Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Inquiry, Not Science, as the Source of Secularization in Higher Education

View more insights in Social Sciences - Sociology

View more figures from University of California San Diego

View the page of John H. Evans

Read the Study

John H. Evans discusses that majors focused on inquiry are more likely to secularize than those focused on application.

Image courtesy of interviewee. April 30, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The speaker discusses their motivation to dispel public myths, particularly regarding the assumed conflict between religion and science. They highlight that while religion traditionally uses sacred texts to make fact claims and science relies on observation, this dichotomy may not be as clear-cut as often portrayed.

Historically, many believe there is a significant conflict between religion and science, especially concerning topics like evolution, as exemplified by the Galileo and Darwin controversies. However, contemporary scholars argue that the real conflict lies in moral issues rather than factual disagreements. For instance, the Scopes Monkey Trial exemplifies how concerns about moral implications—rather than factual claims—underlied the legal challenges to teaching evolution.

The speaker's study investigates whether studying science leads to a decline in religious beliefs among college students. Previous research indicates that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population, but learning science does not necessarily lead to secularization. Instead, inquiry-based majors (e.g., social sciences and humanities) are more strongly correlated with a decline in religious adherence.

Using a large dataset of student surveys, the study identifies that about 11.3% of students lose their faith during college, with inquiry majors (like women's studies and anthropology) leading to the highest rates of secularization. Interestingly, traditional natural science majors, such as biology, do not have the same effect. It appears that the mindset developed through questioning underlying assumptions is what contributes most to students' secularization, rather than specific scientific knowledge.

Finally, the research suggests that misunderstandings between the public and scientists stem more from moral disagreements than factual disputes. To foster constructive dialogue, both groups should better understand the nature of their conflicts, focusing on values and beliefs rather than solely on facts.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.100 --> 00:03.265
Well, the, the main motivation for most of my work, is

00:03.285 --> 00:05.345
to dispel myths in the public sphere.

00:05.485 --> 00:08.025
And, and to be kind of glib about it,

00:08.125 --> 00:10.425
if people are really gonna dislike each other in public

00:10.425 --> 00:11.705
sphere, I want 'em

00:11.705 --> 00:13.265
to dislike each other for the right reasons.

00:13.655 --> 00:16.225
Okay? So it'd be good to actually know,

00:16.225 --> 00:18.465
what your supposed opponent actually believes.

00:19.165 --> 00:22.785
Now, one of the perennial themes in Western thought is the

00:22.785 --> 00:24.505
relationship between religion and science.

00:24.725 --> 00:27.385
In particular, people have focused on the idea

00:27.695 --> 00:31.425
that religion makes fact claims about the natural world

00:31.425 --> 00:32.625
using sacred texts.

00:33.045 --> 00:35.785
And science makes fact claims about the natural world

00:36.155 --> 00:37.505
using observation.

00:38.485 --> 00:41.305
So the classic example everyone uses is Galileo,

00:41.645 --> 00:44.705
who supposedly got in trouble with the Catholic church due

00:44.705 --> 00:47.225
to his claim that the earth went around,

00:47.765 --> 00:49.345
the sun instead of the inverse.

00:49.925 --> 00:52.225
Uh, I mean, historians have told us a lot more complicated

00:52.225 --> 00:53.665
than that, but that's one of the things that pops

00:53.665 --> 00:54.705
into people's minds.

00:55.805 --> 00:57.625
Um, I don't like to go that far back,

00:57.725 --> 01:01.185
but much more immediate influence is the claims

01:01.245 --> 01:03.425
of Darwin in the 19th century.

01:04.365 --> 01:07.955
Um, so for example,

01:08.455 --> 01:12.515
if you look at, Darwin was claiming that humans,

01:13.415 --> 01:17.755
have evolved from earlier primates, instead

01:17.775 --> 01:21.955
of the traditional, Christian narrative, which is

01:21.955 --> 01:25.635
that humans were created in an instant, by God.

01:26.535 --> 01:29.915
Um, so the idea that religion

01:29.935 --> 01:32.315
and science are in conflict is just one

01:32.315 --> 01:35.195
of the many assumptions that most Westerners learn.

01:35.815 --> 01:38.155
Uh, there's no moment in school

01:38.155 --> 01:39.835
where they explicitly teach you this,

01:40.015 --> 01:42.395
but I think it's just part of the, the ethos,

01:42.595 --> 01:45.595
particularly I think in Britain and the United States.

