- Email: [email protected]
Religious or scientific explanations: a typology
The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
Religious or scientific explanations: a typology Shengming Tang∗ , Kenneth J. Mietus Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA
Abstract The relationship between religion and science is generally considered to be either antithetical, dominating separate spheres, or complementary. This paper explores the ways in which the religion/science relationship is reflected in people’s mind. Our proposed typology of positions suggests that people can be generally categorized as “religious salient,” “scientific salient,” “contextual salient,” or “anomic salient.” A religious orientation scale and a scientific orientation scale have been composed to test the proposed typology. Based on the results of self-identifications by respondents with these categories as well as the observed scores by respondents on the two scales, we conclude that the suggested typology is supported by empirical evidence. However, more tests of this typology using different samples and scales are necessary before these four types can be further defined and refined. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Religion and science are dominant forces in our society. They provide ways of constructing the person and the community, ways of situating individuals in reality, ways of attaching significance to the world, and ways of explaining the social and natural world. The exploration of the relationship between religion and science is, therefore, important. Characterizing the nature of this relationship, however, is not easy. Family background, socialization, experiences, and ways of thinking tend to have a great deal of bearings on one’s attitude towards religion and science. Additionally, religion and science can be defined and interpreted in numerous ways. Hence, the relationship between religion and science displays a wide variety of meanings for different people. Earliest approaches towards the relationship between religion and science saw it as antithetical. This approach argues that religion and science are opposed to each other at their deepest
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-309-298-1463. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Tang).
0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(03)00044-2
472
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
philosophical claims. The acceptance of one will by necessity preclude the acceptance of the other (Crick, 1994; Hawking, 1988; Sagan, 1980). A more recent view of the religion/science relationship suggests that science and religion represent different and independent closed systems of ideas, beliefs and practices. Susnjic (1987) argues that science represents the need for rational knowledge while religion provides a structure of beliefs and practices which fill a need to explain the meaning of life, consolation during times of stress and a hope for salvation. Similarly, Sappington (1991) contends that science addresses “what” or “how” questions while religion addresses “why” questions. Most important, science is limited to statements about the physical universe, while religion tends to address questions about the relationship between the universe and things beyond it. Thus, while the first approach delineates a dichotomy, the second approach portrays a dualism. Some scholars believe that religion and science can be complementary (McMullin, 1981; Peters, 1996). Einstein (1956) expressed this view by saying “Science without religion is lame, religion without science, blind.” The complementary approach argues that areas exist where there is a correspondence between what can be said scientifically about the natural world and what the theologian understands to be God’s creation. Positions similar to those of the scientist are also considered to be appropriate in religious inquiry (DeWolf, 1959). In general, this approach tends to adopt a broader definition of religion and science. Approaches which consider the relationship between religion and science thus fall into three fundamental categories: antithetical, separate, and complementary. In this paper, we explore how these fundamental categories might be reflected in the minds of ordinary Americans when it comes to the issue of whether religion or science provides the best explanation for the events in their lives. We employ a simple and commonplace definition of religion and science by Barbour (1966, p. 9). Religion generally refers to “the dominant viewpoint of the Bible, which has shaped the common assumptions of Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism—such as the doctrine of creation or the idea of an active and purposeful God.” In contrast, science is defined as “scientific ideas, methods, theories, and ways of looking at the universe, rather than practical inventions, industrial processes, the instruments of war and peace.” (Barbour, 1966). Consistent with the antithetical view of the religion/science relationship, we suggest that one could embrace the religious tradition while discarding the scientific tradition, or one could espouse the scientific tradition while rejecting the religious tradition. In line with the separate, as well as complementary views of the religion/science relationship, we suggest that religious beliefs and scientific beliefs could also coexist in one’s value systems, i.e., whether religion or science best explains the world depends on the specific context of a situation. One’s world views towards religion and science, based on the antithetical, separate and complementary approaches towards the relationship between religion and science, can thus be conceptually represented by four categories. The salience of world views can be re-conceptualized along two axes: one which reflects the relative salience of a religious orientation and the other which reflects the relative salience of a scientific orientation toward the world. The coexistence notion is represented by contextual salient category, referring to the possibility that salience of religion or science is contingent upon situations. Considering that one might feel ambivalent towards the religion/science relationship, we have also included a category which we call anomic salient, originated from Durkheim’s famous concept of anomie.
