Science & Education (2007) 16:461 478 Ó Springer 2006 DOI 10.1007/s11191-006-9036-8 Physics and the Possibility of a Religious View of the Universe: Swedish Upper Secondary Students Views LENA HANSSON* and ANDREAS REDFORS Kristianstad University and FontD, SE-291 88, Kristianstad, Sweden Email: lena.hansson@mna.hkr.se Abstract. This study is addressing both upper secondary students views of whether it is possible to combine a scientific view of the universe with a religious conviction, and their views of miracles. Students are asked about their own views as well as the views they associate with physics. The study shows that in some cases the students own views differ from the views they associate with physics. This we consider to be a possible problem for these students. Through looking at how the students explain the views they associate with physics concerning the issues above, we show that these views are for many of the students intertwined with and linked to other views, that in the students views, are part of the worldview of physics. It is common that the students associate scientism with physics. We question whether these kinds of views are necessary for the building of scientific knowledge. Consequences for the teaching and learning of science are discussed. Key words: Cosmology, Upper secondary students, Worldview 1. Background The study reported here is part of a larger project about students worldviews. Most people are in their worldviews influenced by different kinds of contributions (Cobern 1996; Helve 1991). We are in this project focusing especially on contributions from science and from religion. From our experience in teaching physics there are students who believe that physics has proven that there is no god. This made us interested in investigating, not only the students own views about the relationship between science and religion, but also the views concerning this that the students associate with physics/science. We view physics/science as a culture (Aikenhead 1996) with views and values. In this article, we use the expression the physics view for these views, and we are investigating which these views are Swedish National Graduate School in Science and Technology Education Research.
462 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS according to the students. We believe that the views the students associate with physics are important for physics education, and we will later in this article argue for why this is so. Students views of the relationship between science and religion have been studied earlier (e.g. Dagher & BouJaude 1997; Esbenshade 1993; Fysh & Lucas 1998; Loving & Foster 2000; Roth & Alexander 1997 and Shipman et al. 2002). In the overall project we are taking cosmology as the starting point when addressing students views of the relationship between science and religion. This area has been chosen because it is commonly related to existential questions, and in the study by Fysh & Lucas (1998) it was also one of the areas (together with evolution) mentioned by the students as bringing about conflict between science and religion in the science classroom. The area is also interesting because of the limited amount of research on students views of cosmology and the overall universe (e.g. Lemmer et al. 2003; Shipman et al. 2002; Spiliotopoulou et al. 1996; Hansson and Redfors 2005a). In this article students views of the relationship between science and religion is focused both through studying students views of one presupposition usually connected with a religious worldview (that a god can interfere in the world by performing miracles), and through more broadly asking the students to describe whether one can have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction. There are many different ways in which individuals can describe the relationship between science and religion. Due to this, the relationship has been discussed by many authors and different ways to categorise the views have been suggested. One example is Barbour (2000) who differentiates between four ways (conflict, independence, dialogue and integration) to view the relationship between science and religion. Go rman (1992) states that depending on how one answers two basic ontological and epistemological questions one will end up with different possibilities for coexistence as well as conflict. The first one is whether one views reality as one or as made up by profoundly different parts for example one material and one transcendental dimension of the world. Given the first alternative there is only one reality and both science and religion say something about it. In the second case one can be of the opinion that science describes the material part of the world while religion is about the transcendental world. The second question put forward by Go rman is about how one can reach knowledge about reality, and how religious knowledge is related to scientific knowledge. If one views religious and scientific knowledge as knowledge of the same kind, or if one views them as wholly or partially separated, this can have different consequences for the conclusions drawn concerning the relation between science and religion. It is also possible to
