ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Religion and Science: Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including: Beyond the Epistemological • Other articles in this volume • Top cited articles Conflict Narrative • Top downloaded articles • 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. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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, world. It is therefore hard for sociologists to A History of the Warfare of Sci- (White 1960 analyze the relationship dispassionately because ence with Theology in Christendom [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 cliche-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- Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org There is a deep assumption spread through ity to establish truth claims about the world— Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org was going to replace the religion of the time presuppose it, making it almost impossible to Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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). Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org These substantive definitions of religion Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Rationalization in religion had contributed religion and science are fixed, whereas the di- Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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,

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 91 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org in the United States (Norris & Inglehart 2004), Degree of Symbolic Incompatibility Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The most current research suggests that al- prayer were therefore not worthy of the state’s Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 93 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org proposed that certain dominant cultural values idea that religion leads to the methods and insti- Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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- Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Western science, capitalism, and modernity as ence. In this view, science continued to develop Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 95 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org ing scientific development in Islamic countries. at the vanguard of Western rationality (Keane Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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- Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org suming epistemological conflict between reli- tists struggle to demarcate science from non- Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 97 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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- Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org tion owing to legal cases and political debates ple, Biblical literalism, religious tradition, or Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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’spreferences 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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by relativizing the content of religion and sci- makes decisions using the same form of ratio- Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 99 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org with the truth of the natural world is also a nor- giving further reason to abandon the assump- Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Knowledge alone is insufficient to lead to a de- Such studies often provide the most insight with Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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.

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 101 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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.

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org 27:261–81 Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Lamont M, Molnar V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 103 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Schofer E. 2004. Cross-national differences in the expansion of science, 1970–1990. Soc. Forces Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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 ANRV348-SO34-05 ARI 4 June 2008 9:39

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 ToumeyCP. 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 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org White AD. 1960 [1896]. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christiandom. New York: Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. 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

www.annualreviews.org • Religion and Science 105 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 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1 From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond Sheldon Stryker pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp15 Theory and Methods Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology of Social Research Erin Leahey pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp33

Social Processes After Secularization? Philip S. Gorski and Ate¸sAltınordu pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp55

Institutions and Culture Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp87 Black/White Differences in School Performance: The Oppositional Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Culture Explanation Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. Douglas B. Downey pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp107

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 ppppppppppppppppppppppp127

Political and Economic Sociology Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State Irene Bloemraad, Anna Korteweg, and G¨ok¸ceYurdakul pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp153

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 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp181 The Second Generation in Western Europe: Education, Unemployment, and Occupational Attainment Anthony F. Heath, Catherine Rothon, and Elina Kilpi pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp211 Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings Inequality Kevin T. Leicht pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp237 Family Structure and the Reproduction of Inequalities Sara McLanahan and Christine Percheski ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp257 Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure Hart Blanton and James Jaccard ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp277

Individual and Society Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications Theodore P. Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp299 Gender Inequalities in Education Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, and Anne McDaniel pppppppppppppppppppppppppp319 Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality Rebecca L. Sandefur ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp339 How the Outside Gets In: Modeling Conversational Permeation David R. Gibson ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp359 Testing and Social Stratification in American Education Eric Grodsky, John Robert Warren, and Erika Felts pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp385

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Policy Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only. Social Networks and Health Kirsten P. Smith and Nicholas A. Christakis ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp405

Sociology and World Regions Gender in African Population Research: The Fertility/Reproductive Health Example F. Nii-Amoo Dodoo and Ashley E. Frost ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp431 Regional Institutions and Social Development in Southern Africa Matthew McKeever ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp453

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 Lomel´ı pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp475 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 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp499

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 25–34 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp525 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 25–34 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp529

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Universiteit van Amsterdam on 12/13/20. For personal use only.

Contents vii