See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290480393

Science and Religion

Chapter · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.84049-0

CITATIONS READS

3 17,046

1 author:

Ryan T Cragun
The University of Tampa
92 PUBLICATIONS   1,288 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Religion and Health View project

Queering Quantitative Sociology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan T Cragun on 02 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author's personal copy

Science and Religion

Ryan T Cragun, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by C.A. Russell, volume 12, pp. 13621–13625, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

The relationship between science and religion is contingent upon at least three factors: the period of time in question, the
religion of interest, and the views of specific individuals. This article illustrates that an accurate understanding of the rela-
tionship between science and religion can only be discerned in the light of knowledge of these three factors. The article also
notes the growing interest in the scientific study of religion.

The relationship between religion and science is complicated
(Brooke, 1991). It is complicated by the fact that both religion
and science have changed over time, and by the fact that
neither may be said to constitute singular, uniform entities
(see Science, Sociology of). While the boundaries of science
are somewhat porous and it can be difficult to demarcate
what should and should not be included as science (Evans
and Evans, 2008), ‘religion’ is a broad term that refers to
thousands of diverse organizations (Cho and Squier, 2008).
Additionally, individuals can and do think about both science
and religion in multifaceted ways (Baker, 2012; Sherkat,
2011). Thus, the relationship between religion and science is
complex because it is contingent upon at least three factors:
the time period in question, the religion of interest, and the
individual. Each of these will be discussed in turn, as well as
the increasing interest in studying religion scientifically.
Time Period
The specific methodology and concomitant knowledge for
understanding the natural world referred to nowadays as
‘science’ are relatively recent human developments. Humans
have, for thousands of years, attempted to understand the
natural world, but not in the exacting way employed nowadays
by scientists. Evidence for interest in understanding the natural
world can be seen in famous monuments built in prehistoric
times (i.e., c.3000 BCE), like Stonehenge and Newgrange; these
monuments appear to be oriented relative to astronomical
phenomena, reflecting attempts to understand the movement
of celestial bodies.
Some of the earliest and most well-known efforts to system-
atize knowledge about the natural world come from the ancient
Greeks (Roger, 1986). While they did use some experimentation
not unlike that employed by scientists nowadays (Geymonat,
2010), most of their ideas were derived from speculation,
contemplation, and introspection (Roochnik, 2004), which are
approaches to understanding the world more commonly
referred to nowadays as philosophy, not science. However, it
was speculation about the natural world that ultimately
became the science of the modern age. Speculation about the
natural world was originally called ‘natural philosophy’
(Brooke, 1991). Natural philosophy evolved over thousands of
years – from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance and
Enlightenment thinkers – until it eventually became what we call
as science. During that evolution, the way that natural philos-
ophy was conducted changed (Lindberg, 1986). Early natural
philosophy would have included both empirical investigation,
like observing the paths of celestial bodies, but also
introspective contemplation or speculation, like contemplating
similarities between humans and other living things.
Over time, stricter criteria for observation and spec-
ulation were developed, leading to the Renaissance, the project
of modernity, and ultimately to the more rigorous empiricism
of modern scientific endeavor (see History of Science).
This brief history of science and its evolution is noted here
in order to illustrate that what people typically call science has
not always been the exacting and precise discipline it is today.
This becomes even more apparent when the relationship
between religion and science is examined.
Religion, from a historical standpoint, predates natural
philosophy (Lindberg, 2007; see Religion, History of). Yet, the
two are not entirely dissimilar, particularly in antiquity
(Brooke, 1991). Religion, broadly, is collective beliefs
relative to the supernatural – collective because religions are
social institutions and supernatural because religions incor-
porate beliefs and ideas that fall outside of nature. However,
the distinction between natural and supernatural is not fixed;
it is a dynamic distinction based on the accumulation of
knowledge. The use of religion vis-à-vis natural philosophy to
explain the natural world is likewise dynamic. When very little
was understood about the natural world, as was the case in
prehistoric times and antiquity, religion was often invoked to
offer such explanations. For instance, the occurrence of a flood
or tsunami, while fully understood by modern science, would
not have been explainable by natural philosophers thousands
of years ago (Dundes, 1988). Without a naturalistic (i.e.,
nonsupernatural) explanation, a supernatural one might be
suggested, like any of the dozens of documented flood
myths that are widespread among religions around the
world, e.g., the epic of Gilgamesh or the Noachian flood of
the Bible/Torah, that invoke the wrath of a deity to explain
the sudden, devastating influx of water (Dundes, 1988).
Thus, when very little knowledge about the natural world
existed, religion was invoked to offer explanations. In the
ancient world, things like earthquakes, rain, stars, floods,
storms, and even life and death were all explained through
religion, because so little was known about the natural

