Elaine Ecklund’s Templeton-funded book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, was a prime example of how to frame disagreeable data by distorting it, Faced with data showing that scientists, especially at “elite” universities, are largely atheistic, she talked repeatedly about “spirituality,” hoping that readers would unconsciously make the elision between “spiritual” and “religious.” She also counted as “religious” those scientists who align themselves with a “religious tradition.” (I’m one of these, for although I’m an atheist I frequently tell people I’m Jewish.) And Ecklund’s been doing this frenetic framing ever since her book came out. Such is the power of Templeton money.
Ecklund continues her campaign with a turgid essay, the headline post at today’s Huffpo Religion (where else?), “Why university scientists do not discuss religion.” You’d think this reticence would be a good thing, but Ecklund deplores it, for it prevents the loving union between science and faith that she so desires (and was funded to promote):
But religion appears to be advancing on university campuses. There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science. Yet, perhaps because of how busy their research keeps them (the working hours per week for research university professors has steadily increased over the past 40 years) or their inherent lack of interest in religion, many elite scientists do not know about such efforts.
And since those scientists who are religious often keep their faith closeted, their nonreligious colleagues have little reason to think there is any place for religion in the academy, or any way for science and religion to be reconciled. This is too bad because many scientists who fear the encroaching impact of religion generally fear the most fundamentalist forms of it. And since their fellow scientists with religious views are reluctant to talk openly about their own beliefs, such stereotypes are rarely dispelled. . .
What happens if we fail to engage with religion? An explosion might happen!
If the scientists at elite universities fail to successfully engage with religion on their campuses, other American universities might follow suit. And if the current resurgence of religion on college campuses collides with persistently antireligious models of university life, might a collision or an explosion of some sort be inevitable?
(Note the dreadful writing that characterizes this essay: if there is already a collision, then a collision might be inevitable!)
My research shows that religious scientists often already feel embattled in their academic communities. They struggle with how public they should be about their faith commitments, given that so many of their colleagues are negative toward religion (evangelicalism and fundamentalism, in particular). Yet because religious scientists rarely talk candidly about their faith while in the university environment, they have not yet realized that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about religion and matters of faith. In this way, both groups end up closeting faith and perpetuating the assumption that there is no safe place for intelligent discussions about religion on America’s elite university campuses.
Templeton sure got its money’s worth.
But don’t worry, Dr. Ecklund—I’m doing my bit! I’m at an “elite” university, and I am speaking up more about religion—though perhaps not exactly in the way you’d like.
If I were a scientist, I know what I’d say.
“My research shows that scientists with an active an unorthodox sex life often already feel embattled in their academic communities. They struggle with how public they should be about their sex practices, given that so many of their colleagues are negative toward libertines (s&m, particularly). Yet because sexually active scientists rarely talk candidly about their life in the bedroom while in the university environment, they have not yet realized that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not active themselves, are open to talking and thinking about sex and matters of sexual activities.”
————————
“But religion appears to be advancing on university campuses. There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science. Yet, perhaps because of how busy their research keeps them (the working hours per week for research university professors has steadily increased over the past 40 years) or their inherent lack of interest in religion, many elite scientists do not know about such efforts.”
Yeah, there are so many things “advancing” on campuses and I wish all my teachers would talk about all of them. I expect my math teacher to talk about the new book clubs forming and my English teacher about new vegetarian snacks in the vending machines. That’s their job.
I actually agree that everyone should share more about their perspectives on religion in general (not just the academy), but only if they promote rational discussion and inquiry. I’m not real enthusiastic about everyone waiting to say their piece while ignoring others and then going to a group hug at the end because they were so open minded that they tolerated a discussion where other dogmas were presented.
What an empty, silly article this is! She doesn’t really say anything. What is it that she wants to see? It’s not clear. And why should scientists talk about religion? There’s not a single reason given why they should. There’s not even a reason give why religious scientists should talk more about religion. Because there are more religious studies departments? Well, probably scientists don’t talk a lot in the course of their professional lives about politics, moral philosophy, or drama either. (I see that BdN has already said something similar.) What a turkey this gal is!
And would that be even true?
Where is the evidence that there has been an increase — much less an EXPLOSION — of religious studies programs?
Citation required, I’m afraid.
At one time (150+ years ago and further back), every university had a “metaphysics” course of study, where science and religion was integrated. How many metaphysics departments are there these days?
To my chagrin, my own non-elite institution recently spent considerable time and effort instituting a mythology … er, religious-studies major. They loudly proclaimed the benefits of this new major.
Somehow I suspect the course of study in this major will avoid the two most salient facts about comparative religious study: 1) that most people will live and die believing that the one true religion (or the truest religion) is the one of the family into which they happened to be born, and 2)a close inspection reveals that the world’s major religions make specific, contradictory claims about the nature of god, the nature of the afterlife, the path to salvation, etc., and thus, either 99% of them are preaching things that are wrong, or they all are.
