From RICE UNIVERSITY and the “thank goodness we don’t have to ignore Newton’s laws of physics now” department:
Are all scientists atheists? Do they believe religion and science can co-exist? These questions and others were addressed in the first worldwide survey of how scientists view religion, released today by researchers at Rice University.
“No one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion,” said the study’s principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. “This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between.”
The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.
“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”
The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.
When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.
In addition to the survey’s quantitative findings, the researchers found nuanced views in scientists’ responses during interviews. For example, numerous scientists expressed how religion can provide a “check” in ethically gray areas.
“(Religion provides a) check on those occasions where you might be tempted to shortcut because you want to get something published and you think, ‘Oh, that experiment wasn’t really good enough, but if I portray it in this way, that will do,'” said a biology professor from the U.K.
Another scientist said that there are “multiple atheisms,” some of which include religious traditions.
“I have no problem going to church services because quite often, again that’s a cultural thing,” said a physics reader in the U.K. who said he sometimes attended services because his daughter sang in the church choir. “It’s like looking at another part of your culture, but I have no faith religiously. It doesn’t worry me that religion is still out there.”
Finally, many scientists mentioned ways that they would accommodate the religious views or practices of the public, whether those of students or colleagues.
“Religious issues (are) quite common here because everyone talks about which temple they go to, which church they go to. So it’s not really an issue we hide; we just talk about it. Because, in Taiwan, we have people [of] different religions,” said a Taiwanese professor of biology.
Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science.
By surveying and interviewing scientists at various career stages, in elite and nonelite institutions and in biology and physics, the researchers hoped to gain a representative look at scientists’ views on religion, ethics and how both intersect with their scientific work.
Ecklund said that the study has many important implications that can be applied to university hiring processes, how classrooms and labs are structured and general public policy.
“Science is a global endeavor,” Ecklund said. “And as long as science is global, then we need to recognize that the borders between science and religion are more permeable than most people think.”
###
The Templeton World Charity Foundation funded the study. The study also received support from Rice University and the Faraday Institute, housed at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge.
For more information, contact David Ruth, director of national media relations at Rice, atdavid@rice.edu or 713-348-6327.
This news release can be found online at http://news.rice.edu/. An extensive report about the study can be found at http://rplp.rice.edu/.
gnomish
Answer the questions, please. I see your comment as evasion,.
JohnKnight – as an act of ‘good faith’…lol
The first question was:
“Male lions have been observed killing the offspring of other male lions. Is this immoral, wrong. bad, whatever one might call it?”
Morality does not apply to lions. Value judgements are not something they do.
Right or wrong are moral evaluations and for the same reason this is inapplicable. You may as well ask is a lion’s behavior reddish green or fragrant.
Being killed is bad for the one whose life is extinguished – its standard of value (over which it has no ability to choose) is negated. That’s a really close fit to the definition of ‘bad’, isn’t it?
One supposes it must be good for the killer, if it’s become a selected trait. I don’t know lions, though, so I won’t speculate further.
Your second question was:
“Male humans exist . . if some kill the offspring of other male humans, have they done something immoral, wrong, bad, whatever?”
Now, except for one’s own sons, every single male human is the offspring of some other male human.
Apart from the unnecessary tangle of verbiage, this lacks context.
Without much effort I can conceive of a context in which killing the offspring of some other male H. sapiens may be the moral, right and good decision for somebody.
It’s easy to think up a situation where it’s wrong.
So killing somebody can be a moral issue. It can be an ethical issue.
In war, choice has been constrained severely; killing or dying is the only issue. It is inappropriate to characterize a situation as a moral issue if it’s a matter of not getting annihilated..
Ethics is what you are about to define, because now it’s your turn to demonstrate sincerity.
gnomish,
Thanks for answering so patiently, that was kind of you. .
“Now, except for one’s own sons, every single male human is the offspring of some other male human.
Apart from the unnecessary tangle of verbiage, this lacks context.”