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
473
1. Hypothesis To test the efficacy of this typology, we selected a sample and developed a religious orientation scale as well as a scientific orientation scale so as to evaluate the following hypotheses: (1) Respondents are expected to identify with each of the four categories specified in our proposed typology; and (2) Respondents’ scores on two orientation scales should go in the expected directions. Specifically, we hypothesize that “religious salient” people should score high on the religious orientation scale but low on the scientific orientation scale. Similarly, “scientific salient” people should score high on the scientific orientation scale but low on the religious orientation scale. “Contextual salient” category means that one’s world views can shift fluidly between religion and science. Therefore, we hypothesize that “contextual salient” people should score high on both the religious orientation and scientific orientation scales. Because we assume that “contextual salient” people involve a lower degree of certainty in religious and scientific orientations than “religious salient” or “scientific salient” people, we also hypothesize that scores on the religious orientation scale for “contextual salient” people should be lower than those for “religious salient” people but higher than those for “scientific salient” people. Similarly, scores on the scientific orientation scale for “contextual salient” people should be lower than those for “scientific salient” people but higher than those for “religious salient” people. Since “anomic salient” category suggests a state of uncertainty, “anomic salient” people’s scores on both the religious orientation and scientific orientation scales are expected to be lower than those for “contextual salient” people.
2. Sample and measurement The present study is based on a nonrandom sample collected in a mid-western university. To prevent possible contamination effects, religion orientation statements and science orientation statements were printed on two separate questionnaires and distributed at two different time points at least 1 week apart. Students were also required to write a four-digit number on both questionnaires that they can best remember. This four-digit number was later used to match the two questionnaires for each respondent so that paired analyses could be conducted. Of a total of 307 valid cases, 45 came from natural sciences, 70 from social sciences, 52 from humanities, and 140 from disciplines such as education, business, law enforcement, communications, and industrial technology. On the whole, these respondents constituted a fair representation of the major areas taught in the university. The gender ratio is unbalanced, with the female respondents outnumbering the male respondents at a ratio of 53.4 to 46.6. The second questionnaire included a typology variable operationalizing the four proposed category types. Those who accept the statement that “In most cases, religion provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way” are categorized to be “religious salient.” Those who agree to the statement that “In most cases, science provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way” are considered to be “scientific salient.” Those who accept the statement that “Whether religion or science can best explain the world depends on the situation” are classified as “contextual salient.” “Anomic salient”
474
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
category refers to the attitude that “I am not sure which best explains the world, be it religion or science.” (Appendix A). The religious orientation scale is composed of selected items from “Religiosity Scale” by Faulkner and DeJong (1965), “Dimensions of Religious Ideology” by Putney and Middleton (1961), and “Religious Attitude Scale” by Poppleton and Pilkington (1963). Because no existing scientific orientation scales was found, we composed a scale ourselves. Both scales have 10 statements and five response categories to facilitate direct comparisons across the scales. Reliability coefficients for the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale are high at .9385 and .8386, respectively.
