Content Matters: Perceptions of the Science-Religion Relationship

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY International Journal for the Psychology of Religion Pub Date : 2021-12-10 DOI:10.1080/10508619.2021.2003111
C. Leicht, C. Sharp, Jordan P. LaBouff, Natalia Zarzeczna, Fern Esldon-Baker
{"title":"Content Matters: Perceptions of the Science-Religion Relationship","authors":"C. Leicht, C. Sharp, Jordan P. LaBouff, Natalia Zarzeczna, Fern Esldon-Baker","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2021.2003111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Science and religion are often portrayed as monolithic entities in perpetual and necessary conflict. We explore the extent to which perceptions of conflict or compatibility between science and religion are content dependent and are associated with participants’ own religious or non-religious social identities. In doing so, we develop a novel Science and Religion Conflict/Compatibility Scale. Across three studies (n = 1,506), we consistently find group differences between atheists, agnostics or other non-religious individuals, and religious individuals. Religious individuals reported the highest levels of compatibility and atheists the highest levels of conflict between science and religion. Additionally, perceptions of conflict between science and religion were divided into two distinct content areas. The first included items concerning big-picture explanations, such as understanding the origins of human life. The second content area formed around items that describe interactions between humans and the world, such as treating mental illness. We conclude that research examining perceptions of conflict between science and religion needs to adopt a more nuanced approach, that takes into account individuals’ identities and the context in which the relationship between science and religion is discussed.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.2003111","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT Science and religion are often portrayed as monolithic entities in perpetual and necessary conflict. We explore the extent to which perceptions of conflict or compatibility between science and religion are content dependent and are associated with participants’ own religious or non-religious social identities. In doing so, we develop a novel Science and Religion Conflict/Compatibility Scale. Across three studies (n = 1,506), we consistently find group differences between atheists, agnostics or other non-religious individuals, and religious individuals. Religious individuals reported the highest levels of compatibility and atheists the highest levels of conflict between science and religion. Additionally, perceptions of conflict between science and religion were divided into two distinct content areas. The first included items concerning big-picture explanations, such as understanding the origins of human life. The second content area formed around items that describe interactions between humans and the world, such as treating mental illness. We conclude that research examining perceptions of conflict between science and religion needs to adopt a more nuanced approach, that takes into account individuals’ identities and the context in which the relationship between science and religion is discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内容问题:科学与宗教关系的认知
摘要科学和宗教经常被描绘成在永恒和必要的冲突中的整体。我们探讨了科学与宗教之间的冲突或兼容性在多大程度上取决于内容,并与参与者自己的宗教或非宗教社会身份相关。在这样做的过程中,我们开发了一个新的科学与宗教冲突/兼容性量表。在三项研究中(n=1506),我们一致发现无神论者、不可知论者或其他非宗教个人与宗教个人之间的群体差异。宗教人士的兼容性最高,无神论者的科学与宗教之间的冲突程度最高。此外,对科学和宗教之间冲突的看法被划分为两个不同的内容领域。第一个项目包括关于宏观解释的项目,例如了解人类生命的起源。第二个内容领域围绕着描述人类与世界之间互动的项目形成,例如治疗精神疾病。我们得出的结论是,研究对科学和宗教之间冲突的看法需要采取更细致的方法,考虑到个人的身份以及讨论科学和宗教关系的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR) is devoted to psychological studies of religious processes and phenomena in all religious traditions. This journal provides a means for sustained discussion of psychologically relevant issues that can be examined empirically and concern religion in the most general sense. It presents articles covering a variety of important topics, such as the social psychology of religion, religious development, conversion, religious experience, religion and social attitudes and behavior, religion and mental health, and psychoanalytic and other theoretical interpretations of religion. The journal publishes research reports, brief research reports, commentaries on relevant topical issues, book reviews, and statements addressing articles published in previous issues. The journal may also include a major essay and commentaries, perspective papers of the theory, and articles on the psychology of religion in a specific country.
期刊最新文献
God, Can I Give Up?: The Diverging Effects of God-Related Thoughts on Task Persistence in Chinese Buddhists and Taoists The Role of Religion in the Mental Health of Single Adults: A Mixed-Method Investigation Effects of Participating in Religious Groups on Mental Health Issues: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study Enriching the Common Core of Mystical Experience: A Qualitative Analysis of Interviews with Daoist Monks and Nuns The Existential Challenge of Religious Pluralism: Religion, Politics, and Meaning in Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1