29737783.pdf Religion and Science PDF

Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative
Author(s): John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34 (2008), pp. 87-105
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737783
Accessed: 07-12-2015 14:14 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737783?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 111.68.111.154 on Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:14:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Religion
and Science:
Beyond the Epistemological

Conflict Narrative
JohnH. Evans andMichael
S. Evans
Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego;

email: jhevans@ucsd.edu, msevans@ucsd.edu
Annu. Rev. Social. 2008.34:87-105

First published online as a Review inAdvance on
April7,2008
ThtAmttS?iRnitwofSodologjf
sccannuafaevicwaxirg
is online at
This article, doi:

10.U46/_nnurevjoc34.040507.134702
Reviews.
?2008 byAnnual
Copyright
All rights reserved
0360-0572A)8A)8U-0087$20.00
KeyWords
secularization, rationality,STS, institutions,values
Abstract
Studies of die relationship between religion and science have tradi?
tionallyassumed that any conflict that exists is based on epistemology.
This assumption isbuilt into thehistoryofWestern academic thought,
thefounding of sociology itself;as well as die common definitionsof
religion used by social scientists.This assumption has hindered theex?
amination of the relationshipbetween religion and science.We catego?

rize studies of the relationship between science and religion into three
groups: the symbolic epistemol?gica! conflict studies, the symbolic di?
rectional influencestudies, and the social-institutionalstudies.
We find
that the social-institutional studies,which most closely examine actual
public conflicts,do not presume thatdie conflictisover epistemological
claims and offeramore general andfruitfulapproach to examining the
relationshipbetween religion and science.
*7
INTRODUCTION
we
Although
ative
we
ence
The
study of the compar?
of sociological
that
suspect
is one
of no
know
coherence
versies was
research
areas,
the field
of religion
and sci?
in all of
sociology.
of this muddiness
lies in
of the muddiest
source
conceptual
the long-running
that re?
academic
assumption
science always conflict and that they
and
ligion
conflict over competing
truth claims about the
to
It is therefore hard for sociologists
world.
the relationship
dispassionately
itself was born as a scientific
analyze
sociology
tive to
Before
religion.
in science
the literature
we
because
alterna?
a review
begin
we must
and religion,
of this conceptual
to define
We
do not attempt
religion
ence here. Rather, we
focus on how
the sources
outline
have
used
these categories
morass.
and
sci?
scholars
to generate
It is our general
position
in this review
epistemological
conflict
assumption
findings.
that the
built
into
exam?
has hindered
many
of
sociological
analyses
ination of the relationship
between
religion
to more
science by blinding
subtle
analysts
and
em?
titled, "science
The
were
dominant
between
ship
1985,
Dominance
Epistemological
is a deep
There
most
academic
mer
assumption
spread
through
about
and
the seventeenth
Church.
For
century Catholic
a textbook
on the
be?
example,
relationship
tween science
and religion
identifies four his?
synthesis,
troversies,
Darwinism
rhetoric
in the debate:
the medieval
con?
the Copernican
and Galilean
over Newton's
debates
and
ideas,
(McGrath
1999). The
of contemporary
also often portrays
supporters
fare, with
scientists
political
and
a situation
their
of war?
about
complaints
religion
shutting
stem cell research
and so on
legitimate
2005). As one recent article by a scien?
(Mooney
tist enumerating
the results of scientific con tro
down
88
of Cornell
president
Andrew
University,
[1896]).
narrative.
American
cludes
no
historians
However,
warfare
For
history, Numbers
that "the polemically
the
accept
longer
example,
examining
con?
(1985,
p. 80)
attractive
warfare
Or, even more

[is] historically
bankrupt."
war between
and
"the
sci?
strongly
specifically,
thesis
ence
and
in colonial
theology
ex?
has
America
isted primarily in the clich?-bound minds of

historians"
science
between
there was
Indeed,
(p. 64).
vailing harmony
in the antebellum
itly
the first skirmishbeing between Galileo
landmarks
indi?
Dickson White, A History of the

Warfare ofSci?
encewith Theology inChristendom(White 1960
and
"pre?
religion
(p. 68). This

period"
analy?
if and when
there is conflict,
that
or permanent
inevitable
feature
of
life and, further, that the idea of con?
science. Note
Narrative
and sci?
religion
ence:
ac?
the warfare
In
narrative.
popular
counts, religion and science are fixed categories
of thought
that have always been at war, with
torical
is classically
narrative
flict is tied to specificdefinitionsof religion and
of the
Warfare
writing
aca?
older
metaphors
military
in descriptions
of the relation?
and science
(Numbers
religion
59). This
p.
does match
in which
cated in the title of an 1896 textby the for?
American
The
narrative
warfare
accounts
demic
sis suggests
it is not an
pirical possibilities.
zero"
three, religion
(Mazur 1996).
ity
assumes
to establish
about
mans
truth claims
how
planets
came
from
When
move
about
through
Drawing
to
Aquinas,
a very
to be
to
according
in the United
compatible
ist and a minister
could
believed
about
was
easily
agree
twice
on what
1994,
(Tourney
in this view: once
through
go back
of nature
design,
evangelical
States
and once
scripture,
on an idea that may
the details
religious
Tourney,
intellectually
that a natural?
nature"
revealed
wonderful
not an
life, it is because,
century,
and science were so
Protestantism
hu?
history, religion and sci?

to establish
truth. In fact,
on how
science used
historically
For example,
endeavor.
in the nineteenth
"early
they
p. 14). God
the world?
say that conflict was
of American
agreed
implic?
the author?
or where
(Galileo)
feature of American
for much
of God's
narrative
is over
(Darwin).
historians
inevitable
ence
that the warfare

that the warfare
were
itwas
Evans ? Evans
nature.
at least
evidence
thought,
and
further
that "nature
contains
clear,
compelling
evidence
of God's
existence
and
perfection"
(Hovenkamp 1978, p. ix).

Warfare
Epistemological
at the Birth of Sociology
Despite thehistorical lackof inevitableconflict
between
science
been
and
its existence
has
religion,
in
American
culture
assumption
deep
and
in American
universities.
Al?
particularly
over the secu?
it is possible
that
conflict
though
larization
of American
of the conflict
the narrative
is the source
universities
narrative,
has filtered
whatever
the source,
into much
of the soci?
we have been able to

ological work that
identify.
a
It is nearly
theoret?
always
deep, unexamined
ical assumption
that we try to unearth
in this
reason for this
review. One
is that
assumption
the founders of the
of
discipline
sociology?the
creators
we rework
of the
year af?
metaphors
ter year
posed
(e.g., culture, rationality)?actively

and saw the two systems
religion
compatible
means
of
world (Smith 2003b).

This
vision
of the new
We
should
claims
making
of
op?
the
the result
incompatibility
field's Enlightenment
assumptions.
not
was Comte,
the
forget that it
father of
supposed
sociology, who
thought he
was
to
the
of
the time
going
replace
religion
with a new
of
science
called
religion
sociology.
Societies
would
evolve
from a primitive
theo?
as
a
and
more
stage,
logical
society acquired
rational
of the world,
understanding
theology
would be displaced by philosophical

thinking
and
ultimately
by the "queen
of the sciences,"
sociology (Wernick 2005). A conflictbetween

science
shrined
logical
and
religion
in the earliest
enterprise.
over
truth was
conception
then
institutionalized,
did not need
to have
sequent
sociologists
motivation
for the religion-science
to
continue.
sumption
This
conflict
nineteenth
century notion
was
and
both
gion
primitive
deserving
to have an imminent
death was
also
among
When
the
founders
it came
to
of American
founding
en?
of the socio?
Once
sociology
that
were
(Swatos
1984),
gists
personally
religious
to
as an
the commitment
positivism
epistemo
stance in American
science created a sit?
logical
in which
uation
detracted
religion
from
scien?
tificcredibilityand thereforehad tobe excluded

for the new
in order
in the
university.
commitments,
move
Irrespective
sociologists
as a contributor
religion
discipline
through
ment of textbooks
of study
object
to
discipline
gain
respect
of their personal
to re?
took action
to the
developing
tactics as the
develop?
such
as an
religion
a source of knowl?
that described
rather
than
edge (Smith 2003 b) and through the active ex?
clusion
of religious
and its supporters
sociology
the field's core institutions
(Evans
2008).
as a source of
By excluding
religion
sociological
knowledge,
early American
sociologists
hoped
to promote
as a
academic
sociology
respected
from
scientificdiscipline.
as in?
about
was
tuai discipline with

in universities,
departments
the boundary
inten?
against
drawing
religion
sified. Although
several key American
sociolo?
sub?
this
as?
reli?
and due
common
sociology.
as an ac
Conflict in the
Epistemological
of Religion
Definitions
and Science
The
narrative
over
of religion and science

in conflict
is so
entwined
with so?
deeply
truth claims
ciology that sociological definitionsof religion

it almost
to
it, making
presuppose
impossible
a
outside
of
this
from
perspective
tangle
to
which
the
between
reli?
analyze
relationship
and
are
two
science.
There
tra?
dominant
gion
find
ditions in defining religion: the functionaland

the substantive (Berger 1967, pp. 175-77). A
functionaldefinitionof religion holds religion

to be
any cultural
system
at its most
abstract.
Luckmann (1967) and Geertz (1973) have fa?