Let’s put them in a similar context the lions are in, so to speak. . Hypothetically to some extent, perhaps an earlier time, away from “civilization”, low population density, in which survival of the men’s own children might depend on less “competition” for scarce resources. Would they be doing something immoral, wrong or whatever, in your eyes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_ethics
This ground has been well trodden.
But they don’t show the sleight of mind involved in that trick, do they?
So I guess I may as well.
Note that the context is contrived such that the alternative is ‘kill or die’.
Note the definition of ‘morality’.
Use logic to deduce that where there is no choice, right and wrong do not apply.
Then ask yourself what sort of person would try to confuse you about right and wrong?
Ethics?
gnomish writes “where there is no choice, right and wrong do not apply.”
Says you. Right and wrong always apply to things that are at any time right or wrong; it may be expedient to do a wrong thing.
“Then ask yourself…”
No need; you have asked it…
“what sort of person would try to confuse you about right and wrong?”
An atheist or a narcissist.
JohnKnight writes “Would they be doing something immoral, wrong or whatever, in your eyes?”
A similiar situation exists right now in Sudan and Ethiopia: “mingi” babies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingi
gnomish,
“This ground has been well trodden.”
This way of seeing things is alien to me . . I’m not “covering ground” here, not relating our words to any previous discussions by anyone at all. I am just me, trying to relate to you (in this instance), This “ground” is untrodden, unscripted, unanticipated to a great extent.
“Note that the context is contrived such that the alternative is ‘kill or die’.”
No, you misunderstand, that is not the situation I described. Lions do not kill the cubs of other lions because they face a “kill or die” situation. I meant just what I said, a similar context, not some moment of crisis wherein people are starving in the immediate sense. There is a “lifeboat” like quality to survival in the natural world, in an abstract sense, and it was just that abstract sense I meant to evoke.
This is what I make of your responses overall, in trying to grasp how you view these matters; Humans can understand the concept of right and wrong, therefore they are “responsible” in some sense, which lions are not, if they do what you see as wrong. Not what they see as wrong (moral relativism), but what you see as wrong . As though you expect those men I conjured up to see such things as you do, as though their were “rules” of some sort that humans are responsible for following, or they do wrong.
Seriously, I’m trying to explore your understanding. I would have answered; No, to human aspect of the question, if the non existence of God were a given (on atheism, in logic lingo). They cannot be doing wrong, by insuring the survival of their offspring, anymore than a lion can be. The difference in IQ or conceptual dexterity or whatever, has virtually nothing to do with it.
Those men have no obligation to conform to any “ethical” anything that you or I might devise of imagine, based on a purely “materialistic” world-view, it seems to me . . anymore than you or I would have any obligation to conform to some other humans particular “ethical” standards . . To (some of) the Nazis’ minds it was apparently ethical to remove various people from the gene-pool so to speak, for the “common good” as they perceived it. If there is no “higher Authority”, I don’t see how one can rightly argue they were doing anything “wrong”.
If you disagree, please explain. I want to understand how you deal with these complex matters, not to trap or belittle you. I am not your better or your judge or whatever, to my mind. I am just man like you.
JohKnight writes “I want to understand how you deal with these complex matters, not to trap or belittle you.”
Well I certainly enjoy a good trap. That’s the essence of playing chess. Nothing beats the joy of forking the queen with your knight.
http://www.chess.com/blog/sebastiancremor/queen-fork
If you are from South Africa it might sound like something else 😉 but it isn’t that.
Atheism has several traps inherent. The first is that it ought not to be an “ism”; by merely asserting the non-existence of an “ism” it ought not to become its own “ism” but as we see asserted “atheist literature” presumably exists, meaning it really is an “ism” of its own and not just an anti-ism.
The second trap is that to deny the existence of God, one must define God — the very act of which converts the discussion to that of a “straw-god” easily agreed by all parties to not exist.
It is extremely rare for a conversation to proceed beyond these two traps and have the atheist willing to discuss the possible existence of what he doesn’t consider to be “god” but maybe I do; and for me to be willing to consider his reasons for believing NOTHING exists that he cannot detect; not merely that he hasn’t detected it, but that nobody can for there’s nothing to detect. Normally that would take a great deal of faith but the realm of argumentation can be given “ground rules” making at least the argument proceed toward some goal.