3. Findings and discussions Listwise method was used in the statistical analysis. Of the 307 valid cases with complete information on the identification question and two scales, 19.5% (N = 60) identified with the religious salient category, 19.9% (N = 61) with the science salient category, 40% (N = 123) with the contextual salient category, and 20.5% (N = 63) with the anomic salient category. The mode for the four response categories was the contextual salient category—two-fifths of the respondents identified with it. Since the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale both employ the 5-point scheme for response categories, respondents’ summary scores on the two scales can be directly compared. While respondents’ summary score on the religious orientation scale was 3.63, their summary score on the scientific orientation scale was only 2.83. The t test shows that the difference between the two scores are statistically significant. Respondents’ scores on the components of the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale display the same pattern. While the standard deviations for the components of the religious orientation scale are comparable to those for the components of the scientific orientation scale, the mean scores for the religious orientation scale are consistently higher than the mean scores for the scientific orientation scale (Table 1). This is not to say, however, that all respondents in the sample have higher scores on the religious orientation scale than on the scientific orientation scale. When we break down the respondents according to the proposed typology, different patterns emerge. Paired t test shows that “religious salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale are twice as large as their scores on the scientific orientation scale (4.51 vs. 2.21). Conversely, “scientific salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale are much lower than their scores on the scientific orientation scale (2.74 vs. 3.69). “Contextual salient” people’s scores are higher than “scientific salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale (3.87 vs. 2.55), but lower than their scores on the scientific orientation scale (2.74 vs. 3.69). This situation is reversed when “contextual salient” people’s scores are compared to those of “religious salient” people. In comparison with “contextual salient” people, “anomic salient” people have even lower religion scores (3.34 vs. 3.87) but comparable science scores (2.78 vs. 2.74). ANOVA tests with the religious orientation scale and scientific orientation scale as the dependent variables show that between category differences are highly statistically significant. Similarly, paired t test shows that within category differences between the religious
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
475
Table 1 Descriptive statistics Religion
Science
N
Variable
Mean
Standard deviation
Variable
Mean
Standard deviation
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
3.31 4.24 3.59 3.81 3.17 3.48 3.42 3.89 3.42 4.03
1.31 1.05 1.26 1.16 1.32 1.21 1.16 1.08 1.12 1.04
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
3.05 3.38 2.68 4.00 3.41 2.65 2.83 2.06 2.19 2.05
1.05 1.22 1.12 0.86 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.99 1.13
307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307
Scale
3.63
0.93
Scale
2.83
0.67
307
orientation scale and scientific orientation scale are statistically significant for all the four categories. Since respondents’ scores on both scales go in the hypothesized directions, this empirical evidence provides overall support for our proposed typology. If we regard the mean values of the two scales (3.63 and 2.83) as medium scores, the suggested typology can be represented as follows (Fig. 1). The demarcation between the “contextual salient” and “anomic salient” categories, however, is not as clear as is desired. While the “contextual salient” and anomic salient categories can be definitely differentiated on the religion scale, these two categories cannot be so clearly distinguished on the science scale (table not shown here). We believe the causes for this ambivalence are either sample specific or scale specific. College students generally have more exposure to science than the rest of the population. Their awareness of and belief in science is expected to be higher than that of the general population. This explanation is partially supported by the smaller standard deviation of the scientific orientation scale when compared to the religious orientation scale (.67 vs. .93). Conversely, factor analysis (results not shown here) demonstrated that the “contextual salient” people loaded higher on the science interest
Fig. 1. A religious/scientific salience typology.
476
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
and science belief factor than “anomic salient” people. It is thus likely that “contextual salient” people would have achieved higher scores over the “anomic salient” category on the scientific orientation scale should the scale be entirely composed of items relating to interest and belief in science. The present study has used a typology to distinguish among groups of people regarding the level of significance and importance they attach to religion and science. This constitutes an attempt at the better understanding of the relationship between religion and science relationship. Specifically, we believe this typology of positions is a step ahead over the simple oppositions between religion and science that is generally used. However, “contextual salient” category and the “anomic salient” category in the present study can only be distinguished on the religious orientation scale, but not on the scientific scale. Therefore, it is necessary that future studies should use different samples and scales to test this typology. Hopefully, further research along this line will testify to the validity of this typology and incorporate this empirical generalization into a theory of religious and scientific orientations. Appendix A. Variables for the religion and science scales R1: R2:
R3: R4: R5: R6: R7: R8: R9: R10: S1: S2: S3: S4:
The world will come to an end according to the will of God. (1) I believe in a Divine God, Creator of the Universe, who knows my innermost thoughts and feelings, and to whom one day I shall be accountable. (2) I believe in a power greater than myself, which some people call God and some people call Nature. (3) I am not quite sure what I believe. (4) The so-called universal mysteries are ultimately knowable according to the scientific method based on natural laws. (5) I am an atheist. It is necessary for a person to repent before God will forgive his sins. God has and continues to act in the history of mankind. The Bible is God’s word and all it says is true. One’s religious commitment gives life a certain purpose which it could not otherwise have. All religions stress that belief normally includes some experience of “union” with the divine. Are there particular moments when you feel “close” to the divine? Religion offers a sense of security in the face of death which is not otherwise possible. How would you respond to the statement: “Religion provides the individual with an interpretation of his existence which could not be discovered by reason alone.” Faith, meaning putting full confidence in the things we hope for and being certain of things we cannot see, is essential to one’s religious life. Scientific truth is higher than any other form of truth. Science is a subject in which I am not particularly interested. Eternal life is impossible to achieve. I am interested in scientific discoveries.
