Anthropologists are secularists
January 13th, 2005I am reading the book For the Glory of God. How Monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. In this book Stark tries to debunk several theories that state that religion has a bad influence on science, morality and rationality in general. Especially the chapter on religion and science is interesting, and sometimes outright hilarious. According to Stark the idea that religion is bad for science has been proposed as a part of an ideological campaign against religion by ‘Englightened’ philosophers and scientists. In reality, science has often benefited from religion.
Moreover, Stark holds that especially the Christian view that God is a rational being Whose works can be known by reason and empirical research, was an important influence on the progress of science in Europe. Stark presents figures that a large majority of the early scientists of the so-called Scientific Revolution of the 16th century were devout Christians, protestants and roman catholics alike. And he shows that this pattern continues in up till this day. In several surveys on the religiosity of scientists, scientists consistently are as religious as the general population - with one exeception: social scientists, and especially anthropologist are substantially less religious. While 60% of the scientists in mathematics and physical sciences report they are religious, only 29% of the anthropologist do the same. The full figure can be found in the book on p. 194, or online here.
In the book Stark gives no explanation to the fact that social scientist are much more prone to secularism, but in another article he does. In the American Economic Review, May 1996, he states the following:
We are inclined to side with Wuthnow …, who argues that the social sciences lean toward irreligion precisely because they are ‘the least scientific disciplines.’ Their semi-religious reliance on non-testable claims [he means secularization theory and the ‘doctrine’ of the incompatibility of religion and science] puts them in direct competition with traditional religions.
A bold claim, but understandable, and possibly, i am beginning to believe by reading his new book, true.
bibliography
Rodney Stark; Laurence R. Iannaccone; Roger Finke. “Religion, Science, and Rationality”. In: The American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundredth and Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association San Francisco, CA, January 5-7, 1996. (May, 1996), pp. 433-437.
Stable URL (only available if you have access to JSTOR).
January 14th, 2005 at 1:44 am
i republished the numbers from the glory of god (the link). please note that i personally believe that dr. stark attempts to cherry pick the numbers to prove his point. further numbers in the link show lower rates of belief for natural scientists, with elite national academy of sciences members with very low rates indeed. stark has responded the lower numbers are do to skewed selection from scientists who tend to work in academia. this is correct, but note that “social scientists” (like anthropologists) have far higher rates of employement in academia than say, chemists. that is, if you get a ph.d. in anthropology, and can’t get an academic job, you probably aren’t going to work in anthropology in the private sector. you will probably go and work in a business or consultancy or do something else with your smarts. on the other hand, if you are a chemist you can find a job in industry.
so, one could suggest that the lower rates of belief by social scientists is a result of the constraint imposed on who gets to be a social scientist (mostly people working in academia, and perhaps a few think tanks).
finally, i enjoy dr. stark’s work, but don’t buy his thesis whole-hog. i suggest this because he makes some gross historical errors while chiding other popularizers for doing the same. to give an explicit example, he praises charles martel’s use of stirrups (debunking the idea of ‘the dark ages’) the page after he talks about he’s discovered all these new facts that the public needs to be aware of. yet, he shows absolutely no awareness of the 30 year old stirrup controversy in reference to charles martel’s battle techniques.
January 14th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
h, 2005 by marten Posted in research, theology | I got a reply by Razib on my earlier post on the book For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark. In this post I cite figures that come fro […]
July 30th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
my funny story
A man walks into his local pub with a big grin on his face.
“What are you so happy about?” asks the barman.
“Well, I’ll tell you,” replies the man. “You know, I live by the railroad tracks. Well, on my way home last night, I noticed a young woman tied to the tracks, like in the films.
I, of course, went and cut her free and took her back to my place.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I scored big time! We made love all night, all over the house. We did everything, me on top, sometimes her on top, every position imaginable!”
“Fantastic!” exclaimed the barman. “You lucky bd. Was she pretty?”
“Dunno… never found the head!”
___________________________
If you have prostate problems or high blood pressure for which you take medicines called alpha-blockers, your doctor may start you on a lower dose of VIAGRA.
viagra sale
February 25th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
[…] those really interested: I had an interesting discussion two years ago on this subject here: http://religionresearch.org/marten/2005/01/13/anthropologists-are-secularists/ and here […]