This from the book cover of “The End of Biblical Studies” by Hector Avalos, associate professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University:
..Avalos contends that our world will be better served by treating the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the “living” document most riligion scholars believe it should be. Pointing out that the Bible endorses intolerance, slavery, and even genocide, he urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader society in an effort to move it toward a postscriptural future and liberation from the idea that any ancient text should be an authority for modern human existence.”
That is all. Nothing more needs to be added.
Also, religious studies prepares you for what career exactly? Being a pastor is a pretty hard life at the best of times. You have one employer, a limited choice of openings, and serve people that will run you ragged. You could get a PhD in some theology, but I’d imagine its even harder to find a post.
There’s always academia!
“If they collide, a collision may result. And the resulting explosion might be bad for my furniture.”
I’ll be applying for Templeton funding tomorrow.
My head hurts.
So…scientists are supposed to take time out of their WORK day to discuss something that is NOT WORK?
WTF?
Is she talking about class time? What in the HELL does religion have to do with the teaching of any scientific topic? Much less the personal opinion of a Hindu scientist? (Oh wait, she’s probably only including Christian scientists in her call to action.)
Non-class research? Again, please point to a single scientific discovery that was abetted by the scientist discussing in the research lab his/her personal belief in Allah. (Oh wait, we still have that whole Christian-only thing going, I’ll bet.)
What percentage of an NIH grant should a scientist devote to discussing his/her totally irrelevant religious beliefs in Buddha? (Oh wait, again with the Christian thing, right?)
How many lab hours should be dedicated to engaging others in the precepts of Scientology? (Oh wait…)
Has this woman ever worked? In a real office? At a real lab? Taught at a real university?
I have had occasions where I worked with people who were overtly and loudly religious. Without exception they were — well — the office creeps. Nobody liked them; everyone (including co-religionists) wished they would just STFU and get back to work. They more they proselytized, the more isolated they became.
Being unpopular at work is definitely not the way to evangelize.
Yeah, I don’t recall any of my Hindu colleagues calling on Shiva to affect their work …
Vapid, empty nonsense. Of a piece with her ‘What scientists really think’ bit. Perhaps she will determine ‘what faculty of religious study departments really think’ next. She’s likely to get a bit of a surprise, if they tell her what they really do think.
Using the term “closeted” regarding scientists and their religious beliefs is a play to the “Expelled” nonsense and is offensive in trying to compaer the plight of homosexuals who are actively disadvantaged and discriminated against with the “plight” of the poor, poor widdle Kwistians not feeling free to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of their colleagues and students. Wah, wah, wah.
That’s precisely what bothered me the most about that article…talk about a persecution complex! Something Christians and white racist men seem to have in common is an intense fear of reverse discrimination, they see it everywhere.
In other words they don’t want to hear their colleagues saying they don’t see any reason to have religious beliefs or “faith commitments” in the first place. Well imagine that! How foolish. They should all start babbling away about it, so that their more reasonable colleagues can respond.
Be careful what you wish for.
That’s a good point; it suggests that we should support Ecklund’s efforts here to thrust religious discussion more into the public arena.
Our (well, my—but somehow I think Ophelia, Jerry and company might agree) prediction is that to the extent that actually happens, religious ideas are going to be unmercifully crushed.
“Yet because religious scientists rarely talk candidly about their faith while in the university environment, they have not yet realized that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about religion and matters of faith.”
Oddly enough, this is analogous to what many Gnu Atheists have been saying: that in the general population, there are a lot of nonreligious people who don’t speak up about their lack of faith, and it’s time we encouraged that.
I noticed that. I think she might have lifted the argument from the gnus.
Could be. Of course, the key difference is that Gnus generally welcome “candid” talk about faith, whereas most of the prominent “scientists with faith” (and/or their accomodationist supporters) don’t.
When a Scientist of Faith mentions his or her faith, we’re all expected to nod appreciatively and say, “I respect that.”
When the SoFs talk about how important their faith is and how it is consistent with or even helps their scientific work, we’re supposed to applaud the fine example that they set, and not ask “rude” questions like, “well, what exactly is it that you believe? Do you accept religious claims X, Y, and Z, and if so, how is that consistent with the scientific evidence?”
And when someone like BioLogos makes a feeble attempt to try to defend something like Adam and Eve on scientific grounds, we’re supposed to look the other way.
A candid dialogue? Sounds great, Ecklund. Let me know when your side is ready to sign up.
If you accurately describe, in non-reverential (!) language what a gnu atheist believes, she will say, “OK, that’s what I believe, whats your problem with that”
On the other hand, if you accurately describe, in non-reverential language, what a religious person claims they believe (for instance the ‘Nicene Creed’) they will frequently become grossly offended and accuse you of distorting or mocking their beliefs – for the simple reason that just stating the claims of the Nicene creed without reverence is so foreign to them that it sounds rude – and silly!
