Moderate views

I just wanted to share a few links that I found encouraging, because they display a moderate thoughtfulness on the topic of science & religion:

Matthew C. Nisbet's area of expertise seems to be the way science is communicated to the general public, and the ways in which a supportive public environment can be created for the pursuit and funding of science. He's an atheist, but he thinks that the promotion of the "eternal warfare of science & religion" mythos will be harmful to the flourishing of science. Here he adds some of his own thoughts to those of Frances Collins, and over here he posts about a new study which examined the religious affiliations of professors in the natural and social scientists.

The study itself is interesting. It indicates that such professors are less likely to be religious than the average population (52% reported no religious affiliation) but the reasons for this were quite complex and had less to do with abstract beliefs that you might expect - well, actually, that won't surprise anyone who has studied the sociology of religion. Among other things, the scholars argue that people from religious backgrounds tend to retain some sort of religious identity when they become scientists. It turns out the scientists studied are a little different from the general population, where older people are more likely to be (traditionally) religious than young people:

"RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

Another finding is that students from non-religious households tend to 'self-select' for advanced scientific training. This may indeed reflect a conflict between religious and scientific ways of thinking, but it should be remembered that this also has to do with intellectual (or anti-intellectual!) traditions and economic class. Different religious backgrounds are usually linked to different educational outcomes - some groups strongly encourage university training, have a highly educated constituency, and also tend to be more wealthy. If I remember correctly Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, and Unitarian Universalists tend to be statistically over-represented in academia. And I can say that my own Jehovah's Witness upbringing (insular, working class/lower-middle class and creationist) very strongly discouraged advanced training in the natural or social sciences.*

Anyways, back to the links. Physicist Chad Orzel is an "apathetic agnostic" but he doesn't much like the eternal warfare model either. He's got a list of recent news links on science and religion here (which is where I got the Nisbet links from), and here he posts about the views of his thesis advisor, William Phillips.

Phillips is an interesting figure: a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a Methodist. He's got an autobiography here. He's also one of the founding members of the International Society for Science & Religion.

And here's the interview with Frances Collins, which Nisbet mentions above. One thing I noticed is the role history plays in Collins' understanding of science and religion- knowing what Augustine, and Galileo, and B.B. Warfield (and maybe Ramanujan!) actually said about these questions helps put them in perspective. Much of the furor is driven by events in our current political and cultural milieu, so regardless of our personal opinions, it helps to take a step back.

(Thanks to Aka for pointing out the Orzel links.)

*This probably has something to do with my own post-JW attraction to Quaker and Anglican/Episcopalian communities.