The Chronicle also featured an article on the religiosity of professors on Oct. 10, with the results freely available here (study 2). Less than 1% of profs at "elite" Ph.D.-granting universities are "born again"...surprised?
Yet another study published in the Chronicle looks at 1,600 scientists and their views on "spirituality", with the results available by subscription here (study 3). Over 60% of scientists are atheists and agnostics. No great surprise there.
Now, before I begin analyzing the specifics in these surveys, the last one found that 22% of scientists who describe themselves as atheists also describe themselves as "spiritual". What does that tell you?
It tells me to roll my eyes at those who try to take these sorts of results and correlate them to the sensibility of religion and/or God. Why is it that such polls are conducted? Because everyone knows that professors are thinking people. The average IQ of the average professor is probably at least 10-20 points higher than the median. If they believe, there must be good reasons to believe, right? If they are spiritual, then smart people are spiritual, and then it must be smart to be spiritual, right?
Here is the problem, folks, spirituality means a lot of different things to a lot of different people (as evidenced by 1/5 of atheists saying they were spiritual). Table 1 in study 1 gives us the "spiritual indicators":
Indicator PercentWhat thinking person wouldn't agree with the importance of 2 and 4? Every atheist I know agrees with the importance of introspection, "know thyself", and with developing a meaningful philosophy. That tells us nothing of the person's beliefs in a supernatural/mystical "spirit". Did they ever specifically ask these people if they believed in such a construct? Nope.
1) Consider myself a spiritual person . . . 81 *
2) Goal: Developing a meaningful philosophy of life . . . 70 **
3) Seek out opportunities to grow spiritually . . . 69 *
4) Engage in self-reflection . . . 68 ***
5) Goal: Integrating spirituality in my life . . . 47 **
Some of the more interesting notes from study 1:
- Four in five faculty on college campuses (81%) consider themselves to be spiritual persons, according to a major new study released today. The national survey also shows that more than two-thirds of faculty (69%) are actively seeking out opportunities for spiritual development, and that a similar number (70%) embrace ìdeveloping a meaningful philosophy of lifeî as an essential or very important personal goal.
- The highest levels of agreement with the statement that "colleges should be concerned with facilitating students' spiritual development" are found among professors in the health sciences (41%) and humanities (40%), while the lowest levels are found among professors in the biological sciences (22%), social sciences (24%), physical sciences (24%), and agriculture/forestry (25%). Institutional type also plays a role, with faculty in "other religious" colleges (68%) and Catholic colleges (62%) showing the highest levels of agreement, and faculty in public universities (18%) and public colleges (23%) showing the lowest levels.
- Differences among academic fields are also seen when responses to the statement "the spiritual dimension of faculty members' lives has no place in the academy" are examined. At least half of faculty in all academic disciplines disagree with this view, with the highest levels occurring in the health sciences (67%), education (65%) and business (60%), and the lowest levels occurring in the social sciences (51%), physical sciences (50%), and biological sciences (49%). Differences by type of institution are even larger, with the highest levels of disagreement in "other religious" (79%) and Catholic (71%) colleges, while the lowest level is found in the public universities (49%).
There is also significant variation on this question by disciplinary field. Looking at the top 20 BA granting fields, we find that atheists and agnostics are more common in some disciplines than others. Psychology and biology have the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics, at about 61 percent. Not far behind is mechanical engineering, 50 percent of whose professors are atheists or agnostics. Behind that is economics, political science, and computer science, with about 40 percent of professors falling into this category each. At the other end of the spectrum, 63 percent of accounting professors, 56.8 percent of elementary education professors, 48.6 percent of professors of finance, 46.5 percent of marketing professors, 46.2 percent of art professors and professors of criminal justice, and 44.4 percent of professors of nursing say they have no doubt that God exists. We caution, however, that some of these differences may be a function of the differential distribution of these fields across types of institutions. [remember how large some departments are, in other words]No great surprise. About one percent of professors at elite Ph.D.-granting schools are "born again". Hallelujah.