172 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.84049-0

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 172–175
 Author's personal copy
world (Campbell and Moyers, 1991). However, as natural
philosophy expanded and eventually evolved into modern
science, naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena
increased, shrinking the domain of religious explanations
(Grant, 1986). While many modern theologians argue
against the idea that religion now offers a ‘god of the gaps’ –
i.e., god and religious explanations are inserted into the gaps
of scientific knowledge (Dixon, 2008; Evans and Evans, 2008),
most religions no longer suggest supernatural explanations for
natural phenomena that do not have alternative explanations
in scripture (e.g., lightning strikes or volcanic eruptions).
The depiction of the relationship between religion and
science in the previous paragraph, while necessary to illustrate
how science and religion are different, is overly simplistic. It
suggests that religion and science are distinct and incompatible.
While they are distinct epistemologies and in many ways
incompatible (see below), this has not always been the case.
Early natural philosophers would often rely in part on super-
natural phenomena as explanations for natural phenomena
when naturalistic explanations were not sufficient. Many natural
philosophers were motivated by their religious beliefs to pursue
an understanding of natural phenomena, often with the aim of
supporting their religious beliefs. This was the case for one of
the most famous scientists, Isaac Newton. While unorthodox in
his religious views, Newton was driven by his belief in the
supernatural to try to discern order in the universe (Popkin
et al., 1999). Upon finding such order, Newton did not stop
believing in the supernatural but rather felt that he had
helped to illustrate that there was a divine order in the
movement of planets and stars (Westfall, 1986; Jacob, 1986).
Many natural philosophers/scientists were motivated by their
religious worldview to investigate nature, and many of these
individuals retained their religious beliefs – though often in
a modified form – after advancing science through discovery
(Westfall, 1986; Brooke, 1991).
Another famous scientist, Galileo, is often invoked to argue
that the relationship between religion and natural philosophy
was hostile, given his imprisonment and forced recanting of the
heliocentric model of the solar system he proposed, by the
Roman Catholic Church. Yet, even that famous case was
complicated by the context in which it occurred – the
Protestant Reformation had just begun and the Catholic
Church became less tolerant of alternative views as a result
(Shea, 1986; see Reformation and Confessionalization). The
Roman Catholic Church did ban specific books, and the
threat of punishment from the Church was an ever-present
concern for many natural philosophers during the Late
Middle Ages and through the Renaissance (Shea, 1986; see
Renaissance). Yet, there were also many natural philosophers
who were also religious functionaries – e.g., priests and
monks – during the late middle ages and early Renaissance
(Ashworth, 1986). In short, the historical relationship between
religion and science was never perfectly distinct nor was it
entirely oppositional.
The complicated relationship between religion and science
is also apparent in other religious traditions, like Islam. Islam
had a period of significant scientific advancement, often
referred to as the Islamic Golden Age (see Historical Thought
and Historiography: Islamic Tradition). During this time,
scholars throughout the Muslim world made significant
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 172–175
Science and Religion 173
advances in science and, like Newton, were often inspired by
their religion to do so. For instance, Al-Khwarizmi developed
algebra in part to help solve Islamic inheritance laws (Gandz,
1938). Likewise, advances in astronomy, geography, and
trigonometry were motivated in part by the desire to be able
to accurately determine the direction of the Qibla for Salah
prayers (Gingerich, 1986). While support for scientific
endeavors began to wane in the Muslim world in the 1500s,
there was a period of time during which Islam strongly
motivated individuals to pursue a better understanding of
the natural world and there are many Muslims today who
see no conflict between modern science and their religion
(see below).
It is only since about the middle of the nineteenth century
that the relationship between science and some religions
has been formulated as a distinctly antagonistic one (Dupree,
1986; Gregory, 1986; Numbers, 1986). This leads to the
second factor that must be considered when examining the
relationship between science and religion – specific religious
institutions.
Religion of Interest
‘Religion’ refers to the broad group of organizations that
various scholars have suggested should be grouped together.