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 463 view religion as not contributing with any knowledge at all, but instead being solely occupied with for example ethical questions. The cases where conflict can arise are when science and religion both make claims about the same reality, and questions. In these cases conflict can, but does not necessarily, arise. Whether this happens depends on how one looks upon religious views and how one views the pretensions of science. The answers to these basic ontological and epistemological questions that Go rman (1992) put forward will, in this way, lead to different conclusions concerning the relation between science and religion, and consequently to one of Babour s (2000) different views, i.e. conflict, independence, dialogue and integration. This makes the pretensions of science as well as religion important. From a science education perspective an interesting question to ask is what kind of answers to such basic questions the students associate with science, and what consequences this can have for the students interest in becoming part of the science culture (Aikenhead 1996). In this perspective it is important to notice that it is possible to view science in different ways. From a logical positivistic viewpoint a conflict-view between science and religion is quite natural. From such a perspective things that cannot be empirically proven should not be believed in, e.g. Poole (1995). But in the critique of this positivistic view other ways of viewing science has evolved. This includes realising that all knowledge systems are based in presuppositions that cannot be proven inside the system itself (see for example Trusted 1991; Poole 1998). This is of course valid for science too. With this as a point of departure the question becomes which presuppositions are really necessary for science and which are not? Presuppositions that are necessary for science (Cobern 2000; Poole 1998) are for example that a material world exists, that there are patterns/order in the universe that wholly or partially can be discovered and understood by humans, and that the physical laws that are valid here on Earth also are valid in every other place in the universe (Poole 1998). In addition to this kind of presuppositions that are necessary for science, there are also presuppositions often associated with science but that are not necessary for the building of the scientific knowledge system. These presuppositions are instead added (Cobern 2000) by individual scientists or science teachers and therefore associated with science by the public (students). An example is that scientistic views sometimes are associated with science (Poole 1998). Scientism (Poole 1998) states that nothing else than things that are in the realm of science exist. This excludes the possibility of other possible dimensions of the world than the material world (see for example Stenmark (2001) for an extended discussion of the meaning of scientism and different definitions of the concept). Scientism often has similar consequences as the ones
464 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS described above concerning logical positivism (which could be viewed as one kind of scientism). Such scientistic views are not necessary presuppositions for science (Poole 1998). We now turn to how this is related to science education. Why are the views that the students associate with physics interesting? We believe that there are two reasons for this. The first one is that the views that a science student associates with physics could be supposed to influence her/his interest in science. As said above we view physics as a culture (Aikenhead 1996). Students meetings with science can be described as a meeting between two cultures (Cobern & Aikenhead 1998), namely the culture of science and the students own cultures. This new culture can be more or less in harmony with the students own cultures, and because of this the education can be either supportive or disruptive (Cobern & Aikenhead 1998, page 41). Cultural meetings can be studied by interviewing teachers and students about their views and comparing these views to one another (Cobern & Aikenhead 1998). In this study we use a different strategy. We let the students themselves tell us about how they view the physics view of different questions. We are in this way following Marton and Booth (1997) when they are arguing that the world that exists to humans is the experienced world. When the students decide whether or not science culture is a culture they want to be part of, the decision is built on students own views about the culture and what it stands for, not the teachers or researchers views. Lemke (2001) and Brickhouse (2001) are both arguing for learning science to be understood as more than only understanding specific science concepts. Brickhouse writes: in order to understand learning in science, we need to know much more than whether students have acquired particular scientific understandings. We need to know how students engage in science and how this is related to who they are and who they want to be (Brickhouse 2001, p. 286). According to this, if a person wants to engage in science education and take the views of science as being her own or not, might partly become a question of how she views science in relation to how she views herself (Brickhouse 2001). In this project this becomes relevant if students associate views with physics that are incompatible with his or her own views. This study is designed to be open to the possibility that the students could associate views with physics that are different from their own views. This means that a student could associate a view with physics that science and religion are in conflict, even though in his or her own view they are possible to combine. This leads us to the first research question:
