The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the demarcation problem. Somewhat related is the claim thatscience and religion may pursue knowledge using different methodologies. The scientific method relies on reason and empiricism, religion acknowledges revelation, faith and sacredness. Some scholars say science and religion are separate, as in John William Draper’s conflict thesis and Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, while others (John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Ken Wilber, et al.) propose an interconnection.
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified using the following typology:
- Conflict, stating the disciplines contradict and are incompatible with each other.
- For example, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White’s conflict thesis
- Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
- For example, Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)
- Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
- For example, William G. Pollard’s studies in Physicist and Christian: A dialogue between the communities
- Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.
- For example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point and Ian Barbour’s sympathy towards process philosophy/process theology.
This typology is similar to ones found in Ian Barbour and John Haught. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as Arthur Peacocke.
A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensusinclude creationism (see level of support for evolution), and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive. In the Galileo affair, the acceptance, from 1616 to 1757, of the Greek geocentric model (Ptolemaic system) by the Roman Catholic Church, and its consequent opposition to heliocentrism, was first called into question by the Catholic cleric Copernicus, and subsequently disproved conclusively by Galileo, who was persecuted for his minority view.Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP, which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between religion and science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson—Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.
Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
— Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”
Other misconceptions such as: “the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages,” “the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science,” and “the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences,” are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of “the warfare of science and religion.”
While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White’s, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because “it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time.” Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical “that the rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought—in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism” (a thesis first developed as what is now sometimes called the Merton thesis). In recent years, Oxford historian Peter Harrisonhas further developed the idea that the Protestant Reformation had a significant and positive influence on the development of modern science. A review of alternatives to the White/Draper conflict thesis has been composed by Ian G. Barbour.
Richard H. Jones has recently proposed a “control” model that incorporates elements of both the conflict thesis and also the idea that religion can support science. Under the control model, religion will provide tacit or explicit support for scientific theories and research as long as scientific findings support religious doctrines. Religion can support science by making suggestions for research and by offering a cultural “legitimation” for a theory or for science in general. But religious institutions will attempt to assert religious “control beliefs” over any scientific theories that appear to conflict with a core religious doctrine. The Galileo affair and the conflict over evolution are prime examples.
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.
Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. Science is closely tied to mathematics—a very abstract experience, while religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate and may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding “oughts”.
The reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.
Parallels in method
Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion.
Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science. Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of “intellectual beauty, symmetry, and ‘empirical agreement’”. Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion.
Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that “the methods of science and religion have much in common.” Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have “a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application.” Coulson asserted that science, like religion, “advances by creative imagination” and not by “mere collecting of facts,” while stating that religion should and does “involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science.” Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. Rhetoric of science).
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God”.
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo,Kepler, and Boyle. The Pew Forum has published data on attitudes about religion and science.
Concerns over the nature of reality
Science in the Enlightenment and Colonial eras was conceived as ontological investigation which uncovered ‘facts’ about physical nature. This was often explicitly opposed to Christian Theology and the latter’s assertions of truth based on doctrine. This particular perspective on science faded in the early 20th century with the decline of logical empiricism and the rise of linguistic and sociological understandings of science. Modern scientists are less concerned with establishing universal or ontological truth (which is seen, and dismissed, as the pursuit of philosophy), and more inclined towards the creation of pragmatic, functional models of physical systems. Christian Theology—excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths—has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths.
Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during theOttoman empire. Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.
A fundamental principle of the Bahá’í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá’í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.
Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible. Some philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. A reliance on causality. philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science. However, Buddhism doesn’t focus onmaterialism.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, spends a lot of time with scientists. In his book, “The Universe in a Single Atom” he wrote, “My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation.” and “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false,” he says, “then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity. Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, all man really knows here is that the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. Habgood states that Christians have for two millennia believed in the love of God because he revealed “Himself as Love in Jesus Christ,” not because the physical universe does or does not point to the value of love.
Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology.
Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century
In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum.
Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion
The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view. However during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Menciuswas favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the Medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang. After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity’s fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world. After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism’s own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible.
Hindu views on evolution include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism.
Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge –
- Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception,
- Anumāna – logical inference and
- Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony.
Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more - Upamāna (comparison).
The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu andShiva, is described as performing the act of ‘creation’, or more specifically of ‘propagating life within the universe’ with the other two deities being responsible for ‘preservation’ and ‘destruction’ (of the universe) respectively. In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.
The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals. The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior). In India, the home country of Hindus; educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well.An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose “Darwinism” and themodern evolutionary synthesis (see Hindu Creationism).
According to most historians, the modern scientific method was first developed by Islamic scientists, pioneered by Ibn Al-Haytham, known to the west as “Alhazen”. Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.
However, the colonizing powers of the western world and their destruction of the Islamic scientific tradition forced the discourse of Islam and Science in to a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world were destroyed and replaced by new scientific institutions implemented by the colonizing powers and suiting their economic, political, and military agendas. This drastically changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to interact with the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a philosophy of nature completely foreign to them. From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced. However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief.
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in thecosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism asserts a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god.
The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour’s 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion. Since that time it has grown in to a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and Theology and Science. Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics and Science.
Recently philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism.
Influence of a biblical world view on early modern science
H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical influence on the early development of modern science. Cohen presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas’ argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to experimentation and a greater level of empiricism and a supreme God that left nature “de-deified” and open to emulation and manipulation. This argument gives support to the idea that the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. Cohen summarised Hooykaas’ conclusion as attributing the rise of modern science to the combination of the “Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions” in combination with “the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on”. Cohen also noted that Richard S. Westfall ”brought out the ultimate paradox” in stating: “Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi [English 17th-century scientists], the skepticism of the Enlightenment was already present in embryo among them. To be sure, their piety kept it in check, but they were unable to banish it. … They wrote to refute atheism, but where were the atheists? The virtuosi nourished the atheists within their own minds.”
Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature. Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall.
Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that “a belief in divine creation” was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences. Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton). John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiserhave written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that “when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the “laws that God has put into nature.” Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the “counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Historian Ronald L. Numbersstated that this thesis “received a boost” from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, “Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves.” The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, a Southern Baptist institution, argued in contrast that “Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”
Perspectives of religious communities
Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view
In the Middle Ages some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam attempted synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo (354-430) held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible. In the 11th century, however, scientific methods were being applied by both Muslim scientists and Christian scientists to domains such as optics and planetary orbits.
Non-fundamentalist religious views
In between these positions lie the views of non-fundamentalist religious believers. Large numbers of Christians and Jews still accept some or many traditional religious beliefs taught in their respective faith communities, but they no longer accept their tradition’s teachings as unquestionable and infallible. Liberal religious believers do believe in God, and believe that in some way God revealed divine will to humanity. They differ from religious fundamentalists in that they accept that even if their religious texts were divinely inspired, they are also human documents which reflect the cultural and historic limitations and biases of their authors. Many support allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Such believers are often comfortable with the findings of archaeological andlinguistic research and historical-critical study. They will often make use of literary and historical analysis of religious texts to understand how they developed, and to see how they might apply in our own day. This approach developed among Protestantscholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now found among other Christians, Liberal Jewish communities and others.
Some religious approaches acknowledge the historical relationship between modern science and ancient doctrines. For example, John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1981 spoke of the relationship this way: “The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer”. This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is theistic evolution.
This understanding of the role of scripture in relation to science is captured by the phrase: “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Thomas Jay Oord said: “The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant.”
Perspectives from the Scientific community
In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen. While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief. Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century, when science became more professionalised.
Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In “Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium” published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated:
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism).
Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and past head of the Human Genome Project, and climatologist John T. Houghton.
Studies of scientists’ belief in God
Some of the most recent research into scientists’ self reported belief in God is discussed by Professor Elaine Howard Ecklund. Some of her most interesting findings were that scientist-believers generally considered themselves “religious liberals” (not fundamentalists), and that their religion did not change the way they did science, but rather the way they reflected on its implications. Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%). Doctors of medicine in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).
Studies on the views of scientists
Among contemporary scientists—physicists and biologists—about 40% held strong religious beliefs in 1997, which closely matched those of a similar 1916 poll.
According to a 1996 survey of United States scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is “in intellectual and affective communication with humankind” was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, about 60% of United Statesscientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.
Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered “I do not believe in God” and about 30% answering “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out.” According to the same survey, “[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition.” In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that “the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable” and that “[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.”
An explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that “found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.” and “90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults.” He reasoned, “The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.”
Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be “substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God”. Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.
Religious beliefs of US professors, many in scientific fields, were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400, published in Sociology of Religion. They found that 60.8 percent of biology professors “are either atheists or agnostics” (p. 115).
Ecklund and Sheitle, in a 2005–2007 survey, compared differences between natural and social scientists at the 21 elite US research universities that they surveyed. 52 percent of the scientists listed themselves as having no religious affiliation. Analyses of the more than 1600 responses indicated that “differences in religiosity between natural and social scientists are simply no longer a meaningful descriptor of the place of religion in the academy. For the most part, there is little difference between these larger fields [social versus natural science] or between the specific disciplines themselves. The differences that do exist are seen among chemists and political scientists who are more likely to be religious, according to traditional indicators, when compared to physicists”.
Scientific studies on religion
Scientific studies have been done on religiosity as a social or psychological phenomenon. These include studies on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence (often IQ, but also other factors). A recent study on serotonin receptors and religiosity suggests a correlation between low density of serotonin receptors and intense religious experiences. Also of popular interest are the studies regarding prayer and medicine, in particular whether there is any causal or correlative link between spiritual supplication and improvement of health. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being “very happy” than the least religiously committed people. A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness. An analysis of over 200 social studies that “high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being.” A review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency. Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism. Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health. Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.
Other studies have shown that certain mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, are also associated with high levels of religiosity. In addition, anti-psychotic medication, which is mainly aimed to block dopamine receptors, typically reduces religious behaviour and religious delusions.
Some historians, philosophers and scientists hope that the theory of memetics, reminiscent of the theory of genetics, will allow the modeling of the evolution of human culture, including the evolutionary origin of religions. Daniel Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell (2006) attempts to begin such an analysis of modern religions. The idea that evolutionary processes are involved in the development of human culture and religion is not particularly controversial among natural scientists, although other approaches based on social sciences such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and economics are more prevalent in academic use.
Perspectives from the Public
Studies on the views of the public and individuals in higher education
Research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets. Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80-90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual’s lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.  A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.
Cross-national studies on religion and science have noted that countries with high religiosity also have stronger faith in science, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.
Religion and science community
The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the “religion-and-science dialogue” or the “religion-and-science field.” The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians, and engaged non-professionals.[not in citation given] Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.
- ^ John Polkinghorne Science and Theology SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour
- ^ Creation and double chaos: science and theology in discussion, Sjoerd Lieuwe Bonting, 2005, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-3759-3, page 5
- ^ Nature, Human Nature, and God, Ian G. Barbour, Fortress Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8006-3477-2
- ^ Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, 1995, p. 9 Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
Throughout these pages we shall observe that there are at least four distinct ways in which science and religion can be related to each other:Religion in an Age of Science (1990), ISBN 0-06-060383-6
- Conflict — the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;
- Contrast — the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions;
- Contact — an approach that looks for dialogue. interaction. and possible “consonance” between science and religion. and especially for ways in which science shapes religious and theological understanding.
- Confirmation — a somewhat quieter but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise.
- ^ The Sciences and theology in the twentieth century, Arthur R. Peacocke (ed),University of Notre Dame press, 1981 ISBN 0-268-01704-2, p. xiii-xv
- ^ Owen, Richard (2009-03-17). “Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids they make it worse”. The Times (London). Retrieved 2010-05-22.
- ^ Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the ancient world: an encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 29–30. ISBN 1-85109-534-9. Retrieved 2 October 2009.
- ^ Galilei, Galileo (1613). “Letter to Benedetto Castelli”. Florence. “It follows that it is absolutely impossible to stop the sun and lengthen the day in the system of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and therefore either the motions must not be arranged as Ptolemy says or we must modify the meaning of the words of the Scripture; we would have to claim that, when it says that God stopped the sun, it meant to say that He stopped the Prime Mobile, and that is said the contrary of what it would have said if speaking to educated men in order to adapt itself to the capacity of those who are barely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun.”