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
S5: S6: S7: S8: S9: S10:
477
Scientific findings are the best source of our knowledge. My belief in science is one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life. Believing as I do about science is very important to being the kind of person I want to be. I believe in a life after death. It is more important for an individual to understand the principles of science than the principles of his personal faith. The world was created by God.
The typology variable: (1) In most cases, religion provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way. (2) In most cases, science provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way. (3) Whether religion or science can best explain the world depends on the situation. (4) I am not sure which best explains the world, be it religion or science.
References Barbour, G. I. (1966). Issues in science and religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. DeWolf, H. (1959). The case for theology in liberal perspective. PA: Westminster Press. Einstein, A. (1956). Science and religion are interdependent. In Out of my later years. The Estate of Albert Einstein, Lyle Stuart, Inc. Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. F. (1965). Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Paper presented at American Sociological Association Convention, Chicago. Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. New York: Bantam McMullin, E. (1981). How should cosmology relate to theology? Peacocke. Peters, T. (1996). Theology and science: Where are we? Zygon, 31(2), 323–343. Poppleton, P. K., & Pilkington, G. (1963). The measurement of religious attitudes in a university population. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 20–36. Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions of religious ideology. Social Forces, 39(3), 285–290. Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House Sappington, A. A. (1991). The religion-science conflict. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(1), 114–120. Susnjic, D. (1987). The relation between science and religion. Revija za Sociologiju, 17(1), 3–10.
Religious or scientific explanations: a typology Shengming Tang∗ , Kenneth J. Mietus Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA
Abstract The relationship between religion and science is generally considered to be either antithetical, dominating separate spheres, or complementary. This paper explores the ways in which the religion/science relationship is reflected in people’s mind. Our proposed typology of positions suggests that people can be generally categorized as “religious salient,” “scientific salient,” “contextual salient,” or “anomic salient.” A religious orientation scale and a scientific orientation scale have been composed to test the proposed typology. Based on the results of self-identifications by respondents with these categories as well as the observed scores by respondents on the two scales, we conclude that the suggested typology is supported by empirical evidence. However, more tests of this typology using different samples and scales are necessary before these four types can be further defined and refined. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Religion and science are dominant forces in our society. They provide ways of constructing the person and the community, ways of situating individuals in reality, ways of attaching significance to the world, and ways of explaining the social and natural world. The exploration of the relationship between religion and science is, therefore, important. Characterizing the nature of this relationship, however, is not easy. Family background, socialization, experiences, and ways of thinking tend to have a great deal of bearings on one’s attitude towards religion and science. Additionally, religion and science can be defined and interpreted in numerous ways. Hence, the relationship between religion and science displays a wide variety of meanings for different people. Earliest approaches towards the relationship between religion and science saw it as antithetical. This approach argues that religion and science are opposed to each other at their deepest
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-309-298-1463. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Tang).
