In her new book, Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?, Elaine Howard Ecklund, an assistant professor of sociology at Rice University, challenges assumptions about that well-publicized divide. She interviewed 275 scientists, surveyed almost 1,700, and concludes that, while they’re less religious than the general population, they’re more religious than you might think. For example, almost 50 percent of “elite scientists” identify with a religious tradition. What’s more, 18 percent attend a religious service at least once a month (that compares with 46 percent of the general population).
The thrust of the book is that professors should be willing to engage in discussions of religion with their students—and that, in many cases, they’re simply not. According to studies conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute, college students are interested in spirituality and what-does-it-all-mean kinds of questions. So maybe those discussions are a good idea.
As I was reading the book, which is fascinating, I did wonder if Ecklund was discounting the—to me, anyway—justifiable reluctance of professors to let God into the classroom. In the chapter titled “Suppression or Engagement,” Ecklund writes about a chemist who thinks that religion has “no real place in my interactions with students” because he’s encountered evangelical Christians who have been aggressive in asserting their beliefs. This is suppression, she writes.
But I know, from having reported on pre-college evangelical Christian camps, that some evangelical students are encouraged to confront professors during classes if something is asserted that runs contrary to the Bible. Not to start a discussion, but to hijack the class. Obviously this isn’t always the case, and plenty of students (most, probably) have sincere questions about the intersection of religion and science. But it makes sense that a professor might be wary, no?
13 Responses to Should God Attend Chemistry Class?
richardtaborgreene - April 9, 2010 at 2:17 am
Discourse as war is no longer discourse (right wing and religious nuts need to learn eventually). The cost of determination to win is no one talks with you. I do not pay for classes, universities pay me for teaching them. When right wing or religious nuts disrupt my classes it is not I that is wasting tuition. Indeed I am getting paid for watching a bigot bigotting, usually somewhat nastily entertaining. I may commiserate with those whose tuition is draining down the toilet of right wing religious intolerance, but life is big and complex and sometimes there is Job and suffering. My long term way of handling this is to teach via all means OTHER than classes. Classes are an ancient relic anyway and not serious venues for discussion given the low quality of people generaly output from public schools in societies like the USA. I prefer teaching on the web, in the books I write, and in intense 3 and 5 day learning and research events (that replace classes and courses for me personally). I make student pay for these events and make sponsors buy their outputs and publishers publish some of their outputs. Rightwing and religious nuts are shouted down because everyone else there pays to get in and they refuse to have their money wasted by some mental case from insecure religious gods and those defending such wimpy gods. As my grandpapa said, any god needing people to defend it/him/her is too wimpy to help people all that mucyh.
asteingiesser - April 9, 2010 at 9:07 am
While I thoroughly agree with richardtaborgreene about extremists interruption and minimizing of certain academic practices, I must however assert that those extremists are in the minority. To limit what one teaches out of fear or anger or any other emotion is devaluing education. When we are not simply allowed to explore, whatever the discourse, then it is no longer creating scholars. My suggestion would be to learn how to lead a class so that you have enough respect from the students to maintain a healthy debate versus a “hijacking.” THAT, is personal development, not religious overzealousness.
7738373863 - April 9, 2010 at 9:41 am
The place for science professors to discuss their religious views is the extracurricular forum, not the science clasroom, unless the scientist in question happens to hold an advanced degree in divinity or religious studies and the course description explicitly notes that science and religion will be one of the topics covered. Faculty members teach courses in areas of their certified expertise or areas in which they have at least received some advanced training.I may have a superb method of removing a splinter or possess great diagnostic skills, but the last time I looked, my training and degree were in a discipline other than medicine. It would be a violation of the limits of academic freedom, as defined in the 1940 AAUP statement on tenure and academic freedom, for me to use the classroom to teach medicine, even if the teaching were anecdotal.
johncolatch - April 9, 2010 at 9:46 am
I have had several students come to my office in the past year and talk about a professor who ridiculed the student in class, for having religious beliefs. Since I was a somewhat defensive evangelical Christian during my college days, I well know the tendency of students to sometimes miss the obvious intellectual challenge being thrown up by a professor. So, my first question is usually as to whether or not it happened in a philosophy class. More often than not, the occurances reflected a balance of humanities and sciences. A biology professor told a student that he could not believe that said student still maintained religious beliefs and yet wanted to be a scientist. I attended a faculty forum and heard a faculty member say that he did not think that one could be a scientist, and also a person of faith. As the director of religious life at my institution, responsible for coordination of all religious programming, I work with persons of many faith traditions. I am a lifelong Christian, and yet, the interfaith work is the most enjoyable and rewarding work that I do. There is a stereotype in academia that all Christans are right-wing and intolerant. Sadly, this mis-perception is due mostly to the media’s insatiable appetite for the salacious details of the lives of some TV evangelists. So, plain and simple: Not all TV evangelists are hucksters, though some are clearly so. And not all students are waiting to pounce on unsuspecting professors in order to promote an intolerant right-wing religious agenda. In my experience, intolerance is present at the student, as well as the faculty level. There is a place for honest discussion of how one’s religious beliefs, or lack of said beliefs, impact one’s intellectual pursuits. And that place for discussion is the college or university campus.
