norteamericanos de alto nivel (Howard, Park, Sorrell: 2011), la mayoría considera que no existe conflicto entre ciencias y religión, los autores muestran cómo a partir de una reflexión personal crítica llegan a negociar las relaciones y los límites entre los diferentes campos 16 . 16 Los investigadores subrayan la transformación ocurrida. ...
Three decades after his passing, the intellectual work of Michel de Certeau is still of much importance for the social sciences and the humanities alike. This is because his concepts and ideas properly compel us towards through processes that mimic his thinking style: An interdisciplinary, heterodox, multiform style. Currently, such qualities are needed for the proper approaching to problems related to agency, and by extension, the human mind, since these qualities will allow understanding of the role the latter have in the experience of everyday life. This was the task started by the Jesuit and the one we will aim to complement by establishing common points between his themes of interest, and studies that were done in a field that shares his thinking qualities as fundamentals for doing research: Cognitive science. Through this exercise, we will achieve a greater intelligibility capacity from both research itineraries towards human phenomena.
Keywords: Michel de Certeau, tradition, practices, agents, cognition.
Available in Spanish
... Meanwhile, members of religious minority traditions may ascribe certain attitudes about science (i.e., not perceiving conflict) as a source of boundary making to differentiate from more mainstream debates around science and religion (Ecklund et al. 2011). As Brandon Vaidyanathan et al. (2016 explain, "despite their theological differences, adherents of Judaism and Islam clearly shared an expressed desire to distance themselves from the conflict narrative in this study by distancing themselves from anti-science views they perceived as typical of mainstream conservative Christians." ...
John Evans's new book Morals Not Knowledge pushes scholars to rethink contemporary debates about religion and science by moving past the rhetoric of societal elites to examine the perspectives of everyday Americans, identifying the moral conflicts at the heart of debates. We review Evans's key contributions while also extending and challenging his arguments, urging consideration of how renewed moral debates might be informed by a broader set of U.S. "publics." Drawing on empirical research, we highlight four sets of voices that are missing from Evans's analysis. Specifically, we highlight the voices of racial and ethnic minorities, religious communities (as opposed to individuals), members of minority religious traditions, and everyday religious scientists. Through doing so we offer avenues for future research on these diverse publics that will help facilitate a broader set of better and more informed debates about moral conflict between religious and scientific communities.
... It would be misleading to suggest that sociologists (here, limiting my analysis to the English speaking Western academia) did not produce empirical and theoretical efforts to study the relationship between "religion" and "science," which are mostly addressed by "sociologists of religion" (Evans and Evans 2008). For example, the compatibility of science and religion from the perspective of the general public (Baker 2012;Evans 2008;O'Brien and Noy 2015) and from the perspective of the academic elite (Ecklund and Park 2009;Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell 2011;Ecklund, Park, and Veliz 2008;Ecklund and Scheitle 2007) was empirically scrutinized based on surveys and in-depth interviews. The existing scholarly approaches towards the relationship between religion and science are also theoretically scrutinized around the "epistemological warfare" narrative (Evans and Evans 2008), where scholars observe that the relationship is largely addressed within a conflict paradigm, which "presumes" an antagonism, rather than treating it as an empirical subject of sociological inquiry. ...
ABSTRACT: The paper builds upon an array of literatures to interpolate conceptual domains into the studies of intellectual spaces, and demonstrates relevant empirical work, which can serve as basis for social theory building in this direction. In the first section, by critically reviewing the sociology of intellectuals, knowledge, and ideas; I underline how historical context works through domains such as religion, cultural geography and politics, and shapes the properties of a particular intellectual space; domains which have been largely overlooked by the late scholars of intellectual spaces. The second section seeks to substantiate these conceptual efforts by delineating a literature that is largely un-incorporated by the sociologists studying intellectuals and intellectual knowledge, namely the “Muslim intellectual space.” The paper makes an original contribution by overviewing the multi-disciplinary area studies on the Middle Eastern-Muslim intellectual space, and critically presents its drawbacks, while also building on the insight. In this regard, studies on the Muslim intellectual space - and particularly modern Turkey - provide opportunities to rethink the conceptualization of intellectual types; the influence of Westernist-secularist modernization on non-Western contexts; the infrastructure and constituents of “authoritative knowledge;” and the stratification of intellectual spaces. I argue that as general theories of intellectual spaces are still in the making, it is necessary to incorporate the contextual and relational insight from a non-Western area literature into future conceptual approaches and empirical designs, which will reinforce the scope and veracity of social theoretical assertions. KEY WORDS: Intellectual, Knowledge, Muslim/Islam, Middle East, Religion.
... Wspomniana Elaine Eclund przeprowadziła 275 rozmów z wylosowanymi respondentami, by dokładniej poznaü, jak traktują oni religiĊ i swą pracĊ naukową i dydaktyczną (Ecklund, Park i Sorrell, 2011). Około 15% jej rozmówców uwaĪało, Īe religia i nauka są zawsze w konflikcie; 15% twierdziło, Īe nigdy nie zachodzi miĊdzy nimi konflikt, zaĞ 70% podawało sytuacje, w których istnieje miĊdzy nimi konflikt i sytuacje, w których konfliktu nie ma. ...
... The majority of studies on dissent neglect the contexts that shape strategies for managing disagreement. When scholarship does consider institutional contexts, it explores stances of the elite rather than those of average adherents (Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell 2011;Ellis 2015;Neiheisel and Djube 2008;Olson and Cadge 2002;Smidt et al. 2003;Wilde and Danielsen 2014). By examining the micro level, the present study highlights how institutional settings shape local strategies of dissent. ...
... 4 The new organizing principle in the life sciences, Darwinian evolution, replaced the framework of natural theology in the latter half of the nineteenth century. 5 While some speculate that the gulf is so great between the two that there can be no interplay, 6 recent research into attitudes and beliefs of both practicing scientists 7 and Christian youth 8 tells us that there is great interest in integrating science and theology. For example, Christian philosophers of science during the last half-century proposed several theoretical patterns for relating science and religion. ...
Coauthors David Bundrick (theology), Donald Johns (biblical studies), and Michael Tenneson (biology) examine options for the science–theology dialogue and interdisciplinarity, framing the question with the classical notion of God’s two books—his world and his Word. They contend that multiple hermeneutical approaches from each field, science and theology, are in fact employed by particular scientists and theologians, while others are rejected. This situation results in a plurality of contemporary models for science–theology integration, among Pentecostals just as others, as a number of prominent models are identified. The authors refer to the Science–Faith Paradigm Scale, which they have empirically tested on several constituencies, including Pentecostal educational communities.