I think christians use the phrase “lack of faith” in an attempt to belittle atheists but, why would an atheist use that phrase? In the past I have cautioned atheists about the common meanings of the word “lack”. The use of the phrase seemed to stop for a while but I’ve seen it used a few times recently so, I’m wondering, why do you use the phrase “lack of faith”?
Well, maybe religion is advancing on campuses, but so is irreligion. I don’t the author thinks highly of the Secular Student Alliance, but they are there and they are growing.
Do I need to have worked as a doomsday prophet before Templeton puts me on their payroll?
This item is particularly deceptive:
There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science.
Of course there has! That’s because Templeton is busy funding them and helping them get started. Templeton by itself has created a lot of that “rise” – and she surely knows that perfectly well.
It’s a neat little circle they’ve got going here. They create lots of new religion-pumps all over the place, then they all shout that there’s a lot more religion all over the place, and a wondering world is impressed.
Actually it has nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation and everything to do with the rise of religious fundamentalisms in the 1960s and 1970s as well as events like 9/11 in the 21st century. And rather than being built on religious apologetics, the scholarship that goes on in these departments is based initially on the work of people like Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Mercia Eliade.
It’s not true that it has nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation. The Templeton Foundation really does set up these “institutes” all over the place. The Templeton Foundation doesn’t have everything to do with it, but it certainly has something.
Ophelia, perhaps we are getting our wires crossed. What I’m talking about is what the average American might call Comparative Religion or the Science of Religion. I’m talking about the discipline that draws from sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, and the history of religion. And the vast majority of the university departments specialising in this subject have been in fact be around far longer than the Templeton Foundation, which was only established in 1987.
There has been a decline in religious participation since 9/11 not an increase. The attack and the following wars (particularly the Iraq war) were in large part the result of religious motivations. I think a lot of people finally saw the danger inherent in christianity and similar religions.
The wealthy have an incentive for keeping the lower classes involved in christianity, a herd is easy to manipulate, a few sheepdogs like O’really and Mooney is all the wealthy need.
Notagod, please pay closer attention when you read someone else’s comments. I said a ‘rise in religious fundamentalism’ not a ‘rise in religious participation’. They are two completely different things, and it is actually the case with the former. In recent decades there has in fact been an increase in religious fundamentalism.
Due in part, no doubt, to the lowering of the other.
It’s possible but debatable. It’s certainly the case that American Christian fundamentalism saw growth in the 1970s because religion was being considered less and less. But it’s unlikely to be the case in the Middle East with Islamic fundamentalism.
I would say that there are many social factors that can lead to Fundamentalism (many roads, one Rome?). A real or perceived secularization of the surrounding society is probably one factor. A social crisis is another (the destruction of the second temple led to a huge wave of “orthodox” Jewishness, which ended a lot of the tolerance for alternative philosophies). A culture clash, when one religion pits itself against another and so hardens its views to differentiate itself, might be a third road.
I know next to nothing about the Middle East and what factors may have given rise to Islamic fundamentalism, but I imagine that they aren’t too different from the same sorts of factors that have led other religions (and cultures) to temporarily close in on themselves.
Actually, as Kevin pointed out earlier, she doesn’t actually provide any evidence that the number of such programs has increased.
“Templeton sure got its money’s worth.
”
Says it all. Money is the most powerful hallucinogen ever invented.
Look at the way that Saudi oil money has buggered the Islamic mind or the way that Texas oil money has done the same for the western mind.
I read that as:
“Mooney is the most powerful hallucinogen ever invented.”
“Why university scientists do not discuss religion.”
Perhaps they have no need of that hypothesis?
[/paraphrase]
“But religion appears to be advancing on university campuses. There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science.”
Having a religious studies department does not mean that religion is advancing!
Just as an example, I got my minor in Religious Studies. I can assure the Doc that this was not, in any way, a pro-religion program. We read the holy books as historical documents, and dealt only with those elements that could be determined through disciplines such as archeology, textual critism (popularized by Bart Ehrman), etc.
Every course started with a warning from the professor that students were expected to learn facts based on empirical research, and that “but this is what I really truly believe” wouldn’t cut it. One professor even recommended that any student who didn’t feel that they could put their faith “aside” in class should drop out while there was still time to pick a different course. Every course, we had a couple theists who decided to stick it out and most (who were vocal enough for me to know they were theists) dropped out or failed.
Religion can be studied from a fully secular perspective, and it is in many universities in addition to my own, I’m sure. So to say that a discussion of religion, any discussion of religion – even when it looks at religion as a purely historical/psychological phenomena – is indicative of an “advance” is just a pure lie.