01:46.255 --> 01:50.675
So there's a large academic tradition that tries to be more,

01:50.825 --> 01:53.155
more realistic about any conflict

01:53.305 --> 01:54.635
between religion and science.

01:55.335 --> 01:57.635
So the question is, are religion

01:57.695 --> 02:01.435
and science in conflict over fact claims

02:01.965 --> 02:03.155
about the natural world?

02:03.375 --> 02:06.035
So to give you a little bit more background from

02:06.035 --> 02:09.715
what historians tell us, I could be convinced that religion

02:09.735 --> 02:12.555
and science were in such a conflict up

02:12.555 --> 02:13.555
until the 20th century,

02:14.375 --> 02:17.195
but given what we know about contemporary religion,

02:17.295 --> 02:19.755
it doesn't really make sense that that would be the case.

02:20.935 --> 02:23.715
So the other bit of background to know about this study is

02:23.785 --> 02:25.805
that it's a change in

02:25.805 --> 02:29.445
what scholars think any conflict might be about.

02:30.545 --> 02:34.325
So people often think any conflict is about fact claims

02:34.375 --> 02:35.605
about the natural world.

02:36.225 --> 02:39.965
But recent research shows that in actuality, conflict

02:39.965 --> 02:42.605
between religion and science is actually about morality.

02:43.185 --> 02:45.325
And I'll give you just one classic case from

02:45.325 --> 02:46.365
the American perspective.

02:46.945 --> 02:47.965
In 1925,

02:47.975 --> 02:50.765
there was a something called the Scopes Monkey trial,

02:51.415 --> 02:55.125
which was a case of a teacher who was convicted

02:55.425 --> 02:57.445
of teaching evolution in the public schools,

02:57.735 --> 02:59.765
which was illegal in Tennessee at the time.

03:00.305 --> 03:03.045
And that case is this huge thing in American culture,

03:03.295 --> 03:05.285
which was supposedly this back

03:05.285 --> 03:08.325
and forth between the lawyer, about this.

03:08.505 --> 03:11.965
And it was portrayed as the defender

03:12.465 --> 03:14.765
of fundamentalist Protestantism saying, no,

03:14.785 --> 03:15.845
the Bible says this.

03:16.465 --> 03:19.725
And the person, other person say, no, science tells us this.

03:20.475 --> 03:23.085
Well, in actuality, when you look at that more closely,

03:23.475 --> 03:24.925
this fundamentalist defender

03:25.785 --> 03:28.325
wasn't concerned about the fact claim, per se.

03:29.065 --> 03:32.885
He thought that learning Darwinism had corrupted the morals

03:32.885 --> 03:34.965
of the people of Germany, and that it,

03:35.065 --> 03:38.085
it ultimately caused the rise of World War I.

03:38.905 --> 03:40.845
So there's been a reassessment of

03:40.845 --> 03:42.205
what is actually going on here.

03:42.905 --> 03:43.805
So that's an important

03:43.805 --> 03:45.165
background, I think for everyone to know.

03:46.045 --> 03:47.445
Ed just described this theory for you

03:47.505 --> 03:49.205
and to test the theory that religion

03:49.265 --> 03:51.445
and science are in conflict over facts

03:51.655 --> 03:52.805
about the natural world.

03:53.285 --> 03:57.125
Academics have for almost a century, looked at the impact

03:57.265 --> 04:00.085
of learning science on religious belief.

04:00.625 --> 04:04.965
So if learning science leads to less religious belief,

04:05.195 --> 04:07.325
there's something about the scientific method

04:07.625 --> 04:09.205
that's incompatible with religion.

04:09.305 --> 04:10.525
And then this theory

04:10.525 --> 04:12.805
of conflict over fact claims would be correct.

04:13.795 --> 04:15.255
So for almost a hundred years,

04:15.695 --> 04:19.095
sociologists have examined the religiosity of scientists

04:19.275 --> 04:22.095
who obviously have a lot of scientific training.

04:22.365 --> 04:25.295
Okay, well, the finding is that they are

04:25.895 --> 04:28.255
somewhat less religious than other people.

04:28.875 --> 04:33.175
Uh, not hugely so, but there is, a difference.