mously
pointed
system
advocated
of
such definitions.
this then means
out,
As has been
that any ultimate

a
femi?
religion:
becomes
meaning
secular humanism,
nism, Marxism,
analytic phi?
of Star Trek,
or, as pointed
losophy, the world
out
and to add to our confusion,
by Berger
"modern
science
[as] a form of religion"
(Berger
1967, p. 177).There isno conflicthere because
the content
of
religion
and
science
have
been
radically relativized.Although thiswould avoid

www.annualreviews.org
Religion and Science
89
the problems
with
over
conflict
assuming
truth
(aswe note below), thisdefinitionof religion is
not
used.
commonly
common
in actual
More
are substantive
definitions
empirical
analysis
of religion,
the world
and these
into some
operates
reason
human
sacred,
and
called
commonly
transcendent,
the
outside
operates
to
science)
(e.g.,
rationality
in the
textbook
popular
can
it, "religion
puts
rationally,
able to be
pro?
observed.
by
The
or
supernatural
of the ability of
it. As one
explain
of religion
as a system
sociology
be
The
explainable
defined
of beliefs and practices by which a group of

people
interprets
feel is sacred
gion,
to
reluctant
mously
p.
nonetheless
of
ities of
life through
was
who
13). Weber,
a definition
provide
that religion
rational
"rendering
they
as well"
supernatural
thought
function
to what
responds
and, usually,
1997,
(Johnstone
and
the
fa?
of reli?
has
the
progressive
on
and
supernatural
with
preoccupation
itmeaning
through
and moral
concern"
primary
note
We
complicated,
science
a stable,
uniform,
been
of science
of science
(STS)
in recent
trated
the discussion
cause
such work
has
from
emerged
studies
technology
but has not yet pene?
decades
of
religion and science be?
not engage
ques?
usually does
tions of
recent
discuss
relevant
religion. We
in the social-institutional
STS work
section be?
in
about
truth claims
of
category
challenging
and
assumption
other-worldly
as
considered
literature. Work
inant
the basis
is often
religion
and multi
and unproblematic
in the
sociological
a uniform vision
the subfield
is religion's
plural,
has usually
faceted,
which
1996, p. 439).
that although
here
as
recognized
value,
(Buckser
we maintain
magic,
the
the supernatural."
He
that "in any religion,
concludes,
citing Geertz,
a subordi?
the physical world
is
explaining
only
nate task; it is
the social world, giving
explaining
world
low. Nevertheless,
capable
the
cerning
of explaining
of mean?
the provision
is its defini?
theory
as "a method
irrational?
is po?
therefore, religion
of transcending
the mundane
life through a cu?
gains and losses of practical
mulative
rational
of ideas con?
systematization
ing_Unlike
tentially
secularization
tion of religion
physical
involve
typically
splitting
version of the sacred and the profane.
fane world
with
problem
the more
subtle
ship between
we
highlight
and
ligion
these
of the relation?
investigation
and
religion
below,
science
not
science.
as
However,
of re?
all examinations
make
this assumption,
and
to offer the most
promise.
seem
studies
that the dom?
that religion
is
sociology
is the factor that has hobbled
goals" (O'Toole 1984, p. 142).

These
have
substantive
essentially
the "irrationalities,"
fore,
define
God
definitions
defined
religion
the "not
in
terms,
theological
like a "God
religion
exists
in the
phenomena
of
religion
as
concerning
science." There?
tend to
sociologists
of the gaps," where
that science
can?
not (yet) explain (Verhey 1995).

is about much more
than
religion
on
an
an
both
institutional
and
individual
truth,
However,
level. In an
around our
tight boundaries
for parsimony's
sake. Most
notably,
there is an extremely
literature
large theological
that discusses what
the proper
theoretical
rela?
subject,
tionship
between
religion
and science
should
(Barbour 1990, Polkinghorne 1998).We
this to be outside
and
research
amount
was not
of
declining
religious
activity
due to an encounter with science and scientific
ogy, history,
research has
land brought
about by agricultural mechaniza?
reduced
the population
of
tion, which
villages
and weakened
social ties. He
concludes
that the
9o
need
for this Review
to draw
article, anthropol?
underappreciated
ex?
this point while
(1996) makes
ogist Buckser
on
a
secularization
Danish
island.
The
amining
nature, but rather due

ways of understanding
to a transformation
in social relations on the is?
the Field
Demarcating
We
ciologists,
literature we
of the
it has had
are concerned
from
interests
of most
little influence
with. We
the fields
of cultural
and medicine,
but
be
take
so?
on the
do include
anthropol?
the
only when
for the contemporary

that most
sociol?
relationship
implications
science-religion
are concerned
ex?
with. This
generally
for example,
the voluminous
literature
on the Galileo
beliefs of
conflict, the religious
so on.
and
scientists,
early
ogists
cludes,
Evans ? Evans
When
examining
and
science
religion
clear distinction
the existing
literature
in
we
sociology,
to further
organize
the distinction
between
use
on
one
this paper:
and
symbolic
social
institutional(Lamont & Molnar 2002, p. 168).

Symbolic
them as
analyses
systems
treat
of religion
and science
of ideas, beliefs, or discourses.
Social-institutional
ence
are
these
propagate
begin with
of religion and sci?

institutions
that
analyses
concerned
with
the
or discourses.
ideas, beliefs,
We
The
lives in a world
Catholic
sacred
growth
are
because
ways of es?
they
competing
truth.
The
directional
influence
liter?
tablishing
religion
rectional
We
literature
does
not.
that the
literature
symbolic
as a science
and
recognize
is
although
religion
of
in?
that
system
thought
to the transcendent
and so on,
because,
references
its
is often described
as modern
sec?
opposition
ular
It
is
or
then
im?
noted
rationality.
explicitly
that science is the embodiment
plicitly assumed
of modern
secular
start with
rationality. We
conflict literature.
epistemological
The
Rationalization
A field of research
between
religion
temological
concern
Weber's
of Religion
concerning
and science
conflict
with
the
model
the
where
is very
relationship
the epis?
evident
the rationalization
is
of re
It may
and, eventu?
be maintained,
served as a histori?
then, that Protestantism
factors (Berger
of
the di?
of the astronomer
cally decisive prelude to secularization, what?

ever may have been the
importance of other
con?
as a
labeled
clearly
cludes
to
difficult
religion
literature
note
should
is often
are fixed, whereas
science
influence
epistemological
that the categories
science and
technology.
open to the
sky empty of angels becomes
intervention
subtle and complicated.

This
liter?
ature tends to ask whether
a
particular
religious
or belief leads to the rise of science or
discourse
and
the
reality then became

to the systematic, rational penetra?
ally, of the astronaut.
ismore
in science. The
change
flict literature presumes
in?
through
variety
sacraments of the church,
associate with modern
inherently
incompatible
in science
leads to decline
in
a
of
tion, both in thought and in activity,which we
that re?
religion
ature
in which
to him
is mediated
amenable
are
science
that a
and
assumes
was
these mediations_This
conflict
epistemological
influence families. The
epis?
literature
the
of which
of the saints, the recurring

the
of
inmiracles?a
eruption
"supernatural"
vast
of
between
the seen and
continuity
being
the unseen. Protestantism
abolished most of
the
conflict
be?
the intercession
The existing symbolic literaturecan be divided
temological
ligion and
an increase
In the words
strong example.
particularly
Peter Berger,
the most
influential
probably
of religion:
terpreter ofWeber's
sociology
SYMBOLIC: INCOMPATIBLE
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
CONFLICT LITERATURE
and the directional
intertwined
rationalization
of
increasing
religions,
the Protestantism
of the Reformation
of channels?the
into two families:
are
with
here
concern
general
in formally rational systems inwhich

action
comes more
calculable. Weber
postulated
accounts.
the symbolic
concerns
ligion. Weber's
with his more
1967, pp.
in
Rationalization
to the disenchantment
demagification
uation
in which
have
been
ing
mysterious
contributed
literally, the
in a sit?
resulting
of the world,
forces
and powers
and tech?
by the calculation
in modern
embodied
science. Ow?
to this rationalization,
are not
nal
religion had
or, more
replaced
nical means
number
112-13).
of truth claims
compatible
penetration"
with
that we
reduces
religion
about
the world
the "systematic,
"associate
the
that
ratio?
with mod?
ern science
and
does not
technology."
Religion
more
like science.
except by becoming
change
are not
We
that this account
iswrong
claiming
but that it focuses
on the
only
epistemological
claims of
and science.
religion
Secularization
related to the rationalization
Closely
are debates
about
secularization.
www.annuahrviews.org
of
Of
religion
course,
ci
secularization
morass
there
contested
ization
tional
describe
as macro
ways,
which
The
macro
component
is institutional
becomes
religion
related
at one
spheres. Whereas
and
education,
family,
institu?
other
from
time
rope" (Norris& Inglehart 2004, p. 7).
are about
in supernatural beings and super?

forces
that affect nature without obey?
natural
ing nature's laws will erode and become only
an interesting historical memory....
[B]eliefin
supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all
over the world, as the result of the
increasing
ex?
plaining this secularization (Smith 2003a).

