Beyond Science and Religion

Religion and Science:
Access provided by Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) on 09/18/18. For personal use only.
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Click here for quick links to

Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Beyond the Epistemological
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Conflict Narrative
• Our comprehensive search
John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans
Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego;
email: [email protected], [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008. 34:87–105 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on secularization, rationality, STS, institutions, values
April 7, 2008
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

soc.annualreviews.org
Studies of the relationship between religion and science have tradi-
This article’s doi: tionally assumed that any conflict that exists is based on epistemology.
10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134702
This assumption is built into the history of Western academic thought,
Copyright c 2008 by Annual Reviews. the founding of sociology itself, as well as the common definitions of
All rights reserved
religion used by social scientists. This assumption has hindered the ex-
0360-0572/08/0811-0087$20.00 amination of the relationship between religion and science. We catego-
rize studies of the relationship between science and religion into three
groups: the symbolic epistemological conflict studies, the symbolic di-
rectional influence studies, and the social-institutional studies. We find
that the social-institutional studies, which most closely examine actual
public conflicts, do not presume that the conflict is over epistemological
claims and offer a more general and fruitful approach to examining the
relationship between religion and science.
87
INTRODUCTION versies was titled, “science three, religion zero”
(Mazur 1996).
Although we know of no study of the compar-
The warfare narrative does match older aca-
ative coherence of sociological research areas,
demic accounts in which military metaphors
we suspect that the field of religion and sci-
were dominant in descriptions of the relation-
ence is one of the muddiest in all of sociology.
ship between religion and science (Numbers
The conceptual source of this muddiness lies in
1985, p. 59). This narrative is classically indi-
the long-running academic assumption that re-

cated in the title of an 1896 text by the for-
ligion and science always conflict and that they
mer president of Cornell University, Andrew

conflict over competing truth claims about the
Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Sci-
world. It is therefore hard for sociologists to
ence with Theology in Christendom (White 1960
analyze the relationship dispassionately because
[1896]).
sociology itself was born as a scientific alterna-
However, historians no longer accept the
tive to religion. Before we begin a review of
warfare narrative. For example, examining
the literature in science and religion, we must
American history, Numbers (1985, p. 80) con-
outline the sources of this conceptual morass.
cludes that “the polemically attractive warfare
We do not attempt to define religion and sci-
thesis [is] historically bankrupt.” Or, even more
ence here. Rather, we focus on how scholars
strongly and specifically, “the war between sci-
have used these categories to generate findings.
ence and theology in colonial America has ex-
It is our general position in this review that the
isted primarily in the cliché-bound minds of
epistemological conflict assumption built into
historians” (p. 64). Indeed, there was a “pre-
many sociological analyses has hindered exam-
vailing harmony between science and religion
ination of the relationship between religion and
in the antebellum period” (p. 68). This analy-
science by blinding analysts to more subtle em-
sis suggests that if and when there is conflict,
pirical possibilities.
it is not an inevitable or permanent feature of
American life and, further, that the idea of con-
flict is tied to specific definitions of religion and
The Dominance of the science. Note that the warfare narrative implic-
Epistemological Warfare Narrative itly assumes that the warfare is over the author-
There is a deep assumption spread through ity to establish truth claims about the world—
most academic writing about religion and sci- about how planets move (Galileo) or where hu-
ence: the warfare narrative. In popular ac- mans came from (Darwin).
counts, religion and science are fixed categories When historians say that conflict was not an
of thought that have always been at war, with inevitable feature of American life, it is because,
the first skirmish being between Galileo and for much of American history, religion and sci-
the seventeenth century Catholic Church. For ence agreed on how to establish truth. In fact,
example, a textbook on the relationship be- historically science used to be a very religious
tween science and religion identifies four his- endeavor. For example, according to Toumey,
torical landmarks in the debate: the medieval “early in the nineteenth century, evangelical
synthesis, the Copernican and Galilean con- Protestantism and science were so intellectually
troversies, debates over Newton’s ideas, and compatible in the United States that a natural-
Darwinism (McGrath 1999). The political ist and a minister could easily agree on what
rhetoric of contemporary scientists and their they believed about nature” (Toumey 1994,
supporters also often portrays a situation of war- p. 14). God was revealed twice in this view: once
fare, with complaints about religion shutting through scripture, and once through nature.
down legitimate stem cell research and so on Drawing on an idea that may go back at least
(Mooney 2005). As one recent article by a scien- to Aquinas, the details of nature were evidence
tist enumerating the results of scientific contro- of God’s wonderful design, it was thought, and
88 Evans · Evans
further that “nature contains clear, compelling tual discipline with departments in universities,
evidence of God’s existence and perfection” the boundary drawing against religion inten-
(Hovenkamp 1978, p. ix). sified. Although several key American sociolo-
gists were personally religious (Swatos 1984),
the commitment to positivism as an epistemo-
Epistemological Warfare logical stance in American science created a sit-
at the Birth of Sociology uation in which religion detracted from scien-
Despite the historical lack of inevitable conflict tific credibility and therefore had to be excluded
between science and religion, its existence has in order for the new discipline to gain respect
been a deep assumption in American culture in the university. Irrespective of their personal
and particularly in American universities. Al- commitments, sociologists took action to re-
though it is possible that conflict over the secu- move religion as a contributor to the developing
larization of American universities is the source discipline through such tactics as the develop-
of the conflict narrative, whatever the source, ment of textbooks that described religion as an
the narrative has filtered into much of the soci- object of study rather than a source of knowl-
ological work that we have been able to identify. edge (Smith 2003b) and through the active ex-
It is nearly always a deep, unexamined theoret- clusion of religious sociology and its supporters
ical assumption that we try to unearth in this from the field’s core institutions (Evans 2008).
review. One reason for this assumption is that By excluding religion as a source of sociological
the founders of the discipline of sociology—the knowledge, early American sociologists hoped
creators of the metaphors we rework year af- to promote sociology as a respected academic
ter year (e.g., culture, rationality)—actively op- scientific discipline.
posed religion and saw the two systems as in-
compatible means of making claims about the
world (Smith 2003b). Epistemological Conflict in the
This vision of incompatibility was the result Definitions of Religion and Science
of the new field’s Enlightenment assumptions. The narrative of religion and science in conflict
We should not forget that it was Comte, the over truth claims is so deeply entwined with so-
supposed father of sociology, who thought he ciology that sociological definitions of religion
was going to replace the religion of the time presuppose it, making it almost impossible to
with a new religion of science called sociology. find a perspective outside of this tangle from
Societies would evolve from a primitive theo- which to analyze the relationship between reli-
logical stage, and as society acquired a more gion and science. There are two dominant tra-
rational understanding of the world, theology ditions in defining religion: the functional and
would be displaced by philosophical thinking the substantive (Berger 1967, pp. 175–77). A
and ultimately by the “queen of the sciences,” functional definition of religion holds religion
sociology (Wernick 2005). A conflict between to be any cultural system at its most abstract.
science and religion over truth was then en- Luckmann (1967) and Geertz (1973) have fa-
shrined in the earliest conception of the socio- mously advocated such definitions. As has been
logical enterprise. Once institutionalized, sub- pointed out, this then means that any ultimate
sequent sociologists did not need to have this system of meaning becomes a religion: femi-
motivation for the religion-science conflict as- nism, Marxism, secular humanism, analytic phi-
sumption to continue. losophy, the world of Star Trek, or, as pointed
This nineteenth century notion that reli- out by Berger and to add to our confusion,
gion was primitive and both deserving and due “modern science [as] a form of religion” (Berger
to have an imminent death was also common 1967, p. 177). There is no conflict here because
among the founders of American sociology. the content of religion and science have been
When it came to founding sociology as an ac- radically relativized. Although this would avoid
www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 89