... Individuals demonstrate an in-group bias, even if groups are arbitrarily created, and accentuation effects-where people exaggerate similarity of objects within a category (especially the homogeneity of out-groups) and the differences between categories (Tajfel 1982, see also Brubaker et al. 2004). For example, many scientists view all Protestants as fundamentalists, ignoring important variations within Protestantism (Ecklund, 2010;Ecklund, Park and Sorrell, 2011). The necessary process of categorization follows the rule of cognitive economy where individuals are categorized to produce the most information with the least cognitive effort (Rosch 1978). ...
A sizable body of research has demonstrated an anti-conservative Christian perspective among academics. Our research explores
academics' negative attitudes toward conservative Protestants. We asked academics to rate Protestant Christian groups, and
then explain their ratings, how they define mainline, evangelicals, and fundamentalist Protestants, and articulate the differences
between various Protestant groups. Identifying as conservative Protestant and intergroup contact with conservative Protestants
best predict less antipathy toward conservative Protestants. Analysis of open-ended questions indicates three groups of academics:
Conservative Protestant Critics, Theological Definers, and Low Information. Conservative Protestant Critics envision conservative
Protestants as intolerant, unscientific enemies to be openly opposed. Theological Definers are fairly supportive of evangelicals
and project an image of objective assessment toward them. Low Information respondents do not have much knowledge of or interest
in conservative Protestants. Ultimately, symbolic boundaries and lack of intergroup contact reinforce an academic identity
that dismisses conservative Protestants for their perceived traits.
... Social reality relies upon the creation and maintenance of boundaries (Ecklund et al., 2011;Lamont and Molnar, 2002). These boundaries determine how each category and its content are viewed, and they determine the relationship between categories. ...
Research suggests that public figures can play an influential role in forming public opinion; yet, little research has experimentally tested the efficacy of public figures on the cognitive formation of boundaries. Using an experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey, we examine how two science popularizers, Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, influence perceptions regarding the boundaries between religion and science. We find that learning of Dawkins does not influence people's perceptions of the religion-science relationship, while learning of Collins shifts respondents toward a collaborative view of religion and science. Findings suggest that figures with unexpected views might be more effective in changing conceptual boundaries.
© The Author(s) 2015.
Christians are notably underrepresented in science in part due to long‐standing public perceptions of science‐religion incompatibility and antireligious bias in science. This research explores whether undergraduates at a Christian university perceive and impose anti‐Christian cultural stigma in science. Survey results from 126 biology students revealed that though students generally perceived the culture of science to be anti‐Christian, they perceived Christians to have equal opportunities for scientific achievement. Results from a quasi‐experimental audit study, in which students evaluated one of two profiles for mock prospective Ph.D. applicants (Christian or undisclosed faith) showed that students did not project anti‐Christian stereotypes in terms of competence, hireability, or likeability, but showed some evidence of pro‐Christian favorability. Together, this study suggests that the affirmational community of a Christian University may alleviate some negative impacts of anti‐Christian stereotypes in academic biology, even as students perceive discrimination against Christians in science and atheists as more scientifically competent.
The article presents the strategies that natural scientists from Central and Eastern Europe undertake to establish the demarcation between science and religion. Based on a 100 semi-structured interviews with physicists and biologists from Poland and Ukraine it demonstrates cultural differences of boundary work undertaken in the two groups. Moreover, the boundary lines between science and religion, knowledge and faith prove to be isomorphic to other boundaries (e.g. between the natural and supernatural, matter and spirit). It demonstrates further how these results can contribute to explaining the lower level of religiousness of scientists in Poland. The data collected point to a general conclusion that the lower level of religiousness of academics observed in international studies may have heterogeneous basis and forms; the impact of science on the religiousness of societies is varied and culturally conditioned.
Recent social scientific studies have focused on the different ways in which scientists conceive of the relationship between science and religion, conflict, complementary, independent, or some other understanding. However, there is still much less research on scientists’ religious lives outside the United States and the United Kingdom. Drawing on data from participant observation, in-depth interviews (N = 80) and nationally representative surveys (N = 1,763) with physicists and biologists in India, we begin to address this gap. We find that even though the majority of scientists report the independence view through our survey, when interviewed they say that religion and scientific work overlap considerably and in distinctive ways from the United States and the United Kingdom. Specifically, Indian scientific institutions (1) seek religious authorization, (2) offer religious accommodation to staff and students, and (3) facilitate selective integration of religion into the workplace. Our article shows how, in spite of scientists’ espoused preferences for non-overlapping magisteria and attempts to construct boundaries between religion and science, religion overlaps with science in scientific workplaces.
In popular culture, the relationship between science and religion has often been portrayed as one of “conflict.” The impact of the conflict thesis can be observed in church leaders’ hesitancy in talking about science and religion in the public domain, and it was this finding that inspired the project “Equipping Christian Leadership in an Age of Science.” The data presented in this article (collected during 2015–2018) are derived from two separate pieces of research carried out in the United Kingdom. The first consisting of a survey of over 1,000 church leaders and interviews with 20 senior church leaders and, the second, with a strategic focus on ministerial training composed of 12 interviews with church educators. This article reflects on the findings from both pieces of research—covering topics such as church leaders’ enthusiasm toward science, how church leaders view the relationship between science and religion and the role of compartmentalization in ministerial training.
The present research explores whether the use of overtly religious advertising by a sectarian university affects its academic reputation. The authors propose that individuals assume universities that engage in more (vs. less) overt religious advertising devote a greater proportion of their institutional resources toward religious education. Further, they posit that individuals exhibit zero-sum thinking about resource allocation whereby they believe that a university’s provision of greater resources toward religion education implies the availability of fewer resources for other academic programs and disciplines. As such, whereas overtly religious advertising can bolster individuals’ evaluations of programs and disciplines closely related to religion (e.g., divinity, theology), it can adversely affect evaluations of programs and disciplines in other areas (e.g., science, engineering, business, economics). Finally, the authors suggest that individuals’ zero-sum thinking has the potential to create the most reputational harm for a religious university’s scientific programs and disciplines due to the presumption of many individuals—even those who consider themselves religious—that religion and science are antithetical. This theorizing is empirically supported by six experiments with over 2,400 participants.