A
second,
micro
tion concerns
in individual
1999). This
practice
(Stark
includes
measures
research
of participation
belief
most
in
(p. 265).
and
often
religious
organizations (Finke & Stark 1988, Chaves &

Gorski 2001,Norris & Inglehart 2004). There
a theorized
between
relationship
two components,
which
for our purposes
we can
are related and
simply say
reinforcing.
Whereas
there is consensus
that macro
secular?
is, of course,
these
ization
has
occurred,
to whether
micro
a debate
there remains
secularization
has
on
literature
science
the relationship
in secularization
religion
and
emerges
in the explanations.
into
three
occurred
families,
explanations
an
of symbolic
example
being
cal conflict and the other two
social-institutional
theories
the traditional
and dominant
of certain
growth
in modern
embodied
role
in secularization.
epistemologi?
fitting into the
In the first,
ac?
summary,
a ra?
generated
on
stan?
empirical
knowledge
to make
truth claims. This
in the ideas or beliefs
is also
literature
of people.
of Symbolic Incompatibility
Degree
on an Individual Level
Another
the
of natu?
to
related
literature,
secularization
literature,
conflict
epistemological
the
traditional
to demonstrate
tries
between
science
and religion, typically by examining how

scientists
religious
are
are. Given
and
how
scientific
the assumption
the
in this lit?
religious
erature
that they are incompatible
systems de?
to make
truth
claims
about
signed
competing
the
scientific
the epis
in that it does not examine

conflict be?
symbolic
tween institutions, but rather concerns
a
change
pert
concise
ral phenomena,
and
of
mastery
technological
was
the universe.
to have
Rationalism
thought
rendered
the central claims of the Church
im
ci
ity
In one
era of the
Enlightenment
tional view of the world based
of proof,
the first
secularization
see in both of these works
again
on
in?
conflict model
temological
display. An
crease in the
to
make
credible
ability of science
truth claims leads to a decline
in religion's
abil?
types of rationality?
a central
science?plays
"the
dards
with
below.
count,
between
theory
divide
these
We
We
as
in theUnited States (Norris& Inglehart 2004),

and even inEurope (Stark 1999).
The
and diffusion of scientific knowledge
adequacy
of seculariza?
component
changes
future of religion is extinc?
[T]he evolutionary
has occurred
debates
power
explanatory
science:
tion. Belief
secular?
by religious
legitimated
symbols,
occurs when
this is no longer the case.
some evidence
of its reversal in politics
Despite
we
believe
that the consensus
1994),
(Casanova
remaining
(1966), who directly attributes
the state,
ization
is that this process
and explicit de?

comes
of secularization
to the greater
secularization
of rational
were
among scholars
over time. The
infamous
of this version
fromWallace
institutions
other
the most
Probably
scription
in which
away the
blowing
inWestern
Eu?
dogma
societies,
of superstitious
vestiges
in
of secular?
differentiation,
separated
inmodern
plausible
recognized
that are
we
and micro.
the
itself
two components
into
split
is
theory
in the sociology
of religion. We
believe
is consensus
that secularization
should be
the natural
world,
in science
least
or
adherence
people
who
religion
to the
are the most
should
ex?
then exhibit
opposing
symbolic
system.
Early
entists,
studies
beginning
of
the
with
religiosity
Leuba's
of
survey
sci?
of
American scientists in 1914, indeed found that

scientists were
disproportionately
than nonscientists
and, even more
Evans ? Evans
less religious
importantly,
that scientists
less religious
1934). The
status
with higher
than other scientists
better
the
tended
to be
terferes with
(Leuba
1916,
edge,
the
scientist,
less
reli?
gious theywere likelytobe. An influentialstudy

of graduate students by Stark (1963) also sup?
Leuba's
ported
that those
attended
was
broader
students
better
who
Stark
finding.
argued
were better educated,
and
schools,
to achieve
necessary
higher
later studies
found
in the beliefs
tory patterns
contradic?
important
of academic
the world.
&
Lawson
in?
For
Worsnop
(1992) find thatstudentswith strongerreligious

are less
to
to a belief
likely
change
after being taught a unit on evolu?
tion and natural
in
selection
class. On
biology
tuswere less likely to be involvedwith their

religious tradition,even if they stillnominally
claimed affiliation(Stark 1963).
But
about
on the one hand,
example,
knowl?
in evolution
sta?
scientific
truth claims
compatible
of scientific
the two systems make
assuming
commitments
did what
generally
the acquisition
again
the other hand, Verhey (2005) finds that even

students
with
ism became
prior
more
to creation
commitments
to
sympathetic
evolutionary
theory afterbeing exposed to both intelligent

and
design
evolution
in the classroom.
scien?
tists.For example, Lehman & Shriver (1968)

andThalheimer (1973) found that social scien? Efficacy of Prayer
tists were
less religious
than natural
scientists,
their lower position
in the scientific sta?
despite
tus
hierarchy.
the
ported
this evidence
Although
still sup?
conflict
it
thesis,
epistemological
to subvert the
linearity of the model.
more
scientific did not
Being
equate
necessarily
to
at least at the
less
being
religious,
margins.
Scholars
as an effect
this
explained
variously
of "scholarly
distance
from religion"
(Lehman
seemed
&
Shriver
or
1968)
as
ing mechanism"
by social
scientific by
appear more
postur?
"boundary
scientists
trying
less
being
to
religious
(Wuthnow 1989, pp. 142-57).

The
most
& Witham
(Larson
of
books
by
the Human
tal thread
(Collins
survey
(in
scientists
recent
pop?
including
the
leader
within
religiosity
religiosity
among
evince
Project,
2006). Moreover,
national
ences
of
Genome
than non
Several
1997).
scientists,
that al?
suggests
day,
is persistent
forms)
academic
results
of scientists
a vi?
science
from a recent
show
that differ?
in
across
the scientific
status
religiosity
are
so that scientific disci?
hierarchy
flattening,
a less useful
of the
pline is
predictor
religiosity
of scientists
than are many
other variables,
in?
cluding
age, marital
status,
and childhood
reli?
gious background (Ecklund & Scheitle 2007).

In addition to the studiesof
religiosityof sci?
entists,
a few studies
directly
the question
have
the conflict
to address
attempted
of whether
in
religiosity
assumes
clearly
is the
epistemology
efficacy of
This
debate has its roots in ar?
between
guments
teenth
that most
over
debate.
prayer
century
clergy
and
scientists
over
England
in nine?
the usefulness
of
public days of prayer (Turner 1974,Mullin

2003). In 1873, Francis Galton published an
showing that monarchs
received
the most
presumably
and clergy, who

did not
analysis
live as
long
prayer,
as merchants
and lawyers, who pre?

less prayer. On these
grounds,
that religious
had no ef?
practice
received
sumably
he claimed
fect on
less religious
as in Leuba's
just
scientists,
varying
research
are
scientists
though
ular
current
the subfield
Perhaps
the real world
prayer were
therefore
only
that public
days of
of the state's
worthy
and
By implication
endorsement.
claim,
and
not
science
later by direct
could
provide
in health matters. The
intervention
grounds
modern
for
day
version of thiscontest began when Byrd (1988)

a double-blind
conducted
ment
in which
groups
for patients
prayer
randomized
experi?
in
engaged
in a coronary
intercessory
intensive care
unit.
Byrd's finding that prayer had some posi?

tive health effects
a host of studies fur?
triggered
ther
whether
health
outcomes
could
evaluating
be affected
prayer
(Astin
through
intercessory
et al. 2000, Benson
et al. 2006).
we
Here
flict between
what
have
a direct
religion
and
epistemological
science,
is
fought
con?
on
the
currently
epistemological
ground
of science,
in that
institutionalized
currently
scientific methods
are
to evalu?
used
being
ate claims. This
a
literature does not describe
93
like the debates
conflict
tion, but
rather
about Darwinian
is the conflict
evolu?
between
religion
science.
and
cal
the research
that religion
in conflict
specifically
the world,
other
and
the
over
assumes
systems
symbol
about
on how
end of The ProtestantEthic and the Spirit of

Weber
Capitalism,
that future
suggests
connections
might
investigate
tantism and "the
development
studies
between
Protes?
of philosophical
and scientificempiricism" (Weber 2002 [1905],
p.
In the
122).
K. Merton
Robert
1930s,
and
historical
for such
necessity
of a system
cations
symbol system in?

of science. At the
system
symbol
conflict,
conflict"
in nonessential
terms, as "dom?
religion
a
of sentiments"
group
particular
by
to the
rather than "adherence
impli?
logical
is focused
research
of
ination
truth claims
of the
religious
aspects
fluence
are
science
fo?
science
fined
above
described
instances
specific
he
First,
ways.
complemented
(Merton 1970 [1938],p. xxxviii).Second, he de?
Thesis: Particular
Ideas Lead
Science
Religious
toModern
on
than
important
religion
avoiding "the short leap from such empirical

episodes of conflict to a belief in the logi?
The Merton
other
on how
cused
rather
SYMBOLIC: DIRECTIONAL
INFLUENCE
Although
in three
methods
took
of theology"
dominant
Great
cultural
Man
less than the
expressed
in contrast to
Finally,
to
em?
history, Merton
values.
approaches
that the instinationalization
phasized
(in societies,
Be?
59).
(p.
Protestant mattered
ing nominally
extent to which
one's Protestantism
universities,
of science
and oc?
schools,
high
was
as
as
cupational
training)
important
equally
the personal
of those individuals
characteristics
in its practice.
involved
and a few
sociologists
historians
Many
have
lodged objections to theMerton Thesis on the

basis
of competing
ofMerton's
interpretations
historical evidence (Becker 1984,Cohen 1990).

lished first in Osiris and later in book form And as bothAbraham (1983) and
Shapin (1988)
up Weber's
The
challenge.
as Science,
and
Technology
was
argument
pub?
in Seventeenth
Society
CenturyEngland (Merton 1970 [1938]).

