Who would have thought that scientists would be religious?

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Quote:

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

It seems to me that those people who are in the natural sciences would, because of their adherence to empiricism, would be LESS likely to believe in a God. The social sciences, being more subjective, might very well attract a person of faith.

I am curious as to how the author of the piece came to his erroneous conclusion. It all seems so obvious to me.

Elaine Howard Ecklund received her B.S. in Human Development in 1995 from Cornell University. While here she was a member of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and upon graduation took a position as InterVarsity staff. After three years she returned to Cornell to begin her doctoral degree in Sociology. She received her M.A. in Sociology in 2001 for her work on feminism and women's leadership in the Catholic Church, and will defend her dissertation, The "Good" American: Religion and Civic Adaptation Among Second-Generation Korean Americans this spring.

Among her many awards she received Sage Fellowships in 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, Teaching Awards in 2001 and 2003, and a 2003 Albert S. Roe Graduate Student Research Award. She was involved in the Pew Mentoring Program from 2000-2003 and continues to be an active member of the Graduate Christian Fellowship.

Source: http://www.chestertonhouse.org/ecklundbio.html

All Things Considered, April 4, 1997 · NPR's David Baron reports that religious faith is not dead in the scientific community. A survey reported this week in the journal "Nature" found 40-percent of scientists believe in God, meaning a personal divinity to whom one can pray for answers. The finding is virtually unchanged from a poll conducted 80-years ago and raises questions about how scientists who believe in God manage to reconcile conflicts between their faith and their work.
LINK

I'm not finding a lot to dispute Ecklund's study and am finding quite a bit to support it. Such as the following (which wasn't restricted to academic scientists only as Ecklund's study was):

Nor could I access Wolf's site with Ecklund's biography.

I don't see where the contradiction is. Scientists know that the fact that you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you can't empirically prove it.

Religion and science don't mix and competent scientists who subscribe to a faith don't try. The key word here is faith; faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. Science is based on empiricism. In other words, it relies unequivocally on physical evidence and, to some degree, on extrapolation based on previously discovered laws or principles. Competent scientists of faith simply do what we all do: they separate some aspects of their lives from other aspects.

Many scientists believe in God or a higher power, but they don't allow religious dogma to interfere with their quest for knowledge. No competent physicist or geologist believes in the young Earth idea connected to creationism, there is no debate about the validity of evolution in the scientific community, and few competent scientists really believe Noah built a boat big enough to hold two of every animal. We would decertify the physician who relied on prayer rather than medicine to heal, prosecute the psychologist who counseled a modern day Abraham to do what the voices told him to and sacrifice his son, and fire the physicist whose research conclusion read "Everything is the way it is because God wants it that way.

This is no wake up call and will come as a surprise only to those who are unfamiliar with the scientific community. Scientists of faith simply realize what so many don't--the existence of God is unprovable, and that's okay because it wouldn't be faith otherwise.

I did, but didn't find anything as sinister about her as you implied in your post.

Mills75 wrote:

Religion and science don't mix and competent scientists who subscribe to a faith don't try. The key word here is faith; faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. Science is based on empiricism. In other words, it relies unequivocally on physical evidence and, to some degree, on extrapolation based on previously discovered laws or principles. Competent scientists of faith simply do what we all do: they separate some aspects of their lives from other aspects.

Many scientists believe in God or a higher power, but they don't allow religious dogma to interfere with their quest for knowledge. No competent physicist or geologist believes in the young Earth idea connected to creationism, there is no debate about the validity of evolution in the scientific community, and few competent scientists really believe Noah built a boat big enough to hold two of every animal. We would decertify the physician who relied on prayer rather than medicine to heal, prosecute the psychologist who counseled a modern day Abraham to do what the voices told him to and sacrifice his son, and fire the physicist whose research conclusion read "Everything is the way it is because God wants it that way.

This is no wake up call and will come as a surprise only to those who are unfamiliar with the scientific community. Scientists of faith simply realize what so many don't--the existence of God is unprovable, and that's okay because it wouldn't be faith otherwise.

WOW.....great post. I wish I could give you a cookie.