Abstract
The volume brings together different areas of sociology that explore the relationship between science and belief, opting for ‘belief’ rather than ‘religion’ to incorporate both religious and non-religious interactions. The book’s 12 chapters, divided into four parts, explore debates in the sociology of science, the sociology of non-religion and the sociology of religion, expanding the traditional focus on Christianity, churches and secularisation to new approaches which map the changing social formation of belief, analysing science and religion as facets of lived identity.
The authors hope that bringing together these hitherto separate fields of enquiry in sociology will show how they can inform each other, in essence, crossing the disciplines. It is noteworthy that the book’s content is grounded in the field of public understanding of science, in particular as it relates to science and belief, and has implications for science communication activities.
In the first part, Methodological Challenges in the Study of Science and Belief, Chapter 1 examines debates about the conflict narrative, Barbour’s four models of conflict, interdependency, dialogue and integration, and the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) implied notion of a knowledge-deficit public. The second chapter explores survey items on the conflict thesis and the roles of scientism and religious communities in the debate. The third asks whether labels such as Creationism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design and New Atheism accurately represent public perspectives. Chapter 4 notes that typologies such as Barbour’s and other tools of analysis, while creating a framework for understanding, may perpetuate or challenge existing stereotypes.
In the second part, Belief in the Study of Science and Technology, Chapter 5 asks the question to what extent is ‘doing science’ similar to ‘doing religion’. Recalling the meso- and micro-level studies of Robert Merton and Ludwick Fleck, respectively, the chapter notes that the most promising route to overcoming dichotomisation would be to recognise that the two are connected. Chapter 6 explores how Indian scientists disagree with the conflict thesis and how they define their religious life by claiming to be ‘rational believers’ as distinct from ‘superstitious’ laypersons. Chapter 7 provides an overview of research on Muslim publics’ understanding of and attitudes to evolutionary science and the perception of Islam as an obstacle. The author calls for more attention to the diversity of Muslim publics.
Chapters 8–10 make up Part 3, Science, Culture and Non-religion. Chapter 8 explores British narratives of science, the idea that the non-religious have a distinctively positive relationship with science and the role of the affinity thesis in sustaining its antithesis, conflict, in popular discourse. Chapter 9 examines the Swedish Humanist Association’s understanding of science, the actors and phenomena they perceive as threats to science and how they use references to science in their lobbying and activism. The New Atheism as a social movement and their efforts to demarcate the boundaries of legitimate science are the focus of chapter 10. The chapter argues that multiculturalism is antithetical to the movement’s vision of a world where law, morality and justice are administered by scientists.
In Part 4, Religion, Conflict and Moderation, Chapter 11 argues for a social and educative programme of religious and scientific literacy to temper the over-reach of religiously exclusivist creationists and to foster the balanced reasoning of inclusivity. Chapter 12 explores the discourse on science and Islam in contemporary Britain, arguing that Muslims do not differ greatly from the general population when it comes to views on science and that the category ‘Islam’ is heterogeneous.
The contributors to this book enumerate some of the issues with current approaches in science, belief and society studies, recognising that question-wording, popular but unfounded assumptions, culture, context and types of religious and non-religious views can all influence the public’s understanding of science with direct effects on the success of science communication activities. Understanding the publics is the critical first step for a successful science communication campaign, and the book has shown how varied ‘publics’ can be, even within established categories, with different implications for public perceptions. The book is highly recommended for cross-cultural studies of public understanding of science, and I do hope the authors will update periodically, with new insights from other countries and religions not in the current edition.