to the dominant
Contrary
of the historians
proposed
that certain
expressed
in Puritanism
of science. At
ritanism
the
dominant
Thesis
cultural
of cultural
values
to the rise
contributed
style of scientific
particular
its expression
through
narrative
social-psychological
external motivation
provided
a
moted
warfare
of the time, theMerton
of vocation,
education,"
and
"blessed
rather
empiricism
over
experimentation
than
idle
level,
of science
drew
it could
main.
the emerging
on
establish
As Merton
science
as
rationality,
national
laudable
focus
Merton's
religion
legitimacy
itself as an autonomous
highly
of attention"
(p.
sociological
until
do?
"consecrated
it, religion
it a
respected
and
to science
and religion broke from existing historical

94
science
even
is
has proven
careful
common
general
and insti?
attractive
if they do not
directly
argument.
from
response
of
understandings
thesis is often tested
sociol?
cause
into
and
ef?
cross
through
the growth
of
in which
comparisons
is the dependent
variable
and religious
affiliation
is one of several
vari?
independent
ables.
For
Sorokin
claimed
(1937)
example,
science
that
Catholic
countries
also had
predominantly
levels
seven?
of
scientific
in
the
high
activity
teenth century, whereas Thorner
(1952) argued
were
that Protestants
in
doing the contributing
those Catholic
106).
approach
conventional
fect. The
institution
most
the more
ogists has been to fit theMerton Thesis
"profitable
for
put
to make
The
But
leads to the methods
toMerton's
contemplation
social
tools.
analytical
idea that religion

tutions of modern
respond
(Merton 1970 [1938], pp. 60-80). At the social

structural
argument
ferred
and pro?
such as
in practice
simplified version ofMerton's

seems most
to one's pre?
amenable
scholars,
practice
Thesis
whatever
to many
values
reason,"
the Merton
noted,
level, Pu?
theglorificationofGod, diligence and industry,
choice
have
usually
countries.
Working
with more
recent data, Cole & Phelan (1999) find that

countries
with
lower
levels of Catholicism
Evans ? Evans
have
lower
of
levels
total
scientific
while
output,
Schofer (2003) shows thatProtestantism had a

effect on the institutionalization
positive
of geo?
also argues more

that Protestantism
had a historically
generally
effect on the worldwide
of
positive
expansion
science.
logical
scientific
Schofer
institutions
(2004)
but that this positive
effect
did not persist after 1970. By finding the lim?

its of
legitimacy
tralization
contributing
of science,
such
(Ben-David
(Wuthnow
Merton's
contribution
and
patibility
lationship
between
particular
a way to
historical
without
indeed
im?
decen?
political
or
and
patronage
1987, pp.
suggests
com?
re?
if complex,
positive,
religion
moment.
265-98).
a basic
and
at a
science
It also
instances
empirical
an
assuming
epistemological
explain
provides
idea
of research
ample,
that religion
influenced
one ambitious
recent
bines
elements
ofWeber
(Nelkin & Lindee
ploration,
take
the
seriously
science.
For
to
ex?
com?
argument
and Merton
suggest
an
empiri?
of
the physi?
understanding
led to the rise of
creation,
combined
science,
capitalism,
forward
The
the
with
as
and modernity
that
proposes
benefited
from
science
struggles
has
within
sometimes
For
religion.
example,Hollinger (1996) tellsof several cases

in which
science
became
associated
positively
century America,
and nonsecular)
mony
autonomous
secular,
with
in mid
democracy
in part as a reaction
by (secular
Jews
against
Protestant
in universities
(see also Cantor
unrelated
Finally,
hege?
2005).
seemingly
yet comple?
literature
how science draws
mentary
highlights
on
and imagery.
religious metaphor,
language,
At a more
abstract
that
level, scholars
suggest
metaphor
religion
and myth are

to
centrally
important
and to science, both as ways of
ordering
knowledge (MacCormac 1976) and as impor?

tant sites of cultural
production
over which
re?
ligion and science contend (Gilbert 1997, Stahl
literature
Merton-inspired
influence
of Western
science.
Enlightenment
ture on the non-Western
that presumes
artificial
religious
on
focuses
religion
is also
There
on
post
a litera?
influence
compatibility.
the
Europe,
and Western
and
science
on
In North
of re?
study
to the cul?
is
largely bound
traditions of
and
Christianity
Islam and science have had an
equally
Yet the common
view is
relationship.
turally prominent
Judaism.
complex
that Islamic
scientific
we know it (Stark 2003, 2005). Another ap?

proach
and
engineering,
Islamic Science
America
looking
theology,
cist focus and an
Western
genetic
intelligence (Noble 1997).
conflict
focus on systematic
as God's
1995, p. 39). Such themes
even
and metaphors
may
help define research
in scientific fields
ex?
such as space
agendas
science
that Christianity's
cal world
repeat?
and omniscience
in
figure
the description
of important
scientific
goals,
or decod?
such as finding
the "God
particle"
of the human
genome
ing the "Holy Grail"
ligion
lines
scholars
concretely,
ity, transcendence,
of conflict
model.
Other
More
edly find that religious themes of immortal?
as
1971)
state support
studies
to other
to the institutional
factors
portant
such
power,
explanatory
in pointing
useful
religion's
also been
have
et al. 2002).
Greek
is one
science
historical
sitting between
development,
of
stage
classical
inWestern
thought and the Renaissance
a fundamental
This
suggests
compat?
Europe.
and this version of sci?

ibility between
religion
ence. In this view, science continued
to
develop
in theWest
but not in the Muslim
and
world,
this is
dination
due to conflict with, or subor?

possibly
some
feature of Islam such as reli?
to,
gious law or orthodoxy (Huff 2003).

But historically,as Sabra (1987) has noted,
Islam did not
Greeks
just transmit
to the Renaissance
it transformed
and
information
expanded
from the
Rather,
Europeans.
scientific knowl?
in the process. This

is not
a
edge
necessarily
rebuttal of the common
view. In the stronger
version
of this view, however,
Islam
and sci?
ence
ence
have
always been
in Islam
emerging
to reconcile
observations
intertwined,
as scholars
with
sci?
attempted
of the physical world
with beliefs about the spiritualworld (Nasr

1968, Iqbal 2002). Consistent with anthropo?
logical views of religion and science (below),
there
is an
important
trend
in this
analysis
to
95
treat science
universal
rather than a
product
to represent
Islamic
and
project
as an
explicitly
science
scientific
an
as a cultural
knowledge
version
religious
rather
production
of
than
Islamic
of
scientific
interpretation
existing
are
There
consequences
knowledge.
important
to
science as a specific cultural
treating Islamic
not least of which
is the
for
product,
potential
such an
if
to
approach,
sufficiently developed,
science's guise of value neu?
challenge Western
trality(Sardar 1989).
Critics
of the
idea
a commitment
that
ence
culturally
method
of
of universal
example,Hoodbhoy
low
scientific
the
during
scientific
sci?
specific
Islam
putting
For
progress.
(1991) notes the relatively

in Islamic
production
twentieth
century
to embrace
reluctance
note
science
to
is just another
in the way
of Islamic
and
blames
non-Islamic
a fundamentalist-influenced
countries
the
on
science
education
system
that emphasizes
rather than scientific

religious
achievement.
Yet, as Roy (2004) argues, Islamic
a
is not
fundamentalism
hear?
simply
nostalgic
to an idealized
it is
kening
religious past. Rather,
both a product
and agent of
whose
modernity
are Western-educated
scien?
key role models
tists who
embrace
enthusiastically
cutting-edge
technology (Roy 2004). So it isnot entirelyclear

that fundamentalism
ing scientific
The
question
to
useful way
remains
is responsible
in Islamic
development
of whether
Islamic
scientific
approach
for
limit?
countries.
is a
science
development
there are
Although
clearly ways
in which
science
is
with
historically
compatible
to questions
of conflict
Islam, answers
depend
largely
open.
on
the definition
of science
one
is en?
sociologists,
from an
truth
claims.
local
cultural
For
anthropology
the most
enduring.
is how cul?
of
and
specific manifestations
religion
as modes
are enacted
of
and
knowing,
are able to travel
how certain modes
of
knowing
across and
through cultural boundaries.
it is not
So, for example,
prob?
particularly
to say that, inWestern
lematic
and
Europe
turally
science,
later inNorth
the Protestant
America,
dominant
Christianity
expressed
ues that also contributed
and, more
science
form of
cultural
val?
to the
of
development
of economic
ratio?
generally,
nality in the formof capitalism. Sahlins (1996),

for
out
example, has pointed
between
Judeo-Christian
the
ships
tight relation?
principles
specific types of consumption-oriented

ism. But more
as Keane
importantly,
has noted,
the penetration
of modern
into
local
nality
on the merits
modes
of
and
literature
is not
cultures
of
the more
thought
or even
Protestantism
ethic
provides
so much
and
capital?
(2002)
ratio?
based
esoteric Western
as science,
such
of the Protestant
philosophy,
in the blunt
application
to local cultures. Rather,
a
apparatus
conceptual
thatplaces in thehands of ordinarypeople the

cultural
framework
for imagining
themselves
as part of the
project of moder?
it is
not science,
nity. In this sense,
religion,
at the
of
Western
(Keane
vanguard
rationality
and their actions
2002).
there are efforts
Although
to treat
and science
religion
cific sites of cultural contention
Scott
1997),
come
from
the most
in
anthropology
as spe?
debates
(Spuhler
fruitful discussions
the insights
1985,
have
of Sahlins,
connecting
to
later Keane,
own
anthropology's
as part of a modern
scientific
opment
out
devel?
project.
that
own
ways
anthropology's
and conceptual
are tied
apparatus
to
versions
of Christian?
specifically Western
ity, so that standard
concepts
anthropological
like the other
are themselves
and interiority
important
classifications
anthropologists
of
assumption
have
not
incompatible
on
focusing
ana?
than global
has given
a dif?
anthropology
on
and
such
science,
religion
features
lytical categories
ferent perspective
part,
rather
that it ismore helpful to thinkof

religions and
96
to
interest
greater
contingent
and
essential,
Robbins (2006) and Cannell (2006) both point
Anthropological
Analyses
of Religion and Science
started
Of
and
local,
than universal,
and
gaging.
Unlike
as multifarious,
sciences
rather
products
of one
grounded
in one
In sum,
bolic
there
tradition:
particular
form of
are
the
mode
of
knowing
Christianity.
two families
epistemological
Evans ? Evans
in the sym?
conflict
The
familyand thedirectional influencefamily.
epistemological conflict familypresumes fixed
of religion and science and presumes
categories
are in conflict over ways of
about
they
knowing
theworld. The directional influencefamilypre?
sumes
that
way
influences
religion
broadens
and
beyond
in some
science
the conception
truth claims. For
the most
of religion
part, how?
status of scientific knowl?

the epistemological
as
to the
potentially
equal
epistemologi?
status
cal
of religious
This means
knowledge.
or science
that the truth or
falsity of religion
is bracketed,
or the
and contests
for authority
to determine
truth between
science and
power
edge
are recast
religion
The
struggles.
as
discursive
power-inflected
earliest
texts in what
canonical
ever, neither
became
science.
(SSK), published in the late 1970s and early
there
the conception
of
family broadens
to note
it
is
that
Further,
interesting
is no literature (of which we are aware) of
science
in which
science
is
influencing
religion
to lose. All the literature we have en?
predicted
uses one of two
on the
countered
perspectives
con?
of science:
influence
the
epistemological
flict perspective,
in which
science
leads to the
of religion
seculariza?
(the traditional
or
the
rationalization
literature),
religious
in which
science makes
perspective,
religion
more
like science
in the truth claims
it is will?
the
ing
scholars
should
ponder
why
reasoning.
this is the case.
have more
inherently
but
rather scientists
religion,
than
A number
suming
gion
and
of intellectual
solution
definition
about
outside
ligion
of
perhaps
to create
was
such
religion
that
is the most
abstract
of science
Scholars
unless
religions
the term because,
think that Roman
the functional
is not
that
falls
rather
re?
of symbols. Thus,
itself could be a re?
symbol systems
common
they fit the
usage
quite
pragmatically,
Catholicism,
and
ophy, Marxism,
reli?
label
rarely
science
than
the most
of
people
analytic philos?
are indeed
qual?
abstract,
assumed
truths.
labeling
slightly different
a
science
has
religion
However,
approach
to
been
feuding
than
treat
between
and
institutions
the content
sci?
but rather
strug?
of the symbol
bracketed.
definitively
earliest
that au?
religion
systems,
symbol
conflicts
believability
have to make
to claim
examine
Conflict
studies
that examine
and science
religion
move
intellectual
a conflict
that make
are those
was
be?
use of this
of Gieryn
and
in how scien?
colleagues.
Gieryn
to demarcate
tists
science
from non
struggle
and
therefore
societal
science,
garner
authority
interested
(Gieryn 1983,Gieryn et al. 1985). In thisview,
science
a monolithic,
is not
system
unchanging
but rather this system of knowl?
knowledge,
for tactical
de?
edge is transformed
advantage,
on which
or
sci?
institution
pending
profession
of
ence
is
competing
with
(such
as
religion).
Similarly,Evans (2002) examined a conflict
as
itatively different phenomena.

Or, differently,
as we discuss
below,
they intuit that religion
is about more
gling
new
between
supernatural
anything
of the aegis of science,
but
studies
for power, with
tween
as?
resources
spend
Institutional
avoid
religion
social
The
unintentional
or
the
the assumptions
ligion.
conflict
epistemological
science. One
theoretical
maneuvers
as
and
systems
THE SOCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL:
CONFLICT STUDIES
DOWNGRADING
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
DEBATES
knowledge
like any other knowl?
not
does
thority. Such
ence not as
Future
that scientific
knowledge
edge (Bourdieu 1975,Latour & Woolgar 1986

[1979],Knorr-Cetina 1981). Science therefore
efforts
its form of
the case
constructed,
socially
tion
and
of scientific
1980s, made
is
decline
to make
sociology
between
over
and scientists
the
theologians
to
the
ethics
of
human
authority
promulgate
He
also gives
scientific
genetic
engineering.
no
inherent
but
rather
systems
symbol
power
focuses
on
sources
with
how
one
which
group
to wrest
ethics
the other
rest
in this
no
from
making
of the studies
essential
religion
definition
iswhat
people
obtains
jurisdiction
group.
re?
the
As
over
in the
there
category,
of religion or science?
associated
with
is
religious
?
www.a7inualreviews.org Religion and Science
97
institutions
science
do;
scientific
ated with
is what
associ?
people
do. In the case
institutions
tions have
more
in science
resulted
being
considered
truthful.
studied by Evans, scientists indirectlydefeated

the theologians
fession
scientists'
which
interests.
are similar.
Mulkay
the debate over embryo
Other
studies
vestigating
the UK,
shows
how
the debate
as "a conflict
trayed
to enforce
unthinking
between
beliefs and
religious
to defend
scientists'
search
the subsidiary pro?

in turn furthers the
by nurturing
of bioethics,
for truth"
in?
(1997),
in
research
became
por?
those who
wish
or
the interests
science.
of other
contrast
conservative
between
central
religious
truth
individuals
eval?
of scientists.
conclusions
are more
Protestants
to have moral
likely
than
of
criticisms
Probably the first and largest literature in
to the por?
features
to bracket
For example,Ellison & Musick (1995) find that
continue
their
tends
religious
and
are other Americans
to
that
how
those who
and scientificstylesof thought" (Mulkay 1997,
area
this
concerns
the
of White's
accuracy
(1967) article,which linkedChristianity to the

cultural
notion
from a traditional
of Genesis.
This
of "subduing
Christian
reading
the earth"
of the book
notion,
according
toWhite
derived
(1967), led to the current irresponsibilityin en?
won
of
the
p. 97). Proponents
embryo research
to
debate owing
among religious
fragmentation
as well
as the power
of their own
opponents,
vironmental
dogmatically asserted beliefs (Mulkay 1997,
nity, and
did not win because

of the na?
114). They
ture of their
symbol system.
The
and science social conflict that
religion
mind
ligious people
really hold this view of creation
it results
in an
and, if so, whether
unwilling?
ness to engage
in environmental
stewardship,
to use one of the terms in the debate. Research
evolu?
was
p.
is most
available
readily
is
the debate
probably
tion owing
to
in the public
over Darwinian
cases
legal
and political
debates
over public schooling (Binder 2002). Again, like

other
studies
of the social-institutional
(instead
of symbolic) relationship between religion and

of conflicts
studies
science,
cus on
institutions
and Numbers
and
ation
science
(2002)
makes
or
strength
cre?
creationist
Lienesch
science
religiously
school
debates,
and
per
se that
inspired
but
rather
the nature
2007).
win these battles it is not directly due to the

inherent
system
power
of ideas,
or
truthfulness
but rather
due
of science
to how
we describe
policy. Here,
as a
sible environmental
policy
policy
from the mainstream
of the scientific
ple,
as a
institu
was whether
the question
to determine
designed
Biblical
literalism,
respon?
proposal
commu?
average
whether,
for exam?
tradition,
religious
re?
or
belief inGod lead to a lack of support for lib?

eral environmentalpolicy (Eckberg & Blocker
Woodrum & Hoban 1994,
1989,Greeley 1993,
Sherkat & Ellison 2007). Although such re?
search
has recently
engaged
religious
complex?
aspects of religious belief would
ity (e.g., which
to liberal environmental
lead one to be opposed
on the com?
it remains
policy?),
largely silent
of
science.
plexity
results
creationists
are
(see
they
arguing within
In sum, if the scientists
of the institutions
also
organizational
of various
over time. Binder

organizations
the case that it is not the con?
tent of
religion
in the defeat of
in public
fo?
(1994)
Tourney
for example,
spend great
the
discussing
orientation
over Darwinism
and power.
(1992),
effort
9S
uate
literature
examines
are determined
(p. 97). Contrary
stereotyped
claims
to out-of-date
right
in terms
Another
obedience
finds that the argu?

trayals by scientists, Mulkay
ments on the two sides "cannot be
distinguished
on
in terms of their
their reliance
rationality,
dogma
to the
to
Belief and Opposition
and Conclusions
of Scientists
Religious
Interests
Non-Epistemological
Theories
A newer
Secularization
strand of secularization
assuming
over
gling
institution
that religion
struggling
with
truth, but
with
and
focuses
theories
science
on
are
religion
avoids
strug?
as an
tasks and interests,

multiple
other
institutions.
The
focus
Evans ? Evans
is on
here
and
power
of
agency
individuals
within institutions.In Smith's (2003a) account,

is not
there
so much
secularization
individuals
secularizers,
as there are
a vested
with
interest
in the discrediting of religion.Many of these

are scientists,
secularizers
sary to the account.

ization
but
that is not neces?
For
example,
of the institution
for the
in the
morality
that did not involve scientists,
or truth at all. Rather,

to
lic intellectuals
social
religious
itwas
reformers
by pub?
from
originating
to ban
sought
producers
secularization
in a way
fined
traditional
ultimate
meaning
of the
journalistic
profession
for objective
institu?
to a demand
ligious
perspectives
in
public
for public
edu?
re?
of subjective
was
newspapers
a necessary precursor (Flory 2003).

