From RICE UNIVERSITY
Some faiths more likely to turn to religion for answers to science
When it comes to seeking answers to questions about science, evangelical and black Protestants and Mormons are more likely than the general population to turn to religion, according to a new study by researchers from Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program, the University of Nevada-Reno and West Virginia University.
Thestudy, which is slated to appear in an upcoming edition of the journal Public Understanding of Science, is the first to measure whether people would actively consult a religious authority or source of information with a question about science, said lead researcher Elaine Howard Ecklund, the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences, a professor of sociology at Rice and director of Rice’s Religion and Public Life Program.
“Our findings suggest that religion does not necessarily push individuals away from science sources, but religion might lead people to turn to religious sources in addition to scientific sources,” Ecklund said.
The study, “Scientists and Religious Leaders Compete for Cultural Authority of Science,” is based on a survey of 10,241 Americans who provided information about their confidence and interest in science, their religious characteristics and their political ideology. The sample included a wide range of people, including all religious groups as well as the nonreligious.
“People have many places to look for scientific news and information: the internet, books or documentaries by science popularizers, museums or social media,” Ecklund said. “But there is good reason to believe some look beyond scientific sources of information when questions arise about science. Some segments of the public, for example, are skeptical of the scientific community when it comes to topics like climate change, evolution or vaccines.”
Ecklund and colleagues found that the general survey population was more likely to consult a scientific source than a religious source when seeking answers to scientific questions. This was also true when the researchers looked at mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians. For evangelical Protestants, black Protestants and Mormons, however, the gap between the likelihood of consulting a scientific source or a religious source was narrower.
While 16 percent of all survey respondents said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a religious leader for answers to their science questions, this number jumps to 29 percent when just looking at evangelical Protestants or black Protestants and 25 percent when looking at Mormons. Similarly, 31 percent of evangelical Protestants, 30 percent of black Protestants and 31 percent of Mormons said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a religious text for answers to scientific questions, compared with 18 percent of overall respondents. When asked whether they would be somewhat or very likely to consult people at their congregation about such questions, 27 percent of evangelicals, 26 percent of black Protestants and 31 percent of Mormons said yes, compared with 16 percent of overall surveyed respondents.
When asked about their views on consulting scientific sources, 37 percent of those surveyed said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a book written by a Ph.D. scientist for answers to their questions, compared with 34 percent of evangelical Protestants, 39 percent of black Protestants and 46 percent of Mormons. And 53 percent of the general surveyed population said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a scientific magazine, compared with 50 percent of evangelical Protestants, 52 percent of black Protestants and 66 percent of Mormons. Finally, 49 percent of all survey respondents said they would be somewhat or very likely to speak with a person working in a scientific occupation, compared with 46 percent of evangelical Protestants, 43 percent of black Protestants and 55 percent of Mormons.
The authors said the research provides helpful implications and insights for science communication.
“In order to reach the large swath of the U.S. population who are religious, scientists and science communicators should be targeting religious leaders and communities,” Ecklund said. “If religious leaders are indeed already being approached with questions about science, it’s possible they simply need the information in hand in order to translate accurate scientific information to the public or to connect religious people with scientists themselves.”
###
The study’s other authors include Christopher Scheitle of West Virginia University and David Johnson of the University of Nevada at Reno.
This study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and is available online at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662517718145.
Interesting SPIN placed on the “data”
According to the article, Mormons are the religious group most likely to seek information from OTHER PEOPLE IN GENERAL about science. Their religious leaders sure, but also THE MOST likely to consult a scientist, read scientific magazines, and books written by scientists with PhDs. And more likely to talk to those in the scientific field than those of their own religion.
Seems like the title could have/should have highlighted that fact, instead of attempting to paint them in a negative light.
Two jewish young man walking down the road to the synagogue suddenly came across a brand new christian church, just recently build.
As they come closer and in amazement towards the gate, they see a sign in the gates that reads:
“please all well come to join in, especially non christian…one hour spent in this church, the least reward for non christian is 100 dollars”
One of the guys jumps and says he was going in, and the other starts complaining that that was no right and proper……they were no christian….
never the less the one that wanted to get in went in and asked his friend to wait for him till he came out.
….One hour later the guy comes out of the church all looking cheery and happy and comes to his friend.
And his friend seeing him happy asks him:
“Was it really so easy to get that 100 just for an hour?”
And his friend looks at him in amazement and responds:
“Oh, that is the problem with all you jewish people, you so serious and sensitive about money…” 🙂
And his friend shocked and confused at that answer says to his friend:
“I guess you are not going a come to the synagogue now!”
And the other guy responds:
“oh….why not..if they offer to pay 100 dollars per hour…I will gladly..”
Sorry, not meant to offend, just a kinda of a joke…..and not sure what the actual moral of such a story could be……
cheers
It is probably a complicated metaphor for quitting smoking. Ex-smokers tend to be evangelical about the dangers of smoking, almost hypocritical.
Michael 2
October 17, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Oh, thanks…:)
Science is a method that you use to check if you should believe in something. it has very limited applications to even a good scientist. Its almost useless to the majority. Reject anybody claiming to be a scientist who doesn’t appreciate this and wants you to have faith in him because of his label.
Belief has nothing to do with it. But of course you should never “believe” a scientist unless you can check his work and it meets the standards of the scientific method.
The scientific method isn’t about belief. It’s about confirmation or falsification of hypotheses. You make a guess, ie hypothesis. Then you make predictions based upon that guessm which are capable of being tested and shown false. Then you test by observation of nature or by an experiment whether that prediction is confirmed or shown false. Your results must be repeatable by others. That and that alone is the scientific method.