What these organizations have in common is that they, in some
way, relate to the supernatural. The supernatural would include
gods, angels, demons, spirits, or essences that exist outside of
the natural or empirically detectable world. Thus, by definition,
religions include elements that lie outside the domain of
science, which is concerned with the natural world. As noted
above, the relationship between the natural and supernatural is
dynamic, as many things that were once thought to be super-
natural – e.g., lightning and the origins of species – have now
been shown to be natural phenomena.
More importantly, there is a great deal of diversity within
the broad category of religion. There are numerous ways to
distinguish between different types of religions. One way to
categorize religions is based on their relative geographic
origins – distinguishing between Eastern and Western religions.
Another way would be to group religions into broad families
that are historically, organizationally, and theologically similar,
e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
other religions. These classification schemes are useful for
understanding historical similarities between religions, but
there is a better way of understanding religions when it comes
to the relationship between science and religion today.
Originating in the US in the late nineteenth and early twen-
tieth centuries was a split among Protestant religions over the
acceptance of science (Antoun, 2008; see Christianity:
Evangelical, Revivalist, and Pentecostal). Some Protestant
religions embraced the findings of the increasingly rigorous
scientific community. As a result of embracing these findings,
like Darwin’s theory of evolution, these religions began to
‘liberalize,’ adjusting their supernatural beliefs according to the
findings of modern science (Chaves, 1997; see Liberal
Christianity). A literal interpretation of the Bible morphed into
a metaphorical interpretation, as stories like Adam and Eve
being the first humans on the planet were no longer tenable in
 Author's personal copy
174 Science and Religion
light of the findings of geology, biology, and other scientific
disciplines (Yandell, 1986). The Protestant religions that
accommodated science came to be viewed as ‘liberal’ religions.
But not all religions were willing to accommodate science.
Some rejected what they saw as capitulation to modernity and
instead advocated a return to the ‘fundamentals’ of religion.
These religions came to be viewed as ‘fundamentalists.’ While
originally a term used to describe just this group of Protestants,
the term is now more widely used to describe any religious
group that exhibits specific characteristics, namely scriptural
literalism and black and white thinking (Antoun, 2008).
Holding a literalistic view of scripture results in conflict with
science, as science has shown that various aspects of the Bible
(but also other scriptures, like the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita,
the Book of Mormon, etc.) are inaccurate when interpreted
literally.
There has been, then, a split among religions over accep-
tance of science. While this split is not as clean as the previous
paragraph suggests – some religions lie in between, accepting
some aspects of science but rejecting others (Cragun, 2013) –
the split illustrates that the relationship between religion and
science is religion-specific. Some religious groups, like
Reformed Judaism or the United Church of Christ, largely
accept the findings of modern science. Other religions, like
Southern Baptists and many Pentecostal congregations, reject
the findings of modern science that conflict with their literal-
istic interpretation of scripture. Likewise, within Islam there are
individuals who are more receptive to science and individuals
who reject tenets of modern science that contradict their
interpretation of their religion. Discerning which religions have
embraced modern science and which have rejected it is some-
what easier in the Christian West as some of the divisions
between religions have been over these very issues (e.g.,
Lutheran divisions in the US are based on this distinction).
However, this type of distinction, between fundamentalist,
moderate, and liberal interpretations of religion can be
observed in every major religious tradition, including Judaism,
Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism. In short,
without knowing which specific religion is of interest, and
perhaps even which religious congregation (assuming
Table 1 View of science and faith of members of most popular religion in various countries
We depend too much on science and not enough on faith
Most popular religion/country Disagree (1–4) (%)
Buddhists in Japan 24
Catholics in Brazil 56
Catholics in Poland 22
Evangelical Church in Germany 35
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 30
Hindus in India 30
Muslims in Indonesia 40
Muslims in Jordan 53