Michael 2,
“Atheism has several traps inherent.”
In a sense I agree, but in another I do not. For though I believe God exists, I do not expect others to think or act as though He does, in reasoning/discussing, anyway. In reality-land I perceive that many if not most who claim they don’t believe He exists, still think and act as though He does, to a considerable extent.
That’s how it seems to me glomish is thinking/acting here, but I am just a man and could be wrong (which I too prove quite often, tiresome as it may be ; ). I was not a Theist for most of my life, till I was in my early forties, I was what we used to refer to as a “strong agnostic”, which some now seek to redefine as atheist. I didn’t believe in God, didn’t (consciously) think or act as though one existed.
But, I saw that gaping chasm of no real “moral ground” to stand upon. . and I did not want to go there, so to speak. I had to remain an agnostic, it seems to me, if for no other reason than to keep that dark abyss at bay. I felt much distress and frustration when I perceived or encountered “evil” in the world, and could tell I was not going to surrender that “moral ground” come what may. It wasn’t in me to . . it was impossible for me to, as far as I could tell.
Now it makes sense to me, but then it was a lonely stand, and I hate to see people caught in such a state as I was. People who sense evil, recognizing it for what it is, hating it, but having no truly logical basis for hating it. That’s the trap of a-theism as I experienced it.
Gnomish says “So killing somebody can be a moral issue. It can be an ethical issue.”
I appreciate your candor.
Gnomish said: “Good and Bad are value judgements. A value judgement presupposes answers to the questions ‘of value to whom’ and ‘of value for what purpose’
This is what a standard of value is used for – to create a heirarchy of values. Please define what is the standard of values for a human being. Again, I must insist.”
That standard is God. Either it is God, or it is man. If it is man, then morals, laws, etc., have no objective weight. Morality and laws boil down to subjective choice akin to whether or not you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream.
I’d argue, there must be a god on these grounds, because the alternative is that there must be cases where man can choose just whatever moral codes he sees fit – as a true personal preference. We don’t see this. We see consistent basic moral laws around the world and throughout history which have the basics in common – don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal, etc. Much of the variation in the moral codes deals with differences of views about matters of fact. In the debate over abortion, as an example, you have one side saying that abortion is morally wrong because it is equivalent to murder, and the other side arguing that abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a human. What neither side will argue is “murder is morally acceptable”.
We don’t criticize lions for eating their young because we don’t believe lions are moral agents. But if morality is subjective, I fail to see how the subjectivist makes the distinction between lions and humans here.
Justin,
And yet we owe the word “ethics” and its first systematic philosophical exposition to a pagan, Aristotle, who did not invoke the gods in his analysis. Medieval Scholastic philosophers later tried to square Aristotle with Christian thought.
So no God or gods required.
Pagans of course were generally OK with slavery, child sex and other practices now considered morally abhorrent in the West (although still condoned elsewhere), but that fact doesn’t detract from the continuing intellectual power of Aristotle’s Ethics. For most of its history, Christianity was also OK with slavery, until in the late 18th century some Western European Christians took their cue on it from Enlightenment critics and mockers of religion.
Gloateus Maximus wrote “And yet we owe the word ethics and its first systematic philosophical exposition to a pagan, Aristotle, who did not invoke the gods in his analysis. … So no God or gods required.”
That’s like saying no gods are required in atheism.
Ethics is what you get when you remove god from morality. Ethics is for you whatever you want it to be because no authority on ethics exists or can exist.
Michael,
Nope. Neither ethics nor morality requires a god.
The distinction between ethics and morals might seem arbitrary, but there is a basic difference, and it has nothing to do with religion.
Morals reflect personal character and behavior, while ethics reflect a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which individuals belong. These standards could include national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can depend on others’ standards.
Consider the difference between the ethics and morals of a criminal defense lawyer. While the lawyer’s personal moral code probably finds murder immoral and reprehensible, his or her professional ethics require that the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hope this helps.
Gloateus Maximus writes: “Neither ethics nor morality requires a god.”
