Science in Christian Perspective
Religious Beliefs of Scientists
RUSSELL HEDDENDORF
Geneva College,
Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania 15010
From: JASA 23 (March 1971): 10-11.
Several Studies
The question of what kind of religious beliefs are held by men of science has
had a long history. While passing through the intellectual scene, observers of
all persuasions tip their hats to this perennial topic. It was
inevitable, therefore,
that the social scientist would direct his questionnaires at the
scientific community.
This has been done in rather relentless fashion within the past 5 years, with
the result that some rather significant light, blessed with an empirical glow,
has been shed on the problem.
The path-breaking work, however, was done by James Leuba some 35 years ago.1 Sending
a questionnaire to scientists chosen from Cattell's American Men of Science in
1933, Leuba sought to understand the attitudes of several hundred of
these scientists
toward a God influenced by worship and immortality. He found that 30% of this
group believed in a God moved to action by worship while 33% believed
in immortality.
The fact he considers to be of greater importance was that 41% did not believe
in immortality while 56% did not believe in God. His general
conclusion was that
while scientists are not as irreligious as one might think, they do not tend to
support traditional belief systems. His explanation for these
findings was based
on the belief that scientists share unique patterns of knowledge and
personality
characteristics.
A thoroughgoing study of this question was presented five years ago
by a sociologist.
Patterning his work on that of Leuba's, Rodney Stark addresses
himself more precisely
to the question of whether religion and science are in conflict.2 Studying data
collected in 1958 for 2,462 students from 25 universities, he
concludes that religion
and science are not in clear conflict. Contrary to his assumption, scientists
will not be exclusively scientific or religious. While religious
values did weaken
with increased scientific training, as he predicted, they did not
completely disappear.
He finds the self-image held by the scientist to be the critical
factor in determining
whether the value system of science will replace that of religion.
Thus, he typifies
the graduate student of science as uninvolved in religion, lowly involved, and
highly involved.
In a more recent study, several sociologists concluded that
scientists are relatively
neutral to religion.3 Basing their findings on 642 questionnaires
which were mailed
to scientists selected from American Men of Science, these
researchers claim that
religion and science have arranged for an accommodation of their differences.
This conclusion is based on the fact that 61% of their respondents stated that
religion and science are
in separate realms, but not in conflict. Of this total group, 17% saw religion
and science as complementary and only 14% considered them to be in
conflict.
Finally, we refer to a study completed last year by two sociologists.4 The contention
suggested in this study is that religion and science are not in clear conflict
because scientists are not less religious than nonscientists. The
scientist does
not necessarily reject religion, a conclusion which was found by Stark to have
validity. Rather, these researchers claim, what is important is the scholarly
distance of the scientist from religion. Thus, one finds that those researchers
who approach religion from a traditional scholarly perspective,
meaning a discipline
with low scholarly distance such as psychology or sociology, will demonstrate
less religious involvement than those with a higher scholarly distance such as
is found in physics.
Intervening Variables
Once the question of intervening variables which may be causal in
nature is raised,
the question develops an interesting complexity. This matter of
scientific field
was dealt with in three of these studies. Leuba categorizes four
groups of scientists;
physicists, biologists, sociologists and psychologists. He finds that
physicists
had the greatest proportion of believers (38%) while psychologists
had the smallest
(10%).5
Following the same approach, Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg believe that
scientists
in applied areas may have a stronger religious commitment than other scientists.6
Both of these claims tend to support the validity of the scholarly
distance variable
and further suggest that religion and science are more likely to come
into conflict
as the area of specialization is unable to be kept separate from a
religious belief
system.
Another variable which is claimed in three studies to be a causal
factor influencing
religious belief is scientific eminence. Leuba notes, for example,
that the more
eminent the scientist in each discipline, the weaker the belief in
God or immortality.7
Stark concurs with this finding. He notes that students with a high
quality graduate
and undergraduate training tend to have a weaker religious involvement.8 Such
students, he claims, trade religious ties for a scholarly and
scientific self-image,
thus suggesting that the two sets of values are not completely compatible. The
influence of the large and prestigious university was also noted in
the 1966 study.