04:33.675 --> 04:37.415
And the more you go up the prestige scale, like members

04:37.435 --> 04:38.815
of the National academies

04:38.815 --> 04:41.495
and things like this, they're less religious than your

04:41.495 --> 04:43.535
average, you know, college professor of biology.

04:43.755 --> 04:44.815
But there is this effect.

04:45.675 --> 04:49.975
Um, now the tradition I'm using in this paper is something

04:49.975 --> 04:52.575
people have also done a lot of, which is, let's look at

04:53.135 --> 04:56.095
learning science by undergraduate students at

04:56.095 --> 04:57.135
college and university.

04:58.155 --> 05:02.615
So if leading science leads, if learning science leads

05:02.915 --> 05:04.415
to students having less religion,

05:04.765 --> 05:06.535
then there is something about learning

05:07.045 --> 05:10.375
secular observational analysis of the natural world

05:10.765 --> 05:12.255
that is in conflict with religion.

05:13.195 --> 05:14.335
Um, so,

05:14.555 --> 05:17.175
and then let's put some more fine grained versions of this.

05:17.795 --> 05:21.455
Uh, there are are so many claims for which

05:21.965 --> 05:23.575
there's no conflict

05:23.765 --> 05:25.895
that we wanna get specific about what kind of claims.

05:26.355 --> 05:30.375
So if I were to find the most art Protestant fundamentalist

05:30.715 --> 05:33.655
in the United States and ask them how to determine the speed

05:33.655 --> 05:35.295
of butterfly wings,

05:35.295 --> 05:37.495
they would describe the scientific method for me perfectly.

05:37.805 --> 05:40.535
There's just these few things which, which they dissent.

05:40.635 --> 05:44.015
So ma and most of the religions in the United States,

05:44.015 --> 05:46.455
there's no fact conflict even

05:46.625 --> 05:48.495
among the leaders with science.

05:48.995 --> 05:53.135
So Catholicism has no fact claim conflict with science,

05:53.555 --> 05:55.615
what's called mainline Protestantism in the

05:55.615 --> 05:56.695
United States. In the uk

05:56.995 --> 05:59.165
This would be roughly equivalent to the Church of England.

05:59.575 --> 06:02.285
There is no fact conflict among people

06:02.285 --> 06:04.245
who are called evangelicals and fundamentalists.

06:04.245 --> 06:06.805
There are a few fact claims that are in conflict, all having

06:06.805 --> 06:07.925
to do with human origins.

06:08.135 --> 06:10.125
Where does humans come from? How old's earth?

06:10.125 --> 06:14.125
That kind of thing. Um, so those are the more specific

06:14.685 --> 06:17.445
literature that I'm, embedding this study in.

06:17.825 --> 06:19.645
So, you know, if you look at what else we know,

06:19.665 --> 06:20.845
if you look at historians

06:20.845 --> 06:24.445
and other social scientists, it's unlikely that the mere act

06:24.785 --> 06:26.085
of investigating nature

06:26.085 --> 06:29.165
with a secular lens somehow leads you to not believe in God.

06:29.705 --> 06:31.165
It must be something slightly different.

06:31.705 --> 06:33.765
So I, I wanted to design a study

06:33.905 --> 06:35.685
and I took advantage of a sort

06:35.685 --> 06:38.125
of an unusual data set in the United States, which is,

06:38.355 --> 06:41.325
there's a institute at uc, Los Angeles,

06:42.155 --> 06:46.325
that has interviewed at incoming college students

06:46.615 --> 06:47.885
since 1966.

06:48.625 --> 06:51.285
And I was able to use surveys

06:51.515 --> 06:54.125
with over a hundred thousand of these students.

06:54.985 --> 06:59.245
And importantly, they ask these students, a bunch

06:59.245 --> 07:00.725
of questions when they enter

07:01.065 --> 07:02.325
and then when they leave college.

07:02.825 --> 07:04.765
And these surveys are used to say,

07:05.035 --> 07:06.325
what does college do to you?

07:06.625 --> 07:08.645
So to take an obvious one, students

07:08.665 --> 07:11.885
who show up very idealistic when they leave are

07:11.885 --> 07:13.085
less so, okay?

07:13.585 --> 07:16.615
But they also have measures of religion.

