Believe It or Not

News and trends from the religious realm with Kate Shellnutt

More than one in five atheists scientists are also spiritual


About 20 percent of natural and social scientists consider themselves spiritual. (Fotolia)


“There’s spirituality among even the most secular scientists,” said Elaine Howard Ecklund, the lead author of the study, which will be published in the June issue of Sociology of Religion. “Spirituality pervades both the religious and atheist thought. It’s not an either/or. This challenges the idea that scientists, and other groups we typically deem as secular, are devoid of those big ‘Why am I here?’ questions. They too have these basic human questions and a desire to find meaning.”

Of the 275 natural and social scientists interviewed, 72 said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious. They described their spiritual beliefs as “individual, personal and personally constructed” rather than religious, which they considered “organized, communal, unified and collective.”

“Our results show that scientists hold religion and spirituality as being qualitatively different kinds of constructs,” said Ecklund. “These spiritual atheist scientists are seeking a core sense of truth through spirituality — one that is generated by and consistent with the work they do as scientists.”

Despite the spiritual atheists that make up about 20 percent of scientists at American universities, most believe that religion isn’t welcome in the classroom, laboratory or research facility, with more than half worried that religion could hurt academia and science. Ecklund’s research, rather than focusing on the most religious scientists or the most anti-religious scientists, has revealed a better picture of the complex personal and professional lives of the people who fall in between. These people might be Christians who “closet” their faith at work or atheists who seek a spiritual practice.

She writes for the Huffington Post about Faith in the American University:

The truth, however, is that nearly 50 percent of academic scientists have a religious identity (although this identity is very different in character than the rest of the religious American population) and a majority of them are interested in spirituality. So why don’t we hear more about them? Why don’t they speak up in faculty meetings? And why isn’t there more meaningful dialogue about religion and science on the campuses of our nation’s elite universities?

Well, for one thing, those scientists who think religion is both an important form of knowledge and a compelling belief system say they sometimes experience bias within their universities. They feel as if they’re discriminated against — or they would be, should they share their views. So they often feel as if they have to keep these views a secret. Which means these scientists are only rarely engaging students in meaningful dialogue about their faith, to the point where students — and colleagues — often cannot even tell that these scientists are religious in any sense.


In related news, for the first time ever, students can get a degree in secularism. Pitzer College in California has become the first to offer the major, which will “will teach courses like ‘God, Darwin and Design in America,’ ‘Anxiety in the Age of Reason’ and ‘Bible as Literature,'” according to CNN’s Belief blog.

Kate Shellnutt

38 Responses

  1. Mike says:

    Um…doesn’t the study actually state that about one in FOUR scientists are spiritual atheists? This is quite different than saying nearly one in FOUR atheist scientists are spiritual. I mean, QUITE different.

    I understand that you simply repeated what was written in the Rice link you provided (they got it wrong too, good going Rice PR department!).

  2. Scott says:

    There is something, I think a reconnect to nature and the natural forces, that happens when one is surfing an ocean wave or climbing the face of a mountain. The scope, power, and magnitude of places not covered in concrete and exhaust in themselves are humbling and awe-inspiring enough and all the more so with the realization of the processes by which the mountain came to be and the ocean came to churn. For a wonderful summation of the amazing history of the Universe read “Origins of Existence” by Fred Adams.

    Interesting post today.

  3. GS says:

    The problem is with the ambiguity of the term “spiritual.” Of course many of us scientists are concerned with “big questions” about origins and purpose–and even as to what constitute legitimate and meaningful questions. Epistemology and philosophy of science help to refine scientific methodology, and “big questions” motivate great research.

    But let’s not confuse scientific “spirituality” with the religious type. Many non-religious scientists are not particularly concerned with material values or pursuits, which is one denotation for “spiritual.” But we don’t believe in souls, ghosts, goblins, supernatural, or any other phenomena without a sound basis of support.

    Theists, by definition, believe in supernaturalism. If there were any basis to supernatural phenomena, scientists would believe in them, too. (In fact, if there were any basis, they wouldn’t be called supernatural anymore.)

  4. steve k says:

    Astronomically speaking, since there are probably more than 100 billion galaxies in the universe, it is absurd to think we are unique. But it does give one a sense of the grandeur of the creation, whoever did it.

  5. Chitlin says:

    Like the song by Freddie Fender that goes “Wasted days and wasted nights, / I have left for you Behind / for you don’t belong to me, / your heart belongs to someone else.” Nuff said.