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. pp. 69, 70, 102.ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-08-19. “In December 1615, however, Galileo went to Rome of his own accord to defend the Copernican theory…. In contrast to our starting myth, it is an easy matter to point to important figures of Scientific Revolution who were themselves Catholics. The man often credited with the first major step of the Scientific Revolution, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), was not only Catholic but in Holy Orders as a cathedral canon (a cleric charged with administrative duties).”
- ^ Ginzburg, Vitaly (2000). “Религия и наука. Разум и вера. (Religion and science –reason and faith).” (in Russian). Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life). Retrieved 2011-08-19. “Finally, the attitude of the Church to science. The history of this relationship is controversial. At certain stages of the monasteries served as a bulwark of science, its development centres. The most famous example – work of Copernicus, who was a priest.”
- ^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
- ^ Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB et al. (2006). “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer”. Am. Heart J. 151 (4): 934–42. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028. PMID 16569567.
- ^ http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html
- ^ http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/1999/10/01/holy-wars
- ^ Quotation from Ferngren’s introduction at “Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.”
“…while [John] Brooke’s view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.” (p. x)
- ^ Quotation from Colin A. Russell in “The Conflict Thesis” the first essay of “Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.”
“The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.” (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong).
- ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
- ^ a b Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN 0-275-95904-X; ISBN 978-0-275-95904-3.
- ^ Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Studies in the History of Science and Christianity.
- ^ Ronald Numbers (Lecturer) (May 11, 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective (Video Lecture). University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Also see Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard, 2009)
- ^ Cohen(1994) pp 310-311
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007)ISBN 978-0-521-87559-2; The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science(Cambridge, 1998) ISBN 978-0-521-00096-3.
- ^ Ian G. Barbour, “Ways of relating science and theology” in Physics, philosophy, and theology: a common quest for understanding (Editors: Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne; Vatican City and Notre Dame Press, 1988).
- ^ John Hedley Brooke, Bibliographic Essay (pages 348-403) in Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, pages 349-350.
- ^ Jones, Richard H., For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2011.
- ^ Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Books, 1999.
- ^ W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Religion and Science, John Habgood, Mills & Brown, 1964, pp., 11, 14-16, 48-55, 68-69, 90-91, 87
- ^ a b c d e f g Barbour, Ian G. (1968). “Science and Religion Today”. In Ian G. Barbour (ed.). Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue (1st ed.). New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row. pp. 3–29.
- ^ Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- ^ “Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes”.
- ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). “Science and the Bahá’í Faith”. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 14 (3): 229–253.
- ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá’í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–307. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
- ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). “Religion and Evolution Reconciled: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Comments on Evolution”. The Journal of Bahá’í studies 13 (1–4): 55–93.
- ^ Yong, Amos. (2005) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (review) Buddhist-Christian Studies – Volume 25, 2005, pp. 176-180
- ^ Wallace, B. Alan. (2003) ” Buddhism & science: breaking new ground” Columbia University Press, pp 328
- ^ Hamilton, Jon. (2005) “The Links Between the Dalai Lama and Neuroscience” www.NPR.org, November 11, 2005 
- ^ Dalia Lama. (2005) “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality” Broadway.
- ^ Russell, Robert John (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. pp. 344. ISBN 978-0-8006-6273-8.
- ^ Knight, Christopher C. (2008). “God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell” (subscription required). Science & Christian Belief 20 (2): 214–215.
- ^ Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain,Peter J. Bowler, 2001, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06858-7. Front dustcover flap material
- ^ James C. Peterson (2001). Genetic Turning Points: The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. “As to specifically Christian theists, an example of continue presence would be the American Scientific Affiliation. It currently has about two thousand members, all of whom affirm the Apostles’ Creed as part of joining the association, and most of whom hold Ph.D.s in the natural sciences. Their active journal is Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Across the Atlantic, the Society of Ordained Scientists and Christians in Science are similar affiliation in Great Britain.”
- ^ Cua, Antonio S. “The Quasi-Empirical Aspect of Hsün-tzu’s Philosophy of Human Nature.” PEW 28 (1978), 3-19.
- ^ Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. “Utilitarian Confucianism : Chʻen Liang’s challenge to Chu Hsi” Cambridge, Mass. : Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University : Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1982.
