The Faithful Scientist: Experiences of Anti-Religious Bias in Scientific Training
Christopher P. Scheitle. NYU Press, 2023. 218 pages
Reviewed by Patricia H. Kelley
One October afternoon in 1977, as we were dissecting specimens in our Biology of Mollusks lab, the PhD student with whom I’d been chatting stared at me in disbelief. “Oh my God!” she exclaimed. “You’re working with Stephen Jay Gould on evolution and your husband is a student in the Divinity School? Don’t you fight all the time?” Taken aback by the question, I laughed nervously, “Not about evolution!”
Though I’ve long forgotten this student’s name (I’ll call her “Tina”), I’ve thought about our conversation many times during subsequent decades. Why would Tina think it strange that a paleontology doctoral student studying evolution was married to an incipient Presbyterian minister? Did Tina not know anything about religion? Did she not know anything about evolution?
The Faithful Scientist: Experiences of Anti-Religious Bias in Scientific Training, by Christopher P. Scheitle, helped me evaluate the climate of bias in my own experience as a religious PhD student. In the context of Scheitle’s book, I should not have been surprised by Tina’s question. She was simply expressing a pervasive view that science (especially fields dealing with evolution) and religion inherently conflict.
Although studies of the religiosity of scientists date back more than a century, The Faithful Scientist is unusual in its focus on the religious identity and experiences of “scientists-in-training,” i.e., students in PhD programs, the point at which students typically take on the identity of “scientist” and are socialized into the community of science. Scheitle surveyed randomly selected doctoral students in physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology at elite schools (within the top 60 programs in their discipline as ranked by US News and World Report). Of 4,000 students contacted, 36% (more than 1,300 students) submitted responses to a web-based survey. The survey was followed by recorded in-depth interviews of 65 respondents, focusing on students identified as religious. Religiosity was determined based on responses to survey questions about beliefs, religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, religious practices, and upbringing.
Based on the results of the survey and interviews, Scheitle paints a picture of PhD student experiences, including those of anti-religious bias and hostility, and addresses several questions: Are religious scientists torn by internal theological tensions between science and faith, or do they suffer more from external, social stressors? Do religious and nonreligious scientists view their life and work differently? How does religion factor into efforts to support diversity in science (including gender and racio-ethnic diversity)?
The book is well crafted, organized into six chapters plus an introduction and conclusion. Each chapter engages the reader with an opening vignette based on the experiences of one or two students interviewed, including quotes from the interview transcripts. The vignettes really drew me in. I found myself thinking, “oh, wow, her feelings were the same as mine,” or “oh, no, how could someone treat her like that?” Each chapter builds on these vignettes and weaves in experiences of additional students, analyzing their implications as related to a broader theme. Chapters conclude with a statement about the issues to be addressed in the next chapter(s). This format made the book easy to follow and encouraged me to keep reading.
Chapter 1, “The Religious Lives of Scientists-in-Training,” describes previous studies of religiosity of scientists and the limited work regarding scientists-in-training. The chapter summarizes the results for the degree of religiosity of survey respondents. The religious affiliation of respondents were 25% Christian, 4% Jew, 9% other (e.g., Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu), and 62% unaffiliated. Religion represented an important part of identity for about 20% of the students surveyed — a sizeable minority. Differences among disciplines were not notable.
Chapter 2 explores “Views on the Religion-Science Relationship,” beginning with a review of Ian Barbour’s typology of perspectives, categorized as conflict, independence, and collaboration. Scheitle notes the dominance of the conflict narrative in popular culture; Tina’s question to me in the mollusk lab reflects that widely held position. The PhD students surveyed fell into three categories. Those who were nonreligious viewed religion and science as conflicting, especially because of their recent politicization. Slightly religious students supported the view that religion and science were independent of each other, for example, as proposed by Steve Gould’s “nonoverlapping magisteria.” Religious students did not find a conflict between their faith and their science and supported a collaborative relationship between the two; some stated that religion inspired their scientific work, or that the two reinforced each other.
The next three chapters explore aspects of students’ graduate school experiences and their goals for the future. Chapter 3 focuses on “Stigma and Hostility,” which characterized the experiences of several religious students who were interviewed. “An assumption of universal atheism can dominate the culture of science graduate programs” (71) so that students who reveal that they are religious may be mocked or otherwise disrespected or perceived as less scientifically capable. As a result, some students choose to hide their religious identity. This chapter, with its heart-rending stories, resonated with me; as a future minister’s wife I was unable to hide my religious identity when I was a doctoral student and, as happened to a student quoted in the chapter, was treated dismissively when I expressed reluctance about attending a course event scheduled outside of class time on Sunday morning — a time that I normally would be singing in the church choir.
Chapter 4, “Advisors and Peers,” stresses the importance of an advisor in a PhD student’s trajectory and provides survey data showing that a student’s religiosity does not negatively impact the advisor-student relationship. The survey did produce evidence, however, that a religious student’s relationships in their peer group can be affected. Religious students often seek community with a faith group that is separate from their scientific peers; they socialize less with peers, e.g., don’t go out drinking, and may not share the same priorities. As described in Chapter 5, “Identity and Purpose,” being a scientist may be less integral to a religious student’s identity. Some religious students place a greater priority on work that will benefit others in some way, for example, in a career focused more on teaching and service than research. Some draw connections between work ethic and faith. Religious identity may also affect the values placed on family life, the focus of Chapter 6, “Family and Career,” with religious graduate students at least twice as likely to be married and have a family. Very religious survey respondents also considered having children far more important (75% vs 29%) and having a prestigious job far less important (11% vs 21%) than did nonreligious respondents.
The book concludes with a discussion of “Religion and Diversity in Science,” arguing that science benefits from including diverse perspectives and individuals. Religious diversity is not usually considered when diversity in the sciences is discussed, yet the survey showed differences in religiosity based on gender, race, and ethnicity. “Diversifying the gender and racial or ethnic composition of the scientific workforce will likely require diversifying the religious composition of that workforce as well. In other words, ignoring or being hostile to the religious diversity of the scientific workforce may harm our ability to achieve diversity along other dimensions” (139-140). Survey results indicated that religious students bring different views on “meaning and nature of ethics in science, how science should engage and serve different segments of society, and what it means to have a successful career in science” (141). Scheitle makes several recommendations on how to move forward: graduate admissions programs should avoid stereotyping applicants for admission based on assumptions about religiosity; include religious communities when doing science outreach; challenge behaviors that isolate and stigmatize religious students; and recognize the value of religious diversity in science.
The Faithful Scientist is based on a robust, statistically rigorous study, but it’s also an easy, engaging read accessible to those without statistical expertise. Details about the study, including the survey instrument and interview questions, are available in the appendix. Footnotes are used appropriately, which means the narrative is not interrupted by data that may not be of general interest. Scheitle does an excellent job discussing implications of the results and exploring alternative explanations for his findings. The book is nicely designed and its tables are very informative.
The Faithful Scientist is an excellent resource for those interested in the relationship of science and faith and provides a compelling analysis of the experiences of science PhD students who identify as religious.