Muslims in Turkey 24
Protestants in Ghana 28
Protestants in the United States 24
Protestants in Zambia 37
Note: Most popular religion does not mean majority religion. In some of these countries, the nonreligious outnumber the religious.
Source: World Value Survey, 2004–2007 wave.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 172–175
a congregational structure), it is difficult to know exactly how
religions view modern science. Some religions embrace it;
others reject it; and still others embrace some elements of
science but not all of it.
Individuality
Yet, even recognizing the distinctions that exist between reli-
gions, it has increasingly been shown that individual members
within religions are more or less receptive to science, regardless
of the formal teachings or doctrine of the religion (Baker, 2012;
Sherkat, 2011). Recent research has shown that
denominational distinctions are breaking down and that
there is greater diversity within religions than between
religions. Table 1, using data from a dozen countries around
the world, illustrates the diversity that exists within religious
traditions. It shows that even within the same religion,
attitudes toward science vary considerably.
As the table illustrates, many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Protestants, and Catholics around the world are more and less
receptive to science. It is the case nowadays that fundamentalist
and liberal Catholics sit side-by-side during Mass. Likewise,
there are Muslims in the Middle East who are scientists and
accept the major tenets of modern science, yet attend Friday
prayers with fundamentalist Muslims who reject evolution.
Knowing an individual’s religion will increase the odds of
accurately predicting their views of science (Sherkat, 2011), but
such knowledge will not allow for perfect predictions.
The Scientific Study of Religion
Of final note, despite the complex relationship between science
and religion, in the last two centuries, religion itself has
increasingly become an object of scientific investigation. Such
investigation can focus on the origins of religion (Barrett, 2004;
Atran, 2002), the evolution of religions and religious concepts
over time (Atran, 2002; Armstrong, 1994; see Religion:
Evolution and Development), the present state of religions
Neutral (5) (%) Agree (6–10) (%)
22 54
20 24
21 57
20 45
14 56
na 70
9 51
6 41
11 64
7 65
15 61
15 48
 Author's personal copy
(Chaves, 2011), and the psychology and biology of religious
people (Molendijk and Pels, 1998; Ashbrook and Albright,
1997; see Psychology of Religion). The scientific study of
religion has led to the understanding that religion is a social
construction (Berger, 1990), that religion evolves in light of
both internal and external pressures (Chaves, 1997; Lawson
and Cragun, 2012), that human evolution and psychology
contribute in intriguing ways to religious beliefs (Atran,
2002), and has even begun to predict the potential future of
religion (Bruce, 2002).
Conclusion
Historically, science and religion were different from what
they are today. Science was far more speculative and less
rigorous in its approach to understanding the natural world
than it is today, and it was also often engaged in by religious
people who were pursuing it in the interest of justifying
their religious beliefs. While religions did, at times, oppress
scientific inquiry and scientists, it is not accurate to state
that religion and science were always opposed. Today, the
same relationship holds. Some religions – fundamentalist
religions – reject elements of science they believe contradict
their religious beliefs. But many other religions embrace
modern science, modifying their understanding of or jet-
tisoning outright elements of their religion that contradict
scientific findings. And within any religion, individuals may
be more or less receptive to science than the religion’s own
doctrine. Science has also begun to turn its unflinching gaze
toward religion, revealing that even belief in the supernatural
is likely a natural phenomenon.
See also: Evangelical, Revivalist, and Pentecostal Religions;
Historical Thought and Historiography: Islamic Tradition;
Liberal Christianity; Reformation and Confessionalization;
Religion, History of; Religion, Psychology of; Religion:
Evolution and Development; Renaissance; Science, History of;
Science, Sociology of.
Bibliography
Antoun, R.T., 2008. Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish
Movements, second ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Armstrong, K., 1994. A History of God: The 4000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity
and Islam. Ballantine Books, New York.
Ashbrook, J.B., Albright, C.R., 1997. The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and
Neuroscience Meet, first ed. Pilgrim Press.
Ashworth Jr., W.B., 1986. Catholicism and early modern science. In: Lindberg, D.C.,
Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between