- ^ Black, Alison Harley. “Man and Nature in the Philosophical Thought of Wang Fu-Chih.” Publications on Asia of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, no. 41. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1989
- ^ Mary Evelyn Tucker “Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans (Religions of the World and Ecology)” Center for the Study of World Religions (August 15, 1998)
- ^ a b Carl Mitcham (2005). Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 917. ISBN 0-02-865831-0.
- ^ A Hindu Primer by Shukavak N. Dasa
- ^ Sarma, Deepak (2011) “Classical Indian Philosophy: A Reader” p.167 Columbia University Press
- ^ Samkhya Karika, śloka4
- ^ “Religion & Ethics-Hinduism”. BBC. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
- ^ Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana (May 18–21, 1995). “Science and spirituality: Any Points of Contact? The Teachings of U.G.Krishnamurti: A Case Study”. Krishnamurti Centennial Conference. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
- ^ a b Rastogi, V.B. (1988). Organic Evolution. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, New Delhi.
- ^ Cvancara, A.M. (1995). A field manual for the amateur geologist. John Wiley & sons, Inc. New York.
- ^ Similarities in concept of evolution of life on earth in Dashavatar and modern Geology. Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi, American Chronicle
- ^ a b Dr Kutty (2009). Adam’s Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve. Xlibris Corporation. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-4415-0729-7.
- ^ http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/opinions-evolution-from-ten-countries-004885
- ^ Hamilton, Fiona. The Times (London).http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6610938.ece.
- ^ a b c Muzaffar Iqbal (2007). Science & Islam. Greenwood Press.
- ^ 2. Toshihiko Izutsu (1964). God and Man in the Koran. Weltansckauung. Tokyo.
- ^ 3. Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence (A.I. Sabra)
- ^ Rosanna Gorini (2003). “Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision”, International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy.
- ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
- ^ a b Seyyid Hossein Nasr. “Islam and Modern Science”
- ^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
- ^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). “Jain Philosophy”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge). Retrieved 2008-06-27.
- ^ a b Smedes, Taede A. (2008). “Beyond Barbour or Back to Basics? The Future of Science-and-Religion and the Quest for Unity”. Zygon 43 (1): 235 58.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00910.x.
- ^ Theerman, Paul “James Clerk Maxwell and religion”, American Journal of Physics, 54 (4), April 1986, p.312–317 doi:10.1119/1.14636
•What is truth? A course in science and religion Peter J. Brancazio, Am. J. Phys. 62, 893 (1994) doi:10.1119/1.17735
•The stifling grip of religion Romard Barthel Am. J. Phys. 68, 785 (2000)doi:10.1119/1.1303729
•Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer Author Jeremy Bernstein and Reviewer, Am. J. Phys. 68, 676 (2000), doi:10.1119/1.19513
•Science, religion, and skepticism, Dwight E. Neuenschwander, Am. J. Phys. 66, 273 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.19024
•Copernicus and Martin Luther: An encounter between science and religion Donald H. Kobe, Am. J. Phys. 66, 190 (1998), doi:10.1119/1.18844
•Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation John F. Haught and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1532 (1996), doi:10.1119/1.18441
•Science and Religion—A Comment M. A. Vandyck, Am. J. Phys. 64, 110 (1996),doi:10.1119/1.18125
•Religion versus science? Eduardo Segre, Am. J. Phys. 62, 296 (1994),doi:10.1119/1.17567
•Does religion contradict science? Mehmet Pakdemirli, Am. J. Phys. 61, 201 (1993),doi:10.1119/1.17287
•Religion versus science? Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Am. J. Phys. 60, 871 (1992),doi:10.1119/1.17004
•A response to “Religion vs. Science?, by Jay Orear Allen C. Dotson, Am. J. Phys. 60, 778 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.17057
•Religion vs. science? Jay Orear, Am. J. Phys. 60, 394 (1992), doi:10.1119/1.16889
•Religion in an Age of Science Ian G. Barbour and Eugene E. Selk, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1152 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16630
•Making sense of experience: Common ground in science and religion Harry D. Powell, Am. J. Phys. 59, 679 (1991), doi:10.1119/1.16767
•Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth—An appeal for joint commitment in science and religion Carl Sagan, Am. J. Phys. 58, 615 (1990), doi:10.1119/1.16418
•James Clerk Maxwell and religion. Paul Theerman, Am. J. Phys. 54, 312 (1986),doi:10.1119/1.14636
- ^ a b c d Science 15 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5328, pp. 890 – 893; “Scientific Community: Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Gregg Easterbrookdoi:10.1126/science.277.5328.890
