Using General Social Survey data, we examine perspectives on science and religion in the United States. Latent class analysis reveals three groups based on knowledge and attitudes about science, religiosity, and preferences for certain religious interpretations of the world. The traditional perspective (43 percent) is marked by a preference for religion compared to science; the modern perspective (36 percent) holds the opposite view. A third perspective, which we call post-secular (21 percent), views both science and religion favorably. However, when faced with competing accounts of events such as creation and evolution, post-seculars root their views in religion rather than in mainstream science. Regression models indicate that perspectives on science and religion do not simply mirror other denominational or ideological differences. Furthermore, religio-scientific perspectives shape attitudes about political issues where scientific and some religious communities diverge, including on abortion rights and stem cell research. Overall, most individuals favor either scientific or religious ways of understanding, but many scientifically inclined individuals prefer certain religious accounts. This suggests that public divisions related to science and religion are cultural and epistemological. This article underscores the complexity of the boundary between reason and faith and highlights the roots of political conflict in perspectives on science and religion in the United States.
AldersonArthurJunisbaiAzamatHeacockIsaac. 2007. “Social Status and Cultural Consumption in the United States.” Poetics35(2):191–212.
2.
AllumNickSturgisPatrickTabouraziDimitraBrunton-SmithIan. 2008. “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis.” Public Understanding of Science17(1):35–54.
3.
ArgueAmyJohnsonDavid R.WhiteLynn K.1999. “Age and Religiosity: Evidence from a Three-Wave Panel Analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion38(3):423–35.
BakHee-Je. 2001. “Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‘Deficit Model’ of Education and Support for Science and Technology.” Social Science Quarterly82(4):779–95.
6.
BakerJoseph O.2012. “Public Perceptions of Incompatibility between ‘Science and Religion.’” Public Understanding of Science21(3):340–53.
7.
BarbourIan G.2000. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?New York: Harper-Collins.
8.
BeckUlrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Vol. 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited.
9.
CourtneyBenderCadgeWendyLevittPeggySmildeDavid, eds. 2013. Religion on the Edge: De-centering and Re-centering the Sociology of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
BinderAmy J.2002. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BruceSteve. 2011. Secularization: In Defense of an Unfavorable Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
CasanovaJose. 2010. “A Secular Age: Dawn or Twilight.” Pp. 265–81 in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, edited by WarnerM.VanAntwerpenJ.CalhounC.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
CastellsManuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14.
ChavesMark. 1994. “Secularization as Declining Religious Authority.” Social Forces72(3):749–74.
15.
CollinsFrancis S.2006. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press.
16.
ComteAuguste. 1998. Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, edited by LenzerG.Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Books.
17.
CorrellShelley J.2004. “Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status and Emerging Career Aspirations.” American Sociological Review69(1):93–113.
18.
DavisNancy J.RobinsonRobert V.1999. “Their Brothers’ Keepers? Orthodox Religionists, Modernists, and Economic Justice in Europe.” American Journal of Sociology104(6):1631–65.
19.
DawkinsRichard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
DobbelaereKarel. 1999. “Towards an Integrated Perspective of the Processes Related to the Descriptive Concept of Secularization.” Sociology of Religion60(3):229–47.
21.
DroriGili S.MeyerJohn W.RamirezFrancisco O.SchoferEvan. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
DurkheimEmile. [1912] 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
23.
EcklundElaine Howard. 2010. Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
EcklundElaine HowardLongElizabeth. 2011. “Scientists and Spirituality.” Sociology of Religion72(3):253–74.
25.
EcklundElaine HowardParkJerry Z.VelizPhil Todd. 2008. “Secularization and Religious Change among Elite Scientists.” Social Forces86(4):1805–1839.
26.
EvansJohn. 2010. Contested Reproduction: Genetic Technologies, Religion, and Public Debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
EvansJohn. 2011. “Epistemological and Moral Conflict between Religion and Science.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50(4):707–727.