07:16.955 --> 07:19.415
So in year one, they say, so

07:19.415 --> 07:20.815
what is your religious preference?

07:21.275 --> 07:23.855
One of the options was none. Okay?

07:24.075 --> 07:25.735
So it is like people with no religion.

07:25.875 --> 07:28.735
And they also asked how often you attend religious services.

07:29.475 --> 07:32.695
And so with this, I can measure a change

07:33.205 --> 07:34.935
between year one and year four.

07:35.515 --> 07:37.255
So I can identify students

07:37.995 --> 07:40.575
who had a religious affiliation in year one,

07:40.835 --> 07:43.295
but don't in their final year of college.

07:43.815 --> 07:45.455
I can also measure how much their

07:46.455 --> 07:48.135
participation in religion dropped

07:48.835 --> 07:50.575
across, those four years.

07:51.115 --> 07:53.575
And so let's, in regular language, you,

07:53.595 --> 07:56.935
you could say which students secularized,

07:56.985 --> 07:58.015
while they were in college.

07:59.165 --> 08:03.295
Now again, the traditional theory would be learning what

08:03.995 --> 08:05.455
causes the most secularization.

08:05.875 --> 08:07.695
And the answer would be learning science

08:08.345 --> 08:10.095
would cause the most secularization.

08:10.645 --> 08:14.535
Well, luckily, for this dataset,

08:14.605 --> 08:17.095
they also ask in their senior year, what was your major?

08:17.555 --> 08:21.135
And there's 86, majors that they asked about.

08:21.135 --> 08:22.695
And I'll skip the details of that for now.

08:23.395 --> 08:27.375
Um, there's also a more fine grain version, which is

08:28.175 --> 08:30.745
I asked about like loss of religion.

08:31.335 --> 08:34.185
Well, I also wanna see loss of a particular religion.

08:34.605 --> 08:36.945
So again, do people who start off

08:36.945 --> 08:39.145
as conservative Protestants, which are fundamentalists

08:39.145 --> 08:42.625
and evangelicals, do they have a more greater loss

08:42.625 --> 08:44.425
of religion because it's actually going

08:44.505 --> 08:46.185
after what they believe?

08:47.295 --> 08:50.805
So I tested

08:52.245 --> 08:57.125
the idea that science majors cause this,

08:57.665 --> 08:59.565
secularization among students.

09:00.425 --> 09:02.525
Um, but I also want to test something else,

09:02.735 --> 09:05.285
which is if it's not facts about the natural

09:05.335 --> 09:06.645
world, what is it?

09:07.185 --> 09:09.565
And there's another academic literature

09:09.565 --> 09:13.205
that suggests it's inquiry into your taking

09:13.425 --> 09:14.605
for granted assumptions.

09:15.115 --> 09:19.405
Okay? So it turns out you can divide the majors in

09:19.405 --> 09:21.405
universities into those that teach people

09:21.505 --> 09:23.645
to inquire about their basic assumptions

09:24.345 --> 09:25.445
and those that don't.

09:25.825 --> 09:29.005
So for example, in biology, you might think

09:29.515 --> 09:32.445
that all these animals are unrelated to humans,

09:32.985 --> 09:35.805
but in actuality, if you look at the DNA,

09:36.055 --> 09:39.605
we're like whatever it is, 99% like a chimpanzee, okay?

09:40.585 --> 09:44.605
Or in, sociology you might think

09:44.795 --> 09:46.525
that gender works like such and such,

09:46.745 --> 09:49.165
but in actuality it's something else.

09:49.675 --> 09:53.845
Okay? Now I contrast this to applied disciplines

09:54.335 --> 09:58.285
where the point is not to question foundational notions

09:58.285 --> 10:00.725
of knowledge or claims, but just apply them.

10:01.345 --> 10:04.685
So for example, engineering is basically applied

10:04.685 --> 10:06.045
science, okay?

10:06.045 --> 10:08.765
You're not supposed to ask if calculus works,

10:09.345 --> 10:11.205
you're just supposed to apply it, okay?

10:11.635 --> 10:15.725
Similarly, education is applied, business is applied,

10:15.875 --> 10:16.965
nursing is applied.

10:16.965 --> 10:20.085
There's a whole bunch of these. You can divide undergraduate

10:20.085 --> 10:21.885
experience into these two camps.