Background
Religion and science are typically portrayed as fundamentally at odds and in competition over truth claims. Yet recent studies have shown that many Americans, including scientists, do not necessarily hold such a straightforward perspective on this complicated relationship. The majority of current studies have been limited in fully capturing the way people construct and understand the relationship between these domains given their predominant use of close-ended survey methodologies.PurposeThis study seeks to enhance our knowledge of how people navigate religion and science issues by allowing young adults to respond to open-ended questions from semi-structured, in-depth interviews about how they navigate the domains of religion and science.Methods
We analyze 214 qualitative, in-depth interviews with young adults who participated in Wave 3 of the National Study of Youth and Religion.ResultsResults confirm that a warfare model is not the dominant perspective among young adults today. Rather, analyses revealed five predominant themes among young adults: (1) They commonly construe this relationship in purely individualistic terms, believing people do and should sort the truth out for themselves; (2) They see the two as mutually deficient and therefore both are needed to answer different questions; (3) Their understanding of this relationship reduces to how one views the origins of the world; (4) They believe the two can actually be mutually supportive; and (5) Any contention between the two stems from institutional conflicts, primarily in the realm of education, not competing claims about fundamental truths.Conclusions and ImplicationsBeliefs about religion and science among young adults are complex and not captured fully by close-ended survey questions. This question is clearly one that most young adults have considered and can articulate. Future research should consider how these beliefs are formulated and what influence they have on life outcomes.
From the Texas textbook debate to the March for Science, visible displays of activism illuminate how deeply politicized the science‐religion interface has become. However, little is known about the extent to which scientists’ attitudes about science and religion are politicized. Using original survey data from 1,989 U.S. academic biologists and physicists, we examine the degree to which political views shape how scientists perceive the relationship between religion and science, religious authority, their personal religious identity, and views on dominant scientific theories. Findings suggest that, indeed, the science‐religion interface holds political meaning for scientists, but in different ways across the political spectrum. Specifically, for politically liberal scientists, atheism and the conflict narrative are particularly politicized belief structures, while politically conservative scientists emphasize religious identity to distinguish themselves from political liberals. Findings point to the critical role of politics in shaping scientists’ attitudes and identities, which may have implications for the scientific enterprise, both at the lab bench and in the political sphere.
This paper seeks to advance the global study of religiosity and spirituality by conducting a meta-analysis of major approaches in the field. While the field, and thus the collected publications, are dominated by Western approaches, particular attention is paid in this analysis to publications from geographies that are not from the United States or Western Europe, especially these world regions: Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Similarly, while the study of religiosity is considerably centered around Christianity, this analysis extends beyond Christianity, to the extent possible in extant studies, to include publications investigating other world religious traditions, such as African spirituality, African witchcraft, Afro-Caribbean religious traditions, Buddhism, Confucianism, folk religions, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Neo-paganism, New Religious Movements (NRMs), Shamanism, Sikhism, Spiritism, Taoism, and spirituality generally. A total of 530 publications were reviewed, and the studies are categorized by unit of analysis into: Macro, micro, and meso-level. Measurement constructs include religious demography, culture, belonging, behaving, believing, bonding, religious salience, spiritual identities, religious networks, occupations, congregations, denominations, and faith-based organizations. Non-Western sources and approaches are analyzed toward furthering future research in under-studied world regions. Implications are drawn for the field, such as the need to geo-code publications at the country level.
Within science and technology studies, there is an established tradition of examining publics’ knowledge of, trust in, access to and engagement with science, but less attention has been paid to whether and why publics identify with science. While this is understandable given the field’s interest in bridging gaps between publics and producers of scientific knowledge, it leaves unanswered questions about how science forms part of people’s worldviews and fits into cultural politics and conflict. Based on 123 interviews and 16 focus groups with mixed religious and nonreligious publics and scientists in the United Kingdom and Canada, this article utilises approaches from the sociology of (non)religion to delineate varieties of science identification. It maps out ‘practical’, ‘norm-based’, ‘civilisational’ and ‘existential’ identifications and explores how these interrelate with people’s social characteristics. The article illustrates how science identification is typically dependent on a constellation of cultural/political influences rather than just emerging out of interest in science.
« Dans la suite des temps, le « garde-chiourme» ou le «cipier» [...] est devenu le «porte-clés»; le porte-clés s'est mué en «geôlier» ou «gardien de prison»; le gardien s'est transformé en «surveillant»; et celui-ci, s'il porte encore une clé, c'est presque à titre de symbole et en souvenir du passé; son rôle a évolué comme son titre, et bientôt ce sera «ré-éducateur social» qu'on l'appellera ». L. BELYM Inspecteur général de l'Administration Pénitentiaire Belge (1931)
Ces quelques mots suffisent à souligner l'importance et la diversité des fonctions du métier de surveillant pénitentiaire. A cette fin, j'ai souhaité travailler sur la diversité des logiques institutionnelles présentes sur ce champ et comprendre comment celles-ci influencent les pratiques pénitentiaires.
Este artigo apresenta um estudo empírico exploratório das atitudes e opiniões de religiosos acerca da ciência, cujos resultados foram interpretados a partir das noções de campo psicológico/espaço vital de Lewin. Objetivo: investigar a visão que adeptos de diferentes grupos religiosos brasileiros têm da ciência, os fatores que influenciaram essa visão (como a educação familiar e escolar) e o recurso à religião ou à ciência diante do sofrimento e do mal. Método: estudo transversal quantitativo com uso da Escala de Crença na Ciência e um questionário original investigando as perspectivas dos religiosos frente à ciência. Participantes: 206 mulheres e 102 homens (N=308) com diferentes afiliações religiosas. Resultados: como tendências gerais, verificou-se: (1) maior propensão à descrença na ciência, a despeito do reconhecimento de sua importância; (2) percepção de posição favorável à ciência por parte da religião e de grupos religiosos; (3) consideração de que não há conflito irreconciliável entre ciência e religião; e (4) maior tendência a buscar recursos na ciência e na religião ao mesmo tempo (ou exclusivamente na religião) para lidar com o sofrimento e o mal. Análises mais detalhadas evidenciaram, ainda, diferenças significativas entre as afiliações religiosas em seus níveis de aproximação ou afastamento da ciência.
This article answers the question of whether the study of theology and metaphysics can be classified currently, or ever qualify in the future, as a scientific endeavor. Rather than choose a particular theology or metaphysics as the subject of inquiry, this essay argues that it is not only necessary to recognize the role of hermeneutics within different fields of study, but that it is also necessary to begin a human hermeneutic with human experience. Changes in our global context, whether social, economic, political, or environmental, are important drivers of hermeneutical evolution. We should expect no less change in the areas of theology, metaphysics, and science. The question of truth, whether subjective or objective, is a hermeneutical one.
Classical sociology addressed the relationship between science and religion, but interest in the topic waned during the 20th century. A second wave of research has emerged in the 21st century, focusing on scientists' (ir)religiosity, evolution, and the relationship between knowledge and acceptance of scientific concepts. Most of this research has been conducted in the United States, used quantitative methods, and focused on creationism, although scholars have recently begun to explore different research methods and sites. Their results suggest that the “conflict thesis” is not valid and that publics and scientists' views tend to be fluid and strongly shaped by national context. The literature on nonreligion has also expanded, but its connection to science remains ripe for further development. A more intersectional approach would also benefit the field, as would increased engagement between public understanding of science scholars and sociologists studying science and religion. Research in both areas is showing that attitudes toward science and religion cannot be understood solely in terms of knowledge about either domain. There is scope for more empirical and theoretical work internationally eschewing the assumption that science and religion conflict and focusing more on identity, culture, and power relations.
The different forms of religious unbelief are still much of an open question. Using data (N = 4,404) from three European countries—Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands—we sought to identify underlying unbeliever groups among those with the strongest disbelief in God (N = 2,258). Latent class analyses were conducted on the nontheistic supernatural beliefs of this subsection of participants, resulting in the same three unbeliever groups in each country: analytic atheists, spiritual but not religious (SBNR), and uncertain nonbelievers. Next, we explored these groups on a variety of dimensions, especially on the group members’ attitudes to religion, certainty of beliefs, cognitive dispositions, and worldview. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed similarities as well as distinct characters for each of the latent groups. The groups differed most in intuitive thinking style, overmentalizing bias, and other ontological confusions. To compare the latent groups to all other individuals who took part in the study, two discriminant analyses were run with all participants. This resulted in four meaningful dimensions that supported and extended the ANOVAs findings and allowed for the consideration of other (non)believers. Overall, this study supports earlier findings on analytic atheists and SBNR while providing new information about their dispositions. Of interest, the uncertain nonbeliever group has been largely unexplored previously, and it should gain more attention in future studies.
Research on the religious lives of scientists focuses mainly on U.S. scientists. Drawing on 115 interviews with UK biologists and physicists collected between 2011 and 2014, we move beyond to examine how UK scientists understand religion, a context that is seemingly more secular than the United States. Findings show that scientists maintain the legitimacy of science through boundary work with religion, and under certain conditions religion may actually gain legitimacy from these tight boundaries. When religion violates this tight boundary by making claims that conflict with science, particularly in the form of creationist claims, scientists consider religion illegitimate and irrational, engaging in critical boundary work. Yet, when they see religion as adaptable to science, flexible rather than dogmatic, scientists believe religion may be beneficial and engage in more conciliatory boundary work. This article shows how scientists react to religion and use it in ways that protect science’s epistemological and institutional authority.
Our survey of 1,662 students of nearly equal gender and class standing revealed that our institution seems to affect both religious belief and practice in at least half of the students. The effects become evident after just one year and were generally sustained until graduation. Over all four years, ten aspects of university culture enhanced religious beliefs in 33% of students, and 48% reported increased five religious practices. Smaller numbers reported diminished belief (18%) and practices (22%).
Pre-college religiosity was amplified. Believers strengthened their beliefs, and skeptics became more skeptical. The same was true for all practice factors, except discussion with peers, who had a huge influence, even on enhancing religious practices by atheists and agnostics. Finally, regardless of pre-college religiousness, active believers and evangelicals were significantly more likely than atheists and agnostics to have enrolled in non-technical academic majors.
Education-inspired decline of religious thought and practice among students has long been conceived as a mechanism of secularization. How education correlates with religious outcomes, and vice versa, have been of interest both in academia and in the public, primarily because of the rise of the so-called “New Atheist” movement that seeks dominion within the intellectual sphere, the rise of the number of individuals who do not identify with a religion, and the guiding secular ethos of Western nations. Modern social research has exposed important limitations and caveats to the secularization paradigm that call into question to what extent, or even if, religious decline occurs during post-secondary schooling. This article presents the inadequacies and unsubstantiated assumptions of the secularization hypothesis through discussion of key topics of contention, namely: (1) propensities of religious to enroll and excel in school; (2) demographic changes in educational trajectories of religious and non-religious; (3) decline of religious service attendance among post-secondary students; (4) the dissolution of religious plausibility structures; (5) the “liberalization” of student religious opinion; and (6) the nature and process of religious disaffiliation during schooling. Although the consensus of this review is that education is generally not atrophic to religious orientation, exceptions in favor of the secularization hypothesis will also be presented.
Social scientists know very little about the consequences of exposure to scientific knowledge and holding different perspectives on science and religion for individuals' religious lives. Drawing on secularization and post-secular theories, we develop and test several hypotheses about the relationships among exposure to scientific knowledge, perspectives on religion and science, and religious commitment using panel data from the National Study of Youth and Religion. Our findings indicate that religious faith is strongest among young adults who: (1) accommodate scientific knowledge into their religious perspective, or (2) reject scientific knowledge that directly contradicts their religious beliefs about the origins of the world. Young adults are also more likely to have lower religious commitment when they view science and religion as independent institutions, lending support to secularization ideas about how social differentiation secularizes individuals. We further find that mere exposure to scientific knowledge, in terms of majoring in biology or acknowledging conflict between the teachings of religion and science, is usually not sufficient to undermine religious commitment.
The aim of this note is to present the main results of a survey carried out in 2011 which gathers information on French academics’ opinions and attitudes toward politics, economics, religion and ethical beliefs. The sample of respondents is large (N = 2,000) and the survey allows a comparison between academics and the overall French population by replicating questions of traditional surveys (EVS and Dynegal). We observe that French academics are considerably more left-wing, more hostile to free-market economy and more atheist than French citizens. Interestingly, a significant share of academics tends to adopt ethical guidelines that are similar to those of religious people.
Science is frequently defined by the types of empirical methods and knowledge production practices employed, all with the goal to better understand the natural world. Nature is the “stuff” or subject of science. It is perceived as the domain of natural scientists since they receive extensive training to discover what exists “out there.” Yet social scientists have long been interested in the institution of science—how science is produced, practiced, and understood as an institution by the broader public. Throughout this chapter, I review general trends within social science literature centered on the interaction between religion and science. Rather than regard secularization as inevitable, I discuss how increasingly scholars are able empirically to trace the ways in which individuals (both the general public and those in the academy) interact with institutional sources of authority (both religious and scientific) in light of variation in beliefs, knowledge, and practices.
This article unpacks the notion of institutional complexity and highlights the distinct sets of challenges confronting hybrid structural arrangements. The framework identifies three factors that contribute to the experience of complexity—namely, the extent to which the prescriptive demands of logics are incompatible, whether there is a settled or widely accepted prioritization of logics within the field, and the degree to which the jurisdictions of the logics overlap. The central thesis is that these “components” of complexity variously combine to produce four distinct institutional landscapes, each with differing implications for the challenges organizations face and for how they might respond. The article explores the situational relevance of an array of hybridizing responses and discusses their implications for organizational legitimacy and performance. It concludes by specifying the boundary conditions of the framework and highlighting fruitful directions for future scholarship.
The unusually low number of religious affiliates in science has been a perplexing phenomenon ever since James Leuba originally reported his findings on the religiosity of scientists in 1914. It has been traditionally assumed that low religious turnout in science is a consequence of epistemological conflicts between religion and science dissuading religious affiliates from pursuing scientific careers. The potential contribution of the scientific institution itself (and its social practices), however, has been seldom questioned as a contributing factor. Herein I hypothesize and argue that several socio- psychological mechanisms of social bias potentiate discrimination within the scientific institution, favouring non-religious candidates in recruitment into the scientific role as well as during subsequent career advancement. These mechanisms include: (1) Boundary posturing and identity formation psychology; (2) Implicit association psychology and (3) Stereotype anxiety psychology. For reasons discussed, differences in educational attainment rates between religious affiliates and disaffiliates, differences in natural inclinations towards science and scientific topics, and socialization processes in academia towards secularism, are all unlikely explanations for the low number of religious affiliates in science. Discrimination against religious scientists, if present, should be made clearly recognized through study and ameliorated through educational and/or institutional policies if we are to both safeguard human dignity and foster a robust scientific enterprise necessary for the 21st century global economy.
Religious stratification was a prominent part of colonial America. Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were so dominant socially, economically, and politically that they became known as “the Protestant Establishment.” Below them was a second stratum consisting of Unitarians and the Religious Society of Friends (a.k.a. Quakers). All other Protestants, such as Baptists and Methodists, occupied a third stratum. Catholics, Jews, and people with no religious affiliation were at the bottom (Davidson and Pyle 2011; Pyle 1996; Pyle and Davidson 2003). Scholars have different views of what has happened to religious stratification since the colonial period. Some emphasize the changes that have taken place, such as the decline in both hegemony and size of the Protestant Establishment and the upward mobility of Catholics and Jews (Baltzell 1958, 1964, 1976; Christopher 1989; Hammond 1992a, 1992b; Hutchison 1989; Roof and McKinney 1987; Schrag 1970; Schneiderman 1994). Others stress the continuities, pointing out that Episcopalians, UCC/Congregationalists, and Presbyterians are still at or near the top of society and that other groups, such as the Baptists, which were at or near the bottom of the status hierarchy in colonial times, still occupy that position (Davidson 2008; Feagin 1984; Greeley 1977; Knebel 1968; Pyle 1996; Rossides 1990; Sturdivant and Adler 1976).
We present a framework that deconstructs institutional complexity and articulates the range of hybrid arrangements that organizations adopt to cope with multiple institutional demands. The framework highlights three factors that contribute to the experience of complexity – namely, the extent to which the prescriptive demands of logics are incompatible, whether there is a settled or widely accepted prioritization of logics within the field, and the degree to which the jurisdictional claims of the logics overlap. Our central thesis is that these ‘components’ of complexity variously combine to produce four distinct institutional landscapes, each with differing implications for how organizations might respond. We explore the situational relevance of an array of hybridizing responses and discuss their implications for organizational legitimacy and performance. We conclude by specifying the boundary conditions of the framework and highlighting fruitful directions for future scholarship.
This article addresses the development of attitudes toward religion and identity formation among "active" atheists-that is, those who participate in atheist activism or are members of atheist communities or organizations. It presents interview research that illustrates heterogeneity in the trajectories by which individuals arrive at an atheist identity, and argues that we might understand atheist identity development as a process of "discovery" in three senses: discovery of ideas, self-discovery, and discovery of the collective. This last sense of discovery refers to the atheist movement, which encourages participation by constructing a positive collective identity that individual atheists can draw on in constructing their own sense of self. The collective and social movement aspects of atheism are crucial to our understanding of individual atheist identity formation.
In recent years, the concept of boundaries has been at the center of influential research agendas in anthropology, history, political science, social psychology, and sociology. This article surveys some of these developments while describing the value added provided by the concept, particularly concerning the study of relational processes. It discusses literatures on (a) social and collective identity; (b) class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sex inequality; (c) professions, knowledge, and science; and (d) communities, national identities, and spatial boundaries. It points to similar processes at work across a range of institutions and social locations. It also suggests paths for further developments, focusing on the relationship between social and symbolic boundaries, cultural mechanisms for the production of boundaries, difference and hybridity, and cultural membership and group classifications.
Dr. Carlton, a young pediatrician at a large academic medical center, rarely asks patients and families about their spiritual or religious backgrounds. Aside from not using blood prod- ucts with the few patients she treats who are Jehovah's Witnesses, she would not know what to do with any information about religion or spirituality patients shared with her. "We're taught to think about interviewing people," she explained, by asking questions that influ- ence the medical management of patients. Without a clear sense of the application, she sees no reason to ask patients about topics related to religion. Additionally, she explains, "I think there's a little bit of discomfort for people (physicians), just bringing up the whole religious issue." Such issues might become "more relevant when you're dealing with a child who is ill, especially . . . an illness that seems out of control," she explains, but in her work with mostly healthy children these cases are few and far between. Dr. Patel, a pediatric oncologist at a similar large urban medical center, has a different approach. She explores questions of religion and spirituality with each of the patients and families in her care. This information, she explains, helps her understand "what else we could do to better help this family in terms of trying to cope with certain situations . . . so that we
The religiosity of scientists is a persistent topic of interest and debate among both popular and academic commentators. Researchers look to this population as a case study for understanding the intellectual tensions between religion and science and the possible secularizing effects of education. There is little systematic study, however, of religious belief and identity among academic scientists at elite institutions, leaving a lacuna of knowledge in this area. This absence of data exists at a time when the intersection between religion and science is reaching heightened public attention. Especially with increased tensions surrounding teaching evolution in the public schools, understanding what kind of resources scientists have (particularly in terms of their own religious beliefs and practices) to transmit science to a broader religiously-motivated public is crucial. Using data from a recent survey of academic scientists at twenty-one elite U.S. research universities, we compare the religious beliefs and practices of natural and social scientists within seven disciplines as well as academic scientists to the general population. We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists. We discuss the relevance these findings have for understanding issues related to current theory and public debate about the intersection between religion and science.
This article analyzes the newest front in the creationist battle: intelligent design. I demonstrate how reactions to this challenge can be productively examined using social movements concepts in the area of repression, or protest control, arguing that vigorous repression of challenger demands often leads to a growing sense of solidarity and moral obligation among challenging groups like creationists. Following this discussion of movement dynamics, I explore the question of how students might actually be affected if intelligent design were to be minimally incorporated into school curricula in an era when science has enormous cultural authority I conclude with four prescriptive proposals that progressives might consider for responding to future creationist challenges.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Creationism is only a local movement, prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that read the Bible as an inerrant, literally true document. Creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism, for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth. The lack of conflict arises from a lack of overlap between the respective domains of professional expertise of science and religion. No conflict should exist because the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap. According to the principle of NOMA — “nonoverlapping magisteria” — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value. This principle was obeyed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. They both saw no conflict between Catholic faith and a theory of evolution. However, there is one important difference between their positions. Pius XII admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis, but at the same time he proclaimed that the theory of evolution had not been proven and might well be wrong. On the other hand, John Paul II stated that evolution can no longer be doubted. Now, he stated, evolution must be accepted not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. This fact is no threat to religion if one accepts the principle of NOMA. As a consequence of this principle, religion can no longer dictate the factual conclusions that belong to the magisterium of science, nor may scientists decide on moral truths.
The purpose of this book was to redress the gap in knowledge regarding determinants of college success for racial and ethnic groups. The book flows naturally from William G. Bowen and Derek Bok's (1998) The Shape of the River and serves as a look upstream. Bowen and Bok sought to describe the diverse students who had been recruited to elite institutions in the decades following the civil rights movement. Massey, Charles, Lundy, and Fisher ask: Who are the students that Bowen and Bok described? Where did they come from? What were their characteristics? How did those characteristics shape their academic progress? To answer these questions, the authors conducted the National Longitudinal Study of Freshmen using nearly the same set of elite institutions (28 total) that were used by Bowen and Bok to complete their study. At regular intervals, Massey et al. measured the academic and social progress of those elite college students, measured the degree of social integration and intellectual engagement, and controlled for pre-existing background differences with respect to social, economic, and demographic characteristics. Equal size samples of White, Black, Asian American, and Latino first-year students entering these colleges and universities were taken first using face-to-face interviews and later telephone surveys, prior to arrival on campus, at the time of entry, and in the second half of the first year.
The authors lay the groundwork with an impeccable literature review on the possible explanations for minority underachievement. They categorize that broad array of literature into six overall theoretical topics: capital deficiency, oppositional culture, stereotype threat, peer influence, attachment theory, and critical theory. This chapter alone should be required reading for any doctoral student or scholar undertaking a study of college students of color. The authors next turn to the task of using their sample of elite students to evaluate the relevancy of the six theories of minority underachievement.
The methods are described with an impressive level of detail (chapter 2 and appendices A and B), so that one could easily replicate the study at another set of institutions, the logical next step from this study. The book presents us with the results organized according to the major factors of a typical causal model—"Family Origin" (chapter 3), "Neighborhood Background" (chapter 4), "Prior Educational Experiences" (chapter 5), "The Social World of High School" (chapter 6), "Racial Identity and Attitudes" (chapter 7), "Pathways to Preparation" (chapter 8), and "Sink or Swim: The First Semester" (chapter 9). Results are summed up in "Lessons Learned" (chapter 10), which includes challenges and support for the six theoretical categories from chapter 2.
An interesting element of the book was the discussion of self-esteem. Students of color arrive at the elite institutions with higher levels of self-esteem than their White and Asian American counterparts. Perhaps, these students of color attending elite institutions require extraordinary confidence to apply and commit to attending, though they are less likely to be as successful meeting academic goals. On the other hand, an African American student who attends a historically Black college or university is more likely to survive the experience with self-esteem intact. Additionally, students of color who doubted their own abilities upon entering were more sensitive to the views of their teachers and earned lower GPAs than did other students of color, reinforcing research on stereotype threat (Steel & Aronson, 1995). This finding suggests the importance of messages, whether subtle or overt, that faculty send to students regarding their abilities, and it points to the importance of having role models of color as teachers in classrooms.
The high self-confidence and self-esteem for Black and Latino students could be viewed as an opportunity in the transition to college. Programs could be shaped to take advantage of the positive attitudes that Black and Latino students bring to college to help them gain a stronger foothold and avoid the negative outcomes associated with stereotype threat.
One disappointment for me was the manner in which financial resources of the students were measured. The authors included an impressive array of variables: parent education and advanced degrees, welfare participation, whether or not the student applied for financial aid, household income over $100,000, median household income...
Data from a probability sample of a state university faculty are analyzed to determine whether academic discipline is predictive of faculty religiosity. Wide variations observed on four of Glock's proposed dimensions of religiosity are compared to the scientist-nonscientist dichotomy of fields and to "scholarly distance from religion," a construct delineated in the paper. The scientist-nonscientist scheme is not predictive of religiosity scores. Scholarly distance from religion successfully orders the scores. A relationship between scholarly distance from religion and religiosity seems to be interpreted partly by the effect of scholarly distance from religion on cognitive differentiation of religion and on social support for religiosity, especially the former. Selectivity of discipline and present religiosity appear to be based on childhood religious background, but controlling for childhood religiosity does not alter the original relationships greatly.
One means of understanding the relationship between science and religion in contemporary society is to study those persons who are most fully exposed to both systems-scientists themselves. An assessment of the religious practices and beliefs of a representative sample of American natural scientists indicates that they are neo-orthodox in their religious orientation. This pattern is underscored by a rather dramatic shift from the religious affiliations of their parents. Moreover, there is considerable variation in the religious orientation among scientists. Scientists in applied fields and those working outside of major universities are, in contrast to other scientists, somewhat more orthodox in their religious beliefs and practices.
