Science vs. religion : what scientists really think - File PDF

118Society and Broader PublicsOthers mentioned more systemic and institutional forms of discrimination,however. A psychologist 32 I interviewed “grew up in a very scientific household”in Salt Lake City, Utah. Even though the city was largely Mormon ininfluence, religion wasn’t present in his life, and he became somewhat hostileto Christianity because of the hypocrisy he saw. His academic parents talkedabout religion mainly in terms of “Jesus was a good man, and some peoplethink very highly of him.” He explained that being a religious person is notlooked upon favorably in the world of science, and it can result in dire consequences.After all, colleagues hostile to religion often have the ability to bringabout professional sanctions. “There is this perception that if you are doingresearch and you are a religious person that you are probably biased to someextent,” he explained. “Being religious is perceived as being flaky, at least in thefield of psychology.” This psychologist raised an important issue: How do thosewho want to be more open to university dialogue about the connectionsbetween religion and science—particularly those who are religious—overcomethe perception that their science is tainted? Such a concern was particularlyacute at the beginning of my study because of the backlash against religion inthe academy brought on by the intelligent design movement. Even those Iinterviewed two years after the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design court casein 2005 thought that what their colleagues perceive as antiscience sentimentfrom religious people makes it more difficult for religious scientists to talkabout their own faith.A psychologist,33a practicing Jew who teaches at a private school, mentionedin different ways throughout our discussion that his connection to God playsan important role in his life. But at his particular university, he sees “some stiflingantireligious stuff on occasion.” For him, this backlash is as upsetting as“people trying to proselytize in the classroom.” Stifling discussions about religionis academically dangerous, he believes, because there are “plenty of topicswhere [religion] really is relevant, and we ought to be able to go into detail, evenif you’re not in religious studies.” As one whose scholarship deals with howpeople recover from drug addictions and abuse, he finds that religion and spiritualityare often key to how those in recovery understand their process towardwholeness. Thus it ought to be a central part of what he teaches in his classes.This psychologist contrasts himself with many colleagues in his field, whoignore religion’s obvious influence in this research setting because of their personalbias. “Plenty of people teach classes like that and don’t discuss it at all, andI just feel like there’s so much fear about, ‘Oh, I’m going to insult someone orbe accused of teaching religion.’” He went on to say that “anything . . . beyondempirical approaches is taboo in the classroom.” He blamed some of this lackof discussion on those in his field “who think all religion is irrational.”