the problems with assuming conflict over truth problem with secularization theory is its defini-
(as we note below), this definition of religion is tion of religion as “a method of explaining the
not commonly used. physical world through the supernatural.” He
More common in actual empirical analysis concludes, citing Geertz, that “in any religion,
are substantive definitions of religion, and these explaining the physical world is only a subordi-
typically involve splitting the world into some nate task; it is explaining the social world, giving
version of the sacred and the profane. The pro- it meaning and moral value, which is religion’s
fane world operates rationally, explainable by primary concern” (Buckser 1996, p. 439).
human reason and able to be observed. The We note here that although religion is often
sacred, commonly called the supernatural or recognized as complicated, plural, and multi-
transcendent, operates outside of the ability of faceted, science has usually been considered as
rationality (e.g., science) to explain it. As one a stable, uniform, and unproblematic category
popular textbook in the sociology of religion in the sociological literature. Work challenging
puts it, “religion can be defined as a system a uniform vision of science has emerged from
of beliefs and practices by which a group of the subfield of science and technology studies
people interprets and responds to what they (STS) in recent decades but has not yet pene-
feel is sacred and, usually, supernatural as well” trated the discussion of religion and science be-
( Johnstone 1997, p. 13). Weber, who was fa- cause such work usually does not engage ques-
mously reluctant to provide a definition of reli- tions of religion. We discuss relevant recent
gion, nonetheless thought that religion has the STS work in the social-institutional section be-
function of “rendering rational the irrational- low. Nevertheless, we maintain that the dom-
ities of life through the provision of mean- inant assumption in sociology that religion is
ing. . . . Unlike magic, therefore, religion is po- about truth claims is the factor that has hobbled
tentially capable of transcending the mundane the more subtle investigation of the relation-
gains and losses of practical life through a cu- ship between religion and science. However, as
mulative rational systematization of ideas con- we highlight below, not all examinations of re-
cerning the supernatural and on the basis of ligion and science make this assumption, and
progressive preoccupation with other-worldly these studies seem to offer the most promise.
goals” (O’Toole 1984, p. 142).
These substantive definitions of religion
have essentially defined religion as concerning Demarcating the Field for this Review
the “irrationalities,” the “not science.” There- We need to draw tight boundaries around our
fore, in theological terms, sociologists tend to subject, for parsimony’s sake. Most notably,
define religion like a “God of the gaps,” where there is an extremely large theological literature
God exists in the phenomena that science can- that discusses what the proper theoretical rela-
not (yet) explain (Verhey 1995). tionship between religion and science should be
However, religion is about much more than (Barbour 1990, Polkinghorne 1998). We take
truth, on both an institutional and an individual this to be outside of the interests of most so-
level. In an underappreciated article, anthropol- ciologists, and it has had little influence on the
ogist Buckser (1996) makes this point while ex- literature we are concerned with. We do include
amining secularization on a Danish island. The research from the fields of cultural anthropol-
declining amount of religious activity was not ogy, history, and medicine, but only when the
due to an encounter with science and scientific research has implications for the contemporary
ways of understanding nature, but rather due science-religion relationship that most sociol-
to a transformation in social relations on the is- ogists are concerned with. This generally ex-
land brought about by agricultural mechaniza- cludes, for example, the voluminous literature
tion, which reduced the population of villages on the Galileo conflict, the religious beliefs of
and weakened social ties. He concludes that the early scientists, and so on.
90 Evans · Evans
When examining the existing literature on ligion. Weber’s concerns here are intertwined
religion and science in sociology, we use one with his more general concern with an increase
clear distinction to further organize this paper: in formally rational systems in which action be-
the distinction between symbolic and social- comes more calculable. Weber postulated the
institutional (Lamont & Molnar 2002, p. 168). increasing rationalization of religions, of which
Symbolic analyses of religion and science treat the Protestantism of the Reformation was a
them as systems of ideas, beliefs, or discourses. particularly strong example. In the words of
Social-institutional analyses of religion and sci- Peter Berger, probably the most influential in-
ence are concerned with the institutions that terpreter of Weber’s sociology of religion:
propagate these ideas, beliefs, or discourses. We
The Catholic lives in a world in which the
begin with the symbolic accounts.
sacred is mediated to him through a variety
of channels—the sacraments of the church,
SYMBOLIC: INCOMPATIBLE the intercession of the saints, the recurring
EPISTEMOLOGICAL eruption of the “supernatural” in miracles—a
CONFLICT LITERATURE vast continuity of being between the seen and
the unseen. Protestantism abolished most of
The existing symbolic literature can be divided
these mediations. . . . This reality then became
into two families: the epistemological conflict
amenable to the systematic, rational penetra-
and the directional influence families. The epis-
tion, both in thought and in activity, which we
temological conflict literature assumes that re-
associate with modern science and technology.
ligion and science are inherently incompatible
A sky empty of angels becomes open to the
and that a growth in science leads to decline in
intervention of the astronomer and, eventu-
religion because they are competing ways of es-
ally, of the astronaut. It may be maintained,
tablishing truth. The directional influence liter-
then, that Protestantism served as a histori-
ature is more subtle and complicated. This liter-
cally decisive prelude to secularization, what-
ature tends to ask whether a particular religious
ever may have been the importance of other
discourse or belief leads to the rise of science or
factors (Berger 1967, pp. 112–13).
a change in science. The epistemological con-
flict literature presumes that the categories of
Rationalization in religion had contributed
religion and science are fixed, whereas the di-
to the disenchantment or, more literally, the
rectional influence literature does not.
demagification of the world, resulting in a sit-
We should note that the symbolic literature
uation in which mysterious forces and powers
is often difficult to recognize as a science and
have been replaced by the calculation and tech-
religion literature because, although religion is
nical means embodied in modern science. Ow-
clearly labeled as a system of thought that in-
ing to this rationalization, religion reduces the
cludes references to the transcendent and so on,
number of truth claims about the world that
its opposition is often described as modern sec-
are not compatible with the “systematic, ratio-
ular rationality. It is then explicitly noted or im-
nal penetration” that we “associate with mod-
plicitly assumed that science is the embodiment
ern science and technology.” Religion does not
of modern secular rationality. We start with the
change except by becoming more like science.
epistemological conflict literature.
We are not claiming that this account is wrong
but that it focuses only on the epistemological
The Rationalization of Religion claims of religion and science.
A field of research concerning the relationship

between religion and science where the epis- Secularization
temological conflict model is very evident is Closely related to the rationalization of religion
Weber’s concern with the rationalization of re- are debates about secularization. Of course,

secularization theory is itself a recognized plausible in modern societies, blowing away the
morass in the sociology of religion. We believe vestiges of superstitious dogma in Western Eu-
there is consensus that secularization should be rope” (Norris & Inglehart 2004, p. 7).
split into two components that are related in Probably the most infamous and explicit de-
contested ways, which we describe as macro scription of this version of secularization comes
and micro. The macro component of secular- from Wallace (1966), who directly attributes
ization is institutional differentiation, in which secularization to the greater explanatory power
religion becomes separated from other institu- of rational science:

tional spheres. Whereas at one time the state,

the family, education, and other institutions [T]he evolutionary future of religion is extinc-
were legitimated by religious symbols, secular- tion. Belief in supernatural beings and super-
ization occurs when this is no longer the case. natural forces that affect nature without obey-
Despite some evidence of its reversal in politics ing nature’s laws will erode and become only
(Casanova 1994), we believe that the consensus an interesting historical memory. . . . [B]elief in
among scholars is that this process has occurred supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all
over time. The remaining debates are about ex- over the world, as the result of the increasing
plaining this secularization (Smith 2003a). adequacy and diffusion of scientific knowledge
A second, micro component of seculariza- (p. 265).
tion concerns changes in individual belief and
practice (Stark 1999). This research most often We again see in both of these works the epis-
includes measures of participation in religious temological conflict model on display. An in-
organizations (Finke & Stark 1988, Chaves & crease in the ability of science to make credible
Gorski 2001, Norris & Inglehart 2004). There truth claims leads to a decline in religion’s abil-
is, of course, a theorized relationship between ity to make truth claims. This literature is also
these two components, which for our purposes symbolic in that it does not examine conflict be-
we can simply say are related and reinforcing. tween institutions, but rather concerns a change
Whereas there is consensus that macro secular- in the ideas or beliefs of people.
ization has occurred, there remains a debate as
to whether micro secularization has occurred
in the United States (Norris & Inglehart 2004), Degree of Symbolic Incompatibility
and even in Europe (Stark 1999). on an Individual Level
The literature on the relationship between Another literature, related to the traditional
religion and science in secularization theory secularization literature, tries to demonstrate
emerges in the explanations. We divide these the epistemological conflict between science
explanations into three families, with the first and religion, typically by examining how
being an example of symbolic epistemologi- religious scientists are and how scientific the
cal conflict and the other two fitting into the religious are. Given the assumption in this lit-
social-institutional theories below. In the first, erature that they are incompatible systems de-
the traditional and dominant secularization ac- signed to make competing truth claims about
count, growth of certain types of rationality— the natural world, people who are the most ex-
embodied in modern science—plays a central pert in science or religion should then exhibit
role in secularization. In one concise summary, the least adherence to the opposing symbolic
“the era of the Enlightenment generated a ra- system.
tional view of the world based on empirical stan- Early studies of the religiosity of sci-
dards of proof, scientific knowledge of natu- entists, beginning with Leuba’s survey of
ral phenomena, and technological mastery of American scientists in 1914, indeed found that
the universe. Rationalism was thought to have scientists were disproportionately less religious
rendered the central claims of the Church im- than nonscientists and, even more importantly,
92 Evans · Evans
that scientists with higher status tended to be terferes with the acquisition of scientific knowl-
less religious than other scientists (Leuba 1916, edge, again assuming the two systems make in-
1934). The better the scientist, the less reli- compatible truth claims about the world. For
gious they were likely to be. An influential study example, on the one hand, Lawson & Worsnop
of graduate students by Stark (1963) also sup- (1992) find that students with stronger religious
ported Leuba’s broader finding. Stark argued commitments are less likely to change to a belief
that those students who were better educated, in evolution after being taught a unit on evolu-
attended better schools, and generally did what tion and natural selection in biology class. On
was necessary to achieve higher scientific sta- the other hand, Verhey (2005) finds that even
tus were less likely to be involved with their students with prior commitments to creation-
religious tradition, even if they still nominally ism became more sympathetic to evolutionary
claimed affiliation (Stark 1963). theory after being exposed to both intelligent
But later studies found important contradic- design and evolution in the classroom.
tory patterns in the beliefs of academic scien-
tists. For example, Lehman & Shriver (1968)
and Thalheimer (1973) found that social scien- Efficacy of Prayer
tists were less religious than natural scientists, Perhaps the subfield that most clearly assumes
despite their lower position in the scientific sta- the conflict over epistemology is the efficacy of
tus hierarchy. Although this evidence still sup- prayer debate. This debate has its roots in ar-
ported the epistemological conflict thesis, it guments between clergy and scientists in nine-
seemed to subvert the linearity of the model. teenth century England over the usefulness of
Being more scientific did not necessarily equate public days of prayer (Turner 1974, Mullin
to being less religious, at least at the margins. 2003). In 1873, Francis Galton published an
Scholars explained this variously as an effect analysis showing that monarchs and clergy, who
of “scholarly distance from religion” (Lehman presumably received the most prayer, did not
& Shriver 1968) or as a “boundary postur- live as long as merchants and lawyers, who pre-
ing mechanism” by social scientists trying to sumably received less prayer. On these grounds,
appear more scientific by being less religious he claimed that religious practice had no ef-
(Wuthnow 1989, pp. 142–57). fect on the real world and that public days of
The most current research suggests that al- prayer were therefore not worthy of the state’s
though scientists are less religious than non- endorsement. By implication and later by direct
scientists, just as in Leuba’s day, religiosity (in claim, only science could provide grounds for
varying forms) is persistent among scientists intervention in health matters. The modern day
(Larson & Witham 1997). Several recent pop- version of this contest began when Byrd (1988)
ular books by scientists, including the leader conducted a double-blind randomized experi-
of the Human Genome Project, evince a vi- ment in which groups engaged in intercessory
tal thread of religiosity within academic science prayer for patients in a coronary intensive care
(Collins 2006). Moreover, results from a recent unit. Byrd’s finding that prayer had some posi-
national survey of scientists show that differ- tive health effects triggered a host of studies fur-
ences in religiosity across the scientific status ther evaluating whether health outcomes could
hierarchy are flattening, so that scientific disci- be affected through intercessory prayer (Astin
pline is a less useful predictor of the religiosity et al. 2000, Benson et al. 2006).
of scientists than are many other variables, in- Here we have a direct epistemological con-
cluding age, marital status, and childhood reli- flict between religion and science, fought on
gious background (Ecklund & Scheitle 2007). what is currently the epistemological ground
In addition to the studies of religiosity of sci- of science, in that currently institutionalized
entists, a few studies have attempted to address scientific methods are being used to evalu-
directly the question of whether religiosity in- ate claims. This literature does not describe a

conflict like the debates about Darwinian evolu- methods in three important ways. First, he fo-
tion, but rather is the conflict between religion cused on how religion complemented science
and science. rather than on specific instances of conflict,
avoiding “the short leap from such empirical
episodes of conflict to a belief in the logi-
SYMBOLIC: DIRECTIONAL cal and historical necessity for such conflict”
INFLUENCE (Merton 1970 [1938], p. xxxviii). Second, he de-
fined religion in nonessential terms, as “dom-

The Merton Thesis: Particular
ination by a particular group of sentiments”