If the hypothesis be confirmed repeatedly over time and never shown false, then it and related confirmed hypotheses can be assembled into a theory. But science is never settled, except in cases in which former hypotheses are shown to be objectively true, such as that earth is spherical rather than flat and that it is a planet going around the sun while turning on its axis.
Gabro asserts “The scientific method isn’t about belief.”
It requires belief, but it is not belief itself. One must believe a thermometer (or not). A measuring instrument of any kind can be believed; or not, but if not, why spend the money on it? Pons and Fleischmann believed they had discovered or invented cold fusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Pons
“except in cases in which former hypotheses are shown to be objectively true, such as that earth is spherical rather than flat and that it is a planet going around the sun while turning on its axis.”
How shall these phenomena be shown?
Michael,
Reading a thermometer is not an act of belief. It’s a measurement. You must calibrate and make sure that the instrument is working properly, but there is no belief involved.
As noted, the only “belief” or “faith” required in science is the reasonable and tested assumption that the laws of the observable universe haven’t changed since its inception.
Gabro writes “Reading a thermometer is not an act of belief. It’s a measurement. You must calibrate and make sure that the instrument is working properly, but there is no belief involved.”
That is your belief.
You believe in the calibration. You believe your eyes when you see the dial or column of mercury.
Gabro writes: “the only belief or faith required in science is the reasonable and tested assumption that the laws of the observable universe haven’t changed since its inception.”
How exactly has this assumption been tested? Inception was a very long time ago, presumably.
In fact, it has not been tested and cannot be tested. This is a belief. One of many. Scientists believe more things, without which research would not be engaged nor proceed.
I remember trying to explain to young physicists why nothing, according to science, existed before the big bang. You could use all the established physics and equations you wanted to make a logical postulate but since nothing is left from before it, there was nothing before it. Believing any postulate is the same as believing in God.
Michael 2 October 18, 2017 at 8:27 am
Yes, that physical laws have remained the same since near inception are tested every time our telescopes receive 13 billion year-old photons.
Robert B October 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
You told the young physicists wrongly. Science does not say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. That could not possibly be more wrong.
We don’t know what existed before the Singularity, but it consisted of hot, dense matter and energy, in Big Bang theory. The theory says nothing about what came before.
Why did you assume and falsely teach that the theory says that nothing came before the Big Bang? Were you letting your religious beliefs influence your science instruction?
Bad on you!
Gabro, revealing his Science beliefs, asserts: “Yes, that physical laws have remained the same since near inception are tested every time our telescopes receive 13 billion year-old photons.”
I have a doubt that photons are time-stamped. Time is a product of the universe; it is not assured that time flows smoothly and continuously and without change; nor could we detect a change since the instruments themselves depend on the very thing they are trying to measure, Time itself.
So while it is easy enough to assert that THIS photon is 13 billion years old, in fact it might be only microseconds old, having been absorbed and retransmitted zillions of times since whenever, and it may well be, and almost certainly is, that in the early universe time was faster or slower. Inasmuch as Time changes with Gravity, and Gravity was much stronger in the Young Universe, time will have had different values, so will pretty much everything else it seems to me.
Michael 2 October 18, 2017 at 8:24 am
If you don’t grasp the difference between a scientific observation and a belief, then I can’t help you understand reality.
Gabro “then I can’t help you understand reality.”
That is correct; and I am sorry you have mistaken my words for a request for such a thing. You are part of my observable world; if it is not real then neither are you. Utility exists in making assumptions of reality, my body, real or not, becomes hungry or tired if ignored long enough.
Global warmists assert that the dangers of global warming are far in the future, but if to wait until then it is too late to mitigate (not too late to adapt by moving to higher ground for instance).
Religions sometimes propose a similar approach; the consequences of bad life decisions may be in the far future (smoking cigarettes for instance) but the time to make correct decisions is sooner rather than later.
Pascal’s Wager helps; there is no harm in my life to engage in religion and considerable potential benefit (including immediate social benefits). But if I make the wrong decision, well the badness depends on which God turns out to be “real”.
God is another word for what we don’t know. In religion, man work for the glory of the Lord but the future is in His hands. Translated for atheists: we do our best but are not responsable for the future. This is reasonable because we did not and cannot know the future. So, religion offers protection against doubts. However, secularisation destroyed this firewall against fears. Environmental organisations now exploit our fears with great success.
Seriously, Gabro? You can’t cope with a simple bit of philosophy? Nothing left for you to test a postulate – don’t postulate.
Inverse corollary: some scientists more likely to choose faith over data. This actually disqualifies them as scientists.
Put “Life” in a test tube and analyze it.
Get back with me when you have an hypothesis that is testable via the scientific method.
(Bonus points for a testable hypothesis of the origin of “Life”.)
There is a natural realm and there is a spiritual realm.
“Science” seeks to explore and understand the natural realm. It can not know anything of what is going on in the spiritual realm OR it’s impact on the natural realm.
My dog has a better chance of understanding the Stock Market and how it effects the food in his dog bowl.
Just because one does not believe that “The Science is Settled” or “The Consensus” is not the Final Appeal to Authority, does not mean they are nuts or unworthy to speak on scientific matters concerning out natural realm. Many are more likely to be more honest than those who are their own highest authority.
PS charles the moderator got the study right.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/17/study-some-faiths-may-turn-to-religion-for-science-answers/comment-page-1/#comment-2638829
The motive behind it is not to advance science’s understanding of of the natural realm.
It is aimed at those who question that Mann’s science is not the Final Authority.