Religious Belief and Science: A Reference Handbook

Abstract

RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND SCIENCE: A Reference Handbook by Glenn H. Utter. Bloomsbury, 2025. 264 pages. Hardcover; $75.00. ISBN: 9781440881060. *Author and editor Glenn Utter offers a penetrating examination of the contours of the historical relationship between science and religion in the United States, including how that relationship continues to play out in the present day. As professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Lamar University, he demonstrates his aptitude for political and legal studies throughout the book, looking at religious groups and individuals who attempt to influence science in contemporary society. He remains critical, but not antagonistic, of the influence of religious individuals and groups on science and presents religion in America in all its diversity and theological variety (briefly including non-Christian religions). *Utter divides the book into seven chapters: "Background and History"; "Problems, Controversies, and Solutions"; "Perspectives"; "Profiles"; "Documents"; "Resources"; and "Chronology." The first two chapters briefly discuss some of the differing perspectives on the relationship between science and religion and the major historical confrontations that continue to unfold in the USA. This relationship is complex and not always appropriately understood or approached by either members of the scientific community or those in religious communities. In some instances, these two communities possess strikingly similar views on certain questions while disagreeing sharply on other perspectives. *Chapter three, entitled "Perspectives," presents five essays by political science and sociology scholars addressing topics such as flat-earthers, religious attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine, and belief in extra-terrestrial life. Taken together, these show patterns linking fundamentalist religious beliefs to anti-science views. The reader may choose to skim through chapters four through seven, due to their glossary-like formats. However, these chapters hold a wealth of information about the varied approaches to the relationship between science and religion in America. The latter chapters address everything from concepts such as concordism and non-overlapping magisterium (NOMA), to movements such as the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) and intelligent design (ID). Utter even briefly discusses the American Scientific Association (ASA) and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) in chapters four and six. *Repeatedly, Utter uses legal debates to discuss how religion influences science, and vice versa, in the American court system. Through legal cases presented in chapter five, he makes it apparent that fundamentalist Christianity has posed (and continues to pose) a threat to the advancement of scientific research. The fact that the court system serves as an arbiter between religion and science need not jeopardize Christian or religious communities since science operates based on methodological naturalism. Christian groups who have tried to use the court system to "foist [their] religious beliefs on others" (p. 188) often remain more concerned with protecting what they perceive to be a Christian culture than with allowing science to operate as intended. *PSCF readers may find that Utter's use of legal rulings looks amicably at the kind of approach to science and religion encouraged by ASA. For example, Utter quotes in chapter five ("Documents") from the decision of Judge John E. Jones, in the 2005 Tammy Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District et al. trial that "[r]epeatedly ,,, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator" (p. 198). For the religious believer, this legal presentation of science and religious belief proves sobering and even encouraging. Religion, particularly orthodox religion, still retains a significant role to play in helping individuals and communities find ultimate meaning, while science helps people understand the true nature of observable reality. *Religious Belief and Science offers practical resources for Christians seeking to incorporate science-religion dialogue into the lives of their congregations. Chapters four ("Profiles") and six ("Resources") cover individuals and materials that can inspire and serve as discipleship tools. For example, Utter includes Greg Cootsona, who helped develop the Science for the Church web resource and the Science and Technology for Emerging Adult Ministries (STEAM) initiative. Other examples include theologian Ted Peters, who has published extensively on science and religion, and Naomi Oreskes, author of Why Trust Science? *The book could expand on the relationship between higher levels of education, religious beliefs, and correlating views toward science amongst the American public. For instance, one of the essays in chapter three addresses "Unitarian-Universalists and Science." Jeffrey S. Victor writes, "The disproportionate level of college-educated membership among Unitarians may account for their positive attitude toward science. Unitarians have the highest percentage (67 percent) of any American religious group (except Hindus) who have a college or graduate school education (Pew, 2016)" (p.?103). Glenn Branch, in his chapter titled "The Evolution of Understanding the American Public's Understanding of Evolution," states, "one analysis found that among those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, 31 percent of those with less than a high school education, but only 10 percent of those with a graduate degree, accepted human evolution" (p. 116). *These two quotes suggest that Utter and the contributors in chapter three see fundamentalist religious beliefs as an obstruction to accepting evolution and other findings of scientific research (e.g., climate change). Although Victor's assessment may seem contradictory to Branch's statement that "10 percent of those with a graduate degree accepted human evolution," they are both describing the idea that more liberal religious beliefs tend toward better acceptance of science. As Victor points out, 85% of Unitarians do not believe that the Bible is the word of God (p. 104). If Unitarians have a positive attitude toward science and higher levels of education, and those who believe the Bible is the word of God and have graduate degrees largely reject evolution, does this mean belief in the Bible as the word of God obstructs acceptance of science? Utter could expand a bit more, then, on whether one simply must take on liberal religious beliefs to be more open to science. *Ultimately, Christian scientists, laypeople, ministers, atheists, agnostics, and practitioners of non-Christian religions gain a better understanding of the landscape of science and religion in American society by reading Religious Belief and Science. It may prove useful for classroom settings, particularly undergraduate or graduate level courses in philosophy, political science, American history, theology, and religious studies. *Reviewed by Cade Chrastina, Independent Scholar, Chicago, IL 60615.