The trouble with stereotypes
Rice professor explores how people of faith interact with science
There were many stories that inspired Elaine Howard Ecklund, a professor of sociology at Rice University, to write her book “Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think.” However, she writes about one in particular that became a catalyst for her work.
Ecklund recalls meeting a mother who was concerned about sending her children to Cornell University because she was afraid that interacting with scientists would cause them to lose their faith. This encounter made Ecklund wonder: “Are all scientists really all out to eat young Christian children for lunch? What’s really going on here?”
Over the span of five years, Ecklund conducted in-depth research with 319 interview subjects in 23 congregational studies to answer questions like these, using the data to break down myths and stereotypes about how religious people think about and interact with science. Ecklund, and co-author Christopher P. Scheitle, use the data to offer practical advice about how to facilitate constructive conversations between religious and science communities. She believes building bridges between science and religion will not only lead to greater understanding but increase scientific creativity and diversity within the field. We recently sat down with Ecklund to talk about the book.
Q: Your work addresses the fact that people naturally rely on stereotypes to dictate how they perceive “others,” whether these are scientists or religious people. Why do you think it’s so important to reconsider these stereotypes?
A: I think we’re in a particular national state where science is somewhat at risk and so no matter where you are politically, funding is decreasing for science. There is a sense that scientists are not trusted as a people group by some, and so I don’t think it helps the entire scientific enterprise if religious people continue to have stereotypes of the scientific community and about science. Stereotypes hurt science.
I also think that stereotypes hurt religion and religious organizations as well. If you take the case of conservative protestant Christians or Evangelicals, young people are leaving congregations in quite large numbers, and one of the reasons that they cite for leaving congregations is because the congregations don’t seem to be engaging modern-day science. So I do think for those who care about retaining kids in congregations, this is a big deal.
I also think thirdly — I think it’s a little harder to understand as a bullet point, but science is very concerned about issues of equality and increasing minority representation in science. Particularly African-Americans and Latinos, and some groups of Asian-Americans, are vastly underrepresented in science. These are groups that historically and presently are very religious and overrepresented in the kinds of organizations that we believe have some contention with science — conservative Catholicism, conservative Protestantism and Pentecostalism — so I think that if scientists and religious people want to increase minority representation, science is sort of a social justice issue, that they ought to look towards religion as a possible partner. Now this is a radical thing to say: How do we do science outreach? Let’s go to church.
Q: You quote a graduate student in biology who is commenting on her peer’s faith convictions and belief in God. She, as someone who is not religious, says “... it makes no sense, because I would not come to the same conclusion if I read that paper.” You address a very important issue, that two different people can reach two entirely different conclusions even when they’re presented with the same information. Why do you think this is the case and how should we navigate these disagreements with our peers?
A: So that particular quote is exemplifying how someone who perceives themselves as secular is looking at someone who is religious, they’re both scientists in that particular quote, and the secular person is saying of the religious person, “Gosh, she comes to different conclusions.”
What we then need to ask is are those conclusions consequential for science as an enterprise? What we didn’t find in these data is that the scientists that we surveyed and interviewed as part of the broader study don’t perceive themselves as religious in that they’re doing a different kind of science. So it seems like, from scientists’ own point of view, whether they’re religious or not doesn’t really have an impact on their method of science and perceive themselves as doing a different kind of science. Now they do perceive themselves, religious scientists that is, as having a different approach to ethics, thinking of student care differently, some of them do think their faith makes a difference in how they apply science or the practice of science, but not really in scientific method. We didn’t really find any evidence that if you think of a Muslim scientist and a scientist who is atheist and a scientist who is Christian, none of them seem to be perceiving themselves as doing science differently. But they might understand the goal of science in the world differently.
Q: You clarify religious people’s viewpoints on hot button issues like stem cell research, climate change and evolution. What is the danger of allowing these misunderstandings to stew while these issues continue to gain momentum?
A: Well, because we had Harvey, let’s bring it back. It’s hard for people to understand this, but if you keep allowing misinformation about the environment and climate to persist, you let go of a large group of people who could help create positive change in environmental care. We really need religious people here. So going back a little bit, what we found — this goes both directions: Both religious leaders and scientists need to understand where the other community is coming from. In terms of climate and the environment, these have become highly politicized issues, and if we make it political, it becomes divisive.It’s actually safer to make climate care a religious issue.
This is a bit counterintuitive, but it helps to get religious communities on board in terms of environmental care if you can make it an issue of stewardship, which is a value that actually Christians, Jews and Muslims all hold. As soon as we make it an issue of caring for people and stewardship of God’s world, then it becomes to religious people something they can really get on board with.
Q: You present the idea f that many Evangelicals don’t see scientists as the sole authority. That doesn’t mean that they entirely discount scientific research, but that they factor in other variables like their religious leader’s teachings when formulating an opinion. How do you think understanding can emerge from putting some of these perceptions into context?
A: I think it’s important to make sure that we understand that religious people across the board think science is valuable to society so we’re at, from the scientist’s point of view, we’re at a net positive . ... It is important to know that certain religious groups are likely to return to certain religious leaders to interpret science. This is not all science — it’s not how does a refrigerator work. They totally buy that science says that it works great. They do care about scientific issues that seem to impinge on who God is and who people are. So we’ve used this: a science that affects God and humans. So if it’s a scientific issue that has implications for God’s intervention in the world and has to do with the uniqueness and specialness of humanity, and some would say rightly so, that religious people start to think through what kind of theological implications does this have for my form of faith. Then they start to talk to religious leaders and other religious people about those kinds of issues. They should perhaps turn to scientists for the mechanics of science, but the implications of science, I think it makes sense to talk about those issues in faith communities. And so I don’t think scientists should see this as an entirely bad thing, but that religious organizations and spaces might be another opportunity to talk about science and increase the reputation of science.
Q: With recent events like the mass shooting at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and the Egyptian mosque shooting that killed more than 300 people, why do you think the topic of your book religion vs. science is relevant?
A: It seems at this national and global moment, we ought to support any efforts to decrease stereotypes and increase understanding. Perhaps the best kind of antidote to anger and violence is increasing compassion and understanding and humanity. You wouldn’t think it — religion and science. They seem like these dispassionate, intellectual, philosophic issues that we debate about, but people get very angry. They get very angry and say hateful things to each other, which I think some of those things are borne out of misinformation and so sometimes the right information can help us be on better ground for a better conversation.