Science Vs. Religion

Science Vs. Religion

What Scientists Really Think

Book - 2010
Average Rating:
Rate this:
Baker & Taylor
Examines the science versus religion debate by interviewing scientists regarding their own faiths.

Oxford University Press
That the longstanding antagonism between science and religion is irreconcilable has been taken for granted. And in the wake of recent controversies over teaching intelligent design and the ethics of stem-cell research, the divide seems as unbridgeable as ever.

In Science vs. Religion, Elaine Howard Ecklund investigates this unexamined assumption in the first systematic study of what scientists actually think and feel about religion. In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion. The book centers around vivid portraits of 10 representative men and women working in the natural and social sciences at top American research universities. Ecklund's respondents run the gamut from Margaret, a chemist who teaches a Sunday-school class, to Arik, a physicist who chose not to believe in God well before he decided to become a scientist. Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion.

With broad implications for education, science funding, and the thorny ethical questions surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and other cutting-edge scientific endeavors, Science vs. Religion brings a welcome dose of reality to the science and religion debates.

Publisher: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2010
ISBN: 9780195392982
Branch Call Number: 215 ECK
Characteristics: xi, 228 p. ;,25 cm.
Alternative Title: Science versus religion


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Apr 14, 2014

Ecklund includes "social scientists" as if they were actually scientists...which they are not. I expect that alone would bias her results, but then this author is famous for plying her biased statistics to present dishonest views about the perspective of scientists. The fact is, the higher up the chain of scientific achievement you look, the less the scientists believe the theists. Right up to the National Academy, the most successful scientists in the USA, of whom almost zero hold any religious belief. You wont hear her talk about that though...

Apr 14, 2014

Criticism: .... . .
criticism of the Templeton Foundation: .....
and, see: . . .
Methodological Naturalism vs
Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism
and . . .
Naturalism (philosophy)

Aug 28, 2012

An important book showing what scientists actually think about religion. Many are religious, many are not. Most who are irreligious aren't so because of science, but for other reasons. How they were raised and their personal experiences with religious people play the biggest role in shaping their beliefs. In order for science to have a bright future in America religious scientists need to speak up and be heard, and secular scientists need to accept the importance of having a dialogue. Without such a dialogue, the scientific enterprise in America will be threatened.

And yes, social scientists are indeed scientists. Why do you think the word "scientist" is in the job description? It's one thing to suggest the author is biased, it's another thing entirely to actually explain in which way the author is biased. Seems like a blind assertion, very unscientific.

Indeed, the more career success a scientist has the less likely he/she is to be religious, but should that be surprising? That's the case in nearly every other field. Pointing it out proves what? That these "less successful because they didn't make the NAS" scientists who are more likely to be theists are stupid? Or not good at science, despite their PhDs? Should living the majority of your life in a lab be a requirement in order to be regarded as an authority figure on religious matters? I'd actually say it's the opposite.

Age Suitability

Add Age Suitability

There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.


Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number


Subject Headings


Find it at FVRL

To Top