First published in 1896, this two-volume history of the conflict between theology and science quickly became a landmark text. It was widely recognised, along with John William Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, as a defining study of the relationship between religion and science. A distinguished educator, scholar and writer, Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University. White held the view that religion was historically opposed to progress in the field of science. He argued that any interference on the part of religion in science had always proved disastrous, whereas scientific investigation, no matter how seemingly damaging to religion, had always resulted in the highest good. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom is the culmination of thirty years of White's research, publication and lectures on the subject. Volume two discusses medicine, insanity, mythology, political economy and comparative philology.
Americans support science as well as religion-but these two things are often at odds. In the wake of recent controversies about teaching intelligent design and the ethics of embryonic-stem- cell research, greater understanding between scientists and the general religious public is critical. What is needed is a balanced assessment of the middle ground that can exist between science and religion. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think? is the definitive statement on this timely, politically charged subject. After thousands of hours spent talking to the nation's leading scientists, Elaine Howard Ecklund argues that the American public has widespread misconceptions about scientists' views of religion. Few scientists are committed secularists. Only a small minority actively reject and work against religion. And many are themselves religious. The majority are whom she calls spiritual pioneers, who desire to link their spirituality with a greater mission for the work they do as scientists. In the current climate, even scientists who are not religious recognize that they must engage with religion as they are pressed by their students to respond to faith in the classroom-what Ecklund calls environmental push. Based on a survey and interviews with scientists at more than 20 elite U.S. universities, Ecklund's book argues that other scientists must step up to the table of dialogue and that American believers must embrace science again. Both science and religion are at stake if any less is done.
African Americans and Latinos earn lower grades and drop out of college more often than whites or Asians. Yet thirty years after deliberate minority recruitment efforts began, we still don't know why. InThe Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok documented the benefits of affirmative action for minority students, their communities, and the nation at large. But they also found that too many failed to achieve academic success. InThe Source of the River, Douglas Massey and his colleagues investigate the roots of minority underperformance in selective colleges and universities. They explain how such factors as neighborhood, family, peer group, and early schooling influence the academic performance of students from differing racial and ethnic origins and differing social classes.Drawing on a major new source of data--the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen--the authors undertake a comprehensive analysis of the diverse pathways by which whites, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians enter American higher education. Theirs is the first study to document the different characteristics that students bring to campus and to trace out the influence of these differences on later academic performance. They show that black and Latino students do not enter college disadvantaged by a lack of self-esteem. In fact, overconfidence is more common than low self-confidence among some minority students. Despite this, minority students are adversely affected by racist stereotypes of intellectual inferiority. Although academic preparation is the strongest predictor of college performance, shortfalls in academic preparation are themselves largely a matter of socioeconomic disadvantage and racial segregation.Presenting important new findings,The Source of the Riverdocuments the ongoing power of race to shape the life chances of America's young people, even among the most talented and able.
DiversityComplexityRespectabilityCritiquesDarwinismConclusion
Works cited
This is the book that has forever changed the debate on affirmative action in America. The Shape of the River is the most far-reaching and comprehensive study of its kind. It brings a wealth of empirical evidence to bear on how race-sensitive admissions policies actually work and clearly defines the effects they have had on over 45,000 students of different races. Its conclusions mark a turning point in national discussions of affirmative action--anything less than factual evidence will no longer suffice in any serious debate of this vital question. Glenn Loury's new foreword revisits the basic logic behind race-sensitive policies, asserting that since individuals use race to conceptualize themselves, we must be conscious of race as we try to create rules for a just society. Loury underscores the need for confronting opinion with fact so we can better see the distinction between the "morality of color-blindness" and the "morality of racial justice."
The demarcation of science from other intellectual activities-long an analytic problem for philosophers and sociologists-is here examined as a practical problem for scientists. Construction of a boundary between science and varieties of non-science is useful for scientists' pursuit of professional goals: acquisition of intellectual authority and career opportunities; denial of these resources to "pseudoscientists"; and protection of the autonomy of scientific research from political interference. "Boundary-work" describes an ideological style found in scientists' attempts to create a public image for science by contrasting it favorably to non-scientific intellectual or technical activities. Alternative sets of characteristics available for ideological attribution to science reflect ambivalences or strains within the institution: science can be made to look empirical or theoretical, pure or applied. However, selection of one or another description depends on which characteristics best achieve the demarcation in a way that justifies scientists' claims to authority or resources. Thus, "science" is no single thing: its boundaries are drawn and redrawn inflexible, historically changing and sometimes ambiguous ways.
Two basic approaches to reducing the perceived religion/science conflict are: a) to alter either religious teachings or scientific theories, or b) to create a better understanding of the differences between science and religion. For example, an attempt to reduce perceived conflict through the use of new scientific data has been made by R. W. Sperry, whose discussion of the religious implications of recent developments in cognitive psychology is presented here, along with some related developments in an area called "chaos." It is argued that these developments do not support religious concepts. However, they may serve as a source of analogies or new ways of thinking to aid in the understanding of religious concepts.
The present research replicates earlier findings that the Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Quest orientations are differentially related with religious conflict. Additional analyses explored the relations between specific dimensions of religious orientation and conflict. Quest was significantly associated with a sense of uncertainty. The Doubt component of Quest also correlated significantly with a perceived need to be more valiant in one's religiousness and with the belief that it is difficult to reconcile science with religion. Intrinsic religiousness was either negatively or not correlated with conflict. Social-Extrinsic and Religious Seriousness scores were positively related to conflict. Personal-Extrinsic religiousness showed a complex relationship with conflict, correlating negatively, positively, or not at all with aspects of conflict.
In a study that used Hermans's (1987, 1988) valuation procedure, 40 participants each provided a highly valued experience of four types: science, religion, interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict between science and religion. They then rated these valuations on 30 affect terms, some of which were later organized into categories: Positive, Negative, Self, and Other. Participants also filled out questionnaires that were used to categorize them as low or high in scientific and religious orientation. Typical valuations of participants in these four science and religion categories are presented as qualitative idiographic information. In addition, quantitative analyses of affect ratings are presented as nomothetic information. Generally, affect ratings of scientific experiences were more Self-directed while religious experience valuations involved equally high levels of Self and Other affect. Both scientific and religious experiences were evaluated as having Positive but not Negative affect. Interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict were experienced as more Self-directed than Other-oriented. While interpersonal conflicts displayed more Negative affect than Positive, intrapersonal conflict was evaluated equally on these two measures.