28.
EvansJohn H.EvansMichael S.2008. “Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative.” Annual Review of Sociology34:87–105.
29.
FreemanPatricia K.HoustonDavid J.2011. “Rejecting Darwin and Support for Science Funding.” Social Science Quarterly92(5):1151–68.
30.
GauchatGordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review77(2):167–87.
31.
GiddensAnthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
GoodmanLeo A.1974. “Exploratory Latent Structure Analysis Using both Identifiable and Unidentifiable Models.” Biometrika61(2):215–31.
33.
GorskiPhilip S.2000. “Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Church, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700.” American Sociological Review65(1):138–67.
34.
GorskiPhilipKimDavid KyumanTorpeyJohnVanAntwerpenJonathan. 2012. The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society. New York: New York University Press.
35.
HabermasJurgen. 1989. On Society and Politics: A Reader, edited by SeidmanS.Boston: Beacon Press.
36.
HabermasJurgen. 2008. “Secularism’s Crisis of Faith: Notes on Post-Secular Society.” New Perspectives Quarterly25(4):17–29.
37.
HoffmanJohnJohnsonSherrie Mills. 2005. “Attitudes toward Abortion among Religious Traditions in the United States: Change or Continuity?” Sociology of Religion66(2):161–82.
38.
HuntLarryHuntMatthew. 2001. “Race, Religion and Religious Involvement: A Comparative Study of Whites and African Americans.” Social Forces80(2):605–631.
39.
IannacconeLawrence. 1993. “Heirs to the Protestant Ethic? The Economics of American Fundamentalists.” Pp. 342–66 in Fundamentalisms and the State, edited by MartyM.ApplebyS.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
InglehartRonaldBakerWayne. 2000. “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values.” American Sociological Review65(1):19–51.
41.
JasanoffSheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
LatourBruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LawsonAntonWorsnopWilliam. 1992. “Learning about Evolution and Rejecting a Belief in Special Creation: Effects of Reflective Reasoning Skill, Prior Knowledge, Prior Belief and Religious Commitment.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching29(2): 143–66.
LieneschMichael. 2007. In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
46.
LoYungtaiMendellNancy R.RubinDonald B.2001. “Testing the Number of Components in a Normal Mixture.” Biometrika88(3):767–78.
47.
LockeSimon. 1999. “Golem Science and the Public Understanding of Science: From Deficit to Dilemma.” Public Understanding of Science8(2):75–92.
48.
LongestKyleSmithChristian. 2011. “Conflicting or Compatible: Beliefs about Religion and Science among Emerging Adults in the United States.” Sociological Forum26(4):846–69.
49.
LukerKristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
MagidsonJayVermuntJeroen K.2001. “Latent Class Factor and Cluster Models: Bi-plots and Related Graphical Displays.” Sociological Methodology31(1):223–64.
51.
MarlerPenny LongHadawayC. Kirk. 2002. “‘Being Religious’ or ‘Being Spiritual’ in America: A Zero-Sum Proposition?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion41(2):289–300.
52.
MarsdenGeorge. [1980] 2006. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870–1925. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
MarsdenGeorge. 1991. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
54.
MarxKarl. 1978. “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” Pp. 53–65 in The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed., edited by TuckerR.New York: Norton.
55.
MertonRobert. [1938] 1973. “The Puritan Spur to Science.” Pp. 228–53 in The Sociology of Science: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations, edited by StorerN. W.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
MillerAlan S.HoffmanJohn P.1995. “Risk and Religion: An Explanation of Gender Differences in Religiosity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion34(1):63–75.
57.
MillerJon. 2004. “Public Understanding of and Attitudes toward Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” Public Understanding of Science13(3):273–94.
58.
National Science Board. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
59.
NelkinDorothy. 2004. “God Talk: Confusion between Science and Religion Posthumous Essay.” Science, Technology & Human Values29(2):139–52.
60.