mathmaven - April 9, 2010 at 10:32 am
Science class is not the place for religion. Why must a science professor be required to discuss religion any more than, say, football or else be accused of “suppression”? Do religious people really lack enough other places to talk about their beliefs, that they have to do it in science class too? Can I go to their churches and stand up and expect to be heard when I talk about the scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old or that humans evolved from a ancestor held in common with the other great apes? If not, can I claim I’m being suppressed? How ridiculous.
cwinton - April 9, 2010 at 11:48 am
As a case in point, it is possible to infer a value of the circle constant pi from a passage in Chronicles, but what purpose would be served in bringing this up in a math class? Understanding of irrational, much less transcendental numbers is not a question of religion, and the contorted arguments trying to make it so simply reinforce this point. At times, there have been attempts to legislate pi to be 3, or reportedly, 22/7, and they might make humorous anecdotes regarding how people extract stuff from scripture that requires a bit of mental legerdemain, but they hardly rise to the level of being worthy of discussion beyond their being wrong-headed. Let’s keep religion where it belongs, in religious studies, not science classes.
dboyles - April 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I don’t know about your university but at mine any comments a professor makes in class must be related to his/her subject matter. In such a conservative state here the very mention of evolution in a senior level biochemistry course makes some students bristle. To broach the topic of religion in a chemistry course is cause for student action, administrative action, board action against the faculty member.
enipeus - April 10, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I don’t know too much about these things, but is it really news that many scientists are religious? Is anyone surprised to hear that scientists of all stripes generally prefer to spend their class time discussing topics that fall within the scopes of their courses? They don’t tend to spend much time talking about religion, but they also don’t usually spend much time talking about sports or Hollywood movies, either.I hear that many bankers and auto mechanics are also religious, and they too are frequently reluctant to spend much time discussing religion at work. Maybe somebody should write a book about this similarly ground-breaking topic!
gadget - April 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm
As a composition instructor, I assign a research paper for students to learn how to develop research questions, use the appropriate databases to locate relevant peer-reviewed research, make evidence supported arguments, use the appropriate style guide, and write a coherent paper. This rules out religious topics unless the student is a theology or divinity student. On Friday I was asked why a (non-theology) student could not use the Bible as their research source. With all due respect, the student is simply not going to learn the appropriate writing skills for their major using the Bible as their research source. One semester I had a stubborn student (undeclared major) who insisted that school students were not allowed to pray in school, that this was wrong, and that she was only going to write about this one topic. She argued that there was no research on this issue and her drafts were all polemics for prayer in school. Finally I sat down with her at the computer, went to a database with legal opinions, briefs, and analyses of court decisions, and quickly called up thousands of resources. I told her to stick with Supreme Court decisions and analyse what the Court has actually ruled on prayer in schools. This forced her to write a real research paper, and she was very surprised to find out that students can pray in school all they want to–they just cannot force others to pray. This contradicted everything she had been told in her church, so I wonder what she did with her new-found expertise on the issue.
11280066 - April 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm
You can enjoy a good book, a fine piece of art, or a well functioning machine without any knowledge of its creator. But it is only natural to be a little curious.
acetylcholine - April 13, 2010 at 9:19 am
This is a terrible, terrible idea.It is not a professor’s job to shelter students. It is also disruptive to a class that has nothing to do with religion to entertain religious questions. (In addition, for example, the bible is not a peer-reviewed, journal-published source, or even a source with the quality of, say, Renaissance-era writings on medicine and biology or even Galen’s work, so it should not be accepted as a source.)This is largely a cultural problem; this is a majority-Christian country. The questions would be different if it was mostly Jewish or mostly Muslim or mostly Hindu or mostly Buddhist.Whoever is encouraging these students to disrupt the class should also be given a stern warning.
mhick255 - April 14, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Mr. Barlett, I read through your article that you linked to, and I didn’t see anything about students being encouraged to “hijack classes.” Did I overlook it somewhere?
rbristowjohnson - April 24, 2010 at 12:47 am
Really God should stay away from the chemistry class but might want to attend an astrophysics or cosmology class. Or maybe one on consciousness, neurology, psychology and whatever it is we think is happening between our ears (or in our souls). Or a class in art, literature, humanities, etc. Or, of course, a class in comparative religions or philosophy.Both theists and atheists should come clean about the faith positions they take on the existance of the supernatural creation or the multiverse (neither which can be proven). It’s okay to have a philosophy that the material is not the ultimate reality and to take on faith a belief in the resurrection of the dead, but don’t put that into a physiology textbook or teach it in such a class.Whether one is Christian, Muslim, Dharmic, Atheist, or Just-Doesn’t-Care, it’s pretty clear what classes should have God attending and what classes should not. Whether it’s a state school, Notre Dame, Oral Roberts, or Brigham Young, God should stay out of the chemistry class (or physics or engineering or mathematics or biology).