0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(03)00044-2
472
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
philosophical claims. The acceptance of one will by necessity preclude the acceptance of the other (Crick, 1994; Hawking, 1988; Sagan, 1980). A more recent view of the religion/science relationship suggests that science and religion represent different and independent closed systems of ideas, beliefs and practices. Susnjic (1987) argues that science represents the need for rational knowledge while religion provides a structure of beliefs and practices which fill a need to explain the meaning of life, consolation during times of stress and a hope for salvation. Similarly, Sappington (1991) contends that science addresses “what” or “how” questions while religion addresses “why” questions. Most important, science is limited to statements about the physical universe, while religion tends to address questions about the relationship between the universe and things beyond it. Thus, while the first approach delineates a dichotomy, the second approach portrays a dualism. Some scholars believe that religion and science can be complementary (McMullin, 1981; Peters, 1996). Einstein (1956) expressed this view by saying “Science without religion is lame, religion without science, blind.” The complementary approach argues that areas exist where there is a correspondence between what can be said scientifically about the natural world and what the theologian understands to be God’s creation. Positions similar to those of the scientist are also considered to be appropriate in religious inquiry (DeWolf, 1959). In general, this approach tends to adopt a broader definition of religion and science. Approaches which consider the relationship between religion and science thus fall into three fundamental categories: antithetical, separate, and complementary. In this paper, we explore how these fundamental categories might be reflected in the minds of ordinary Americans when it comes to the issue of whether religion or science provides the best explanation for the events in their lives. We employ a simple and commonplace definition of religion and science by Barbour (1966, p. 9). Religion generally refers to “the dominant viewpoint of the Bible, which has shaped the common assumptions of Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism—such as the doctrine of creation or the idea of an active and purposeful God.” In contrast, science is defined as “scientific ideas, methods, theories, and ways of looking at the universe, rather than practical inventions, industrial processes, the instruments of war and peace.” (Barbour, 1966). Consistent with the antithetical view of the religion/science relationship, we suggest that one could embrace the religious tradition while discarding the scientific tradition, or one could espouse the scientific tradition while rejecting the religious tradition. In line with the separate, as well as complementary views of the religion/science relationship, we suggest that religious beliefs and scientific beliefs could also coexist in one’s value systems, i.e., whether religion or science best explains the world depends on the specific context of a situation. One’s world views towards religion and science, based on the antithetical, separate and complementary approaches towards the relationship between religion and science, can thus be conceptually represented by four categories. The salience of world views can be re-conceptualized along two axes: one which reflects the relative salience of a religious orientation and the other which reflects the relative salience of a scientific orientation toward the world. The coexistence notion is represented by contextual salient category, referring to the possibility that salience of religion or science is contingent upon situations. Considering that one might feel ambivalent towards the religion/science relationship, we have also included a category which we call anomic salient, originated from Durkheim’s famous concept of anomie.
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
473
1. Hypothesis To test the efficacy of this typology, we selected a sample and developed a religious orientation scale as well as a scientific orientation scale so as to evaluate the following hypotheses: (1) Respondents are expected to identify with each of the four categories specified in our proposed typology; and (2) Respondents’ scores on two orientation scales should go in the expected directions. Specifically, we hypothesize that “religious salient” people should score high on the religious orientation scale but low on the scientific orientation scale. Similarly, “scientific salient” people should score high on the scientific orientation scale but low on the religious orientation scale. “Contextual salient” category means that one’s world views can shift fluidly between religion and science. Therefore, we hypothesize that “contextual salient” people should score high on both the religious orientation and scientific orientation scales. Because we assume that “contextual salient” people involve a lower degree of certainty in religious and scientific orientations than “religious salient” or “scientific salient” people, we also hypothesize that scores on the religious orientation scale for “contextual salient” people should be lower than those for “religious salient” people but higher than those for “scientific salient” people. Similarly, scores on the scientific orientation scale for “contextual salient” people should be lower than those for “scientific salient” people but higher than those for “religious salient” people. Since “anomic salient” category suggests a state of uncertainty, “anomic salient” people’s scores on both the religious orientation and scientific orientation scales are expected to be lower than those for “contextual salient” people.
