Abstract
Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think offers a unique blend of data, sociological insights, and perceptive commentary on the relationship between religious Americans and the practice and practitioners of science. Authored by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund and Christopher P. Scheitle, Religion vs. Science is the outgrowth of extensive research and field work on how religious individuals think about science, and is particularly effective at dispelling the dominant myths about the apparent conflict between science and religion. The book is helpfully structured around such myths, with each chapter not only offering data about what religious individuals think about particular aspects of science, but nuanced discussion about why possible tensions exist in the first place. These myths include: ‘Religious People Do Not Like Science’, ‘Religious People Are All Young-Earth Creationists’, and ‘Religious People Are Climate Change Deniers’ (among others).
The strength of Religion vs. Science is that it acknowledges tensions between many religious people and particular aspects of scientific practice and knowledge, while still insisting on a complex narrative that goes beyond the ‘vs.’ in the ‘science vs. religion’ discussion. It is common within this discussion to either assume a conflict narrative between the two poles of science and religion, or to prematurely dismiss or gloss over the specific conflicts experienced by religious individuals. Ecklund and Scheitle manage to avoid both errors, to their credit. For example, when discussing the myth that ‘Religious People Are Against Scientific Technology,’ the authors point out that while religious people are indeed reticent to embrace technologies that select for and enhance desirable features in babies (e.g., intelligence, strength, attractiveness), they are also likely to condone the use of technologies that identify and treat disease. Helpfully, the authors also discuss the conceptual basis for the tensions that do exist: in this case, the concepts of personhood and divine design and intentions for human life.
This book will be useful for a broad spectrum of people wishing to understand the beliefs and motivations of those dissimilar to themselves, ranging from conservative evangelicals to nonreligious scientists. One potential shortfall of the book is that its tone could be perceived as being occasionally condescending, insofar as the authors attempt to provide strategies for scientists to get religious people ‘on board’ with the scientific enterprise. Nonetheless, the book is extremely well-researched and particularly valuable as a sociological reference work for anyone interested in the science-and-religion dialogue.