Although
to
this approach
professionalization
the secularization
scientific models,
mirrored
did
process
not
the par?
on, or necessarily
include,
depend
or
to
of
scientists
scientific
ticipation
appeals
authority(see also Roberts & Turner 2000).

This
basic
ence
secularization
conflict
explanation
narrative
do encounter
when
does
religion
have
and
sci?
each
other, but this explana?

the
conflict model
epistemological
tion avoids
the content of
and sci?
by relativizing
religion
ence. The
are
over
differen?
groups
conflicting
tial interests, not differential
notions
of truth,
the content
and therefore
in each
These
group
conflicts
tains greater
ated with
by the group
and resources.
secularization
rational
choice
in differentiation
It posits
religiosity.
of the symbol
to the
important
are won
power
Another
not
is not
ligion by the public,
systems
analysis.
that ob?
is interested
in individual
but only
a constant
demand
for re?
with
secularization
where
ticipation
occurring
religious
tions are not
effectively providing
in par?
have
is then more
because
become
in
secular
Europe
lazy and have
than
monopoly
and practices
that assumes
the supernatural"
(Stark &
[e.g.,
concerned
with
"Any
with
the existence
Iannaccone
of
1994,
p. 232)]. This assertion of compatibility is itself

supported by following the lead of economics
in not
or beliefs,
theorizing people's
preferences
but rather
in
interested
by only being
showing
that both religion and science use instrumental
in their decision
This
rationality
making.
an end run around
the conflict over
allows
also
epis?
claims: The
is not be?
temological
comparison
as
tween
about
the super?
religions
ultimately
natural
(e.g., unverifiable
through observation)
and science about the natural
(e.g., empirically
a
but rather that, whatever
observable),
person's
or
of
natural
he or she
conception
supernatural,
same form of ratio?
makes
decisions
using the
and
science are com?
nality. Therefore,
religion
because
and scientists
patible
religious
people
are both
or
ratio?
instrumentally
theoretically
in their
reasoning.
In sum, the secularization
literature has been
nal
organiza?
to
services
the United
churches
only produced
the
one
relationship
The
between
science
earlier, yet still dominant
and
tradition
religion.
assumes
a fixed science
conflict between
epistemological
and a fixed religion,
such that an increase
in sci?
ence
An
meet this demand (Stark&

Bainbridge 1985,
Finke & Stark 1992,Warner 1993).Western
Europe
States
it incompatible
of science
the location ofmuch of the sociologicalwork on

associ?
explanation,
theory,
to do with
nothing
institutional
restrictions
that makes
conceptions
the secularization
responsibility
the rejection
products
ityof religion and science (Stark et al. 1996;

Stark 1999, pp. 264-66). Religion is still de?
of beliefs
for which
religious
it has
occurs,
but rather with
system
cation,
of varied
com?
the religions
(Finke& Stark 1992, p. 19).Therefore, where
"pernicious books" (Kemeny 2003). Similarly,
responded
tions to assume
States,
makes
organizations.
religious
some rational choice advocates
Additionally,
have made
further assertions
of the compatibil?
rationalization,
who
effective
the United
religions
on
the secular?
a response
censorship
In
product.
between
science
promulgation
a conflict
1920s was
of public
religious
petition
leads to a decline
in
mechanically
religion.
tradition
embodied
the
authors
emergent
by
found in Smith (2003 a) typicallystill sees reli?

gion
in conflict with
science,
because
of histor?
interests, not out of necessity,

ically contingent
and not
about
truth. A final ratio?
necessarily
sees
nal choice
as
tradition
religion
compatible
with science and sees instances of secularization
99
as due
to
institutional
seem
would
to open
view
This
regulation.
for more
subtle
paths
and
examinations
of the relationship
be?
contingent
tween
can
in
and
that
science,
religion
religion
to factors unrelated
to science
decline
owing
and Enlightenment
rationality.
truth claims with science has not had a

negative
effect on religious practice
in the United
States
in the past few hundred
that
years. Knowing
cannot
science
is our
It
contention
assumption
ing of
the
the
epistemological
limited our understand?
that
has
between
relationship
it seems
First,
the center
truth claims
problematic
and
religion
to make
of interaction
between
a static
and a static science when

reli?
religion
are
and science
and
concerned
dynamic
more
much
than truth claims.
Indeed,
gion
with
in another
no
we make
paper,
lic debates
between
about
longer
the case
and
religion
truth, but
rather
that pub?
are
science
about
values
(Evans & Evans 2006). Similarly,Buckser and

cited
Geertz,
a similar
make
above,
are not
religions
about
primarily
claim
that
explaining
the
physicalworld, but rather "it is explaining the

social world,
which
is
it
meaning
giving
religion's
and moral
concern"
primary
value,
(Buckser
What
scientific
of some
in the
concerned
a nor?
is also
theology
and sci?
argued
gaged
that religion
and science
should be en?
in different activities of truth
and
making
meaning
making.
One could object by saying that the specific
traditions
religious
vious conflicts with
as
selves
But
even
ationist
scientific
that have
science
concerned
being
do
not
only
(if not
method
tists), but also

that Darwinism
ob?
think of them?
epistemology.
cre?
involved with
cede
authority
contemporary
are motivated
leads
the most
with
fundamentalists
debates
had
to the
scien?
by their concerns
to corrupt
societal
values
(Tourney 1994).
One could also object by saying thatwhile
religions
are indeed
concerned
with many
mat
the ability
resurrected
an
on be?
impact
of Jesus. As is obvious,
had
to maintain
inconsistent
a number
of
at once.
ideas
seems most likely is that publicized

so incon?
are
the world
about
to belief
sequential
in American
and
practice
that they do not matter.
The
truth of
or whether
nu?
global warming,
fly,
clear energy plants are safe have no
on
impact
note
most
Also
that
of
the
truth
claims
religion.
how
are not
of religion
is no
There
show
birds
contested
publicly
research
agenda
resurrection
that human
by science.
to
science
within
so
is impossible,
the incompatibilityof truthclaims on this topic

remains fullyhypothetical and thusunlikely to
enter
the mind
of the average
a few issues,
Only
activists with
rarely
is
religion
decreasingly
the truth of the natural world
position
to have
claims
religion
how
that
ence debates,most notablyGould (1997), who
ioo
seemingly
claim
with
that Jesus was
prove
seem
have
people
1996,p. 439, see alsoGreeley 1972,pp. 248-49;

Smith 1998, pp. 90-91).We should add thatour
mative
not
lief in the resurrection
conflict
science.
edifice
the incompatibilityof at least core Christian
does
CONCLUSION
of truth are the keystone

that keeps
seems false in that
intact. This
ters, claims
the entire
The
resources,
social
studies
religion
even more
giving
further
the book
tual social
struggles
of the
religious
The
review
and
science
show how
at all
conflict
and
over truth,
rarely they conflict
reason
to abandon
the assump?
only truth claims
have resulted
in ac?
century,
of Genesis
institutional
organized
a
in this case,
for
only
minority
citizens of the United
States.
of the literature
that whereas
its incredible
conceived
such attention.
above
conflict with
and,
strates
merit
outlined
tion. In the twentieth

about
person.
religious
as
important
by
constructed
religion
variation,
of
in static
clearly demon?
is considered
in all
science
ismore
and monolithic
typically
terms.
means
the positivist, materi?
typically
alist practices
that are
in
dominant
admittedly
the contemporary West.
Of course,
historically
other conceptions
of
creation
such
knowledge
Science
as Baconianism
more
certainly
ence than
were
variation
analysts
are
but
influential,
under
there
is
the title of sci?
accounting
for. This
is
probably because the field of the sociology of
Evans ? Evans
has not been
science
interested
in
and
religion,
this is thefield thatquestionswhether thenaive

realist
position
really
describes
scientific
prac?
of religion and science we have

are more
to be conducted
cited above
likely
of
than
of
by sociologists
religion
sociologists
science.
tice. The
studies
Ifwe
leave
rather
open
the question
over
of conflict
it into our
than
truth
defini?
building
tions of
then we can imag?
religion and science,
our
ine
in
of
breakthroughs
understanding
long
an
stalled debates.
As
of
the
example
possi?
a new book on secularization
bilities, consider
written
by
ciology
two
political
of religion
scientists
the so?
outside
and science: Norris
&
Ingle
of religion,
that "a key
factor
driv?
ing religiosity" is "feelings of vulnerability to

physical,
societal,
and personal
risks"
(p. 4).
In
thisdefinition,religion clearly is not primarily
about
the natural
explaining
the meaning
of events
outside
world
but
of one's
about
control.
in their
is the notion
that sci?
Implicit
analysis
ence would
lead to secularization
with the de?
of
velopment
that reduces
knowledge
as
bility, such
improved
it is not automatic?the
medical
vulnera?
care. However,
fruits of science
would
actually have to be distributed to the people
like a social welfare

state.
something
is
a de?
alone
to
to
insufficient
lead
Knowledge
in
cline
The
can
authors
religion.
seemingly
then explain the classic deviant case in the secu?
through
larization
debate?the
United
it is the one Westernized
States?because
democracy
where
features. This
DISCLOSURE
The
authors
openness
who
ogists
and
religion
science
mological
source
of contestation
maintain
comes
work
or
words
and
producing
science.
Such
the
actions
that
treating
of
stud?
studies
may
from other
STS
approaches.
the best empirical
incorporate
predetermined
of
useful
come
they may
argue
from
ence not as
leave
object
for
and
who
sociologists
Either way, we
rather
an
and multifaceted
complex,
plural,
study is necessary
from STS
but
as
ques?
empirical
to science
as
that attention
ies of
religion
sociol?
the relationship
between
not assume
the episte?
conflict model,
tion. We
that future
suggest
examine
and
religion
sci?
but as the
categories
embedded
institutionally
persons.
Finally,
the best
ence
we
sociological
happens
studying
note
when
religion
with
work
interest
on
religion
are not
scholars
and
that some
science. We
and
of
sci?
explicitly
have high?
lightedwork by anthropologists,political scien?

