The alleged irreligiosity of scientists, a topic recently popularized in social media, has its roots in what is known as a secularization theory. “The secularization thesis expresses the idea that as societies progress, particularly through modernization, rationalization, and advances in science and technology, the religious authority diminishes in all aspects of social life and governance^[1]”. The roots of this idea could be found in the Enlightenment period, especially in its French version^[2]. Among the classical sociologists, Auguste Comte is one of the earliest proponents of this idea. Comte maintained that knowledge advanced in three phases: theological phase, philosophical phase and positive or scientific phase. According to him, only with advances in science did people get rid of theological superstitions and philosophical abstractions and reached the third scientific phase.

Another sociologist who merits mention here is Max Weber^[3]. Weber believed that with the increased application of scientific and technical knowledge religion will no longer play a substantial role in modern society. From here the logic is straightforward: if science is responsible for the decline of religion, then scientists themselves should be the first to recant religion.

After the Second World War and with the decline of church attendance in the West many sociologists employed secularization theory as a tool to explain the role of religion in modern society^[4]. Between the 1950s and 1970s, this mode of thinking became orthodoxy^[5]. Among advocates of the secularization theory Bryan Wilson, for example, maintained that science was primarily responsible for the collapse of credibility of Christian faith^[6]. To be sure there were those who disagreed and some proponents of secularization theory did not explore the role of science in their theories^[7].

Since the 1980s^[8] the secularization theory has been heavily criticized, especially because the Western European pattern did not occur elsewhere. Peter Berger, who was previously quoted in the New York Times saying that “‘by the 21st century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects”^[9] abandoned his views on the secularization theory precisely because he understood that other regions are as religious as ever^[10]. To be sure, the secularization theory was criticized based on many different aspects, including the formerly influential belief, which we are primarily interested in here, that secularization is driven by impersonal forces of modernity, such as mass education and scientific advancement. Instead, secularization was seen as a revolution where the primary role is played by certain actors with specific ideological agendas ^[11]. David Martin maintained that science has nothing to do with secularization^[12] and similar views were expressed by still the proponent of the secularization theory Steve Bruce^[13]. Above mentioned Peter Berger also believes that the notion of modernity and secularization going ‘hand in hand’ is simply wrong^[14].

Rodney Stark in his critique of secularization also rejects the idea that science has caused increased disbelief^[15]. Zeynep Bulutgil in her recent account on the origins of secular institutions seems also, at least to a certain degree, to disagree with the relation between science and secularization: “After all, countries such as Pakistan and Morocco that have not adopted institutional secularization today have levels of urbanization and literacy higher than or comparable to countries such as Turkey or Albania in the late 1920s when those countries adopted these institutions”^[16]. Similar accounts could be found in the works of historians of science. Influential historian of science John Hedley Brook classifies the idea that “Modern Science Has Secularized Western Culture” as a myth^[17]. All in all, although there are still proponents of the secularization theory and others tried to maintain it with revisions, “there is little doubt that it has been significantly weakened”^[18] and lost “its dominant status in the sociology of religion”^[19].

It is worth mentioning that the history of rise and (relative) fall of secularization theory closely parallels the rise and (in its case almost complete) fall of another formerly influential theory in social sciences. John William Draper^[20] and Andrew Dickson White^[21] are usually ‘credited’ with the introduction of the conflict theory - the theory of irreconcilable and perpetual conflict between religion and science where triumphant science ultimately replaces religion^[22]. Both these authors are believed to popularize this notion during the late nineteenth-century ^[23]. As in the case of the secularization theory, the conflict theory had its very early critics^[24]. However, despite this criticism, the conflict theory, again as in the case of the secularization theory, quickly became orthodoxy among historians of science, simultaneously gaining population among lay people. However, criticism gradually rose and by the 1980s a new (near) consensus emerged and completely discredited the conflict theory regarding it as a pure fiction of the late nineteenth century. Nowadays, although the proponents of New Atheism still mention the conflict theory in their books, very few if any serious historians of science would endorse this position.

