6. Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund
Over the last couple of years, I've become more and more interested in the interface between science and religion. Part of the genesis of this interest came from a "call for writers" for a friend's anthology of animism practices (to which I contributed an essay). But the larger reason for my interest has come from religion itself. Going to church with my parents has made it painfully obvious to me that science is being misrepresented to and by some religious folks. I do not now nor have I ever made blanket judgments about a group based on one person or smaller in-group, but the dissemination of misinformation needs to be addressed by scientists. Clearly, others feel the same way, as books like these from Howard Ecklund (hereafter known as "HE") are showing up more and more frequently in bookstores and libraries -- in fact, I found this book on the featured titles stand at my local, relatively small, library.
Overall, I was impressed by and learned a lot from this book. First, though, I'd like to address three problems I had with the author's approach.
Problem #1 -- HE only interviewed and collected data from scientists in "elite" universities like Harvard, Yale, and UC Berkeley. Therefore, her conclusions are only valid for that small subset of scientists, i.e., it is not representative of all scientists in the US. It would be like me analyzing the reaction to a pesticide of ten fish taken from a population of 10,000 and saying my results are representative of all 10,000 fish. It just doesn't fly. Her proportions of atheists to agnostics to religious to spiritual groups might change significantly if a broader approach is taken.
I do, however, understand her point later in the book about how elite scientists' opinions hold more weight because they have established themselves in terms of research and getting grants. However, I think any scientist can make a mark in opening dialogue between science and religion, both in the classroom and in the community. An elite scientist might get more newsprint or air time, but who will that community college student in Podunkville have more access to when s/he has questions or wants to discuss it further? ALL scientists need to be more open to addressing the public. In my general biology classes that I taught in the past, for example, religious beliefs always bring up questions about evolution. At that time, not possessing what HE refers to as the proper language, I engaged in the "suppression model" of dealing with the questions. I'm not going to do that in the future: (1) I feel I have a better grasp of some aspects of religion and can speaking more intelligently, and (2) ignoring the questions only fuels the misconceptions.
Problem #2 -- HE sometimes draws conclusions from a person's statements rather than asking her/him to clarify. For example, one scientist describes his spirituality as being like putting on his pants every day. HE interprets this to mean that spirituality is useless to this scientist, and there really is no basis for that conclusion. Another interpretation could be that this scientist's spirituality is an integral part of his every day routine, much like putting on his pants. We really don't know what he actually meant because HE did not ask. I've seen a few social scientists fall into the trap of thinking they know what the interviewee means, when what they are really doing is making interpretations through their own social lens.
Problem #3 -- HE mentions a statement by another scientist, and later says that she agrees, that scientists who are "spiritual" rather than "religious" lose their focus on acting within and for the benefit of a community and focus solely on the self. Considering problem #1, I would again argue that this is an unfounded blanket statement. Speaking from my own -- limited -- experience, many scientists I know are very socially conscious. They buy organic foods from farmer's markets. They run in charity events to raise money for breast cancer or HIV/AIDS. They take time out of their schedules to judge science fairs or talk to middle and high school students about what scientists really do. Some of my fellow grad students do the latter in schools with "at risk" students. Again, my experience is only a small subset of the scientific community, but I think my example shows how different conclusions can be drawn when the sample size is small.
What this book did extremely well was make me really start thinking about what kind of professor, researcher, and mentor I need to be. Some of the scientists interviewed in the book, what HE calls "boundary pioneers", stressed unequivocally that we need to be more able to engage in a dialogue with our students and colleagues, both within and outside our respective departments. As people who express their religious/spiritual beliefs become more vocal (not just the loud-mouths but everyone), we need to be able to explain what we do and how it applies within a broader context, and very often, religion and spirituality is within that broader context. Rather than sitting quietly in a church service and seething at a misrepresentation of, say, global climate change, I need to start a conversation with that person to explain it a bit more so that s/he can understand why polar bears would NOT in fact like their homes to be warmer. Scientists need to stop thinking in an "us versus them" mentality. We need to not respond to an attack with another attack.
Incidentally, this book does not count for the contest with my niece because I started the book a couple of weeks ago.
1 comment:
Thank you for the review, I had avoided this book because of the same problems in other books on similar subjects. First, I notice the 'elite' universities do not include Oxford, Cambridge, London School of E., Sorbonne, or other top ranked universities, particularly those which are ranked by leading researchers in the field, nor included groups like the CDC or other working scientists in the field outside of academia. So it isn't 'What Scientists...' but 'What US academics of the top four universities..."
And this lack of accuracy in the title bodes ill for a 'scientific' look at anything: like testing one pond and making national inferences.
Your point 2 shouldn't have occurred if this was a social scientist as one researcher was criticized on ex-gay research because they only had several phone interviews of 90 minutes each, instead of face to face minimum interviews of three. But then, I guess this is not presenting itself as an academic book but as entertainment?
On the comment at churches, it is strange how those in churches who speak seem to have no research needed before making sweeping statements - one pastor kept on about the evils of 'multinationals' and brand names even after we explained that religion probably is the earliest multi-national and the spire IS a brand.
Post a Comment