NelsenBrentGuthJamesFraserCleveland. 2001. “Does Religion Matter? Christianity and Public Support for the European Union.” European Union Politics2(2):191–217.
61.
NylundKaren L.AsparouhovTihomirMuthénBengt O.2007. “Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study.” Structural Equation Modeling14(4):535–69.
PlantingaAlvin. 2011. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
64.
Pope Pius XII. 1951. “The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.” Address by Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, pp. 182–92.
65.
RatzingerJoseph C.1988. Church, Ecumenism and Politics. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
66.
RoosJ. Micah. 2012. “Measuring Science or Religion? A Measurement Analysis of the National Science Foundation Sponsored Science Literacy Scale 2006–2010.” Public Understanding of Science23(7):797–813.
67.
ScheufeleDietramCorleyElizabeth A.ShihTsung-jenDalrympleKajsa E.HoShirley S.2009. “Religious Beliefs and Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.” Nature Nanotechnology4(2):91–94.
68.
SchiemanScott. 2010. “Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God’s Influence in Everyday Life.” Sociology of Religion71(1):25–51.
69.
SchnittkerJasonFreeseJeremyPowell.Brian2000. “Nature, Nurture, Neither, Nor: Black-White Differences in Beliefs about the Causes and Appropriate Treatment of Mental Illness.” Social Forces78(3):1101–1132.
70.
ShapinSteven. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
71.
ShapinSteven. 2008. “Science and Modern Society.” Pp. 433–48 in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed., edited by HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmaJ.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
72.
SheltonJason E.EmersonMichael O.2012. Blacks and Whites in Christian America. New York: New York University Press.
73.
SherkatDarren. 2011. “Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly92(5):1134–50.
74.
SmithChristian. 2003. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
75.
SmithChristian, with MichaelEmersonGallagherSallyKennedyPaulSikkinkDavid. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76.
SmithChristianFarisRobert. 2005. “Socioeconomic Inequality in the American Religious System.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion44(1):95–104.
77.
SmithTom W.MarsdenPeterHoutMichaelKimJibum. 2011. General Social Surveys, 1972–2010 [machine-readable data file]. Principal Investigator, Tom W. Smith; Co-Principal Investigator, Peter V. Marsden; Co-Principal Investigator, Michael Hout; Sponsored by National Science Foundation, NORC. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center [producer]; Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut [distributor].
78.
StarkRodney. 1999. “Secularization, R.I.P.” Sociology of Religion60(3):249–74.
79.
StarkRodneyBainbridgeWilliam. 1987. A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
80.
SteenslandBrianParkJerry Z.RegnerusMark D.RobinsonLynn D.WilcoxW. BradfordWoodberryRobert D.2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces79(1):291–318.
81.
TaylorCharles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
82.
Toumey, Chris. 1994. God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
83.
ToumeyChrisBesleyJohnBlanchardMegBrownMarkCobbMichaelEcklundElaine HowardGlassMargaretGuterbockThomas M.KellyA. EamonnLewensteinBruce. 2010. “Science in the Service of Citizens and Consumers.” USC NanoCenter. Retrieved June15, 2013 (http://www.nano.sc.edu/resources/publications.aspx).
VerheySteven D. 2005. “The Effect of Engaging Prior Learning on Student Attitudes toward Creationism and Evolution.” BioScience55(11):996–1003.
86.
VermuntJeroen K.2010. “Latent Class Modeling with Covariates: Two Improved Three-Step Approaches.” Political Analysis18(4):450–69.
87.
WeberMax. [1904] 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner’s.
88.
WilsonBryan. 1975. Magic and the Millennium. St. Albans, UK: Paladin.
89.
WoodberryRobert D.ParkJerry Z.KellstedtLyman A. with Mark D.RegnerusSteenslandBrian. 2012. “The Measure of American Religious Traditions: Theoretical and Measurement Considerations.” Social Forces91(1):65–73.
90.
XieYuShaumanKimberlee A.2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