Finally, we would like to tackle the actual question of the religiosity of scientists. Just before the First World War, James Leuba found that among the thousand scientists which he surveyed in America only 42 percent believed in a personal God. Leuba himself believed that as knowledge would diffuse in society the “religious dogmas would be rejected”^[25]. The results of a similar survey in 1998 revealed almost the same percentage - just a bit above 39 percent^[26]. John Hedley Brook comments by saying that although there is an indication that “there is evidence of the higher degree of religious scepticism among most eminent scientists… but (above mentioned) data at least qualify the claim that science necessarily leads to secularization^[27]”.

Similarly, in their massive recent research on the religiosity of scientists Elaine Howard Ecklund and her colleagues came to several very interesting conclusions. After conducting a survey which included more than twenty thousand scientists from the USA, the UK, France, Italy, India, Turkey, Taiwan and Hong Kong they conclude:

1. Around the world, there are more religious scientists than we might think… In India, Italy, Taiwan, and Turkey, a majority of scientists identify with some religious affiliation. In all the other regions we studied, approximately one-third of scientists are religiously affiliated. Of course, religious belonging does not necessarily translate into believing and practising; in some contexts and under certain conditions, scientists who are religiously affiliated can be seen as simply following a cultural tradition without personal meaning… In India, Italy, Taiwan, and Turkey— the same places where a majority of scientists say they belong to a religion— more than half of scientists identify as at least “slightly religious.” Religious scientists are in the minority in France, Hong Kong, the United States, and the United Kingdom… About 10 percent of scientists in the United States and United Kingdom, one-quarter of scientists in India, and two-thirds of scientists in Turkey have “no doubt” that God exists.

2. Scientists— even some atheist scientists— see spirituality in science. Especially in Western contexts, we found segments of nonreligious or atheist scientists who see spirituality in science.

3. The conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West. We find that the idea that science and religion are inherently in conflict is mainly a Western paradigm… The United States, the United Kingdom, and France are the only nations in our study in which support for the conflict perspective approaches one-third of scientists… A substantial majority of scientists in the regions we studied also do not believe there is an inherent conflict between being religious and being a scientist^[28].

It is also interesting to add that researchers found that in India scientists are more religiously affiliated than the general population, and in Taiwan, scientists are more religious than the general population. Similarly, in Turkey, at least according to some measurements, scientists are nearly as religious as the general population^[29]. One cannot help but consider the degree of statistical bias present in Turkey taking into consideration the fact that for more than 70 years after the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the assertive seculars, to borrow Ahmet Kuru`s expression, were actively excluding the religious population from significant governmental positions, including scientific enterprise.

Amy Unsworth cites several surveys where participants claimed conversion from religion to atheism because of science. However, she rightly comments that these claims could be post hoc rationalization rather than a primary factor of conversion. In her own study of the contemporary British population, she concludes that there is no correlation between formal study of science and conversion from religion to disbelief. Interestingly enough, she found that among atheists there is an increased likelihood between reading Richard Dawkin`s God Delusion and believing in conflict between religion and science. As we noted previously, this view has not been seriously endorsed by historians of science for several decades^[30].

All in all, what we have argued in this article is that a particular version of secularization theory, namely the claim that the development of sciences has a direct effect on the secularization of society is no longer tenable. This also includes the fact that in some Western countries, scientists are significantly less religious than the general population. As we have seen, this correlation does not hold for some other non-western countries. But even in the Western context, this fact may be explained by some other factors. “Historians point to increases in social and geographical mobility that have fractured communities once bound by common religious values. The growth of capitalism, commerce, and consumerism has fostered a pervasive hedonism that threatens commitment to religious institutions and their long-term goals. Competing attractions have encouraged the marginalisation of religious worship. Secular values have been heavily promoted in the sphere of education and by the media^[31]”. In the humble opinion of the author of this article, one additional factor may specifically increase religious scepticism among scientists. It is pretty obvious that scientists have much higher IQ than the rest of the population. However, under contemporary social conditions, where these people are not even close in their social standing and standards of living to capitalists or even ordinary celebrities, the claims of freethinking may be their way of attaining esteem and self-actualization in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

And one additional fact to conclude. Above mentioned research of Elaine Howard Ecklund et al. has consistently produced one result: in all regions, female scientists are more religious than males. If the scientists (in the Western world) are less religious as compared to the general population due to their scientific knowledge, it seems that from the fact mentioned above one may conclude that male scientists are more knowledgeable than females, since science makes males less religious than females. Are feminists ready to bite the bullet? Food for thought.