10:22.735 --> 10:26.385
Okay? So maybe that's the difference

10:26.885 --> 10:28.225
of what's happening in college.

10:29.045 --> 10:33.465
So, with that I was able to compare,

10:33.965 --> 10:35.745
all these groups of majors

10:35.765 --> 10:37.945
to see which is the most secularizing.

10:38.405 --> 10:40.905
So when you do all the math here on this study,

10:41.045 --> 10:43.665
the top line, which is not exactly addressed in the

10:43.865 --> 10:47.665
hypothesis, but interesting to know, is that 11.3%

10:47.725 --> 10:51.825
of students in the United States lose their faith in college

10:52.445 --> 10:55.385
and 55% declined attendance over time.

10:56.015 --> 10:58.665
That is sort of well known among sociologists of religion.

10:58.665 --> 10:59.745
That's not surprising,

10:59.885 --> 11:01.945
but no one's actually looked at what sort

11:01.945 --> 11:04.625
of college experience, leads to this.

11:05.285 --> 11:09.425
Um, so what major led to the most religious decline?

11:09.765 --> 11:12.545
So if there is an incompatibility

11:12.545 --> 11:14.505
between examining the natural world

11:15.005 --> 11:16.665
and religion, it should be biology.

11:17.375 --> 11:20.425
Okay? And then maybe physics would be maybe next in line.

11:20.495 --> 11:24.625
Okay? So what are the top secularizing major?

11:24.765 --> 11:29.065
So let the listener make their guess in their head, okay?

11:29.245 --> 11:32.145
And then I'll tell you the number one secularizing

11:32.195 --> 11:33.505
major women's studies.

11:34.335 --> 11:36.705
Okay? Number two, anthropology.

11:37.635 --> 11:41.325
Okay, then physics, okay, then philosophy,

11:42.285 --> 11:46.355
then earth science, then art, then microbiology.

11:46.705 --> 11:48.595
Okay? Biology is actually kind

11:48.595 --> 11:49.995
of in the middle somewhere in terms

11:49.995 --> 11:52.075
of its secularizing force. So

11:52.735 --> 11:55.565
It turns out that it's not natural science,

11:56.735 --> 11:59.655
learning natural science that secularizes, if anything,

12:00.085 --> 12:01.775
it's social science in the humanities

12:01.775 --> 12:03.935
that secularize not the natural science.

12:04.925 --> 12:07.745
So look at this all together.

12:08.195 --> 12:09.425
There is a relationship

12:09.815 --> 12:12.185
between whether your major is

12:12.425 --> 12:13.585
science or non-science secular.

12:13.735 --> 12:15.585
There's not this relationship, I'm sorry,

12:16.615 --> 12:19.675
but there's a very large effect of having an inquiry

12:20.225 --> 12:24.035
type major versus an applied major inquiry.

12:24.375 --> 12:27.635
Be it inquiring into the nature of atoms

12:27.855 --> 12:30.115
or inquiring about the nature of society

12:30.585 --> 12:32.355
that leads to less religion.

12:33.225 --> 12:35.365
Why would that be? Generally

12:35.515 --> 12:39.045
what it's doing is you learned religion as a child, okay?

12:39.385 --> 12:42.365
And you were told you just have faith in this.

12:42.635 --> 12:46.045
They're essentially training people to not just take things

12:46.825 --> 12:48.485
on faith, okay?

12:48.705 --> 12:50.005
But it doesn't have to do with

12:50.725 --> 12:52.765
investigating the natural world per se.

12:52.765 --> 12:57.165
It's more like a mindset towards questioning that leads

12:57.265 --> 12:58.445
to secularization.

12:59.715 --> 13:04.175
So then I got one step more specific, which is,

13:05.295 --> 13:10.235
is this secularized impact of inquiry type majors stronger

13:10.335 --> 13:12.635
for people who started out as conservative Protestants,

13:12.655 --> 13:15.515
who are again, the one sort of fairly different group.

13:15.595 --> 13:18.235
I mean the Catholicism in the United States at least,

13:18.575 --> 13:19.955
and mainland Protestantism

13:19.955 --> 13:22.955
and other religions have really made a deal

13:22.955 --> 13:24.075
with the secular world.

13:24.135 --> 13:25.915
And so as a young person,

13:25.915 --> 13:28.155
you wouldn't feel any conflict really at all.