Nor have I argued for it. What I argue is that either requires an authority and god is the greatest possible authority; the more transcendent the god the more unchanging and thus reliable and well-known is the authority and its moral laws. This is a two-edge sword of course since you might actually want to change something (clergy celibacy for instance) but you cannot without damaging claims to authority.
Whether you can build a society on it depends on how widespread is a mutually accepted ethics/morality. Narcissists are famously their own authority. Libertarians acknowledge other authorities but might not obey that authority. Sheep follow meekly whatever authority gets their attention first.
“The distinction between ethics and morals might seem arbitrary, but there is a basic difference, and it has nothing to do with religion.”
While I will concur with most of your argument I argue that religion is inseparable from morality specifically and at a small remove, also ethics.
Religion creates morality; morality breeds ethics. But it is a circle of influence; people with ethics alter their morality, and Religion follows. Many American Christian denominations are now marrying same-sex partners that a generation ago would have been excommunicated. Clearly there is no unchanging god directing those particular affairs and those particular churches/denominations; religion has followed ethics in some/many instances, sometimes embraced, sometimes compelled.
“Morals reflect personal character and behavior”
Almost agree. I would say personal character reflects morality. Morality comes first, a person then adopts (or not) those morals; and having adopted them, exhibits or “reflects” them. For instance, I was introduced to many moral laws before I learned their value and started obeying them. Morality is not the product or consequence, it is the causative agent, at least for me. A person of “good character” obeys moral laws even when no witness or judge is present.
“In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which individuals belong.”
Agreed and well stated. Ethics will usually be manifest in law, morality usually not. Morality was until recently often found in law but with too much variance in morality what remains is ethics. I wonder how long that will last.
Lawyers, as you explain, might be expected to have significant differences between their morality and their ethics. That is one reason I have chosen not to be a lawyer since I do not wish to have a schism between my ethics and my morality. My code of telling the truth doesn’t have a lawyer exception. I don’t have to tell ALL of it all the time; but I am very strongly opposed to lying. A society cannot exist on a foundation of people lying. It might also have some difficulty if everyone always told the whole truth but I doubt it has ever been tried.
I am philosophically libertarian; and what that means to me is that I do not impose my morality on you. While I may consider your behavior wrong, it is not my duty to correct your behavior. If your behaviors and beliefs introduce some lack of tranquility in society well then I’ll do my civic duty and comment on such things as I am doing here and now in particular with gnomish.
Michael,
No authority is needed, whether of god or man, unless laws, rules and extralegal censure for misbehavior in violating norms be considered authorities.
Simple societies have norms which no authority handed down, but have become customary. More complex societies have laws and regulations, often based upon societal norms. But there is rarely (as eg in Hammurabi’s Code), and needn’t be at all, an authority dictating personal morality and group ethics. Bar and medical associations could I guess be considered such authorities in establishing professional ethics.
Gloateus Maximus writes “No authority is needed, whether of god or man, unless laws, rules and extralegal censure for misbehavior in violating norms be considered authorities.”
Authority cannot be escaped.
Laws — where do they come from? Whoever posits and enforces a law is authority, from the word author.
Every thought, every word ever spoken, has an author. If that word tells you to do something, or not do something, it is claiming authority.
If you obey any thing written or spoken by any other person, that person is your authority. You have them at work. You have them at home. Sometimes authorities conflict or are rival over a thing; and you must choose among them according to precedence and power and consequence to yourself.
Pascal’s Wager relates.
Gloateus says, “And yet we owe the word “ethics” and its first systematic philosophical exposition to a pagan, Aristotle, who did not invoke the gods in his analysis. Medieval Scholastic philosophers later tried to square Aristotle with Christian thought.
So no God or gods required.”
This assumes Aristotle (of whom I’m fond) got it 100% correct instead of 95% correct. And yes, I’m a big fan of Aquinas, who did synthesize quite a bit of Aristotle and Christianity (he was among other contributing philosophers who did so).