social movements
tists, and
scholars
who
treat
science not as the

religion
only categories
to be studied
but as pieces
of larger puzzles.
Such studies often
the most
provide
insight with
the fewest essential
encour?
We
assumptions.
and
age suchwork in the futureand humbly predict

that the best
vul?
nerability ishigh owing to the lack of awelfare

state and other
we
At minimum,
come
hart (2004) begin with a non-epistemological

definition
of religion
and science, we argue,
conceptions
not
authors
the
seculariza?
only helps
explain
tion data better than
efforts, but also
previous
a model
for the way forward in
provides
study?
and science.
ing religion
to other
and science
insights into religion
as scholars find
ways to incorporate
the
of
complexity
religion and science into their
will
emerge
work.
STATEMENT
are not
aware
of any biases
review.
that might
be perceived
as
affecting
the
objectivity
of this
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks toAlper Yalcinkaya, Ron Numbers, Joan
Fujimura,Mark Chaves, andTom Gieryn for
comments.
ioi
LITERATURE CITED
theMerton
1983. Misunderstanding
G.
Abraham
Thesis:
sociology,his 74(3):368-87
Astin
JA, Harkness
1984. Pietism
G.
Becker
2000.
The
Intern. Med.
in an
I. 1990. Religion
Barbour
E.
Ernst
E,
trials. Ann.
randomized
and
Age of
science?a
of "distant
efficacy
dispute
boundary
healing":
between
and
history
review
systematic
of
132(11):903?10
Science.
San Francisco:
critique
89:1065-90
& Row
Harper
K. Merton's
of Robert
Am. J. Sociol.
hypothesis.
Ben-David J. 1971. The Scientist'sRole in Society:A Comparative Study. Englewood Cliffs,NJ:

Prentice-Hall
Benson
JB, Lam
Sherwood
H, DusekJA,
of intercessory
prayer
(STEP)
and certainty
uncertainty
P, Bethea
in cardiac
of receiving
et al. 2006.
CF,
patients:
bypass
prayer. Am. Heart
intercessory
effects
Study of the therapeutic

a mu? ticen ter randomized
J.
trial of
151(4):934?42
Berger PL. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a SociologicalTheory ofReligion.New York:
Doubleday
Binder
2002.
AJ.
Princeton,
P.
Bourdieu
Curricula:
Univ.
Princeton
NJ:
specificity of the scientific

Soc. Sei. Inform. 14:19-47
A.
1996. Religion,
science,
and Creationism
Afrocentrism
Public
in American
Schools.
Press
1975. The
reason.
Buckser
Contentious
field
and secularization
and
theory
the conditions
on a Danish
for the progress
of
island. J. Sei. Stud. Relig.
35(4):432-41
R.
Byrd
1988. Positive
effects of intercessory
therapeutic
in a coronary
prayer
care unit
population.
South.Med. J. 81(7):826-29
Cannell F. 2006. The AnthropologyofChristianity.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
2 005. Quakers,
G.
Cantor
New
1650-1900.
Chaves
York:
J. 1994. Public
Casanova
Gorski
M,
PS.
27:261-81
Cohen
Univ.
S, Phelan
and Science:
Oxford
Univ.
Responses
Religious
Press
to
Modernity
and
the Rise
Modern
of
The Merton
Science:
in Britain,
and the Sciences
in theModern
World.
Univ. Chicago
Chicago:
Religions
2001. Religious
and religious
pluralism
participation.
1990. Puritanism
IB.
Rutgers
Cole
Jews,
Press
Annu.
Thesis. New
Rev.
Sociol.
Brunswick,
NJ:
Press
TJ.
1999. The
scientific
productivity
of nations. Minerva
37:1-23
Collins FS. 2006. The Language ofGod:A ScientistPresentsEvidencefor Belief.New York: Free Press
Eckberg
D,
Ecklund
EH,
Blocker
TJ.
1989. Varieties
of religious
involvement
and
concerns:
environmental
testing theLynnWhite Thesis.J. Set. Stud. Relig. 28:509-17

Scheitle
CP.
2007.
Religion
among
academic
scientists:
distinctions,
demographics. Soc. Probl. 54(2):289-307

Ellison
CG,
Rev.
Evans
Musick
Relig.
2002.
Res.
MA.
1995. Conservative
Protestantism
and public
opinion
disciplines,
toward
and
science.
36(3):245-62
and the Rationalization

Genetic Engineering
Playing God? Human
ofPublic Bioethical
Univ.
Press
Chicago:
Chicago
Evans JH, Evans MS.
2006. From truth to values: boundary
in science and
drawing
religion. Presented
at Annu. Meet.
Am. Sociol. Assoc,
101st, Montreal
JH.
Debate.
Evans
Finke
MS.
2008.
the public,
Defining
in
American
boundary-work
early
R,
Stark
American
102
R.
cities,
1988.
defining
sociology.
sociology:
Public
economies
and
Religious
1906. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53:41-49
hybrid
Undent.
sacred
Sei.
canopies:
relations
science-public
In press
religious
mobilization
Evans ? Evans
and
in
Finke R, StarkR. 1992. The Churching ofAmerica, 1116-1990: Winners and Losers inOur Religious
Economy. New
Flory
Brunswick,
2003.
RW.
Promoting
NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press

a secular standard:
secularization
and modern
journalism.
2003a, pp. 395-433
Geertz
C.
Gieryn
TF.
1973.
of Cultures.
Interpretation
1983.
and
New
York:
Basic
the demarcation
Boundary-work
in professional
of scientists. Am.
ideologies
Bevins GM, Zehr SC.
1985. Professionalization
TF,
Gieryn
in the creation/evolution
trials. Am.
Sociol. Rev.
Smith
Books
of science
interests
See
nonscience:
from
Sociol. Rev.
strains
and
48:781-95
of American
scientists:
public
science
50:392-409
Gilbert J. 1997. RedeemingCulture:AmericanReligion inanAge ofScience.Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press
Gould SJ. 1997.Nonoverlapping magisteria.Nat. Hist. 106(2):16?22

1972. The Denominational
GreeleyA.
1993.
A.
Greeley
DA.
Hollinger
Religion
1996. Science, Jews,
Intellectual History.
Princeton,
IL:
Society. Glenview,
attitudes
and
and Secular
NJ:
Foresman
Scott,
the environment.
toward
Culture:
Princeton
J. Sei. Stud. Relig.

inMid-Twentieth-Century
Studies
Univ.
32:19-28
American
Press
Hoodbhoy P. 1991. Islam and Science:ReligiousOrthodoxyand theBattlefor Rationality.Atlantic

Highlands, NJ: Zed Books
H.
Hovenkamp
Huff TE.
1978. Science
Univ.
Cambridge
2002.
Iqbal M.
inAmerica
Religion
1800-1860.
Press
2002.
W.
P.
Kemeny
VT:
Burlington,
Ashgate
1997. Religion inSociety:A SociologyofReligion.Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice
Hall
Sincerity,
2003.
Power,
and
"modernity,"
ridicule,
and
the Protestants.
the destruction
of
1920s. See Smith 2003a, pp. 216-68

KD.
Knorr-Cetina
Cult. Anthropol.
17:65-92
reform
moral
religious
politics
in the
on the Constructivist and Contextual

Manufacture
ofKnowledge: An Essay
York: Pergamon
2002. The
in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
study of boundaries
1981. The
of Science. New
Nature
Lamont
Penn.
Univ.
Philadelphia:
Press
and Science.
Islam
JohnstoneRL.
Keane
and
2003. The Rise ofEarlyModern Science: Islam, China, and theWest. Cambridge, UK:
V.
Molnar
M,
28:167-95
Larson EJ,Witham L. 1997. Scientists are stillkeeping the faith.Nature 386:435-36
Latour B,Woolgar S. 1986 (1979). LaboratoryLife: The ConstructionofScientific
Facts. Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
Univ.
Lawson
W.
Press
1992.
A, Worsnop
effects of reflective
reasoning
29:143-66
J. Res. Sei. Teach.
Lehman ECJ, ShriverDWJ.