13:28.465 --> 13:32.475
Okay? But there are more beliefs in conservative prostatism

13:32.475 --> 13:35.235
that are distinct from what's taught in most universities

13:35.545 --> 13:38.795
that would be violated by these inquiry sort of majors.

13:38.935 --> 13:40.235
So just to take one example,

13:40.635 --> 13:42.795
conservative Protestants in the United States tend

13:42.795 --> 13:44.835
to teach traditional gender roles.

13:45.265 --> 13:46.515
Okay? Well that's not

13:46.515 --> 13:48.155
what you're being taught in a sociology

13:48.155 --> 13:49.315
or women's studies department.

13:49.665 --> 13:53.435
Okay? And so was that the case? Yes.

13:54.305 --> 13:57.965
The conservative Protestants had a stronger secularizing

13:57.985 --> 14:01.405
effect from these inquiry sorts of majors.

14:02.065 --> 14:06.885
The academic implications of this is that the mere fact

14:07.265 --> 14:08.765
of the secular investigation

14:09.105 --> 14:11.085
of the natural world is not in conflict

14:11.275 --> 14:12.485
with contemporary religion.

14:13.145 --> 14:14.565
Um, this makes sense.

14:14.745 --> 14:18.445
But then what is a religion and science conflict about?

14:18.685 --> 14:19.685
'cause we hear about this all the time.

14:20.445 --> 14:21.845
Scientists are very concerned about this.

14:22.305 --> 14:24.685
And again, I'm speaking, this is an American dataset,

14:24.705 --> 14:26.245
so I'm more speaking, to that.

14:26.785 --> 14:28.805
Um, but what hap needs

14:28.805 --> 14:31.125
to happen in the United States at least, is

14:31.125 --> 14:33.685
that scientists in particular need to realize

14:34.075 --> 14:36.365
that when the public doesn't agree with them, it's not

14:36.365 --> 14:38.645
because of any sort of fact conflicts, it's

14:38.645 --> 14:40.005
because of moral conflicts.

14:40.625 --> 14:44.245
And one of the great missteps in the covid,

14:44.665 --> 14:46.325
era was scientists basically

14:46.325 --> 14:47.485
saying, let me tell you more facts.

14:47.485 --> 14:50.485
Lemme tell you more facts. That's not for the vast

14:50.725 --> 14:52.165
Majority of people,

14:52.625 --> 14:55.685
up they believe science have the ability to develop facts.

14:56.395 --> 14:57.525
It's more about morals.

14:57.785 --> 14:59.725
And so I think I'm trying to shift the debate,

15:00.065 --> 15:01.245
in that question.

15:01.945 --> 15:06.745
Um, so the main implication of the study is that we need

15:06.745 --> 15:09.745
to figure out exactly what's going on between religion

15:09.765 --> 15:11.305
and science, which allows

15:11.365 --> 15:14.585
for a more constructive debate forward in the public sphere.

00:00 - Well, the, the main motivation for most of my work, is to dispel myths in the public sphere. And, and to be kind of glib about it, if people are really gonna dislike each other in public sphere, I want 'em to dislike each other for the right reasons.

00:13 - Okay? So it'd be good to actually know, what your supposed opponent actually believes. Now, one of the perennial themes in Western thought is the relationship between religion and science. In particular, people have focused on the idea that religion makes fact claims about the natural world using sacred texts. And science makes fact claims about the natural world using observation. So the classic example everyone uses is Galileo,

00:41 - who supposedly got in trouble with the Catholic church due to his claim that the earth went around, the sun instead of the inverse. I mean, historians have told us a lot more complicated than that, but that's one of the things that pops into people's minds. I don't like to go that far back, but much more immediate influence is the claims of Darwin in the 19th century. so for example,

01:08 - if you look at, Darwin was claiming that humans, have evolved from earlier primates, instead of the traditional, Christian narrative, which is that humans were created in an instant, by God. so the idea that religion and science are in conflict is just one of the many assumptions that most Westerners learn. there's no moment in school where they explicitly teach you this, but I think it's just part of the, the ethos,

01:42 - particularly I think in Britain and the United States. So there's a large academic tradition that tries to be more, more realistic about any conflict between religion and science. So the question is, are religion and science in conflict over fact claims about the natural world? So to give you a little bit more background from what historians tell us, I could be convinced that religion and science were in such a conflict up

02:12 - until the 20th century, but given what we know about contemporary religion, it doesn't really make sense that that would be the case. So the other bit of background to know about this study is that it's a change in what scholars think any conflict might be about. So people often think any conflict is about fact claims about the natural world. But recent research shows that in actuality, conflict between religion and science is actually about morality.