  6. i says:

    They don’t speak up more because their spirituality tends to be non-christian, a fact which annoys those who use the Judeo-Christian belief system as their preferred method of spiritual practice. Christians are usually harmless. Why provoke them?

  7. db64 says:

    I do not believe in the existence of atheists.

    • ILoveGreatDanes says:

      Then you, db64, are just as delusional as people who believe in the existence of God. God is just as real as unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Claus.

  8. gerrydoggy says:

    Yes, the the report is confusing. Statistics are that scientists are split about 50/50 between atheists or agnostics and deists and theists. So, it must be talking about the 20% of atheist scientists…

  9. Gene says:

    I question the definition of atheism used in this context. If one is “spiritual”, then one is not an atheist. To hold anything else is to assume a narrow and western biased view of what “religion” is.

    To steal an aphorism from Joseph Campbell, myth, or spirituality, in this context, is other people’s religion.

    The fact that these spiritual beliefs are “individual, personal and personally constructed” simply means that they are finding new metaphors that work in the context of their understanding of the world.

    Also, as a student of the natural sciences, there is no question that what draws me to these studies is exactly the contemplation of “the big questions.”

    • BwS says:

      Gene, I question your basic premise. Atheism (a belief in no-god) is not opposed to sprirituality unless your belief that spirituality implies a God or gods. Buddhists for example are spiritual but they do not have God in their basic tenets. It doesn’t mean that Buddhists cannot belief in God, but it is separate from Buddhism.
      I would wear the mantle of “spiritual athiest” since it seems to fit me in my own beliefs and practice. I have experiences that I cannot explain in the physical/mental/emotional modality, so I think of it as ‘spiritual’, but I what I’ve gleaned from religions I have experienced and/or studied doesn’t fit for me either.

    • Fan of Campbell says:

      As someone who has read/listened to a lot of Joseph Campbell, I am jealous of you understanding/articulation of his teachings. Your comment hit it spot on.

  10. carpenter says:

    Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

    • P Smith says:

      No, it sounds like an agenda by someone at Rice, a conservative christian-run university. And posting “results” in the Snuffington Compost instead of submitting them to a reputable journal for review makes them immediately questionable.

      On top of that, someone is going to have to define “spiritual”. The word is nebulous and the interviewer it may have a different definition than the interviewee.

      One of the most common tactics of slime like Frank Luntz to forge false “survey results” is to “define” a word one way when doing a survey, then using a different definition when claiming results, and falsely claiming those who answered positively to the first definition “agreed” with the second when no such thing happened.


  11. Chi_Gamma_Iota says:

    I wasn’t aware that there is such a thing as a “spiritual atheist” since the term atheist describes a philosophy that refutes the existence of anything that is not part of the physical universe. In short, atheists do not believe in anything spiritual. If these scientists do, then they a spiritualists and not atheist.

  12. me says:

    Spiritual vs relegious – One and the same IMO. The headline should read “1 in 5 self proclaimed atheist scientists don’t know the difference between agnostic and atheist.” (Maybe that’s a little too long).

  13. justrational says:

    What hogwash!

    Earlier commntators: article claims 1 in 5, but some of you said 1 in 4. Big difference, sloppy thinking right there.

    More important, who the hell knows what anyone means by ‘spiritual but atheist’? Might just mean I don’t kick babies or animals, i.e. I’m ethical. That should be expected.

    If anything, I think believers are the least ethical people on earth! They kill each other routinely when they believe different things (see the Copt-killing in Egypt this week, or how Israeli settlers and Palestinians treat each other).

    Also, this apparently includes both real scientists and social studies professors (who like to be called social scientists because it makes them sound more intelligent than they really are; but they don’t do real science).

    Last, since when does thinking about whether life has meaning make you ‘spiritual’? That’s silly. You’re accusing nice smart people of being normal, and then pretending that means they are closet religious people when they aren’t.

  14. Joshua says:

    This is pointless. Why should scientists have to speak up about their personal beliefs? Scientists are scientists because they believe in proof and evidence. They come to conclusions based on formulated and processed developments. If scientists should start to speak up about their personal religious beliefs then why don’t priests start mentioning the bibles fallacies? Why don’t they speak of the facts? Religion is a personal subject, leave it to the religion lovers and the priests- end of story.

