You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
2005-08-21
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

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. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices. "Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. "Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
Posted by:anonymous5089

#7  I don't question your existence. Not since the flood, anyway.
Posted by: God   2005-08-21 20:38  

#6  The answer to our grant application is in, and... there IS GOD!!!
Posted by: gromgoru   2005-08-21 19:28  

#5  Isn't Paul Krugman [NYT] an economist who keeps telling us how terrible the economy is? Nuff said.
Posted by: Thaith Unaiper7383   2005-08-21 15:31  

#4  Social science also includes economics, a highly empirical and predictive social science. To take one highly competent example, Link.
Posted by: Curt Simon   2005-08-21 12:33  

#3  I'm not certain if scientists exist. Maybe, let's wait and see, the time frame in question is too small to warrant a Holy Investigation of things I done in one really bad week.
Posted by: Gawd Gorilla   2005-08-21 10:00  

#2  "Social Science" is usually sociology, history, etc. They like the trappings of terms like 'science', but they're none predictive. Not surprising you'll find the socialist and neo-marxists in that crowd in greater numbers. Obviously, the study was done by those types considering their prejudices and the comment "The opposite had expected".
Posted by: Jerenter Elmang8955   2005-08-21 09:03  

#1  Somehow I've never thought of "social scientists" as being scientists in any way, shape or form.

Posted by: john   2005-08-21 08:41  

00:00