Reviewed by Stanislav Panin, Department of Religion
The Faithful Scientist: Experiences of Anti-Religious Bias in Scientific Training is based on the author’s study of experience of graduate students in social and natural sciences at top research universities in the US. While other similar studies had mostly focused on more established scientists, author Christopher P. Scheitle is particularly interested in scientists in formation. By combining his data with results of other studies, the author seeks to analyze tensions between science and religion in North American academia.
The book can be of interest for a wide spectrum of readers but would especially benefit educators and college administrators. The book is well-written and provides sufficient background, making the book accessible for those new to the topic. At the same time, it does not shun going into details of research performed by the author and therefore it will be useful for other researchers working on similar topics.
From the very beginning, the author states that he is interested not in the theological or philosophical debates concerning science and religion but rather in how belonging to religious and scientific communities create tensions in people’s lives. His thesis is that, while religious and scientific claims about reality can be negotiated relatively easily and oftentimes are simply inconsequential, negotiating different identities and values is much harder and often creates tensions for religious scientists (loc. 489).
Chapter 1 discusses various quantitative studies of spirituality among researchers, beginning with the James Leuba’s 1916 survey (loc. 443ff.). These studies indicate that, while the percent of religious scientists is smaller than that of religious people among general audience, from the 1910s to the 1990s it remained consistent. Religious scientist remain a sizable minority in academia and therefore it is important to learn more about them.
With regard to graduate students, the author’s original study found 62% of science graduate students to be religiously unaffiliated compared to 35% of general population. Even compared with university professors, graduate students are more often unaffiliated. Scheitle suggests that the lack of religious communities and accommodations on campus, as well as the lack of free time, contribute to students remaining unaffiliated. In the following chapters the author describes other factors contributing to this discrepancy.
In Chapter 2, “Views on the religion-science relationship,” Scheitle highlights the role of personal experience in understanding the relationship between religion and science. He quotes the interviews of two graduate students, Jessica and Arjun, and points out that
Discussions about the relationship between religion and science are often dominated by either highly intellectualized takes provided by theologians or historians, or highly ideological takes provided by some public scientists and religious leaders. For Jessica and Arjun, on the other hand, the religion-science relationship is not some abstract debate, but something that has influenced their personal relationships and professional itineraries (loc. 887).
In general, science graduate students tend to be more pessimistic about the relationship between religion and science compared to general audience. In a previous study of American adults by Scheitle and Ecklund, 27% believed that religion and science are in conflict, 35% asserted their independence, and 38% saw their relationship as collaboration. For students, however, the numbers are 29%, 49%, and 22% respectively (loc. 937ff.).
Scheitle argues that the answers to the question about the relationship between science and religion are informed primarily by social factors rather than theoretical considerations. Non-religious students, in particular, signal their identity as “real scientists” by subscribing to the conflict narrative even if they are not necessarily invested into this view.
Chapter 3 focuses on the hostility towards religion in academia and the influence of this hostility, real or perceived, on religious graduate students. The culture of science departments is dominated by an presumption of universal atheism that creates an illusion that everybody in these programs are non-religious. This creates environment where students and professors make negative comments about religion without realizing that their interlocutors are religious, incentivizing religious students to further hide their identity and reinforcing the perception of universal atheism.
Chapter 4 reflects on importance of peers and research advisors for graduate students. It opens with an interview with a Catholic student who built a stronger bond with her advisor after finding out that the advisor was also a Catholic. Despite that, students rarely consider religion as a factor when choosing their advisors. Scheitle suggests that this is because “religion is simply not part of the conversation when it comes to the factors that student should consider when choosing advisors” (loc. 1708). For religious students, it means that they loose an opportunity to get a better support and to build closer connection with their future advisors.
In Chapter 5, “Identity and purpose,” Scheitle discusses how some religious students explain that they are not interested in pursuing careers in academia because they want to have more time and financial resources to participate in the life of their communities, including religious congregations, which is easier when working in the industry. Academic career is less important for religious students because they see science as a means to an end, which is not as important for them compared to family, congregation, and other parts of their life. This attitude, however, does not work well with the predominant culture of science departments that valorizes the image of almost monastic lifestyle of a scientist.
The final chapter continues this conversation and discusses how other factors, especially family, affect religious graduate students. While work–family tensions are fairly well studied, the role of religion in these tensions is not often addressed. This omission is not accidental and is “in line with the prevailing silence surrounding the role of religion in the lives of scientists” (loc. 2191ff.). Naturally, balancing academic career and family is hard for all students and early-career scholars, not just religious ones. However, it is particularly important for those students whose spirituality places an emphasis on marriage and having children, making it harder for them to succeed in academia.
Overall, the book does a great job outlining practical issues that religious graduate students face on campus and showing that even seemingly theoretical questions about religion are informed by identities, communities, and day-to-day experiences. It also provides a great overview of other research on the subject and makes a strong case for the importance of religion in experience of graduate students and in administration of graduate programs.
Being based on an original research, the book provides valuable insights through interviews and quantitative data. However, the book is not limited to it. Through the data, the author aims to reach generalizations and provide practical recommendations. It is particularly evident in the final section, where the author implies that tensions between science and religion emerges primarily due to academic culture in sciences that is hostile to religion and that changing this culture is the main way to resolve these tensions.
At the same time, throughout the book we mostly hear one side, that of religious students, making it hard to build an objective and comprehensive picture of how the tensions between religion and science on campus arise. While this emphasis makes sense given the scope of the author’s research, one could argue that converting this research into policies would require a more holistic view that would give more voice to non-religious scholars and students.