2. Sample and measurement The present study is based on a nonrandom sample collected in a mid-western university. To prevent possible contamination effects, religion orientation statements and science orientation statements were printed on two separate questionnaires and distributed at two different time points at least 1 week apart. Students were also required to write a four-digit number on both questionnaires that they can best remember. This four-digit number was later used to match the two questionnaires for each respondent so that paired analyses could be conducted. Of a total of 307 valid cases, 45 came from natural sciences, 70 from social sciences, 52 from humanities, and 140 from disciplines such as education, business, law enforcement, communications, and industrial technology. On the whole, these respondents constituted a fair representation of the major areas taught in the university. The gender ratio is unbalanced, with the female respondents outnumbering the male respondents at a ratio of 53.4 to 46.6. The second questionnaire included a typology variable operationalizing the four proposed category types. Those who accept the statement that “In most cases, religion provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way” are categorized to be “religious salient.” Those who agree to the statement that “In most cases, science provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way” are considered to be “scientific salient.” Those who accept the statement that “Whether religion or science can best explain the world depends on the situation” are classified as “contextual salient.” “Anomic salient”
474
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
category refers to the attitude that “I am not sure which best explains the world, be it religion or science.” (Appendix A). The religious orientation scale is composed of selected items from “Religiosity Scale” by Faulkner and DeJong (1965), “Dimensions of Religious Ideology” by Putney and Middleton (1961), and “Religious Attitude Scale” by Poppleton and Pilkington (1963). Because no existing scientific orientation scales was found, we composed a scale ourselves. Both scales have 10 statements and five response categories to facilitate direct comparisons across the scales. Reliability coefficients for the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale are high at .9385 and .8386, respectively.
3. Findings and discussions Listwise method was used in the statistical analysis. Of the 307 valid cases with complete information on the identification question and two scales, 19.5% (N = 60) identified with the religious salient category, 19.9% (N = 61) with the science salient category, 40% (N = 123) with the contextual salient category, and 20.5% (N = 63) with the anomic salient category. The mode for the four response categories was the contextual salient category—two-fifths of the respondents identified with it. Since the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale both employ the 5-point scheme for response categories, respondents’ summary scores on the two scales can be directly compared. While respondents’ summary score on the religious orientation scale was 3.63, their summary score on the scientific orientation scale was only 2.83. The t test shows that the difference between the two scores are statistically significant. Respondents’ scores on the components of the religious orientation scale and the scientific orientation scale display the same pattern. While the standard deviations for the components of the religious orientation scale are comparable to those for the components of the scientific orientation scale, the mean scores for the religious orientation scale are consistently higher than the mean scores for the scientific orientation scale (Table 1). This is not to say, however, that all respondents in the sample have higher scores on the religious orientation scale than on the scientific orientation scale. When we break down the respondents according to the proposed typology, different patterns emerge. Paired t test shows that “religious salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale are twice as large as their scores on the scientific orientation scale (4.51 vs. 2.21). Conversely, “scientific salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale are much lower than their scores on the scientific orientation scale (2.74 vs. 3.69). “Contextual salient” people’s scores are higher than “scientific salient” people’s scores on the religious orientation scale (3.87 vs. 2.55), but lower than their scores on the scientific orientation scale (2.74 vs. 3.69). This situation is reversed when “contextual salient” people’s scores are compared to those of “religious salient” people. In comparison with “contextual salient” people, “anomic salient” people have even lower religion scores (3.34 vs. 3.87) but comparable science scores (2.78 vs. 2.74). ANOVA tests with the religious orientation scale and scientific orientation scale as the dependent variables show that between category differences are highly statistically significant. Similarly, paired t test shows that within category differences between the religious
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
475
Table 1 Descriptive statistics Religion
Science
N
Variable
Mean
Standard deviation
Variable
Mean
Standard deviation
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
3.31 4.24 3.59 3.81 3.17 3.48 3.42 3.89 3.42 4.03
1.31 1.05 1.26 1.16 1.32 1.21 1.16 1.08 1.12 1.04
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
3.05 3.38 2.68 4.00 3.41 2.65 2.83 2.06 2.19 2.05
1.05 1.22 1.12 0.86 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.99 1.13
307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307
Scale
3.63
0.93
Scale
2.83
0.67
307
orientation scale and scientific orientation scale are statistically significant for all the four categories. Since respondents’ scores on both scales go in the hypothesized directions, this empirical evidence provides overall support for our proposed typology. If we regard the mean values of the two scales (3.63 and 2.83) as medium scores, the suggested typology can be represented as follows (Fig. 1). The demarcation between the “contextual salient” and “anomic salient” categories, however, is not as clear as is desired. While the “contextual salient” and anomic salient categories can be definitely differentiated on the religion scale, these two categories cannot be so clearly distinguished on the science scale (table not shown here). We believe the causes for this ambivalence are either sample specific or scale specific. College students generally have more exposure to science than the rest of the population. Their awareness of and belief in science is expected to be higher than that of the general population. This explanation is partially supported by the smaller standard deviation of the scientific orientation scale when compared to the religious orientation scale (.67 vs. .93). Conversely, factor analysis (results not shown here) demonstrated that the “contextual salient” people loaded higher on the science interest
Fig. 1. A religious/scientific salience typology.