It was found that scientists in such universities were less inclined to attend
church or to believe in life after death than scientists in business,
government,
or smaller schools.9
A final variable which was considered in three of these studies is
religious tradition
of the scientist. Lehman and Shriver suggest that parental
religiosity is related
to faculty religiosity.10 They note, however, that scientific discipline
appears to be an intervening variable. Scientists with a more
religious background
may choose fields with higher scholarly distance, thereby supporting
their religious
perspectives. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg emphasize the movement of scientists
away from the religion of their parents. They found that 54% of their group had
religious affiliations different from those of their parents.11 From this
finding, they imply that scientists, while still desiring a place for religious
expression, shift to churches which are more liberal and with a
higher socio-economic
status. Stark also provides data which underscore a drift on the part
of graduate
students away from their religious traditions. He sees this erosion
as a process
which increases as the student moves to higher levels of education.12 What he
notes, in contrast to the previous studies, is that graduate students tend to
lose religious beliefs while established scientists are more inclined to shift
their religious affiliation rather than lose it.
Interpretation of Studies
These data, of course, would allow speculation to move into many
directions. One
gets the impression that scientists, like most persons, may use religion as a
symbol of their increasing status through the process of changing
church membership.
The graduate student, being less concerned with such status, would be
more willing
to give up any claim to religious affiliation. Apparently, the
scientist may not
he different from the nonscientist in his religious beliefs.
Yet, the findings on eminence and field of discipline suggest that
the scientist
does experience influences which would not be operative on the
nonscientist. The
extent to which these influences are the result of the scientist's membership
in a learned community or his role as an independent seeker for truth
is not clearly
dealt with in these studies. Indeed, one might also suggest that the relatively
stronger belief in immortality merely shows that the scientist is influenced by
his humanity, devoid of any social or scientific overtones.
What does appear to be firmly established by these studies is that there is no
clear conflict between religion and science. The problem that remains, however,
is whether the removal of this conflict has resulted in a form of
compromise between
the two spheres of knowledge. If such should be the case, it is quite
likely that
religion is being absorbed by science, The implications of such a possibility
are critical. Stark recognizes the increasing influence of the scientist in our
society and concludes that "we much suspect that future American society
will either become increasingly irreligious, or that religion will be
extensively
modified. In the latter case, the historical conflict between re
ligion and science may be finally resolved."13
REFERENCES
1Leuba, James, "Religious Beliefs of American Scientists", Harpers, 169 (August, 1934), 291-300
2Stark, Rodney, "On the Incompatability of Religion and Science. A Survey
of American Graduate Students", Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion,
III (Fall, 1963), 3-20
3Vaughan, Ted, Smith, Douglas, and Siobere, Gideon, "The
Religious Orientations
of American Natural Scientists", Social Forces, XLIV (June,
1966), 519-526
4Lehman, Edward, and Shriver, Donald, "Academic Discipline
as Predictive of Faculty Religiosity", Social Forces, XLVII
(December, 1968),
171-182
5op. cit. 294
6Op. cit. 525
70p. cit. 296-297
8Op. cit. 8-12
9Vaoghan, Smith,
and Sjobert, op. cit. 525
100p. cit. 180-181
110p. cit. 522-523
120p. cit. 8-10
13Op. cit. 14
APPENDIX
The results of a survey of over 60,000 faculty
members were recently published in The Chronicle of
Higher Education, (April 6, 1970). Some of the data were based on the question,
"In what religion were you raised and what is your present religion?"
The results tended to validate the conclusions already suggested. Some of the
results selected for illustration are as follows:
Field Per cent not raised in any religion | Per cent with no religious beliefs now
Sociology
5.8
41.7
Anthropology
8.7
56.1
Psychology
5.4
44.1
Philosophy
6.0
40.8
Biology
4.4
30.0
Mathematics 5.0 30.3
Chemistry
4.0
25.3
Geology
5.4
31.4
Physics
7.5
34.9
Business
1.6
11.8
Engineering
4.5
16.8
Nursing
1.7
7.8
Agriculture
2.3
7.3
These data suggest the validity of the claim that persons in social sciences and humanities tend to lose their religious beliefs more completely than persons in natural and physical sciences. It is in the applied and technical fields, however, that the least amount of loss of religious belief is experienced.