02:43 - And I'll give you just one classic case from the American perspective. In 1925, there was a something called the Scopes Monkey trial, which was a case of a teacher who was convicted of teaching evolution in the public schools, which was illegal in Tennessee at the time. And that case is this huge thing in American culture, which was supposedly this back and forth between the lawyer, about this.

03:08 - And it was portrayed as the defender of fundamentalist Protestantism saying, no, the Bible says this. And the person, other person say, no, science tells us this. Well, in actuality, when you look at that more closely, this fundamentalist defender wasn't concerned about the fact claim, per se. He thought that learning Darwinism had corrupted the morals of the people of Germany, and that it, it ultimately caused the rise of World War I.

03:38 - So there's been a reassessment of what is actually going on here. So that's an important background, I think for everyone to know. Ed just described this theory for you and to test the theory that religion and science are in conflict over facts about the natural world. Academics have for almost a century, looked at the impact of learning science on religious belief.

04:00 - So if learning science leads to less religious belief, there's something about the scientific method that's incompatible with religion. And then this theory of conflict over fact claims would be correct. So for almost a hundred years, sociologists have examined the religiosity of scientists who obviously have a lot of scientific training. Okay, well, the finding is that they are somewhat less religious than other people.

04:28 - not hugely so, but there is, a difference. And the more you go up the prestige scale, like members of the National academies and things like this, they're less religious than your average, you know, college professor of biology. But there is this effect. now the tradition I'm using in this paper is something people have also done a lot of, which is, let's look at learning science by undergraduate students at college and university.

04:58 - So if leading science leads, if learning science leads to students having less religion, then there is something about learning secular observational analysis of the natural world that is in conflict with religion. so, and then let's put some more fine grained versions of this. there are are so many claims for which there's no conflict that we wanna get specific about what kind of claims.

05:26 - So if I were to find the most art Protestant fundamentalist in the United States and ask them how to determine the speed of butterfly wings, they would describe the scientific method for me perfectly. There's just these few things which, which they dissent. So ma and most of the religions in the United States, there's no fact conflict even among the leaders with science. So Catholicism has no fact claim conflict with science, what's called mainline Protestantism in the

05:55 - United States. In the uk This would be roughly equivalent to the Church of England. There is no fact conflict among people who are called evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are a few fact claims that are in conflict, all having to do with human origins. Where does humans come from? How old's earth? That kind of thing. so those are the more specific literature that I'm, embedding this study in. So, you know, if you look at what else we know,

06:19 - if you look at historians and other social scientists, it's unlikely that the mere act of investigating nature with a secular lens somehow leads you to not believe in God. It must be something slightly different. So I, I wanted to design a study and I took advantage of a sort of an unusual data set in the United States, which is, there's a institute at uc, Los Angeles, that has interviewed at incoming college students

06:46 - since 1966. And I was able to use surveys with over a hundred thousand of these students. And importantly, they ask these students, a bunch of questions when they enter and then when they leave college. And these surveys are used to say, what does college do to you? So to take an obvious one, students who show up very idealistic when they leave are

07:11 - less so, okay? But they also have measures of religion. So in year one, they say, so what is your religious preference? One of the options was none. Okay? So it is like people with no religion. And they also asked how often you attend religious services. And so with this, I can measure a change between year one and year four. So I can identify students

07:37 - who had a religious affiliation in year one, but don't in their final year of college. I can also measure how much their participation in religion dropped across, those four years. And so let's, in regular language, you, you could say which students secularized, while they were in college. Now again, the traditional theory would be learning what causes the most secularization.

08:05 - And the answer would be learning science would cause the most secularization. Well, luckily, for this dataset, they also ask in their senior year, what was your major? And there's 86, majors that they asked about. And I'll skip the details of that for now. there's also a more fine grain version, which is I asked about like loss of religion. Well, I also wanna see loss of a particular religion. So again, do people who start off

08:36 - as conservative Protestants, which are fundamentalists and evangelicals, do they have a more greater loss of religion because it's actually going after what they believe? So I tested the idea that science majors cause this, secularization among students. but I also want to test something else, which is if it's not facts about the natural world, what is it?