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 465 Are there students who describe their own view and the physics view in different ways? If so, what kind of differences can be seen? The second reason why the views that the students associate with physics, about the relationship between science and religion, are relevant for science education, is that it is part of students knowledge about the nature of science. Questions about the relationship between science and religion captures questions about the nature of science, such as the presuppositions in science, the borders of scientific knowledge, how one views knowledge in science etc. To get a better understanding of this we are in this study not only looking for the views that the students associate with physics concerning the issues above, but also in what ways they reason about them what kind of explanations they put forward when describing these views. This will give us a better understanding of the kind of worldviews that the students associate with physics, and in what ways views of the issues in focus are linked to other views that the students associate with physics. This leads us to the second research question: What kind of explanations do the students use when reasoning about the physics view? 2. Method 2.1. THE STUDENT SAMPLE The student sample in this study come from ordinary public upper secondary schools in Sweden, a country often described as highly secularised. The students are in the last year of upper secondary school (normally 18 19 years old), and attend the natural science program (National Agency for Education 2001). This is a broad program, and the students are studying much more than science. For example courses in languages, social sciences, physical education and artistic activities are compulsory. In addition to this, the students in Swedish upper secondary school, even within a specific national program, have to choose among different courses. All students that attend the natural science program have to take one physics course Physics A (National Agency for Education 2001). In addition to this, the students can choose to take additional physics courses. All of the students in this study have chosen to take an optional course Physics B (National Agency for Education 2001). The syllabus for this course includes mechanics, electromagnetism, mechanical and electromagnetic waves, as well as atomic and nuclear physics. The course provides an orientation to the evolution of the universe (National Agency for Education 2001). The relationship between science and religion is not explicitly mentioned in the description of the subject. However, an aim with the physics subject is
466 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS described as providing advanced knowledge of the role of physics in the development of Man s world view (National Agency for Education 2001). Existential questions might have been discussed in other courses as well. The students in the natural science program all take a course in religious studies. In addition to this the students choose different optional courses, e.g. some of them take philosophy. 2.2. THE DATA COLLECTION 88 students participated in a written survey (26 in a pilot study during the autumn 2002 and 62 in a slightly revised survey, Spring 2003). The small modifications, made after the pilot-phase, have not changed any of the questions that this article builds on, and we use answers from all 88 students in the analysis. The students came from three different schools in three towns of different sizes; 12 of the students were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and dealt with the same issues that the written survey did. The interviewees were chosen from the students that were willing to participate, and among those we chose students that had expressed a variety of views when answering the survey. In this way we were trying to maximise the variation of different views (Marton & Booth 1997) that we, in the interviews, were able to get a deeper understanding of. The interviews also made it possible for us to get a better understanding of the overall reasoning of an individual student, since the understanding of the student s reasoning becomes more nuanced and deeper through the interviews. This was used for example in Hansson and Redfors (2006a) where we described the stories that two different students told us about their own and the physics views of the origin and development of the universe. In this article however we are focusing not on individual students, but on the kinds of views and explanations for these views that are present in the group. The written survey consisted of nine different questions. The two questions that this paper builds on (Appendix A) probe students views of one presupposition of the world that is often connected to a religious worldview, and a broader question about science and religion. There were two parts in all the questions one asking the students to describe the view of physics, and one asking them to describe their own view of the same topic. Thus the design is open for the possibility that students themselves could have a different view from the view they associate with physics. 2.3. THE ANALYSIS We have, through an iterative interpretative analysis, constructed category systems that describe the different views and ways of reasoning found in the data. This has been done through reading the written answers and the
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 467 interview transcripts repeatedly extracting the different views and explanations present in the group. The different kinds of explanations are exemplified with clear examples of students statements. One difficulty in interpreting the students answers in the survey, as well as in the interviews, has been that the students sometimes refer to physicists rather than physics. There are cases, in the interviews, where physicists and physics are well separated. But if it is not obvious from the students answers to the survey, or from the discussions during the interviews, that the physics view and the view of physicists are differentiated by the students, we have interpreted the students answers as being about physics/the physics culture even though some of them use they or physicist instead of physics when asked to describe the view of physics. We believe that in these cases the students are talking about physicists as representing physics. We have taken special care about this in our interpretation of the data. The premier focus of the article is to describe the different views and explanations for these views that are present in the group. Nevertheless we have quantified the students answers to the survey, to give the reader an idea of how common different views are in the students answers. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. INTRODUCTION We have chosen to divide the presentation of the results into two different parts. The first research question is in focus in the first part of the results. Here, we will describe the written answers to the questions of whether or not miracles are possible, and whether or not one could have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction. Both the views that the students describe as their own, and the views they describe as the views of physics will be presented. In the next part of the results we will concentrate on the second research question on the views that the students associate with physics, and how they argue for these. Through the explanations that the students use we will see how the views described in the first part of the results are linked to other views that the students associate with physics. This will give us a better overall understanding of what the worldview of physics is like in the students views. 3.2. PART 1: STUDENTS OWN VIEWS AND THE VIEWS THEY ASSOCIATE WITH PHYSICS We will start by describing how the students answer to whether or not one could have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction. We will then turn to the question of whether or not
468 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS miracles are possible. The categorisations of the students written answers are shown in tables in Appendix B. 3.2.1. Whether or not one could have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction As mentioned earlier there are different ways in which one can view the relationship between science and religion (Barbour 2000). It is obvious from this study that there, also among the upper secondary students, are very different ways in which the relationship is described. This is exemplified here by four of the students in the study. Ludvig:- /.../ They [science and religion] exclude each other by describing reality in completely different ways, - contradict each other [Ludvig, Q7*] Filippa:- /.../ the scientific and the religious are on different levels and can not be compared [Filippa, Q7] Assar:- /.../ maybe some events are better explained by religion than by physics and vice versa [Assar, Q7] Ragnar: /.../science and religion are two twins, to separate one from the other means ending up in the wrong place and thus wrong knowledge [Ragnar, Q7] * Q7 refers to the answer to question 7 in the written survey (see Appendix A). These examples show that there is a great variation of views among students in upper secondary science classes concerning how the contribution from science to our worldview is related to other ways of knowing in this case religion. While Ludvigs view with the words of Barbour (2000) could be described as conflict, Filippa, Assar and Ragnar all describe views where science and religion can be combined, even though their descriptions are very different from each others. The focus of this study has been to illuminate to what extent the students believe that the scientific view of the universe could be combined with a religious view at all (no matter how), and what views concerning this issue that the students associate with physics. About 60% of the students express a view that science and religion do not exclude each other, but that it instead is possible to have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction. Such a view is not equally common when the students describe the view they associate with physics. When describing the view associated with physics the views that a scientific and a religious view of the universe are combinable respectively non-combinable are instead about equally common, with a small preponderance for the view that a
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 469 scientific view of the universe cannot be combined with a religious conviction. This shows that the students themselves are more open for the possibility to combine science and religion compared to what they associate with physics. 3.2.2. Whether or Not Miracles are Possible The students express different views of whether or not there could be a god or supreme power that interferes in the universe by performing miracles. About 40% of the students believe that this is possible. However, when asked about the physics view of the same thing very few of the students associate such a view with physics. Instead about 80% of them state that the physics view is that miracles are impossible. This means that there are students (see Table B1 in Appendix B) that themselves believe in miracles, but believe that miracles are impossible from the point of view of physics. 3.2.3. Concluding Remarks As described above the frequencies of the views differ between the descriptions of the students own views and the views that they associate with physics. This shows that the students do not necessarily take the view they associate with physics to be their own, which confirms that it was reasonable to differentiate between the students own views and the views they associate with physics in the questions to them. These differences also make it interesting to look deeper into the views associated with physics by the students, to get a better understanding of why it is that the students associate the views they do with physics. This we will do in part 2 below, by looking at what kind of explanations the students use when reasoning about the views of physics. This will give us an idea of how views associated with physics concerning the addressed questions are linked with other elements in the worldview that the students associate with physics. 3.3. PART 2: STUDENTS REASONING ABOUT THE PHYSICS VIEW Poole (1998) discusses the areas in which interactions between science and religion take place. He states that these interactions can be grouped in three main ways that involve the data, the nature and the applications of science (Poole 1998, p. 192). Depending on that cosmology is the overall context used for the discussions with the students, one could expect that most of the students would refer to data of science when describing the physics view. Also when the relationship between science and religion is discussed in media it is often referred to historical events where science and religion has interacted concerning the data level. Examples of this are the position and age of the Earth, and