Forces
47:171-82
about
Learning
skill, prior
evolution
a belief
and rejecting
knowledge,
prior
belief
and
in
special
creation?
commitment.
religious
1968. Academic discipline as predictive of facultyreligiosity.Soc.
a Psychological,
LeubaJ. 1916. The Belief inGod and Immortality,
Anthropologicaland StatisticalStudy.
Boston:
French
Sherman,
1934.
beliefs of American
scientists. Harpers
169:291-300
Religious
2007. In the
the
Beginning: Fundamentalism,
Scopes Trial, and theMaking
lutionMovement.
Hill:
Univ.
N.
C.
Press
Chapel
LeubaJ.
M.
Lienesch
Luckmann
T.
1967.
The
Invisible
The
Religion:
Problem
of Religion
inModern
Macmillan
MacCormac
Mazur
A.
ER.
1996.
1976. Metaphor
Science
three,
and Myth
religion
in Science
zero:
religious
and
Religion. Durham,
assaults on science.
NC:
oftheAntievo
Society. New
Duke
Society
Univ.
York:
Press
33(4):20-21
?
103
AE.
McGrath
Merton
C.
2003.
Science,
Blackwell
in Seventeenth-Century
Basic
York:
RL Numbers,
Lindberg,
1968. Science and
SH.
the prayer-gauge
and
miracles,
ed. DC
Meet,
Nasr
on Science. New
War
MA:
Introduction. Maiden,
and Society
York:
New
England.
Books
1997. The EmbryoResearchDebate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
RB.
Mullin
The Republican
2005.
Mulkay M.
An
Religion:
Science, Technology
(1938).
Howard Fertig
Mooney
and
1999. Science
1970
RK.
in Islam.
Religion
In When
debate.
203-24.
pp.
Univ.
Chicago:
MA: Harvard
Cambridge,
and Christianity
Science
Press
Chicago
Press
Univ.
Nelkin D, Lindee MS. 1995. The DNA Mystique. New York:WH Freeman
Noble DF. 1997. The Religion ofTechnology:
The Divinity of
Man and theSpirit ofInvention.New
York: AlfredA. Knopf
Norris
P,
Inglehart
1985.
RL.
Numbers
R.
2004.
Sacred
and
Secular:
and
Religion
Politics
Worldwide.
New
York:
Univ.
Calif.
Press
Univ.
Cambridge
RL.
Numbers
Science
1992. The
and religion. Osiris, Second Ser. 1:59-80

The Evolution
of Scientific Creationism.
Creationists:
Berkeley:
Press
O'Toole
R.
1984. Religion:
Classic
Sociological
Approaches.
Toronto:
McGraw-Hill
Ryerson
Polkinghorne J. 1998. Belief inGod inanAge ofScience.New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Robbins
an awkward
and theology:
J. 2006. Anthropology
Q. 79:285-94
relationship.
Anthropol.
Univ.
JH, Turner
J. 2000. The Sacred and the Secular University. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
Roberts
Press
Roy O.
Sabra
2004.
A.
Globalized
1987. The
Ishm. Hist.
Sahlins M.
Z.
Schofer
Schofer
sadness
Ummah.
of sweetness?the
York:
New
naturalization
subsequent
native
science
ofWestern
anthropology
Univ.
Columbia
of Greek
1989. Explorations
in Islamic Science. New
York: Mansell
2003. The
of
institutionalization
science,
global
geological
E.
Rev.
and
Press
in medieval
cosmology.
Curr.
to 1990. Am.
Sociol.
37:395-428
Anthropol.
Sardar
Sei.
1996. The
Search for a New
Islam: The
appropriation
25:223-43
1800
68:730-59
E.
2004.
Cross-national
in the
expansion
differences
83:215-48
Scott EC.
1997. Antievolution
and creationism
in the United
of science,
States. Annu.
Soc. Forces
1970-1990.
Rev.
Anthropol.
26:263
89
Shapin S. 1988.Understanding theMerton Thesis. Isis 79:594-605

Sherkat
Ellison
CG.
2007.
the religion-environment
connection:
Structuring
identifying
on environmental
concern
activism.
and
Sei.
Stud.
religious
J.
Relig. 46(1):71?85
1998. American
Smith C.
and
Embattled
Univ. Chicago
Press
Evangelicalism:
Thriving.
Chicago:
Smith C. 2003 a. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and
in
the
Secularization
Conflict
ofAmerican
DE,
influences
Public Life. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

C.
Smith
2003b.
Secularizing
American
See Smith 2003a, pp. 97-159

Sorokin
PA.
1937. Social
Spuhler
JN.
1985.
14:103-33
Stahl WA,
Campbell
and Cultural
Anthropology,
RA,
higher
Dynamics.
evolution,
Petry Y, Diver
G.
New
and
York:
"scientific
2002. Webs
Press
Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers Univ.
Religion. New
Stark R.
1963. On
the
of religion
and
incompatibility
students. J. Sei. Stud. Relig. 3:3-20
ioj.
the case
education:
Am.
of early American
Book
Co.
creationism."
ofReality:
science:
Social
sociology.
Annu.
Rev. Anthropol.
Perspectives
on Science
survey
of American
Evans ? Evans
and
graduate
StarkR. 1999. Secularization, R.I.P. Sociol.Relig. 60(3):249-74

Stark R.
2003.
the End
Stark R.
For
Princeton,
of Slavery.
1994. A
Iannaccone
and
Science, Witch-Hunts,
Reformations,
Press
Led
toFreedom,
and Western
Capitalism,
Success.
Finke
LR,
R.
1996. Religion,
science
of Europe.
of the "secularization"
reinterpretation
supply-side
J. Sei. Stud. Relig. 33(3):230-52

StarkR,
Univ.
Christianity
to
1985. The Future ofReligion.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
LR.
Iannaccone
Led
House
Random
York:
StarkR, BainbridgeWS.
Stark R,
Princeton
NJ:
The Victory ofReason: How
2005.
New
ofGod: How Monotheism
the Glory
Econ. Rev.
and rationality.^/^.
86:43
3-37
SwatosWHJ. 1984. Faith of theFathers: Science,Religion, and Reform in theDevelopment ofEarly

American Sociology.Bristol, IN:Wyndham Hall
F.
Thalheimer
1973.
46:183-202
I.
Thorner
and
Religiosity
1952. Ascetic
and
Protestantism
Sociol. 58(l):25-33
1994. Gods
CP.
Tourney
Univ.
and
the development
Creationists
Sociol.
professions.
and
of science
in a Secular World. New
1974. Rainfall,
science.^.
plagues,
Brit. Stud.
and
the prince
ofWales:
chapter
Wallace
Warner
NJ:
in the conflict
J.
Rutgers
of religion
13(2):46?65
a
Philos. 20:347-64
J. Med.
perspective.
'Playing god' and invoking
on student attitudes
S. 2005. The
toward
effect of engaging
prior learning
Verhey
55:996-1003
and evolution.
BioScience
A.
Verhey
Am.
technology.
Brunswick,
Educ.
Press
FM.
Turner
Scientists:
Own
in the academic
secularization
1995.
creationism
A.
1966. Religion. New

York: Random
House
in progress
1993. Work
toward a new paradigm
in the United
States. Am. J. Sociol. 98:1044-93
RS.
Weber M.
York:
Wernick
for the sociological
study of religion
2002 [1905]. The ProtestantEthic and theSpirit ofCapitalism and OtherWritings.New
Penguin
A. 2005.
Comte,
Auguste.
In Encyclopedia
of Social
Theory,
ed. G
Ritzer,
pp.
128-34.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

White AD. 1960 [1896].A History ofthe
New York:
Warfare ofSciencewithTheologyinChristiandom.
Dover
White LJ. 1967.The historical roots of our ecological crisis.Science 155:1203-7

Woodrum
Res.
E, Hoban
T.
1994. Theology
and
religiosity
effects on environmentalism.
Rev.
Relig.
35:193-206
Wuthnow
R.
Wuthnow
R.
1987. Meaning
Order.
and Moral
1989. The
Americas
Struggle for
Rapids,MI: William B. Eerdmans
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Soul:
Liberals
Evangelicals,
and Secularism.
Grand
105

29737783.pdf Religion and Science PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

29737783.pdf Religion and Science PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative

Author(s): John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans

Beyond the Epistemological

Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego;

Annu. Rev. Social. 2008.34:87-105

This article, doi:

All rights reserved

amination of the relationshipbetween religion and science.We catego?

study of the compar?

Or, even more

isted primarily in the clich?-bound minds of

the first skirmishbeing between Galileo

Dickson White, A History of the

(p. 68). This

life and, further, that the idea of con?

flict is tied to specificdefinitionsof religion and

cated in the title of an 1896 textby the for?

history, religion and sci?

say that conflict was

that the warfare

(Hovenkamp 1978, p. ix).

we have been able to

(e.g., culture, rationality)?actively

world (Smith 2003b).

would be displaced by philosophical

sociology (Wernick 2005). A conflictbetween

tificcredibilityand thereforehad tobe excluded

edge (Smith 2003 b) and through the active ex?

tuai discipline with

of religion and science

ciology that sociological definitionsof religion

ditions in defining religion: the functionaland

functionaldefinitionof religion holds religion

Luckmann (1967) and Geertz (1973) have fa?

this then means

that any ultimate

1967, p. 177).There isno conflicthere because

radically relativized.Although thiswould avoid

Religion and Science

(aswe note below), thisdefinitionof religion is

of beliefs and practices by which a group of

that the dom?

goals" (O'Toole 1984, p. 142).

not (yet) explain (Verhey 1995).

(Barbour 1990, Polkinghorne 1998).We

for this Review

nature, but rather due

for the contemporary

institutional(Lamont & Molnar 2002, p. 168).

of religion and sci?

then, that Protestantism

cally decisive prelude to secularization, what?

are fixed, whereas

sky empty of angels becomes

subtle and complicated.

reality then became

ally, of the astronaut.

associate with modern

tion, both in thought and in activity,which we

of the saints, the recurring

The existing symbolic literaturecan be divided

and the directional