Religious Ideas Lead rather than “adherence to the logical impli-
to Modern Science cations of a system of theology” (p. 59). Be-
Although the research described above assumes ing nominally Protestant mattered less than the
that religion and science are symbol systems extent to which one’s Protestantism expressed
in conflict specifically over truth claims about dominant cultural values. Finally, in contrast to
the world, other research is focused on how Great Man approaches to history, Merton em-
other aspects of the religious symbol system in- phasized that the institutionalization of science
fluence the symbol system of science. At the (in societies, universities, high schools, and oc-
end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of cupational training) was equally as important as
Capitalism, Weber suggests that future studies the personal characteristics of those individuals
might investigate connections between Protes- involved in its practice.
tantism and “the development of philosophical Many historians and a few sociologists have
and scientific empiricism” (Weber 2002 [1905], lodged objections to the Merton Thesis on the
p. 122). In the 1930s, Robert K. Merton took basis of competing interpretations of Merton’s
up Weber’s challenge. The argument was pub- historical evidence (Becker 1984, Cohen 1990).
lished first in Osiris and later in book form And as both Abraham (1983) and Shapin (1988)
as Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth- have noted, the Merton Thesis in practice is
Century England (Merton 1970 [1938]). usually whatever simplified version of Merton’s
Contrary to the dominant warfare narrative argument seems most amenable to one’s pre-
of the historians of the time, the Merton Thesis ferred analytical tools. But the more general
proposed that certain dominant cultural values idea that religion leads to the methods and insti-
expressed in Puritanism contributed to the rise tutions of modern science has proven attractive
of science. At the social-psychological level, Pu- to many scholars, even if they do not directly
ritanism provided external motivation and pro- respond to Merton’s careful argument.
moted a particular style of scientific practice The most common response from sociol-
through its expression of cultural values such as ogists has been to fit the Merton Thesis into
the glorification of God, diligence and industry, conventional understandings of cause and ef-
choice of vocation, “blessed reason,” “profitable fect. The thesis is often tested through cross-
education,” empiricism rather than rationality, national comparisons in which the growth of
and experimentation over idle contemplation science is the dependent variable and religious
(Merton 1970 [1938], pp. 60–80). At the social- affiliation is one of several independent vari-
structural level, the emerging social institution ables. For example, Sorokin (1937) claimed
of science drew on religion for legitimacy until that predominantly Catholic countries also had
it could establish itself as an autonomous do- high levels of scientific activity in the seven-
main. As Merton put it, religion “consecrated teenth century, whereas Thorner (1952) argued
science as to make it a highly respected and that Protestants were doing the contributing in
laudable focus of attention” (p. 106). those Catholic countries. Working with more
Merton’s sociological approach to science recent data, Cole & Phelan (1999) find that
and religion broke from existing historical countries with lower levels of Catholicism have
94 Evans · Evans
lower levels of total scientific output, while et al. 2002). More concretely, scholars repeat-
Schofer (2003) shows that Protestantism had a edly find that religious themes of immortal-
positive effect on the institutionalization of geo- ity, transcendence, and omniscience figure in
logical science. Schofer (2004) also argues more the description of important scientific goals,
generally that Protestantism had a historically such as finding the “God particle” or decod-
positive effect on the worldwide expansion of ing the “Holy Grail” of the human genome
scientific institutions but that this positive effect (Nelkin & Lindee 1995, p. 39). Such themes
did not persist after 1970. By finding the lim- and metaphors may even help define research
its of religion’s explanatory power, such studies agendas in scientific fields such as space ex-
have also been useful in pointing to other im- ploration, genetic engineering, and artificial
portant factors contributing to the institutional intelligence (Noble 1997).
legitimacy of science, such as political decen-
tralization (Ben-David 1971) or patronage and
state support (Wuthnow 1987, pp. 265–98). Islamic Science
Merton’s contribution suggests a basic com- The Merton-inspired literature focuses on
patibility and indeed a positive, if complex, re- the influence of Western religion on post-
lationship between religion and science at a Enlightenment science. There is also a litera-
particular historical moment. It also provides ture on the non-Western religious influence on
a way to explain empirical instances of conflict science that presumes compatibility. In North
without assuming an epistemological conflict America and Western Europe, the study of re-
model. ligion and science is largely bound to the cul-
Other lines of research take seriously the turally prominent traditions of Christianity and
idea that religion influenced science. For ex- Judaism. Islam and science have had an equally
ample, one ambitious recent argument com- complex relationship. Yet the common view is
bines elements of Weber and Merton to suggest that Islamic science is one historical stage of
that Christianity’s focus on systematic forward- scientific development, sitting between classical
looking theology, combined with an empiri- Greek thought and the Renaissance in Western
cist focus and an understanding of the physi- Europe. This suggests a fundamental compat-
cal world as God’s creation, led to the rise of ibility between religion and this version of sci-
Western science, capitalism, and modernity as ence. In this view, science continued to develop
we know it (Stark 2003, 2005). Another ap- in the West but not in the Muslim world, and
proach proposes that science has sometimes this is possibly due to conflict with, or subor-
benefited from struggles within religion. For dination to, some feature of Islam such as reli-
example, Hollinger (1996) tells of several cases gious law or orthodoxy (Huff 2003).
in which secular, autonomous science became But historically, as Sabra (1987) has noted,
positively associated with democracy in mid- Islam did not just transmit information from the
century America, in part as a reaction by (secular Greeks to the Renaissance Europeans. Rather,
and nonsecular) Jews against Protestant hege- it transformed and expanded scientific knowl-
mony in universities (see also Cantor 2005). edge in the process. This is not necessarily a
Finally, a seemingly unrelated yet comple- rebuttal of the common view. In the stronger
mentary literature highlights how science draws version of this view, however, Islam and sci-
on religious metaphor, language, and imagery. ence have always been intertwined, with sci-
At a more abstract level, scholars suggest that ence emerging in Islam as scholars attempted
metaphor and myth are centrally important to to reconcile observations of the physical world
religion and to science, both as ways of ordering with beliefs about the spiritual world (Nasr
knowledge (MacCormac 1976) and as impor- 1968, Iqbal 2002). Consistent with anthropo-
tant sites of cultural production over which re- logical views of religion and science (below),
ligion and science contend (Gilbert 1997, Stahl there is an important trend in this analysis to

treat science as a cultural product rather than a sciences as multifarious, local, and contingent
universal project and to represent Islamic rather than universal, essential, and enduring.
science as an explicitly religious version of Of greater interest to anthropology is how cul-
scientific knowledge production rather than turally specific manifestations of religion and
an Islamic interpretation of existing scientific science, as modes of knowing, are enacted and
knowledge. There are important consequences how certain modes of knowing are able to travel
to treating Islamic science as a specific cultural across and through cultural boundaries.
product, not least of which is the potential for So, for example, it is not particularly prob-
such an approach, if sufficiently developed, to lematic to say that, in Western Europe and
challenge Western science’s guise of value neu- later in North America, the Protestant form of
trality (Sardar 1989). Christianity expressed dominant cultural val-
Critics of the idea of Islamic science note ues that also contributed to the development of
that a commitment to culturally specific sci- science and, more generally, of economic ratio-
ence is just another method of putting Islam nality in the form of capitalism. Sahlins (1996),
in the way of universal scientific progress. For for example, has pointed out the tight relation-
example, Hoodbhoy (1991) notes the relatively ships between Judeo-Christian principles and
low scientific production in Islamic countries specific types of consumption-oriented capital-
during the twentieth century and blames the ism. But more importantly, as Keane (2002)
reluctance to embrace non-Islamic science on has noted, the penetration of modern ratio-
a fundamentalist-influenced education system nality into local cultures is not so much based
that emphasizes religious rather than scientific on the merits of the more esoteric Western
achievement. Yet, as Roy (2004) argues, Islamic modes of thought such as science, philosophy,
fundamentalism is not simply a nostalgic hear- and literature or even in the blunt application
kening to an idealized religious past. Rather, it is of the Protestant ethic to local cultures. Rather,
both a product and agent of modernity whose Protestantism provides a conceptual apparatus
key role models are Western-educated scien- that places in the hands of ordinary people the
tists who enthusiastically embrace cutting-edge cultural framework for imagining themselves
technology (Roy 2004). So it is not entirely clear and their actions as part of the project of moder-
that fundamentalism is responsible for limit- nity. In this sense, it is religion, not science,
ing scientific development in Islamic countries. at the vanguard of Western rationality (Keane
The question of whether Islamic science is a 2002).
useful way to approach scientific development Although there are efforts in anthropology
remains open. Although there are clearly ways to treat religion and science debates as spe-
in which science is historically compatible with cific sites of cultural contention (Spuhler 1985,
Islam, answers to questions of conflict depend Scott 1997), the most fruitful discussions have
largely on the definition of science one is en- come from connecting the insights of Sahlins,
gaging. and later Keane, to anthropology’s own devel-
opment as part of a modern scientific project.
Robbins (2006) and Cannell (2006) both point
Anthropological Analyses out important ways that anthropology’s own
of Religion and Science classifications and conceptual apparatus are tied
Unlike sociologists, anthropologists have not to specifically Western versions of Christian-
started from an assumption of incompatible ity, so that standard anthropological concepts
truth claims. For the most part, focusing on like the other and interiority are themselves
local cultural features rather than global ana- products of one particular mode of knowing
lytical categories has given anthropology a dif- grounded in one form of Christianity.
ferent perspective on religion and science, such In sum, there are two families in the sym-
that it is more helpful to think of religions and bolic tradition: the epistemological conflict
96 Evans · Evans
family and the directional influence family. The the epistemological status of scientific knowl-
epistemological conflict family presumes fixed edge as potentially equal to the epistemologi-
categories of religion and science and presumes cal status of religious knowledge. This means
they are in conflict over ways of knowing about that the truth or falsity of religion or science
the world. The directional influence family pre- is bracketed, and contests for authority or the
sumes that religion influences science in some power to determine truth between science and
way and broadens the conception of religion religion are recast as power-inflected discursive
beyond truth claims. For the most part, how- struggles. The earliest canonical texts in what
ever, neither family broadens the conception of became the sociology of scientific knowledge
science. Further, it is interesting to note that (SSK), published in the late 1970s and early
there is no literature (of which we are aware) of 1980s, made the case that scientific knowledge
science influencing religion in which science is is socially constructed, like any other knowl-
predicted to lose. All the literature we have en- edge (Bourdieu 1975, Latour & Woolgar 1986
countered uses one of two perspectives on the [1979], Knorr-Cetina 1981). Science therefore
influence of science: the epistemological con- does not inherently have more believability
flict perspective, in which science leads to the than religion, but rather scientists have to make
decline of religion (the traditional seculariza- efforts and spend resources to claim that au-
tion literature), or the religious rationalization thority. Such studies examine religion and sci-
perspective, in which science makes religion ence not as feuding symbol systems, but rather
more like science in the truth claims it is will- as social conflicts between institutions strug-
ing to make and its form of reasoning. Future gling for power, with the content of the symbol
scholars should ponder why this is the case. systems definitively bracketed.
THE SOCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL: Institutional Conflict

CONFLICT STUDIES The earliest studies that examine a conflict be-
DOWNGRADING tween religion and science that make use of this
EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEBATES new intellectual move are those of Gieryn and
A number of intellectual maneuvers avoid as- colleagues. Gieryn was interested in how scien-
suming epistemological conflict between reli- tists struggle to demarcate science from non-
gion and science. One perhaps unintentional science, and therefore garner societal authority
theoretical solution was to create the functional (Gieryn 1983, Gieryn et al. 1985). In this view,
definition of religion such that religion is not science is not a monolithic, unchanging system
about the supernatural or anything that falls of knowledge, but rather this system of knowl-
outside of the aegis of science, but rather re- edge is transformed for tactical advantage, de-
ligion is the most abstract of symbols. Thus, pending on which profession or institution sci-
the assumptions of science itself could be a re- ence is competing with (such as religion).
ligion. Scholars rarely label symbol systems as Similarly, Evans (2002) examined a conflict
religions unless they fit the common usage of between theologians and scientists over the
the term because, quite pragmatically, people authority to promulgate the ethics of human
think that Roman Catholicism, analytic philos- genetic engineering. He also gives scientific
ophy, Marxism, and science are indeed qual- symbol systems no inherent power but rather
itatively different phenomena. Or, differently, focuses on how one group obtains the re-
as we discuss below, they intuit that religion sources with which to wrest jurisdiction over
is about more than the most abstract, assumed ethics making from the other group. As in the
truths. rest of the studies in this category, there is
However, a slightly different approach than no essential definition of religion or science—
labeling science a religion has been to treat religion is what people associated with religious

institutions do; science is what people associ- tions have resulted in science being considered
ated with scientific institutions do. In the case more truthful.
studied by Evans, scientists indirectly defeated
the theologians by nurturing the subsidiary pro-
fession of bioethics, which in turn furthers the Religious Belief and Opposition to
scientists’ interests. Interests and Conclusions of Scientists
Other studies are similar. Mulkay (1997), in- Another literature that tends to bracket truth
vestigating the debate over embryo research in claims examines how religious individuals eval-
the UK, shows how the debate became por- uate the interests and conclusions of scientists.
trayed as “a conflict between those who wish For example, Ellison & Musick (1995) find that
to enforce unthinking obedience to out-of-date conservative Protestants are more likely than
religious beliefs and those who are determined are other Americans to have moral criticisms of
to defend scientists’ right to continue their science.
search for truth” (p. 97). Contrary to the por- Probably the first and largest literature in
trayals by scientists, Mulkay finds that the argu- this area concerns the accuracy of White’s
ments on the two sides “cannot be distinguished (1967) article, which linked Christianity to the
in terms of their rationality, their reliance on cultural notion of “subduing the earth” derived
dogma or in terms of other features central from a traditional Christian reading of the book
to the stereotyped contrast between religious of Genesis. This notion, according to White
and scientific styles of thought” (Mulkay 1997, (1967), led to the current irresponsibility in en-
p. 97). Proponents of embryo research won the vironmental policy. Here, we describe respon-
debate owing to fragmentation among religious sible environmental policy as a policy proposal
opponents, as well as the power of their own from the mainstream of the scientific commu-
dogmatically asserted beliefs (Mulkay 1997, nity, and the question was whether average re-
p. 114). They did not win because of the na- ligious people really hold this view of creation
ture of their symbol system. and, if so, whether it results in an unwilling-
The religion and science social conflict that ness to engage in environmental stewardship,
is most readily available in the public mind to use one of the terms in the debate. Research
is probably the debate over Darwinian evolu- was designed to determine whether, for exam-
tion owing to legal cases and political debates ple, Biblical literalism, religious tradition, or
over public schooling (Binder 2002). Again, like belief in God lead to a lack of support for lib-
other studies of the social-institutional (instead eral environmental policy (Eckberg & Blocker
of symbolic) relationship between religion and 1989, Greeley 1993, Woodrum & Hoban 1994,
science, studies of conflicts over Darwinism fo- Sherkat & Ellison 2007). Although such re-
cus on institutions and power. Toumey (1994) search has recently engaged religious complex-
and Numbers (1992), for example, spend great ity (e.g., which aspects of religious belief would
effort discussing the organizational strength lead one to be opposed to liberal environmental
and orientation of various creationist and cre- policy?), it remains largely silent on the com-
ation science organizations over time. Binder plexity of science.
(2002) makes the case that it is not the con-
tent of religion or science per se that results
in the defeat of religiously inspired creationists Non-Epistemological Secularization
in public school debates, but rather the nature Theories
of the institutions they are arguing within (see A newer strand of secularization theories avoids
also Lienesch 2007). In sum, if the scientists assuming that religion and science are strug-
win these battles it is not directly due to the gling over truth, but focuses on religion as an
inherent power or truthfulness of science as a institution with multiple tasks and interests,
system of ideas, but rather due to how institu- struggling with other institutions. The focus
98 Evans · Evans
here is on power and agency of individuals religious product. In the United States, com-
within institutions. In Smith’s (2003a) account, petition between religions makes the religions
there is not secularization so much as there are effective producers of varied religious products
secularizers, individuals with a vested interest (Finke & Stark 1992, p. 19). Therefore, where
in the discrediting of religion. Many of these secularization occurs, it has nothing to do with
secularizers are scientists, but that is not neces- science but rather with institutional restrictions
sary to the account. For example, the secular- on religious organizations.
ization of the institution for the promulgation Additionally, some rational choice advocates
of public morality in the 1920s was a conflict have made further assertions of the compatibil-
that did not involve scientists, rationalization, ity of religion and science (Stark et al. 1996;
or truth at all. Rather, it was a response by pub- Stark 1999, pp. 264–66). Religion is still de-
lic intellectuals to censorship originating from fined in a way that makes it incompatible with
religious social reformers who sought to ban traditional conceptions of science [e.g., “Any
“pernicious books” (Kemeny 2003). Similarly, system of beliefs and practices concerned with
the secularization of the journalistic profession ultimate meaning that assumes the existence of
responded to a demand for objective institu- the supernatural” (Stark & Iannaccone 1994,
tions to assume responsibility for public edu- p. 232)]. This assertion of compatibility is itself
cation, for which the rejection of subjective re- supported by following the lead of economics
ligious perspectives in public newspapers was in not theorizing people’s preferences or beliefs,
a necessary precursor (Flory 2003). Although but rather by only being interested in showing
this approach to professionalization mirrored that both religion and science use instrumental
scientific models, the secularization process did rationality in their decision making. This also
not depend on, or necessarily include, the par- allows an end run around the conflict over epis-
ticipation of scientists or appeals to scientific temological claims: The comparison is not be-
authority (see also Roberts & Turner 2000). tween religions as ultimately about the super-
This secularization explanation does have a natural (e.g., unverifiable through observation)
basic conflict narrative when religion and sci- and science about the natural (e.g., empirically
ence do encounter each other, but this explana- observable), but rather that, whatever a person’s
tion avoids the epistemological conflict model conception of natural or supernatural, he or she
by relativizing the content of religion and sci- makes decisions using the same form of ratio-
ence. The groups are conflicting over differen- nality. Therefore, religion and science are com-
tial interests, not differential notions of truth, patible because religious people and scientists
and therefore the content of the symbol systems are both instrumentally or theoretically ratio-
in each group is not important to the analysis. nal in their reasoning.
These conflicts are won by the group that ob- In sum, the secularization literature has been
tains greater power and resources. the location of much of the sociological work on
Another secularization explanation, associ- the relationship between science and religion.
ated with rational choice theory, is interested The earlier, yet still dominant tradition assumes
not in differentiation but only in individual epistemological conflict between a fixed science
religiosity. It posits a constant demand for re- and a fixed religion, such that an increase in sci-
ligion by the public, with secularization in par- ence mechanically leads to a decline in religion.
ticipation occurring where religious organiza- An emergent tradition embodied by the authors
tions are not effectively providing services to found in Smith (2003a) typically still sees reli-
meet this demand (Stark & Bainbridge 1985, gion in conflict with science, because of histor-
Finke & Stark 1992, Warner 1993). Western ically contingent interests, not out of necessity,
Europe is then more secular than the United and not necessarily about truth. A final ratio-
States because in Europe monopoly churches nal choice tradition sees religion as compatible
have become lazy and have only produced one with science and sees instances of secularization

as due to institutional regulation. This view ters, claims of truth are the keystone that keeps
would seem to open paths for more subtle and the entire edifice intact. This seems false in that
contingent examinations of the relationship be- the incompatibility of at least core Christian
tween religion and science, in that religion can truth claims with science has not had a negative
decline owing to factors unrelated to science effect on religious practice in the United States
and Enlightenment rationality. in the past few hundred years. Knowing that
science cannot prove that Jesus was resurrected
does not seem to have had an impact on be-

CONCLUSION
lief in the resurrection of Jesus. As is obvious,

It is our contention that the epistemological people have the ability to maintain a number of
conflict assumption has limited our understand- seemingly inconsistent ideas at once.
ing of the relationship between religion and What seems most likely is that publicized
science. First, it seems problematic to make scientific claims about the world are so incon-
truth claims the center of interaction between sequential to belief and practice in American
a static religion and a static science when reli- religion that they do not matter. The truth of
gion and science are dynamic and concerned global warming, how birds fly, or whether nu-
with much more than truth claims. Indeed, clear energy plants are safe have no impact on
in another paper, we make the case that pub- religion. Also note that most of the truth claims
lic debates between religion and science are of religion are not publicly contested by science.
no longer about truth, but rather about values There is no research agenda within science to
(Evans & Evans 2006). Similarly, Buckser and show that human resurrection is impossible, so
Geertz, cited above, make a similar claim that the incompatibility of truth claims on this topic
religions are not primarily about explaining the remains fully hypothetical and thus unlikely to
physical world, but rather “it is explaining the enter the mind of the average religious person.
social world, giving it meaning and moral value, Only a few issues, constructed as important by
which is religion’s primary concern” (Buckser activists with resources, merit such attention.
1996, p. 439, see also Greeley 1972, pp. 248–49; The social studies outlined above show how
Smith 1998, pp. 90–91). We should add that our rarely religion and science conflict at all and
claim that religion is decreasingly concerned how even more rarely they conflict over truth,
with the truth of the natural world is also a nor- giving further reason to abandon the assump-
mative position of some in the theology and sci- tion. In the twentieth century, only truth claims
ence debates, most notably Gould (1997), who about the book of Genesis have resulted in ac-
argued that religion and science should be en- tual social conflict with organized institutional
gaged in different activities of truth making and struggles and, in this case, only for a minority
meaning making. of the religious citizens of the United States.
One could object by saying that the specific The review of the literature clearly demon-
religious traditions that have had the most ob- strates that whereas religion is considered in all
vious conflicts with science do think of them- its incredible variation, science is more typically
selves as being concerned with epistemology. conceived of in static and monolithic terms.
But even fundamentalists involved with cre- Science typically means the positivist, materi-
ationist debates not only cede authority to the alist practices that are admittedly dominant in
scientific method (if not contemporary scien- the contemporary West. Of course, historically
tists), but also are motivated by their concerns other conceptions of knowledge creation such
that Darwinism leads to corrupt societal values as Baconianism were influential, but there is
(Toumey 1994). certainly more variation under the title of sci-
One could also object by saying that while ence than analysts are accounting for. This is
religions are indeed concerned with many mat- probably because the field of the sociology of
100 Evans · Evans

science has not been interested in religion, and conceptions of religion and science, we argue,
this is the field that questions whether the naive not only helps the authors explain seculariza-
realist position really describes scientific prac- tion data better than previous efforts, but also
tice. The studies of religion and science we have provides a model for the way forward in study-
cited above are more likely to be conducted ing religion and science.
by sociologists of religion than sociologists of At minimum, we suggest that future sociol-
science. ogists who examine the relationship between
If we leave the question of conflict over truth religion and science not assume the episte-
open rather than building it into our defini- mological conflict model, but rather leave the
tions of religion and science, then we can imag- source of contestation as an empirical ques-
ine breakthroughs in our understanding of long tion. We maintain that attention to science as
stalled debates. As an example of the possi- a complex, plural, and multifaceted object of
bilities, consider a new book on secularization study is necessary for producing useful stud-
written by two political scientists outside the so- ies of religion and science. Such studies may
ciology of religion and science: Norris & Ingle- come from STS or they may come from other
hart (2004) begin with a non-epistemological sociologists who incorporate STS approaches.
definition of religion, that “a key factor driv- Either way, we argue that the best empirical
ing religiosity” is “feelings of vulnerability to work comes from treating religion and sci-
physical, societal, and personal risks” (p. 4). In ence not as predetermined categories but as the
this definition, religion clearly is not primarily words and actions of institutionally embedded
about explaining the natural world but about persons.
the meaning of events outside of one’s control. Finally, we note with interest that some of
Implicit in their analysis is the notion that sci- the best sociological work on religion and sci-
ence would lead to secularization with the de- ence happens when scholars are not explicitly
velopment of knowledge that reduces vulnera- studying religion and science. We have high-
bility, such as improved medical care. However, lighted work by anthropologists, political scien-
it is not automatic—the fruits of science would tists, and social movements scholars who treat
actually have to be distributed to the people religion and science not as the only categories
through something like a social welfare state. to be studied but as pieces of larger puzzles.
Knowledge alone is insufficient to lead to a de- Such studies often provide the most insight with
cline in religion. The authors seemingly can the fewest essential assumptions. We encour-
then explain the classic deviant case in the secu- age such work in the future and humbly predict
larization debate—the United States—because that the best insights into religion and science
it is the one Westernized democracy where vul- will emerge as scholars find ways to incorporate
nerability is high owing to the lack of a welfare the complexity of religion and science into their
state and other features. This openness to other work.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Alper Yalcinkaya, Ron Numbers, Joan Fujimura, Mark Chaves, and Tom Gieryn for
comments.

LITERATURE CITED
Abraham G. 1983. Misunderstanding the Merton Thesis: a boundary dispute between history and
sociology. Isis 74(3):368–87
Astin JA, Harkness E, Ernst E. 2000. The efficacy of “distant healing”: a systematic review of
randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 132(11):903–10
Barbour I. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper & Row
Becker G. 1984. Pietism and science—a critique of Robert K. Merton’s hypothesis. Am. J. Sociol.
89:1065–90
Ben-David J. 1971. The Scientist’s Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, et al. 2006. Study of the therapeutic effects
of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of
uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151(4):934–42
Berger PL. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York:
Doubleday
Binder AJ. 2002. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the conditions for the progress of
reason. Soc. Sci. Inform. 14:19–47
Buckser A. 1996. Religion, science, and secularization theory on a Danish island. J. Sci. Stud. Relig.
35(4):432–41
Byrd R. 1988. Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population.
South. Med. J. 81(7):826–29
Cannell F. 2006. The Anthropology of Christianity. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Cantor G. 2005. Quakers, Jews, and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and the Sciences in Britain,
1650–1900. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Casanova J. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Chaves M, Gorski PS. 2001. Religious pluralism and religious participation. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
27:261–81
Cohen IB. 1990. Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Univ. Press
Cole S, Phelan TJ. 1999. The scientific productivity of nations. Minerva 37:1–23
Collins FS. 2006. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press
Eckberg D, Blocker TJ. 1989. Varieties of religious involvement and environmental concerns:
testing the Lynn White Thesis. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 28:509–17
Ecklund EH, Scheitle CP. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and
demographics. Soc. Probl. 54(2):289–307
Ellison CG, Musick MA. 1995. Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science.
Rev. Relig. Res. 36(3):245–62
Evans JH. 2002. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical
Debate. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Evans JH, Evans MS. 2006. From truth to values: boundary drawing in science and religion. Presented
at Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., 101st, Montreal
Evans MS. 2008. Defining the public, defining sociology: hybrid science-public relations and
boundary-work in early American sociology. Public Underst. Sci. In press
Finke R, Stark R. 1988. Religious economies and sacred canopies: religious mobilization in
American cities, 1906. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53:41–49
102 Evans · Evans

Finke R, Stark R. 1992. The Churching of America, 1776–1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious
Economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Flory RW. 2003. Promoting a secular standard: secularization and modern journalism. See Smith
2003a, pp. 395–433
Geertz C. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books
Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: strains and
interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:781–95
Gieryn TF, Bevins GM, Zehr SC. 1985. Professionalization of American scientists: public science
in the creation/evolution trials. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50:392–409

Gilbert J. 1997. Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Gould SJ. 1997. Nonoverlapping magisteria. Nat. Hist. 106(2):16–22
Greeley A. 1972. The Denominational Society. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
Greeley A. 1993. Religion and attitudes toward the environment. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 32:19–28
Hollinger DA. 1996. Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth-Century American
Intellectual History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Hoodbhoy P. 1991. Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality. Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Zed Books
Hovenkamp H. 1978. Science and Religion in America 1800–1860. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Huff TE. 2003. The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Iqbal M. 2002. Islam and Science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Johnstone RL. 1997. Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Keane W. 2002. Sincerity, “modernity,” and the Protestants. Cult. Anthropol. 17:65–92
Kemeny P. 2003. Power, ridicule, and the destruction of religious moral reform politics in the
1920s. See Smith 2003a, pp. 216–68
Knorr-Cetina KD. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual
Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon
Lamont M, Molnar V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
28:167–95
Larson EJ, Witham L. 1997. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 386:435–36
Latour B, Woolgar S. 1986 (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Lawson A, Worsnop W. 1992. Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation—
effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29:143–66
Lehman ECJ, Shriver DWJ. 1968. Academic discipline as predictive of faculty religiosity. Soc.
Forces 47:171–82
Leuba J. 1916. The Belief in God and Immortality, a Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study.
Boston: Sherman, French
Leuba J. 1934. Religious beliefs of American scientists. Harper’s 169:291–300
Lienesch M. 2007. In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievo-
lution Movement. Chapel Hill: Univ. N. C. Press
Luckmann T. 1967. The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New York:
Macmillan
MacCormac ER. 1976. Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Mazur A. 1996. Science three, religion zero: religious assaults on science. Society 33(4):20–21

McGrath AE. 1999. Science and Religion: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Merton RK. 1970 (1938). Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New York:
Howard Fertig
Mooney C. 2005. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books
Mulkay M. 1997. The Embryo Research Debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mullin RB. 2003. Science, miracles, and the prayer-gauge debate. In When Science and Christianity
Meet, ed. DC Lindberg, RL Numbers, pp. 203–24. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Nasr SH. 1968. Science and Religion in Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Nelkin D, Lindee MS. 1995. The DNA Mystique. New York: WH Freeman
Noble DF. 1997. The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf
Norris P, Inglehart R. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Numbers RL. 1985. Science and religion. Osiris, Second Ser. 1:59–80
Numbers RL. 1992. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
O’Toole R. 1984. Religion: Classic Sociological Approaches. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson
Polkinghorne J. 1998. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Robbins J. 2006. Anthropology and theology: an awkward relationship. Anthropol. Q. 79:285–94
Roberts JH, Turner J. 2000. The Sacred and the Secular University. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Roy O. 2004. Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Sabra A. 1987. The appropriation and subsequent naturalization of Greek science in medieval
Islam. Hist. Sci. 25:223–43
Sahlins M. 1996. The sadness of sweetness—the native anthropology of Western cosmology. Curr.
Anthropol. 37:395–428
Sardar Z. 1989. Explorations in Islamic Science. New York: Mansell
Schofer E. 2003. The global institutionalization of geological science, 1800 to 1990. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 68:730–59
Schofer E. 2004. Cross-national differences in the expansion of science, 1970–1990. Soc. Forces
83:215–48
Scott EC. 1997. Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:263–
89
Shapin S. 1988. Understanding the Merton Thesis. Isis 79:594–605
Sherkat DE, Ellison CG. 2007. Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying
religious influences on environmental concern and activism. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 46(1):71–85
Smith C. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Smith C. 2003a. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American
Public Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Smith C. 2003b. Secularizing American higher education: the case of early American sociology.
See Smith 2003a, pp. 97–159
Sorokin PA. 1937. Social and Cultural Dynamics. New York: Am. Book Co.
Spuhler JN. 1985. Anthropology, evolution, and “scientific creationism.” Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
14:103–33
Stahl WA, Campbell RA, Petry Y, Diver G. 2002. Webs of Reality: Social Perspectives on Science and
Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Stark R. 1963. On the incompatibility of religion and science: a survey of American graduate
students. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 3:3–20
104 Evans · Evans

Stark R. 1999. Secularization, R.I.P. Sociol. Relig. 60(3):249–74
Stark R. 2003. For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and
the End of Slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Stark R. 2005. The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.
New York: Random House
Stark R, Bainbridge WS. 1985. The Future of Religion. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Stark R, Iannaccone LR. 1994. A supply-side reinterpretation of the “secularization” of Europe.
J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 33(3):230–52

Stark R, Iannaccone LR, Finke R. 1996. Religion, science and rationality. Am. Econ. Rev. 86:433–37
Swatos WHJ. 1984. Faith of the Fathers: Science, Religion, and Reform in the Development of Early
American Sociology. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall
Thalheimer F. 1973. Religiosity and secularization in the academic professions. Sociol. Educ.
46:183–202
Thorner I. 1952. Ascetic Protestantism and the development of science and technology. Am. J.
Sociol. 58(1):25–33
Toumey CP. 1994. God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Univ. Press
Turner FM. 1974. Rainfall, plagues, and the prince of Wales: a chapter in the conflict of religion
and science. J. Brit. Stud. 13(2):46–65
Verhey A. 1995. ‘Playing god’ and invoking a perspective. J. Med. Philos. 20:347–64
Verhey S. 2005. The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism
and evolution. BioScience 55:996–1003
Wallace A. 1966. Religion. New York: Random House
Warner RS. 1993. Work in progress toward a new paradigm for the sociological study of religion
in the United States. Am. J. Sociol. 98:1044–93
Weber M. 2002 [1905]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings. New
York: Penguin
Wernick A. 2005. Comte, Auguste. In Encyclopedia of Social Theory, ed. G Ritzer, pp. 128–34.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
White AD. 1960 [1896]. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christiandom. New York:
Dover
White LJ. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–7
Woodrum E, Hoban T. 1994. Theology and religiosity effects on environmentalism. Rev. Relig.
Res. 35:193–206
Wuthnow R. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Wuthnow R. 1989. The Struggle for America’s Soul: Evangelicals, Liberals and Secularism. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Annual Review
of Sociology
Contents Volume 34, 2008
Prefatory Chapters
Reproductive Biology, Technology, and Gender Inequality:

An Autobiographical Essay
Joan N. Huber p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond
Sheldon Stryker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p15
Theory and Methods
Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology
of Social Research
Erin Leahey p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
Social Processes
After Secularization?
Philip S. Gorski and Ateş Altınordu p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Institutions and Culture

Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative
John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Black/White Differences in School Performance: The Oppositional
Culture Explanation
Douglas B. Downey p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 107
Formal Organizations
Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances
in the Sociology of Higher Education
Mitchell L. Stevens, Elizabeth A. Armstrong, and Richard Arum p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 127
Political and Economic Sociology

Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation,
and Challenges to the Nation-State
Irene Bloemraad, Anna Korteweg, and Gökçe Yurdakul p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
v
AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Differentiation and Stratification

The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination
in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets
Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
The Second Generation in Western Europe:
Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment
Anthony F. Heath, Catherine Rothon, and Elina Kilpi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 211
Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations
of New Sources of Earnings Inequality
Kevin T. Leicht p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 237
Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities

Sara McLanahan and Christine Percheski p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257

Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure
Hart Blanton and James Jaccard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 277
Individual and Society

Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education:
Forms, Explanations, and Implications
Theodore P. Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 299
Gender Inequalities in Education
Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, and Anne McDaniel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319
Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality
Rebecca L. Sandefur p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 339
How the Outside Gets In: Modeling Conversational Permeation
David R. Gibson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 359
Testing and Social Stratification in American Education
Eric Grodsky, John Robert Warren, and Erika Felts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385
Policy
Social Networks and Health
Kirsten P. Smith and Nicholas A. Christakis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 405
Sociology and World Regions

Gender in African Population Research: The Fertility/Reproductive
Health Example
F. Nii-Amoo Dodoo and Ashley E. Frost p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 431
Regional Institutions and Social Development in Southern Africa
Matthew McKeever p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
vi Contents
AR348-FM ARI 10 June 2008 11:22
Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America:

An Assessment of their Contributions and Limitations [Translation]
Enrique Valencia Lomelı́ p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 475
Las Transferencias Monetarias Condicionadas como Política Social en
América Latina. Un Balance: Aportes, Límites y Debates
[Original, available online at http://www.annualreviews.org/
go/EValenciaLomeli]
Enrique Valencia Lomelí p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 499
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 25–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 525

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 25–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 529
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at

http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents vii

Beyond Science and Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Science and Religion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Science and Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Religion and Science:

Click here for quick links to

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008. 34:87–105 Key Words

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

the long-running academic assumption that re-

mer president of Cornell University, Andrew

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 89

A ﬁeld of research concerning the relationship

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 91

religion becomes separated from other institu- of rational science:

tional spheres. Whereas at one time the state,

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 93

ﬁned religion in nonessential terms, as “dom-

ination by a particular group of sentiments”

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 95

THE SOCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL: Institutional Conflict

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 97

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 99

does not seem to have had an impact on be-

lief in the resurrection of Jesus. As is obvious,

100 Evans · Evans

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 101

102 Evans · Evans

in the creation/evolution trials. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50:392–409

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 103

104 Evans · Evans

J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 33(3):230–52

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 105

Contents Volume 34, 2008

Reproductive Biology, Technology, and Gender Inequality:

Institutions and Culture

Political and Economic Sociology

Differentiation and Stratification

Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities

Sara McLanahan and Christine Percheski p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257

Individual and Society

Sociology and World Regions

Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America:

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 25–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 525

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 25–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 529

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at

You might also like