Christianity and Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA,
pp. 136–166.
Atran, S., 2002. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Baker, J.O., 2012. Public perceptions of incompatibility between “science and reli-
gion”. Public Understanding of Science 21 (3), 340–353.
Barrett, J.L., 2004. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? AltaMira Press.
Berger, P.L., 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.
Anchor.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 172–175
View publication stats
Science and Religion 175
Brooke, J.H., 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press.
Bruce, S., 2002. God Is Dead: Secularization in the West. Blackwell Publishers,
London.
Campbell, J., Moyers, B., 1991. The Power of Myth. Anchor.
Chaves, M., 1997. Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Chaves, M., 2011. American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton University
Press.
Cho, F., Squier, R.K., 2008. “He blinded me with science”: science chauvinism in
the study of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76 (2),
420–448.
Cragun, R.T., 2013. What You Don’t Know about Religion (But Should). Pitchstone
Publishing, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Dixon, T., 2008. Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Dundes, A., 1988. The Flood Myth. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dupree, A.H., 1986. Christianity and the scientific community in the age of Darwin. In:
Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the
Encounter between Christianity and Science. University of California Press, Ber-
keley, CA, pp. 351–368.
Evans, J.H., Evans, M.S., 2008. Religion and science: beyond the epistemological
conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology 34, 87–105.
Gandz, S., 1938. The algebra of inheritance: a rehabilitation of Al-Khwarizmi. Osiris 5,
319–391.
Geymonat, M., 2010. The Great Archimedes. Baylor University Press, Waco, Tex.
Gingerich, O., 1986. Islamic astronomy. Scientific American 254 (4), 74–83.
Grant, E., 1986. Science and theology in the middle ages. In: Lindberg, D.C.,
Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter
between Christianity and Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA,
pp. 49–75.
Jacob, M.C., 1986. Christianity and the Newtonian worldview. In: Lindberg, D.C.,
Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between
Christianity and Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA,
pp. 238–255.
Lawson, R., Cragun, R.T., 2012. Comparing the geographic distributions and growth of
Mormons, Adventists, and witnesses. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 51
(2), 220–240.
Lindberg, D.C., 1986. Science and the early church. In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L.
(Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity
and Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 19–48.
Lindberg, D.C., 2007. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific
Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D.
1450. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Molendijk, A.L., Pels, P., 1998. Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the
Sciences of Religion. Brill Academic Publishers.
Numbers, R.L., 1986. The creationists. In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God
and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 391–423.
Popkin, R.H., Force, J.E., William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1999. Newton and
Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence. Kluwer Academic.
Roger, J., 1986. The mechanistic conception of life. In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L.
(Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity
and Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 277–295.
Roochnik, D., 2004. Retrieving the Ancients: An Introduction to Greek Philosophy.
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
Shea, W.R., 1986. Galileo and the church. In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L. (Eds.),
God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and
Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 114–135.
Sherkat, D.E., 2011. Religion and scientific literacy in the United States. Social Science
Quarterly 92 (5), 1134–1150.
Westfall, R.S., 1986. The rise of science and the decline of orthodox christianity:
a study of Kepler, Descartes, and Newton. In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L. (Eds.),
God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and
Science. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 218–237.
Yandell, K.E., 1986. Protestant theology and natural science in the twentieth century.
In: Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R.L. (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the
Encounter between Christianity and Science. University of California Press, Ber-
keley, CA, pp. 448–472.