470 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS the theory of evolution. Depending on this it is interesting to note that explanations referring to the nature of science, e.g. ontological or epistemological views associated with science, are frequently used by the students. This is the case both when describing the physics view of whether one could have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction, and when describing the physics view of whether miracles can happen. Probably because of the chosen context, none of the students in this study refer to the applications of science when discussing the physics view. One student can very well put forward more than one kind of explanation when describing the physics view concerning a specific issue. This can be in giving more than one explanation for the same view, or in discussing back and forth between different views. There are students who refer to different authorities (individual scientists or the church), students who put forward explanations grounded in for example how to interpret religious texts or psychological explanations, and students who state that science and religion have different roles. We are instead focusing on the explanations which refer to the view the students have of physics (Table 1). Some of the explanations are frequently used; others are used only by single individuals. The same kind of reasoning can be used both by students saying that one, according to physics, cannot have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction, and by students saying that physics does not exclude this. One example of that explanations are used both ways is: Physics kills all gods. It has explanations for everything even though we haven t found them yet. [physics view, science & religion, survey, Adam] Physics can t explain everything so there is a possibility to have room for a belief. /.../ [physics view, science & religion, survey, Albin] Both students refer to whether there according to physics exists an explanation for everything. Adam says there is, and Albin says there is not. This is an example of how the students refer to the same sort of Table 1. Kinds of reasons given by the students when describing the physics view. The explanations are grounded in the following views The physics view of specific phenomena, events or models Whether or not, according to physics, a god can exist Whether or not, according to physics, there have to be proofs/explanations to believe in something Whether or not, according to physics, everything has a scientific or natural explanation The physics view of physical laws Reductionistic views associated with physics Whether or not, according to physics, the development is natural
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 471 issues, even though they associate physics with different views concerning the relationship between science and religion. We have seen from the first part of the results that it is more common that the students state that it is not possible to combine a scientific view of the universe with a religious conviction when they describe the physics view, compared to when they describe their own view. The same is true concerning students views of whether or not miracles can happen. Due to this we will focus on the different kinds of explanations given by the students for physics having these views. The different kinds of explanations will be exemplified by students statements. 3.3.1. Explanations Grounded in the Physics View of Specific Phenomena, Events or Models Stories that are told about the relationship between science and religion often refer to historical events when there is supposed to have been a conflict between science and religion regarding models about specific phenomena or events. Examples of this are the origin of the earth (or the universe) or whether or not the earth is in the centre of the universe. This kind of reasoning, when discussing whether or not science and religion is possible to combine, has been found in the student group as well. Adam s statement is an example of this when he says that the physics view is that it is not possible to combine a scientific view of the universe with a religious conviction. Adam: they have most often proven them wrong [Interviewer: mm] so...galilei, he was put in house arrest because he put himself up against the church with his worldviews. [Interviewer: mm] That the earth wasn t in the centre [Interviewer: mm] and, so I think that physics has a truer picture of this than religion [physics view, science & religion, interview, Adam] 3.3.2. Explanations Grounded in Whether or Not, According to Physics, a God Can Exist An example of an ontological presupposition that some of the students refer to is that no god exists according to physics. Ulla uses this as a base for her explanation: physics believe as you know /.../ that there are no gods involved [physics view, science & religion, interview, Ulla] Ulla is in her statement associating physics with a presupposition that no god exists. This presupposition implicates that according to physics one cannot have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction.