09:07 - And there's another academic literature that suggests it's inquiry into your taking for granted assumptions. Okay? So it turns out you can divide the majors in universities into those that teach people to inquire about their basic assumptions and those that don't. So for example, in biology, you might think that all these animals are unrelated to humans, but in actuality, if you look at the DNA,

09:36 - we're like whatever it is, 99% like a chimpanzee, okay? Or in, sociology you might think that gender works like such and such, but in actuality it's something else. Okay? Now I contrast this to applied disciplines where the point is not to question foundational notions of knowledge or claims, but just apply them. So for example, engineering is basically applied science, okay? You're not supposed to ask if calculus works,

10:09 - you're just supposed to apply it, okay? Similarly, education is applied, business is applied, nursing is applied. There's a whole bunch of these. You can divide undergraduate experience into these two camps. Okay? So maybe that's the difference of what's happening in college. So, with that I was able to compare, all these groups of majors to see which is the most secularizing.

10:38 - So when you do all the math here on this study, the top line, which is not exactly addressed in the hypothesis, but interesting to know, is that 11.3% of students in the United States lose their faith in college and 55% declined attendance over time. That is sort of well known among sociologists of religion. That's not surprising, but no one's actually looked at what sort of college experience, leads to this. so what major led to the most religious decline?

11:09 - So if there is an incompatibility between examining the natural world and religion, it should be biology. Okay? And then maybe physics would be maybe next in line. Okay? So what are the top secularizing major? So let the listener make their guess in their head, okay? And then I'll tell you the number one secularizing major women's studies. Okay? Number two, anthropology. Okay, then physics, okay, then philosophy,

11:42 - then earth science, then art, then microbiology. Okay? Biology is actually kind of in the middle somewhere in terms of its secularizing force. So It turns out that it's not natural science, learning natural science that secularizes, if anything, it's social science in the humanities that secularize not the natural science. So look at this all together. There is a relationship

12:09 - between whether your major is science or non-science secular. There's not this relationship, I'm sorry, but there's a very large effect of having an inquiry type major versus an applied major inquiry. Be it inquiring into the nature of atoms or inquiring about the nature of society that leads to less religion. Why would that be? Generally what it's doing is you learned religion as a child, okay?

12:39 - And you were told you just have faith in this. They're essentially training people to not just take things on faith, okay? But it doesn't have to do with investigating the natural world per se. It's more like a mindset towards questioning that leads to secularization. So then I got one step more specific, which is, is this secularized impact of inquiry type majors stronger for people who started out as conservative Protestants,

13:12 - who are again, the one sort of fairly different group. I mean the Catholicism in the United States at least, and mainland Protestantism and other religions have really made a deal with the secular world. And so as a young person, you wouldn't feel any conflict really at all. Okay? But there are more beliefs in conservative prostatism that are distinct from what's taught in most universities that would be violated by these inquiry sort of majors.

13:38 - So just to take one example, conservative Protestants in the United States tend to teach traditional gender roles. Okay? Well that's not what you're being taught in a sociology or women's studies department. Okay? And so was that the case? Yes. The conservative Protestants had a stronger secularizing effect from these inquiry sorts of majors. The academic implications of this is that the mere fact

14:07 - of the secular investigation of the natural world is not in conflict with contemporary religion. this makes sense. But then what is a religion and science conflict about? 'cause we hear about this all the time. Scientists are very concerned about this. And again, I'm speaking, this is an American dataset, so I'm more speaking, to that. but what hap needs

14:28 - to happen in the United States at least, is that scientists in particular need to realize that when the public doesn't agree with them, it's not because of any sort of fact conflicts, it's because of moral conflicts. And one of the great missteps in the covid, era was scientists basically saying, let me tell you more facts. Lemme tell you more facts. That's not for the vast Majority of people,

14:52 - up they believe science have the ability to develop facts. It's more about morals. And so I think I'm trying to shift the debate, in that question. so the main implication of the study is that we need to figure out exactly what's going on between religion and science, which allows for a more constructive debate forward in the public sphere.

Faculti AI can make mistakes