I don’t think making a distinction between ethics and morals changes the calculus of the argument here. Some practical (and complex) social constructs are a result of humans having imperfect knowledge of relevant facts as well as imperfect reasoning skills.
In other words, if Aristotle does not properly ground morals and ethics, then the whole house of cards collapses. Lots of theories of morality and ethics reach the same identical conclusions except in perhaps some fringe cases. However, those houses, too, collapse if the basic foundation they rest on is not sound. Often they ultimately will boil down to a hopeless subjectivity such as “might makes right”, which is to say, not a very good theory at all.
So, perhaps some would criticize not Aristotle’s outworking of morals and ethics, but rather his starting point, which does seem lacking.
Michael2 – are you ready to be dissected?
Your fantasy of a supreme authority is the means by which you hope to evade morality.
The fantasy of divinity is how you hope to ennoble this corruption.
Your wish is that obedience (‘thy will, not mine’) to authority somehow absolve you of responsibility for your own decisions.
And little wonder there be that you can not define morality – you don’t dare to.
Submission to authority is the death of morality. It is not possible to be moral by negating morality.
Obedience is immoral. It only adds to your sins.
So this is not about making sense of our world, for you. This is a quest for absolution.
You have found your cross in the mirror.
gnomish: “Michael2 – are you ready to be dissected?”
I have made no preparations for such an event.
“Your fantasy of a supreme authority is the means by which you hope to evade morality.”
As that made no sense whatsoever I’m not sure whether to agree, disagree or just wonder at it.
Finding authorities over any particular realm is pretty easy. Finding the supreme authority over any particular field requires competitions; chess master for instance. An authority over everything does not exist in this world or in this life; so to a certain extent this supreme authority over Life, the Universe and Everything must be imagined — sometimes with a bit of help from others, sometimes with a bit of help from that Authority itself.
“The fantasy of divinity is how you hope to ennoble this corruption.”
That does not compute!
“Your wish is that obedience to authority somehow absolve you of responsibility for your own decisions.”
I have many wishes, right now I wish I had a DJI Inspire quadcopter.
Obedience to authority IS my decision. But just as there are many authorities, each is limited in scope as to what it can authorize (allow) or command (require). Disobedience to authority is anarchy.
“And little wonder there be that you can not define morality – you don’t dare to.”
Morality is what is good and right. That’s not very helpful I suppose. In the absence of a specific goal, what is good and right might not have meaning. So I introduce my goal; eternal life and happiness in that life and this one. What achieves that goal is good, what prevents that goal is bad. Moral pertains to good behavior, behavior that leads to accomplishment of happiness in this life and the next. If I can lead not only myself but others to happiness, so much the better.
“Submission to authority is the death of morality.”
Submission to proper authority is the essence of morality; doing what is right is a mere accident if you do not know what is right. Right is defined by a moral authority.
You on the other hand seem to favor anarchy. Why is that?
“Obedience is immoral. It only adds to your sins.”
So you believe in sin. Well, that’s a start. It is clear you are an anti-theist and not merely atheist. You have the essential concepts of religion, and the words of religion, but of opposite polarity in meaning.
“You have found your cross in the mirror.”
Well, actually, I found it in the jewelry box; several exist. Most or all came from my mother-in-law. I suspect there may be a meta-meaning to your comment but it eludes me.
Michael,
I think you’re arguing with someone who 1) doesn’t understand what religious people actually believe, and as a result tosses out straw man after straw man in a self-contradictory, rambling style, and 2) cannot address logical contradictions in his own statements of belief.
It’s almost some form of atheistic gnosticism with a sophistic flare.
Justin writes “tosses out straw man after straw man in a self-contradictory, rambling style”
Indeed. One can be frustrated by it or see it as an opportunity; although I wrestle between my desire to play Religion Chess versus humbly laying out my beliefs so that readers can ignore the “straw gods”, with an emphasis on my respect for science because of the nature of this blog.
I am scientific AND religious at the same time. It is rare for conflict to exist (admitting it does occasionally exist). My bigger conflict is with sociology and religion since sociology is, for many purposes, a rival religion.
There does come a time when, at times, Acts 17:32-34 is a good guide.