472 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS 3.3.3. Explanations Grounded in Whether or not, According to Physics, there have to be Proofs (or an Explanation) to Believe in Something Except for obviously ontological references in the students explanations, there are also explanations that are based in epistemological views. Tobias is a student who expresses an association between physics and a view that the conditions for knowledge in science are universally valid: Tobias /.../ physics most often want to have proven [interviewer: mm] something which contradicts that one would be able to believe in it [Interviewer: mm] and if it s, God does probably not exist one hasn t been able to prove Interviewer: no Tobias: [?] not refute either but... Interviewer: you don t think that... Tobias: I don t think that well eh physicists can have a religious view at the same time [physics view, science & religion, interview, Tobias] In such a view the epistemological view of science, concerning what the conditions for knowledge are, is extrapolated to be valid concerning all kinds of knowledge excluding the belief in anything that cannot be proven. 3.3.4. Explanations Grounded in whether or not, According to Physics, Everything has a Scientific or Natural Explanation There are explanations that first look like epistemological statements, but have broader consequences. An example of this is whether or not everything has a scientific or natural explanation. Such an explanation is put forward by Diana who refers to this when describing the physics view. According to physics this does not exist. Everything that happens has some sort of scientific explanation and if it is not possible to explain then it is something that we have not yet learnt or discovered. [physics view, miracles, survey, Diana] This is not only an epistemological statement but has, in limiting what can exist to what can be scientifically explained, also ontological implications. Since miracles, out of definition, are single non-normal events they cannot be explained scientifically and therefore cannot exist. 3.3.5. Explanations Grounded in the Physics View of Physical Laws Another example of explanations that appears epistemological, but have ontological aspects are exemplified by a statement by Max. He describes the physics view of miracles like this: /.../ I would say that they do no exclude something supreme that rules over all these physical laws and phenomena. But one does not believe in miracles, because then the physical
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 473 laws would not be valid. One takes for granted that the physical laws are always valid, for example a stone does always fall to the ground. However one does not know why it falls to the ground. [physics view, miracles, survey, Max, Q3] According to this statement physical laws are always valid, and cannot be broken according to physics. This makes miracles impossible. 3.3.6. Explanations Grounded in Reductionistic Views Associated With Physics Related to the kind of explanation seen in the statement by Diana above is a reductionistic way of reasoning. An explanation grounded in associating physics with reductionism is found in a statement by Ludvig: No. There is no god. What exist are matter, energy and natural laws [physics view, miracles, survey, Ludvig] In the view of this student physics states that miracles could not happen, because everything that exist are matter, energy and laws. Here there is a mix-up between methodological reductionism, that is part of the methodology of science, and ontological reductionism that claims that the atomand-molecule story is the only valid description or at any rate the best description of any phenomenon under question (Poole 1985, s.255). 3.3.7. Explanations Grounded in Whether or not, According to Physics, the Development is Natural According to this kind of explanation real miracles cannot happen according to physics. The universe and the earth develop naturally, and are not influenced by a supreme power through miracles. Jan describes the physics view like this: If one looks at clues & traces a Big Bang has happened and was caused by itself. Through the form, mix & temperature of different gases a big bang or something similar has been able to be created & from there life & mass have been developed undisturbed at its own pace. [physics view, miracles, survey, Jan] This can also be described as events that look like miracles, have happened by chance. 4. Overall Discussion and Implications We have seen that for some of the students the views that they describe as their own differ from the views that they associate with physics. This has methodological implications. If one only asks students to describe the relationship between science and religion one does not know how to interpret
474 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS their answers it can be difficult to know if they describe their own views or the views they associate with science. The consequence is that it is important to explicitly differentiate between students own views and the views they associate with physics/science in future studies where students views are investigated through surveys and interviews. Furthermore we have seen that it is more common that students associate a view with physics where miracles are impossible and/or where science and religion are not possible to combine, compared to when they describe their own views. This implies that this is a case where crosscultural learning (Aikenhead 1996) is present. Crosscultural learning means that the student learn about the scientific view without necessarily take the view to be his or her own (see Hansson and Redfors (2006b) for a more elaborated discussion on individual students ways to handle the views associated with physics when describing their own views). We believe that crosscultural learning strategies are good when the students presuppositions of what the world is like differ from the presuppositions that are necessary for science. We will now discuss the important question of whether or not the views that the students associate with physics constitute necessary presuppositions for science (or build on such necessary presuppositions). When looking at how the students describe the physics view we have seen that both the students who state that