    • PayAttention says:

      This was not testimony. They did not have to speak up, but this bit of information is important to the academic world and to clarify the often contentious discussions concerning conflicts between those who distrust scientists as agents of Satan and those who see science as useful, but separate from matters of faith. I further helps to smack down those in Academia who falsely equate atheism with an understanding of scientific principles. Just because some “x” is not a necessary variable in every equation does not mean that the “x” does not exist. The conflict is generally between those who try to use the Bible as a science book and those who try to use Science for metaphysical truth, and it is important that some are capable of understanding the difference between and value of both. They wind up having to use terms like “spiritual” to indicate that they disagree with both extremes and are not going to be baited into a discussion using the biased terms of the extremes.

  15. Reasons to Believe says:

    According to Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, the Bible is the holy book that predicted that the earth was created and not always present, and also that the universe is expanding. Both of these facts were only confirmed relatively recently by science. See the Reasons to Believe website for more resources: And Sir Isaac Newton was a believer in Jesus and Bible prophesy. No one can successfully accuse that scientist of being an airhead.

    Life can also get more personal and spiritual, as opposed to religious, in a way consistent with God’s intent, by a person becoming born again into the Spirit through messiah Jesus, the son of God. The spirit of science without the creator who made the laws of nature can bind us into a lifeless, loveless, hopeless reality, but the living God almighty loves us all and is able and willing free anyone who seeks him.

    • PayAttention says:

      A lot of ancient religions have cosmologies that could claim these early calls. For many, the stars and planets were abodes of higher beings. Some say that they predict extraterrestrial life, and others say “no, they were just talking about their gods”. The conflict is not so much between whether ancient scriptures contain truth or wisdom, but how such truth and wisdom is to be used. Young would-be scientists raised in communities where to question established truth was sinful are inclined to reject everything from that mindset until it can be proven, since many of the teachings were observably false. That rejection may throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it has an understandable cause emotionally, even if it is not actually scientifically sound. Actual scientific method only seeks non-supernatural causes merely because supernatural causes would by definition be beyond experimentation, exempt from natural law, and hence unverifyable scientifically. You simply cannot define the supernatural in terms of natural law, so it is undefined, like division by zero, in terms of science. This leads many in that worldview to extrapolate that is is undefined in reality, but this like the carpenter who only has a hammer and begins to see the world as a series of nails. There is no scientific rational for morality, for example. Some will rationalize perceived morality as an evolutionary advantage of some sort, but that is different from determining what moral values would be “good”, because science can not derive “good” within that system.

  16. priceofcivilization says:

    Wow, only 20% So, that’s good news: 80% say they aren’t ‘spiritual’ in any way (even when clearly the question is meant to get a ‘yes’ response)! Amazing. If 60% is a landslide in politics, what is 80% when it comes to something as controversial as religion? (Dare I say it? I think this is a miracle!)

  17. Jennifer says:

    I think the question that can’t be answered is where the energy came from that led to the creation of the universe and all that we see and know. Even scientists don’t have the answer to that question, or do they? That alone would lead one to acknowledge anunknowable and stimulate speculation if not belief in an “original source.”

  18. Brian says:

    This is silly. Of course, almost all scientists are non-religious. To say that nearly 50 percent of scientists have a religious identity is absurd. This is what the huffpo article says. What does that mean? She interviewed “scientists” at “elite” American universities… right… like Rice? Does it make sense to include sociologists and political science professors as “scientists”? What is the point of saying that they are “spiritual”? Okay, so I wonder about how we got here and I am amazed at the complexity of the universe. And I like to do yoga. That does not mean I believe in any imaginary desert gods, not to mention the whole silly Jesus story. He died for our sins… really?

  19. Dave says:

    I can believe in God and Christ without physical proof. I can also believe that Abraham and Mohammad were Prophets, Peace be upon them. I can still be based in science in the physical world. After all as I get older the more I learn the less I know. In 1994 the Hubble telescope brought us the the Deep Field View of space. We learned that there were millions upon millions of galaxies that “we” did not know about or even suspect existed. From an esoteric view, did these galaxies not exist before Hubble? Just because the current technology can not prove God exists, does not mean He doesn’t. Science should always seek the truth, God wants the truth to be known.

    • BwS says:

      “God wants the truth to be known” says who? You? Does (S)He speak directly to you? Or some ancient scripture writen by men who say it’s God’s word?
      Spirituality is not Religion. Spirituality is a sense of there being more than what is physical/mental/emotional; once you start putting beliefs/tenets/rules to it then it becomes Religion (IMHO).
      One can live a wonderful and wonder-filled life without spirituality or religion; the Universe is awesome!