- ^ •Science 12 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5332, pp. 1589 – 1591; “Letters: Science and Religion” doi:10.1126/science.277.5332.1589a
•Science 13 December 1957: Vol. 126. no. 3285, pp. 1225 – 1229; “Science and the Citizen” Warren Weaver doi:10.1126/science.126.3285.1225
•Science 25 April 1958: Vol. 127. no. 3304, pp. 1004+1006; “Letters: Science and Religion”
•Science, 6 June 1958, 127(3310), pages 1324-1327; “A Human Enterprise: Science as lived by its practitioners bears but little resemblance to science as described in print.”doi:10.1126/science.127.3310.1324
•Science 23 February 2001: Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1472 – 1474; “PAPAL SCIENCE: Science and Religion Advance Together at Pontifical Academy” Charles Seifedoi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1472
- ^ Science and Religion, by Alvin Plantinga, 2007, 2010.
- ^ Particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism.
- ^ a b The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-226-11280-2, pages 308-321
- ^ ”Finally, and most importantly, Hooykaas does not of course claim that the Scientific Revolution was exclusively the work of Protestant scholars.” Cohen(1994) p 313
- ^ Cohen(1994) p 313. Hooykaas puts it more poetically: “Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical.”
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998).
- ^ Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge, 2007); see also Charles Webster, The Great Instauration (London: Duckworth, 1975)
- ^ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.’s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science and Religion,John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
- ^ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991,Cambridge University Press
- ^ John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960).
- ^ Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).
- ^ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991,Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19. See also Peter Harrison, “Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature”, Journal of the History of Ideas56 (1995), 531-53.
- ^ Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew, Oxford University Press, 2007, Ronald L. Numbers, p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of Michael B. Foster, Reijer Hooykaas, Eugene M. Klaaren, andStanley L. Jaki
- ^ Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, 2003, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-11436-6, page 123
- ^ Davis, Edward B. (2003). “Christianity, History Of Science And Religion”. In Van Huyssteen, Wentzel. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 123–7. ISBN 978-0-02-865704-2
- ^ Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 – 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”
- ^ Machamer, Peter (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 0-521-58841-3.
- ^ Peter Harrison, ‘Religion, the Royal Society, and the Rise of Science’, Theology and Science, 6 (2008), 255-71.
- ^ Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (London, 1667)
- ^ Frank Turner, ‘The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension’, Isis, 49 (1978) 356-76.
- ^ Albert Einstein:Religion and Science
- ^ a b 1997 poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia published byNature:Nature 386, 435 – 436 (3 April 1997) Scientists are still keeping the faith, Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
- ^ a b Essay Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates
- ^ a b Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., “Scientists are still keeping the faith,”, Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
- ^ a b Pew Research Center: “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media“,Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion. July 9, 2009.
- ^ a b Easton, John. Survey on physicians’ religious beliefs shows majority faithfulMedical Center Public Affairs, U of C Chronicle. July 14, 2005.http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith–.shtml accessed:1-February-09
- ^ http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.html
- ^ Larson and Witham, 1998 “Leading Scientists Still Reject God”
- ^ article from Physorg.com
- ^ Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame:Religious upbringing, age, and family size influence religiosity among scientists June 29, 2007
- ^ “Scientists and Belief”. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2011–04-08. “A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.”
- ^ Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, v70 n2, pp101-129.doi:10.1093/socrel/srp026 (EISSN 1759-8818, ISSN 1069-4404)
- ^ http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/religion-and-spirituality-among-natural-and-social-science-faculty-at-elite-rese
- ^ Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, v54 n2, pp289-307. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 From May to June 2005, the researchers “randomly selected 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology…. [with a] a relatively high response rate of 75 percent or 1,646″ (p. 293) (p. 299).