476
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
and science belief factor than “anomic salient” people. It is thus likely that “contextual salient” people would have achieved higher scores over the “anomic salient” category on the scientific orientation scale should the scale be entirely composed of items relating to interest and belief in science. The present study has used a typology to distinguish among groups of people regarding the level of significance and importance they attach to religion and science. This constitutes an attempt at the better understanding of the relationship between religion and science relationship. Specifically, we believe this typology of positions is a step ahead over the simple oppositions between religion and science that is generally used. However, “contextual salient” category and the “anomic salient” category in the present study can only be distinguished on the religious orientation scale, but not on the scientific scale. Therefore, it is necessary that future studies should use different samples and scales to test this typology. Hopefully, further research along this line will testify to the validity of this typology and incorporate this empirical generalization into a theory of religious and scientific orientations. Appendix A. Variables for the religion and science scales R1: R2:
R3: R4: R5: R6: R7: R8: R9: R10: S1: S2: S3: S4:
The world will come to an end according to the will of God. (1) I believe in a Divine God, Creator of the Universe, who knows my innermost thoughts and feelings, and to whom one day I shall be accountable. (2) I believe in a power greater than myself, which some people call God and some people call Nature. (3) I am not quite sure what I believe. (4) The so-called universal mysteries are ultimately knowable according to the scientific method based on natural laws. (5) I am an atheist. It is necessary for a person to repent before God will forgive his sins. God has and continues to act in the history of mankind. The Bible is God’s word and all it says is true. One’s religious commitment gives life a certain purpose which it could not otherwise have. All religions stress that belief normally includes some experience of “union” with the divine. Are there particular moments when you feel “close” to the divine? Religion offers a sense of security in the face of death which is not otherwise possible. How would you respond to the statement: “Religion provides the individual with an interpretation of his existence which could not be discovered by reason alone.” Faith, meaning putting full confidence in the things we hope for and being certain of things we cannot see, is essential to one’s religious life. Scientific truth is higher than any other form of truth. Science is a subject in which I am not particularly interested. Eternal life is impossible to achieve. I am interested in scientific discoveries.
S. Tang, K.J. Mietus / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 471–477
S5: S6: S7: S8: S9: S10:
477
Scientific findings are the best source of our knowledge. My belief in science is one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life. Believing as I do about science is very important to being the kind of person I want to be. I believe in a life after death. It is more important for an individual to understand the principles of science than the principles of his personal faith. The world was created by God.
The typology variable: (1) In most cases, religion provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way. (2) In most cases, science provides the best explanations for why and how things happen in this way. (3) Whether religion or science can best explain the world depends on the situation. (4) I am not sure which best explains the world, be it religion or science.
References Barbour, G. I. (1966). Issues in science and religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. DeWolf, H. (1959). The case for theology in liberal perspective. PA: Westminster Press. Einstein, A. (1956). Science and religion are interdependent. In Out of my later years. The Estate of Albert Einstein, Lyle Stuart, Inc. Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. F. (1965). Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Paper presented at American Sociological Association Convention, Chicago. Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. New York: Bantam McMullin, E. (1981). How should cosmology relate to theology? Peacocke. Peters, T. (1996). Theology and science: Where are we? Zygon, 31(2), 323–343. Poppleton, P. K., & Pilkington, G. (1963). The measurement of religious attitudes in a university population. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 20–36. Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions of religious ideology. Social Forces, 39(3), 285–290. Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House Sappington, A. A. (1991). The religion-science conflict. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(1), 114–120. Susnjic, D. (1987). The relation between science and religion. Revija za Sociologiju, 17(1), 3–10.