Varieties of Atheism in Science

Elaine Howard Ecklund is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University. She has been the principal investigator in a number of wide-ranging surveys connected with science and religion, and her previous book Science versus Religion: What Scientists Really Think was reviewed in these pages a couple of years ago. This new book, co-authored with David R. Johnson, is based on a survey of 1,293 atheist scientists in the US and the UK, including 81 in-depth interviews. The major conclusion is that the so-called New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens are not in fact representative of the wider atheist community in science, and that the popular conception of the atheist and science is misinformed – interestingly, two thirds of those interviewed were biologists, and one third physicists. New Atheists subscribe to the view that there is an intrinsic conflict between science and religion, while the majority of those surveyed here are not necessarily hostile to religion.

Scientists arrive at atheism through a number of different transitions and not always because of science, although it is a significant factor in 40% of UK atheist scientists. Needless to say, there are significant differences in cultural attitudes between the US and the UK. Some report bad experiences with religion and many grew up in secular families. The demographics shown on page 34 reveal some interesting insights, with a predominance of white males. The research findings suggested three forms of atheism, with 67% classified as modernist, 27% as cultural, and a 6% as spiritual. The following chapters characterise these modes in more detail, drawing on individual interviews to add nuance and depth. A significant number, especially among the second category, express appreciation of the positive societal role of religion, and some of these even take part in religious services for family or community reasons.

Spiritual atheists are the smallest category, emphasising the importance of awe and wonder, also in relation to their scientific activity. They also aware of what science cannot explain and see spirituality in terms of moral engagement. A key issue relates to the perceived limits of scientific explanation, with scientism at one end of the spectrum. Religion is very much considered in terms of belief, while science represents practical activity devoted to improvement and progress. A new category for me was ‘epistemic scientism’, asserting that if science cannot grasp something it is not part of reality - although there is also a widespread understanding of the challenge posed by the nature of consciousness.

A standard view is expressed by the statement that we are ‘biological accidents with consciousness’, and meaning is understood concerns of progress and the contribution that individual scientists can make. Most atheists see moral values such as equity and empathy as innate and try to be good people. The concluding chapter argues that ‘the rhetoric of the New Atheists has created problems for the scientific community by weaponising science against religion – yet, our research shows that the rhetoric is very different from the reality of atheism in science.’ (p. 143) This is precisely the value of the book, summarised in four messages: many atheist scientists are not hostile to religion, they are not atheists for the reason many religious believers might think, they do not all embrace scientism, and finally they are not as dissimilar from persons of faith as popular rhetoric might imply. This opens up the space for more open dialogue since ‘atheism in science is more complex, more nuanced, and more accepting of religion and spirituality than the New Atheists have led us to believe, and it is now our responsibility to replace their rhetoric with reality.’ (p. 152)