In a previous study of a state-supported university in the Southeast, no statistically significant differences were found in the personal religiosity of faculty in scientific and nonscientific disciplines. On the other hand, faculty in fields in which religion is likely to be studied (eg, sociology and psychology) were found to be less religious than faculty in fields in which religion is not studied (eg, engineering and physics). The present research was undertaken to determine whether these results are generalizable to another region and to other types of schools. The data, gathered from faculty at 15 schools in a large Midwestern metropolitan area, suggest that the earlier results can be generalized, but only to secular colleges and universities. In church-related schools virtually the opposite relationships obtain; in those schools faculty in scientific fields are less religious than faculty in nonscientific fields, whereas there is no systematic relationship between faculty religiosity and the extent to which a faculty member's discipline involves the study of religion. The different patterns observed in church-related schools are probably traceable to the concentration of faculty pursuing religious vocations in fields involving the study of religion.
The boundary between science and religion has long been a site for cultural and professional conflict. We examine the testimony of scientists at the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925 and at the McLean "Creation-Science" trial in 1981-82. The two trials were public occasions for scientists to present ideologies of science that legitimated their professional claims to cognitive authority, public financing and control over part of the public school curriculum. The rhetoric of scientists at each trial was directed toward a separate professional goal: at Scopes, scientists differentiated scientific knowledge from religious belief in a way that presented them as distinctively useful but complementary; at McLean, the boundary between science and religion was drawn to exclude creation scientists from the profession. Both goals-(1) differentiation of a valued commodity uniquely provided by science, and (2) exclusion of pseudoscientists-are important for scientists' establishment of a professional monopoly over the market for knowledge about nature. Each goal, however, required different descriptions of "science" at the two trials, and we conclude that this ideological flexibility has contributed to the successful professionalization of scientists in American society.
One means of understanding the relationship between science and religion in contemporary society is to study those persons who are most fully exposed to both systems-scientists themselves. An assessment of the religious practices and beliefs of a representative sample of American natural scientists indicates that they are neo-orthodox in their religious orientation. This pattern is underscored by a rather dramatic shift from the religious affiliations of their parents. Moreover, there is considerable variation in the religious orientation among scientists. Scientists in applied fields and those working outside of major universities are, in contrast to other scientists, somewhat more orthodox in their religious beliefs and practices.
Data from a probability sample of a state university faculty are analyzed to determine whether academic discipline is predictive
of faculty religiosity. Wide variations observed on four of dock's proposed dimensions of religiosity are compared to the
scientist-nonscientist dichotomy of fields and to “scholarly distance from religion,” a construct delineated in the paper.
The scientist-nonscientist scheme is not predictive of religiosity scores. Scholarly distance from religion successfully orders
the scores. A relationship between scholarly distance from religion and religiosity seems to be interpreted partly by the
effect of scholarly distance from religion on cognitive differentiation of religion and on social support for religiosity,
especially the former. Selectivity of discipline and present religiosity appear to be based on childhood religious background,
but controlling for childhood religiosity does not alter the original relationships greatly.
In this historical overview of American fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Marsden provides an introduction to the growing religious movements and a deeper analysis of two themes that have been especially prominent and controversial in these traditions views of science and views of politics."
Finally, social scientists have begun to attempt to understand religious behavior rather than to discredit it as irrational, ignorant, or foolish--and Rodney Stark and Roger Finke have played a major role in this new approach. Acknowledging that science cannot assess the supernatural side of religion (and therefore should not claim to do so), Stark and Finke analyze the observable, human side of faith. In clear and engaging prose, the authors combine explicit theorizing with animated discussions as they move from considering the religiousness of individuals to the dynamics of religious groups and then to the religious workings of entire societies as religious groups contend for support. The result is a comprehensive new paradigm for the social-scientific study of religion.
Culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented, but by shaping a repertoire or "tool kit" of habits, skills, and styles from which people construct "strategies of action." Two models of cultural influence are developed, for settled and unsettled cultural periods. In settled periods, culture independently influences action, but only by providing resources from which people can construct diverse lines of action. In unsettled cultural periods, explicit ideologies directly govern action, but structural opportunities for action determine which among competing ideologies survive in the long run. This alternative view of culture offers new opportunities for systematic, differentiated arguments about culture's causal role in shaping action.
The evolution of American spirituality over the past fifty years is the subject of Robert Wuthnow's engrossing new book. Wuthnow uses in-depth interviews and a broad range of resource materials to show how Americans, from teenagers to senior citizens, define their spiritual journeys. His findings are a telling reflection of the changes in beliefs and lifestyles that have occurred throughout the United States in recent decades. Wuthnow reconstructs the social and cultural reasons for an emphasis on a spirituality of dwelling (houses of worship, denominations, neighborhoods) during the 1950s. Then in the 1960s a spirituality of seeking began to emerge, leading individuals to go beyond established religious institutions. In subsequent chapters Wuthnow examines attempts to reassert spiritual discipline, encounters with the sacred (such as angels and near-death experiences), and the development of the 'inner self'. His final chapter discusses a spirituality of practice, an alternative for people who are uncomfortable within a single religious community and who want more than a spirituality of endless seeking. The diversity of contemporary American spirituality comes through in the voices of the interviewees. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Native Americans are included, as are followers of occult practices, New Age religions, and other eclectic groups. Wuthnow also notes how politicized spirituality, evangelical movements, and resources such as Twelve-Step programs and mental health therapy influence definitions of religious life today. Wuthnow's landmark book, "The Restructuring of American Religion" (1988), documented the changes in institutional religion in the United States; now "After Heaven" explains the changes in personal spirituality that have come to shape our religious life. Moreover, it is a compelling and insightful guide to understanding American culture at century's end.
This paper advances the concept of `cultural identity' to account for the nexus between structure and practice in technological negotiations. It describes how the formation of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and that group's subsequent discourse and nonverbal actions, both reproduced the established identities of group members and contributed to negotiations that reconstituted those identities. In particular, UCS claims about emergency core-cooling systems in nuclear plants were congruent with the combination of a shared ideology, the social interests of MIT faculty, and established principles of engineering design. The cultural analysis of identity reproduction shows the opposition between cognitive and social phenomena to be a significant distinction framing action in Western culture. The analysis also suggests that new attention be given to the relationship between the constitutive and reproductive functions of discourse and nonverbal action.
