Religiously conservative Americans consistently demonstrate lower scientific literacy than other Americans. Some argue, however, that Americans’ scientific literacy is contingent on subcultural conflict, showing differences in scientific literacy that emerge only on religiously contested scientific claims. Building on these insights, we find that the most salient factor explaining Americans’ divergence on contested (though not on uncontested) scientific claims is not religious commitment or conservatism per se, but an ideology that seeks political—and consequently epistemic—dominance: Christian nationalism. National data show that Christian nationalism is unassociated with Americans’ answers on questions about uncontested scientific knowledge. However, Christian nationalism is the strongest predictor of incorrect answers on questions about religiously contested scientific claims. Contemporary “culture war” debates over science have little to do with outright ignorance of science, nor are they strictly about religiosity or theological conservatism. Rather, disputes over science and religion reflect politically motivated denials of scientific facts that threaten Christian nationalism’s claims to epistemic and cultural authority.
AlumkalA (2017) Paranoid Science: The Christian Right’s War on Reality. New York: New York University Press.
2.
BakHJ (2001) Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the “Deficit Model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly82(4): 779–795.
3.
BakerJO (2013) Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion52(1): 216–228.
4.
BakerJOPerrySLWhiteheadAL (2020a) Keep America Christian (and White): Christian nationalism, fear of ethnoracial outsiders, and intention to vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Sociology of Religion81(3): 272–293.
5.
BakerJOPerrySLWhiteheadAL (2020b) Crusading for moral authority: Christian nationalism and opposition to science. Sociological Forum35(3): 587–607.
6.
BarbourIG (1966) Issues in Science and Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
8.
BooneKC (1989) The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
9.
BraunsteinRTaylorM (2017) Is the tea party a “Religious” Movement? Religiosity in the tea party versus the religious right. Sociology of Religion78(1): 33–59.
10.
CofnasNCarlNWoodleyMA (2018) Does activism in social science explain conservatives’ distrust of scientists?The American Sociologist49: 135–148.
11.
DavisJT (2018) Enforcing Christian Nationalism: Examining the link between group identity and punitive attitudes in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion57(2): 300–317.
12.
DavisJTPerrySL (2020) White Christian nationalists and relative political tolerance for racists. Social Problems2020: spaa002.
13.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. PNAS114(36): 9587–9592.
14.
EcklundEH (2010) Science Vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
EcklundEHScheitleCP (2017) Religion Vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
EvansJH (2011) Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50(4): 707–727.
17.
EvansJH (2013) The growing social and moral conflict between conservative protestantism and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion52(2): 368–385.
18.
EvansJH (2018) Morals Not Knowledge: Recasting the Contemporary U.S. Conflict between Religion and Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
EvansJHEvansMS (2008) Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology34: 87–105.
20.
FoucaultM (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 (ed. CGordon, trans. GordonCMarshallLMephamJ, et al.). New York: Pantheon Books.
21.
FranzenABGriebelJ (2013) Understanding a cultural identity: The confluence of education, politics, and religion within the American concept of biblical literalism. Sociology of Religion74(4): 521–543.
22.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
23.
GauchatG (2015) The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces94(2): 723–746.
24.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GierynTFBlevinsGMZehrSC (1985) Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science and the Creation/Evolution Trials. American Sociological Review50(3): 392–409.
26.
GorskiP (2017) American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
GuhinJ (2016) Why worry about evolution? Boundaries, practices, and moral Salience in Sunni and Evangelical High Schools. Sociological Theory34(2): 151–174.
28.
HillJP (2014) Rejecting evolution: The role of religion, education, and social networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion53(3): 575–594.
JonesSHKadenTCattoR (eds) (2019) Science, Belief, and Society: International Perspectives on Religion, Non-religion, and the Public Understanding of Science. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
31.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
McCarthyD (1996) Knowledge as Culture: The New Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
33.
McDanielELNooruddinIShortleA (2011) Divine boundaries: How religion shapes citizens’ attitudes toward immigrants. American Politics Research39(1): 205–233.
34.
McPhetresJZuckermanM (2018) Religiosity predicts negative attitudes toward science and lower levels of scientific literacy. PLOS ONE13(11): e0207125.
35.
MannMSchleiferC (2020) Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces99(1): 305–332.
36.
MillerJD (2012) The sources and impact of civic scientific literacy. In: BauerMWShuklaRAllumN (eds) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe. New York: Routledge, pp.217–240.
37.
MillerJDScottEOkamotoS (2006) Public acceptance of evolution. Science313: 765–766.
38.
MillsCW (1940) Methodological consequences of the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology46(3): 316–330.
39.
NoySO’BrienTL (2016) A nation divided: Science, religion, and public opinion in the United States. Socius2: 1–15.
40.
O’BrienTLNoyA (2015) Traditional, modern, and post-secular perspectives on science and religion in the United States. American Sociological Review80(1): 92–115.
41.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2018) Cultural authority in comparative context: A multilevel analysis of trust in science and religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion57(3): 495–513.
42.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2020) Political identity and confidence in science and religion in the United States. Sociology of Religion81(4): 439–461.
43.
PasekJ (2018) It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 787–806.
44.
PaternosterRBrameRMazerollePPiqueroA (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology36(4): 859–866.
45.
PerrySL (2020) Is support for outlawing pornography linked with ignorance or denial of science?Sexuality Research and Social Policy. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-020-00515-0.
46.
PerrySL (2021) Banning because of science or in spite of it? Scientific Authority, Religious Conservatism, and Support for Outlawing Pornography, 1984-2018. Social Forces. DOI: 10.1093/sf/soab024.
47.
PerrySLWhiteheadALGrubbsJB (2020a) Culture wars and COVID-19 conduct: Christian nationalism, religiosity, and Americans’ behavior during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion59(3): 405–416.
48.
PerrySLWhiteheadALGrubbsJB (2020b) Save the economy, liberty, and yourself: Christian nationalism and Americans’ views on government COVID-19 restrictions. Sociology of Religion2020: sraa047.
49.
RoosJM (2014) Measuring science or religion? A measurement analysis of the national science foundation sponsored science literacy scale. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 797–813.
50.
RoosJM (2016) Alternately contested: A measurement analysis of alternately worded items in the national science foundation science literacy scale. Socius2: 1–9.
51.
RoosJM (2017) Contested knowledge and spillover. Social Currents4(4): 360–379.
52.
SherkatDE (2011) Religion and scientific literacy in the United States. Social Science Quarterly92(5): 1134–1150.
53.
SimpsonARiosK (2019) Is science for atheists? Perceived threat to religious cultural authority explains U.S. Christians’ distrust in secularized science. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 740–758.
54.
StarkW ([1958] 1991) The Sociology of Knowledge: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the History of Ideas. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
55.
TomJ (2018) Social origins of scientific deviance: Examining creationism and global warming skepticism. Sociological Perspectives61(3): 341–360.
56.
TrollingerSLTrollingerWV Jr (2016) Righting America at the Creation Museum. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
57.
WhiteheadALPerrySL (2020a) Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
WhiteheadALPerrySL (2020b) How culture wars delay herd immunity: Christian nationalism and anti-vaccine attitudes. Socius6: 1–12.
59.
ZigerellLJ (2012) Science knowledge and biblical literalism. Public Understanding of Science21(3): 314–322.
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.