- ^ Dr. Lars Farde Ph.D, professor of psychiatry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden 2003, the study and a vulgarized article
- ^ p. 156 of Keith Ward (2007), Is Religion Dangerous? (ISBN 0802845088). Ward citesDavid Myers in a reference that appears intended to refer to Myers’ then-forthcoming chapter “Religion and Human Flourishing” (pp. 323-343) in Michael Eid and Randy J. Larsen (2007). The Science of Subjective Well-Being. Guilford Press, ISBN 1-59385-581-8
- ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). “Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness”. In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
- ^ Smith,Timothy, Michael McCullough, and Justin Poll. 2003: “Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events.” Psychological Bulletin 129(4):614–36
- ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
- ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
- ^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
- ^ Is Religion Dangerous? Ch 9.
- ^ quoting Michael Argyle and others
- ^ Abramowitz, Jonathan S., J. D. Huppert, A. B. Cohen, D. F. Tolin, and S. P. Cahill, “Religious obsessions and compulsions in a non-clinical sample: the Penn Inventory of Scrupulosity (PIOS)”, Behaviour Research and Therapy 40:7 (2002): 825-838.
- ^ McNamara, Patrick, “The Frontal Lobes and the Evolution of Cooperation and Religion”, in: idem (ed.), Where God and Science meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter our Understanding of Religion, London: Praeger Perspectives 2006, Vol. 2, pp. 189-204.
- ^ Evans, John (2011). “Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727.
- ^ Baker, Joseph O. (2012). “Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between “Science and Religion”". Public Understanding of Science 21 (3): 340–353.
- ^ “Religious Belief and Public Attitudes About Sceince in the US”. Pew Research Center. pp. 1-2, 13.
- ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). “U.S. College students’ perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
- ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1. “Instead, as is clearly shown in Figure 3.3, societies with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs.” and “Indeed, the secular postindustrial societies, exemplified by the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, prove most skeptical toward the impact of science and technology, and this is in accordance with the countries where the strongest public disquiet has been expressed about certain contemporary scientific developments such as the use of genetically modified organisms, biotechnological cloning, and nuclear power.”
- ^ Religion-and-Science Philip Hefner, pages 562-576 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)—Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
- ^ a b Hefner, Philip (2008). “Editorial: Religion-and-Science, the Third Community”.Zygon 43 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00893.x.
- ^ Ian Ramsey Centre
- Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion. SanFrancisco: Harper, 2000.
- Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. SanFrancisco: Harper, 1997. ISBN 0-06-060938-9
- Drummond, Henry. Natural Law in the Spiritual World. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 29th Edition, 1890 
- Haught, John F. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Paulist Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8091-3606-6
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. “Scientists are still keeping the faith” Nature Vol. 386, pp. 435 – 436 (3 April 1997)
- Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. “Leading scientists still reject God,” Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. online version
- Einstein on Religion and Science from Ideas and Opinions (1954), Crown Publishers, ISBN 0-517-00393-7
- The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science Philip Clayton(ed.), Zachary Simpson(associate-ed.)—Hardcover 2006, paperback July 2008-Oxford University Press, 1023 pages
- The BioLogos Forum: Science and Faith in Dialogue
- Test of Faith - From the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
- Counterbalance.org: Science and Religion Project
- “Faith and Reason” – website about the historical relations between science and religion, PBS
- Religion and Science in Historical Perspective by Ted Davis
- Is Science Killing the Soul? – Discussion with atheists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker on Edge Foundation.
- Meaning of Life A collection of video interviews with prominent scientists about topics relating science and religion (requires WMV or RealMedia software)
- Clash in Cambridge: Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever – by John Horgan, Scientific American, September 2005
- How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science, David Masci, Pew Research Center
- Robert M. Young (1985). “Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture”. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
- Zygon Journal of Religion and Science
- Science and Religion by Archbishop Luke of Crimea, an Eastern Orthodox perspective
- Victorian Science and Religion The Victorian Web: Literature, History, and Culture in the Age of Victoria
- SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS SCIENCE and RELIGION: DIALOG OF PHYSICISTS AND THEOLOGIANS
- The Metaphysical Foundations of Buddhism and Sciences