    • PayAttention says:

      The classic issue is that as humans, we get hung up on defining these words in ways that create false conflict. Our ability to “rationalize” is literally our ability to divide things up, even when division does not more closely resemble truth.
      You have something that, whether you define the details away philosophically, feels to you like your own mind, your own will. I can call that your spirit and we can argue over whether it is strictly a physical phenomenon or something more, but if one believes that they have the ability to choose what they do when they act, and that this is a natural manifestation of the physical properties of the brain, then what is spiritual need not be “more” than physical, but simply more than what could ever be measured and calculated according to the more strict view of physical laws that we call “science”, where things are either strictly caused by a prior effect or random probability. The distinction between what is natural and what is supernatural blurs a bit at the edges without affecting what is clearly natural, which falls within the scientific realm. You can measure and predict how every neuron and muscle would react to an impulse and still not explain “why” the brain chose that impulse, unless you are willing to say that there is never a choice beyond stimulus-response, no spirit, no soul, no person who actually initiates a reaction from nothing but will. That is a leap of spirituality that does not preclude a worldview based strictly in the physical universe.

  20. D.Bheemeswar says:

    Where is the spirituality here, it is seen no where. if we go to most so called spiritual leaders they are all after their name and fame and also after the people who have power and wealth and not for the common people. if you go to famous temple/church/mosque we can see the same tend, people with power and wealth shall be given top priority. If it is head of the country or state it may be different affair, where is this spirituality. So we depending on our convenience change the meaning of the spirituality. Only one thing we get from such studies is that in what sort of rut or mess we are all living and messing up people we are all. Finally neither the snake is dead nor the stick is broken. The people who are satanic ( anti-socials) are there every where spoiling the mind and body of each and every one under the name of either atheist or believer. As far as if there is no spiritual awareness in a person there is no progress for the mankind on this earth.

  21. D.Bheemeswar says:

    It is good research. what is meant by atheist, if it is non-believing in god, it is wrong, who the concept of this god came into their minds. Probably their experience may be different or the process by which they have grown up is different. If we go through the epics of Indian origin, we find that all the evil minded persons first of all got boons from one or another god(divine figure)after which they started questioning the existence of those who gave them those powers or even birth. what a dilemma it is. Even today the people who get elected to coveted posts do not look back at those who have voted them to power. They just go on getting into materialistic aspects in one way or other. And also do all sorts of jumbling and also employ dubious methods to retain that position and neglect the common public who are the back bone of democracy and start exploiting their sentiments and also loot them from all the corners. Can we call this as demonocracy or evilocracy. Now most of the countries are all ruled by these type of the persons.Where is spirituality in this. If we go for scientific field they are all working for their laurels and perks and not for the common man, they just break the rules of nature for their selfish motives or for somebody else who have employed them. It is the same case with government machinery which is supposed to take the democracy right back into the people from all corners of the life, change the rules depending on their convenience.

  22. pindar says:

    This kind article demonstrates the reflexive anti-atheist bias out there. “They are just pretending to be atheists …” “They will suffer discrimination if they reveal their true religious feelings …” bogus

    • P Smith says:

      The “study” is full of weasel words used by weasels. Their “definitions” and interpretations of what they see are products of their own bias.

      How would a catholic feel to be defined by others as a pedophile-protector? A jew defined by others as a “christ-killer”? A fundamentalist baptist defined by others as a KKKlansman?

      That’s what’s being done here, deliberately inaccurate terms used to describe atheists by people who aren’t, by people who want to avoid fair and honest definitions of those different than themselves.


  23. Michael Fuller says:

    Religion is different from being spiritual. Religion fractures itself into belief sets that tend to be totalitarian in aspect (ie, they want YOU to follow their rules.) Einstein said he wanted to know the mind of God. He didn’t say which God (he assumed it would be a rational one, so probably all religious “gods” are off the table.) Science is in awe of the universe and wants to know its secrets. Why would this be a contradiction? It is completely obvious.

  24. WalkTheTalk says:

    “72 said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious”.
    Wrong! Science is what man knows. Being spiritual is way being beyond science.

  25. Bill in Houston says:

    What is “spiritual” anyway?

    To these folks it is a copout. They probably believe they will face ridicule if they claim, “I believe in God” so they punt. Most of academia (where most of these scientists work) is very liberal and very anti-Christian religion. Using “spiritual” is just a dodge to avoid undue attention from the leftist PC police and the intolerance of their non-religious peers.

    Back in the real universe, they’d be called Agnostic Theists.

  26. theocdog says:

    Theres nothing wrong with spirituality and theres nothing wrong with being religious. Just as long as you put logic, critical thinking, and reason before jumping to conclusions and start preaching it to the world.