...Professors who are born-again are extremely rare at elite doctoral institutions, composing only about one percent of professors at such institutions, but they are not uncommon among community college professors and professors teaching at four year schools. Nor are born-again Christians only to be found at religiously-affiliated institutions, though they are present there in greater numbers. 17 percent of professors at secular schools describe themselves as born-again Christians, as compared to 29.6 percent at religiously-affiliated schools.
How do these generalized findings about all professors stack up against "science only profs" (study 3):
Particularly surprising to Ms. Ecklund was the finding that 66 percent of natural scientists think of themselves as spiritual (as do 69 percent of social scientists). Some said their spirituality came from a "vague feeling that there is something outside myself," while others said their spirituality was connected to an "other-centered worldview." Even among scientists who are atheists, 22 percent say they consider themselves spiritual.Notice the Chronicle article celebrates the spirituality of scientists? It fails to mention this part of her study:
In her analysis of the data, Ms. Ecklund concludes that, for many scientists, spirituality has replaced religion. The distinction between the two concepts, in the view of some of the scientists surveyed, is that religion is more "judgmental" or controlling, whereas spirituality is more "flexible and personal."
During public lectures about the study, the question inevitably asked first is: Do the professors you studied believe in God? When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic.9 When it comes to affiliation with particular religions, scientists are also vastly different from members of the broader society. About 52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation when compared to only 14 percent of the general population. [emphasis mine]They certainly should be. Claiming that you are more likely to disbelieve if you aren't raised from childhood (ahem, indoctrinated, cough cough) by religious parents is a no-brainer. But claiming that this upbringing is more common among scientists seems rather suspect to me. I would expect the distribution to be about normal among all career paths -- that is, your career doesn't correlate to your lack of religious upbringing, although the latter does correlate to your liklihood of belief.
Scientists who are not religious justify their inattention to religion through language that stresses the irrelevance of science to religion. Those not raised in religious homes, the case for the majority of scientists without religious affiliation, also emphasize their lack of experience with religion. When comparing scientists who do have a religious identity to those among the general population, there are still big differences.
According to data from the General Social Survey, a national survey of U.S. adults, 14 percent describe themselves as “evangelical” or “fundamentalist,” while less than 2 percent of scientists identify with either of these combined labels. [emphasis mine]
The only traditional religious category where the science professors have a much larger percentage of members is among those who are Jewish. Among the broader American public a little less than 2 percent identify as Jewish. In comparison, about 15 percent of the scientists are Jewish. 10 What are we to make of this lack of traditional religion?11 Is knowledge of science somehow in conflict with being religious? Childhood religious background, not exposure to scientific education, seems to be the most powerful predictor of future irreligion. Those scientists raised in almost any faith tradition are more likely to currently be religious than those raised without any tradition.12 In addition, scientists who describe religion as important in their families as children are much more likely to practice faith currently.13 When compared to the general population, a larger proportion of scientists are raised in non-religious homes.14
When one considers that many more scientists come from non-religious homes or homes that were nominally religious,15 the distinctions between the general population and the scientific community make more sense. A large part of the difference between scientists and the general population may be due more to religious upbringing, rather than scientific training or university pressure to be irreligious, although these other possibilities should be further explored.
Now, before you go off and celebrate that so many scientists are "spiritual", consider that repeated studies (including this one) have shown that fewer than 50% of scientists believe in God, that more than 60% are atheists and agnostics, and that belief in God among "elite scientists" (NAS Members) is a mere 7%. 95% of NAS biologists are either atheists or agnostics. See:
1) SciAm Article 1999
2) Nature 1997
Ask yourself this: why is it that people who have to think logically to survive in their careers, to depend upon evidence and critical inquiry, are much more likely to reject the God hypothesis? Pride? You can see it that way, I suppose, if you want. But doesn't that imply that science itself is prideful, in saying that we ought to use our brains and the best evidence available to establish knowledge and valid beliefs? If that's pride, call me the devil, I guess...
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion
