Dawkins, Collins, and the Science-Religion Debate: a New Sociological Study

[ NEWS AND COMMENT Dawkins, Collins, and the Science-Religion Debate: A New Sociological Study DECLAN FAHY A new study appears to dent zoologist Richard Dawkins’s influence as a public intellectual, arguing that he does not persuade new readers that science and religion are in conflict. But the researchers concluded that biologist Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, could persuade audiences that science and faith can be compatible. The sociological study, published in Public Understanding of Science, surveyed 10,000 Americans to assess in part how scientists who write popular Zoologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins (left) and Francis Collins, director of the National books influence public views of reli- Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. gion. It identified citizens’ views about the relationship between science and nent stars. In the second, as scholars of religion and tested whether these views Dawkins, in effect, religion have long recognized, atheists changed after learning about Dawkins, gave atheism a have attracted significant personal and author of The God Delusion, and Col- social stigma and have been granted a lins, author of The Language of God: A place in public life. limited space in U.S. public life. Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Dawkins had earned cultural promi- The study, funded by the philan- nence and a devoted following since the thropic John Templeton Foundation, lead author, said public attitudes to- 1976 publication of The Selfish Gene, which promotes dialogue between ward atheists could explain why Col- but with the 2006 publication of The science and religion, found that more lins had more power than Dawkins to God Delusion he became the embodi- than 21 percent of citizens had heard of sway opinions. Scheitle said in a media ment and chief articulator of an aggres- Dawkins, while just over 4 percent had release: “Research has shown that the sive atheism. The book’s call-to-arms heard of Collins. U.S. public is generally distrustful of for atheism—its appendix listed atheist Researchers conducted an exper- atheists and views them more nega- support groups—connected with citi- iment within the survey, telling those tively than most other ethnic, religious, zens worldwide, selling more than one people who had not heard of Daw- and minority groups. On the other and a half million copies and remaining kins—almost 79 percent—about his hand, religious individuals are often on The New York Times best seller list life and opinions and then asking them perceived as more trustworthy, espe- for more than fifty weeks. if their views about science and reli- cially as viewed by other religious in- In his review of the book for Science, gion had changed. After learning about dividuals.” writer and publisher of Skeptic maga- Dawkins and his views, citizens re- But the study did not address what zine Michael Shermer pinpointed the ported their opinions had not changed. has been Dawkins’s central function as reason for the book’s popularity. He They instead retained their existing a public intellectual in modern science argued its success showed a “market views that science and religion were ei- and religion debates: his catalytic role as testimony to the hunger many peo- ther in conflict, in collaboration, or in- the figurehead for a new social move- ple—far more, I now think, than polls dependent realms. By contrast, citizens ment of atheists. reveal—have for someone in a position who had not heard of Collins—almost As I argue in my recent book on of prestige and power to speak for them 96 percent—and were then told about celebrity scientists, Dawkins’s major in such an eloquent voice.” his worldview shifted away from con- social importance comes at the inter- Indeed The God Delusion became an flict and independence views toward a section of two cultural trends. In the iconic text, a foundational book for the collaborative view. first, our media-driven fame culture de- turn-of-the-century new atheist cul- West Virginia University sociolo- mands that abstract issues and ideas and tural movement, along with Sam Har- gist Christopher Scheitle, the study’s worldviews are personified by promi- ris’s The End of Faith, Daniel Dennett’s Skeptical Inquirer | September/October 2015 5 Breaking the Spell, and Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great . A global AMA Tries to Rein in TV Doctors Spreading Misinformation community of atheists used the books DAVID H. GORSKI to express and deepen their identities. Dawkins gave atheism its public face, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a.k.a. “America’s Doctor,” Benjamin Mazer, a medical student who wrote one of its modern core texts, and is a serious problem for science-based has spearheaded Doctors in Oz, a blog and built a community around his personal medicine. Although he started as a prom- project whose purpose is to highlight and brand of atheist advocacy, centered on ising academic surgeon, over the past few publicize the harm caused by bogus medi- the Richard Dawkins Foundation for years he has featured psychic mediums cal advice given by Dr. Oz, and Joy Lee, an- Reason & Science where followers could like John Edward and Theresa Caputo, a other medical student and member of the faith healer, homeopaths, dubious dietary AMA-Medical Students Section Committee build a network of alliances, friendships, supplements, and even an anti-vaccine on Legislation and Advocacy. and social support. activist like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on The This resolution (http://www.doctors inoz. With these endeavors, Dawkins en- Dr. Oz Show, his syndicated television com/blog/medical-students-take-action/) sured new atheism demonstrated what show. Certainly, there have been attempts states that the AMA will issue a public state- sociologists identified as the core char- to counter the medical misinformation Dr. ment reiterating the importance of transpar- acteristics of social movements: they are Oz promotes, but they have been largely ency to the profession and resolves to craft in conflict with identifiable opponents, ineffective. When Senator Claire McCaskill guidelines on how doctors can ethically use linked by informal networks, and feature (D-Missouri) hauled him in front of her media to help the public. In addition, the a collective identity. Senate committee in June 2014 over his AMA will issue a report on what disciplinary The Public Understanding of Science unethical promotion of diet supplements pathways might exist for doctors who con- study underlines the enhanced importance as miracle weight loss aids and humiliated tinue to abuse their access to the media to spread medical misinformation. of elite figures in influencing how citizens him, skeptics rejoiced (SI, September/ October 2014). Even though this resolution is definitely come to understand science, religion, and a move in the right direction, it should be the interactions between the two. noted that the AMA cannot actually enforce To be fair, the study also notes that anything because it is not a regulatory or citizens surveyed who already knew about [The AMA’s] position governmental body. However, despite its Dawkins were more likely to view science membership having fallen from approxi- and religion as being in conflict. “If a statements do still carry mately 75 percent of American physicians person is already familiar with Dawkins,” considerable weight. in the 1950s to less than 20 percent of wrote Scheitle and his coauthor, Rice physicians today, it is still the single largest University’s Elaine Howard Ecklund, medical association in the United States; in their study, “it could be because they its position statements do still carry considerable weight. Thus it is still important are sympathetic with his views and have Unfortunately, Dr. Oz was soon back to that the AMA has taken a position on this sought out or regularly consume informa- his usual antics, just a little more circum- issue because it still represents the single tion where his views would be covered.” spect about supplements. Then in April, a largest megaphone that physicians have Yet this does not give a full account group of physicians and scientists wrote a to the public. As such, it could potentially of Dawkins’s driving role in forging a letter to the Dean of the Facul ties of Health pioneer new ethical guidelines for how phy- new social movement. He became the Sciences and Medi cine at Columbia Univer- sicians should disseminate information in embodiment of atheism that gave the sity to complain that Dr. Oz’s extracurricu- the media and online. worldview its necessary public, celebrity lar activities reflected poorly on Columbia, It is also never a bad thing for such a face. Moreover, he gave atheism an in- where Oz is faculty. Predictably, the dean prominent doctors’ group to reiterate for- tellectual core, an informal network, and invoked academic freedom in response, mally that a physician has an ethical obli- a collective identity. Dawkins, in effect, and Dr. Oz did a whole show attacking the gation to his patients and profession to be gave atheism a place in public life. That group as industry shills (SI, July/August evidence-based in all medical information that he or she promotes in public. It is just remains his chief and perhaps lasting in- 2015). Unfortunately, Dr. Oz is far from alone. very unfortunate that such a resolution fluence in the ongoing debate between There are, for instance, Internet celebrity pe- needed to be issued in the first place. science and religion. diatricians, such as Dr. Bob Sears and Jay Declan Fahy teaches at Dublin City Univer- Gordon, who spread anti-vaccine misinfor- sity’s School of Communications and writes mation. Where medical boards, universities, David H.

Load more