I agree, and I think there are one or two commenters upthread who don’t quite get this, either. Hector Avalos (also quoted upthread), for one, is a clear counterexample to this species of Ecklund disingenuousness.
Science is a multinational discipline and that has an implication for her idea that religious scientists should speak out and connect with other, secretly religious, colleagues. The international nature of research departments means that the colleague, if he or she is religious, is likely to have a very different religion from our original subject. What sort of religious commonality is an evangelical going to get from a hindu, a muslim and a
buddhist?
This is yet another sign of how serious a threat the Gnu Atheism is considered by christian organizations. They see the same polls we do, and the rapid increase of disbelief, especially among young americans, is ringing alarm bells.
Be afraid, christians, be VERY afraid.
Afraid? Of what?
All they have to lose is their own shackles of religiously-induced guilt, shame, illogic, and insanity. That’s cause for rejoicing, not fear — at least, it is in my book.
Cheers,
b&
Christians should be afraid of Gnu Atheists, because we are not going away, no matter how much money Templeton spends to marginalize or demonize us.
Sure, we’re not going away.
But, again, why should that cause Christians to fear us?
The worst we do to them is ridicule their childish fantasies. And, I suppose, we help reduce Sunday attendance and therefore the take from the collection plate…but that’s hardly the sort of thing that a rational adult should fear.
Cheers,
b&
But, again, why should that cause Christians to fear us?
Because we’re going to eat their babies. Didn’t you receive the menu?
You mean, did we receive our menGnu? Sorry, could not resist.
Yeah, we’re coming after their women folk and children, just like the terrorists, native americans (in the 1800’s Wild West), and commies. Every era requires a boogie-man.
Speak for yourself – I’m not coming for “their” women folk.
They only have one thing they’re afraid of losing – their power.
And more importantly, to “lose face” for having to ‘fess-up to having chronically & vociferously supported such pathetic & patently infantile destructive gibberish for all of their so-called adult lives.
That’s gotta hurt, eh?
Eklund.
On word: sociologist
Explains everything.
When I hear my colleagues talking about religion, it is likely to be the “Chicago Bears vs. Green Bay Packers” kind of religion.
People mostly don’t talk about religion, except in religious settings. That’s just a fact about life. It is not a peculiarity of academia.
Sure: Religion is made up. It’s a fable. Its what humans use to explain stuff they don’t understand.
I don’t think that, if you held a competition for inane writing, I could come up with that.
Most religious scientists are smart enough to realize that bragging about their imaginary friend will not enhance their standing with their colleagues.
You don’t see many university scientists bragging about their inflatable girlfriends, either.
“You don’t see many university scientists bragging about their inflatable girlfriends, either.”
Great analogy, Hamilton, particularly when you realize that Ecklund’s great idea is that they should bring their inflatable girlfriends to work!
But atheist comedians do!
Templeton: Dishonesty is the best policy.
This Ecklund reminds me of those organ grinders and their little monkey with the tin coffee cup begging for money (if anyone remembers that era – I haven’t seen an organ grinder for over 30 years now). Anyway, Ecklund is the monkey running around dressed up all pretty and trying to get attention.
I suspect there are at least two common reasons that university science lecturers don’t talk about religion in classes: (1) they’re not allowed to tell students that religion is a load of crap – they’re meant to restrict lectures to their subject, and (2) few have any interest whatsoever in superstition and don’t care to waste time bringing up the topic.
“My research shows that religious scientists often already feel embattled in their academic communities” – surely theiy should just turn the other cheek.
Religion is ‘marginalised’ as it is increasingly irrelevant.
It’s only members of some religions that feel “embattled” in this way, specifically the “help, help, I’m being oppressed!” wing of Christianity. Come to think of it, there isn’t any context where they don’t feel embattled.
I work with plenty of scientists from Europe, India, the Middle East, Iran, East Asia etc. They have many different religious beliefs but there is an accepted way for everyone to behave in work that negates the possible conflict between these beliefs; that is we all agree to act as methodological naturalists while we are in a scientific context. In other words while doing experiments we behave as if we believe that there is no God, Gods or spirits influencing the natural world. That principle is the reason why scientific laboratories can function with scientists of different or no religious faiths and the reason why religious individuals can do good science. You don’t have to take my word for it, ask the NCSE or Ken Miller, both promote methodological naturalism in science.
I think its a dangerous path that Ecklund has chosen to follow if she is suggesting that we abandon methodological naturalism in the scientific workplace.
(I’m not sure that she is suggesting that but I think that conclusion is a reasonable interpretation of her piece).
We could have fun with this. Every single course in science, history, engineering, medicine… could begin with “Welcome to the course. You’ll note that the terms ‘God’ and ‘divine intervention’ don’t appear anywhere in our subject matter. Draw your own conclusions.”
I like it!
The negative attitude towards religion, in particular evangelicalism and fundamentalism, is highly deserved.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are pretty gooey.