THE historians of science and religion have been my heroes of late, showing that the idea of an inevitable conflict between science and religion is a cultural phenomenon, with its own history. Ethnographers are also doing important work, with Elaine Howard Eklund at their helm.
Her research takes us beyond assumptions of antagonism in the media to “what people really think” about science and religion, in books surveying, first, scientists, and then religious people generally; and (with David R. Johnson, her co-author here) one on global perspectives. Their new book is more intriguing still, based on extensive surveys and interviews with specifically atheist scientists.
The headline finding is that the “New Atheist” picture of a natural alignment between natural science and a take-no-prisoners, burn-it-all-down attitude to religion is a poor representation of atheist scientists. “Until now,” the authors write, “what atheist scientists actually think about secularity and religion has primarily been understood through the narratives of vocal celebrity scientists.” Yet, when we ask atheist scientists more widely, they “are by and large not hostile to religion”.
Moreover, rather than being converted to atheism by science, most of these scientists were raised as atheists. All this tallies with my own experience as a Fellow among scientific Fellows in a Cambridge college.
Eklund and Johnson found broadly three sorts of atheism among scientists: “modernist” (67 per cent), “culturally religious” (27 per cent), and “spiritual” (six per cent). The modernists are the closest to New Atheism, finding no place for religion in their own lives. Significantly, however, many go out of their way to dissociate themselves from a “Dawkins” approach (even mentioning him by name). The “culturally religious” group disavow belief in God, but remain committed to some religious practice or community, whether in attending services (evensong is mentioned), religious observance at home (Jewish identity is an important example here), sending their children to a religious school, or having married someone with devout religious practice.
Obviously, their disbelief in God does not mean denigrating religion tout court. The third (“spiritual”) group align with the previous group in exhibiting some “religious” features, but in finding a “spiritual” dimension in a godless world outside of a connection to established religion.
Understanding this has practical consequences. Distrust of science among religious communities arises, in part, from an assumption that scientists are hostile towards religious identities. Although that misunderstanding turns out to be unrepresentative even of atheist scientists, it persists. It is a factor in vaccine hesitancy, for instance.
The authors also see this misunderstanding as working against diversity in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and medicine), since the under-represented groups (including “women and non-white individuals”) are precisely those most strongly represented in religious groups. Readers of the Church Times may well hope that this significant study will draw attention to the generosity of so many atheist scientists, so as to eclipse the caricature that we are typically offered.
The Revd Dr Andrew Davison is the Starbridge Associate Professor in Theology and Natural Sciences at the University of Cambridge, and currently visiting research fellow at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, New Jersey.
Varieties of Atheism in Science
Elaine Howard Ecklund and David R. Johnson
OUP £16.99
(978-0-19-753916-3)
Church Times Bookshop £15.29