these things are excluded by physics and the students who state that they are not, can ground their reasoning in the same kind of explanations. This shows that students views concerning the physics view about science and religion are linked to other views and presuppositions that the students associate with physics. This supports the reasoning by Go rman (1992) who states that how one views basic ontological and epistemological questions have implications for how one views the relationship between science and religion. When looking specifically at the different kinds of explanations used by the students we can see that it is not uncommon that the students associate physics with views that could be called scientistic that is associated with scientism (Poole 1998). For example we have seen (part 2 in the results) that it is frequent that students associate physics with views like that there have to be proofs/explanations to believe in something, that everything has a scientific or natural explanation, that physical laws cannot be broken, and that ontological reductionism is connected to physics. These views are all examples of students associating physics with scientism. Is it not good then, that the students associate science with scientism a view where no god or supreme power exists, where miracles are impossible, and where a scientific view excludes a religious belief? Is it not good if the students associate science with a view where it is possible to describe everything that exists scientifically and where you do not believe in things that
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 475 are not proven? Well, the answers one gives to these questions depend on the epistemological and ontological presuppositions that oneself, as a scientist or science teacher, has. It is therefore, in science teaching, necessary to discuss and differentiate between the kinds of worldview presuppositions that are really necessary for science and those that are not. Following Cobern (2000) and Poole (1998) we would like to argue that the scientistic views discussed above, used by the students as explanations for associating physics with a view where one cannot have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction and where miracles are impossible, are not necessary presuppositions for physics/science. We believe that crosscultural learning strategies are fruitful when the students presuppositions of what the world is like differ from the presuppositions that are necessary for science. However, it should not be necessary to use such learning strategies, in the case of the scientistic views described in this article. We argue that scientistic views are not necessary for the scientific/physical knowledge system. That means that crosscultural learning strategies will not be necessary to apply in these cases, if the students have a more nuanced view of which presuppositions that are really necessary for science and which that are not. What are the implications of this for science teaching? Most science teachers will probably say that this could not be a problem in his or her class because these kinds of things have never been discussed. Well, that can be a problem too. Stating explicitly, that science has presuppositions that it does not have out of necessity is in this perspective a problem, but also to say nothing about it. By saying nothing explicitly the students hear the implicit messages and associate these with science (O stman 1998; Cobern 2000). This means that the teacher s presuppositions or the presuppositions in the text books (or in media) are conveyed to the students. Cobern states: the teacher who takes the outer layer of presuppositions for a granted part of science actually distorts science for the students (Cobern 2000, p.238) It is important to discuss, in the science classroom, which presuppositions that are by necessity connected to science and which are not, but instead could be added by individuals also by scientists (Cobern 2000). This issue can be introduced in science class through explicitly addressing the questions in teaching activities. We are therefore, based on this study, continuing the project through addressing what happens, in an upper secondary physics classroom, during group discussions about which presuppositions that are necessary for science and which that are not (Hansson & Redfors, 2006c). Such teaching activities can be a good way to address this kind of questions. It could also work as an experience that later could be referred to by the teacher or the students, when issues relevant for it are brought up in the classroom. This kind of activities are however not in themselves enough. Most
476 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS important is probably that teachers become aware of the tendency of students to associate scientism with physics, and become cautious of the implicit (and explicit) messages present in the science classroom. Appendix A: Questions from the Questionnaire Question 3 Is it possible with interventions by a god/supreme being, for example through miracles or wonders? Explain as precisely as you can how you think about the physics view of this. Is it possible with interventions by a god/supreme being, for example through miracles or wonders? Explain as precisely as you can how you yourself think about this. Question 7 Is it possible to have a scientific view of the universe and a religious conviction at the same time, or do they exclude each other? Explain as precisely as you can how you think about the physics view of this. Is it possible to have a scientific view of the universe and a religious conviction at the same time, or do they exclude each other? Explain as precisely as you can how you yourself think about this. Appendix B: Numbers of Students in Different Categories Table B1. Students views of whether or not miracles are possible according to physics and themselves (number of students expressing the different views in the survey) Own view Miracles possible Miracles not possible Do not know/other answers/no answer Total Physics view Miracles possible 3 2* 0 5 Miracles not possible 28* 38 4 70 Do not know/other 4 7 2 13 answers/no answer Total 35 47 6 88 *Notice that these students when describing their own view express a view that is different from the one they described as the view of physics.
STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELIGION 477 Table B2. Students views of whether or not one can have a scientific view of the universe and at the same time have a religious conviction, according to physics and themselves (number of students expressing the different views in the survey) Own view Combinable Non-combinable Difficult, Do not know/other Total it depends... answers/no answer Physics view Combinable 22 4* 0 2 28 Non-combinable 18* 12 4 0 34 Difficult, it depends... 1 4 3 0 8 Do not know/other 11 3 1 3 18 answers/no answer Total 52 23 8 5 88 *Notice that these students when describing their own view express a view that is different from the one they described as the view of physics. References Aikenhead, G.S.: 1996, ÔScience Education: Border Crossing into the Subculture of ScienceÕ, Studies in Science Education 27, 1 52. Barbour, I.G.: 2000, When Science Meets Religion, HarperCollins, New York. Brickhouse, N.W.: 2001, ÔEmbodying Science: A Feminist Perspective on LearningÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(3), 282 295. Cobern, W.W.: 1996, ÔWorldview Theory and Conceptual Change in Science EducationÕ, Science Education 80(5), 579 610. Cobern, W.W.: 2000, ÔThe Nature of Science and the Role of Knowledge and BeliefÕ, Science and Education 9, 219 246. Cobern, W.W. & Aikenhead, G.S.: 1998, Cultural Aspects of Learning Science, in B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 39 52. Dagher, Z.R. & BouJaude, S.: 1997, ÔScientific Views and Religious Beliefs of College Students: The Case of Biological EvolutionÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34(5), 429 445. Esbenshade, D.H.: 1993, ÔStudents Perceptions about Science & ReligionÕ, The American Biology Teacher 55(6), 334 338. Fysh, R. & Lucas, K.B.: 1998, ÔReligious Beliefs in Science ClassroomsÕ, Research in Science Education 28(4), 399 427. Go rman, U.: 1992, Teologer och naturvetenskap, in U. Go rman, L. Haikola and T. Sundstro m (eds.), Kompendium i naturvetenskap och religion [ Compendium in Science and Religion ], Teologiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, 1992, 101 143. Hansson, L. & Redfors, A.: 2006a, Swedish upper secondary students views of the origin and development of the universe, Research in Science Education (in press). Hansson, L. & Redfors A.: 2006b, Tre elever bera ttar om universum, gud och fysiken [ The stories of three students of Universe, God and Physics ]. NORDINA-Nordic Studies in Science Education 3, 29 41.
478 LENA HANSSON AND ANDREAS REDFORS Hansson, L. & Redfors A.: 2006c, Upper secondary students in group discussions about physics and our presuppositions of the world. Science & Education (in press). Helve, H.: 1991, ÔThe Formation of Religious Attitudes and World Views: A Longitudinal Study of Young FinnsÕ, Social Compass 38(4), 373 392. Lemke, J.L.: 2001, ÔArticulating Communities: Sociocultural Perspectives on Science EducationÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(3), 296 316. Lemmer, M., Lemmer, T.N. & Smit, J.J.A.: 2003, Ô South African Students Views of the Universe Õ, International Journal of Science Education 25(5), 563 582. Loving, C.C. & Foster, A.: 2000, ÔThe Religion-in-the-Science-Classroom Issue: Seeking Graduate Student Conceptual ChangeÕ, Science Education 84, 445 468. Marton, F. & Booth, S.: 1997, Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah. National Agency for Education.: 2001, Natural Science Programme - Programme Goal, Structure and Syllabuses, Fritzes, Stockholm. Poole, M.W.: 1985, ÔScience Education and the Interplay between Science and ReligionÕ, School Science Review 85, 252 261. Poole, M.W.: 1995, Beliefs and values in Science education. Open University Press, Buckingham. Poole, M.W.: 1998, Science and Science Education: a Judeo-Christian Perspective, in W.W. Cobern (ed.) Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education. An International Dialogue Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 181 201. Roth, W.-M. & Alexander, T.: 1997, Ô The Interaction of Students Scientific and Religious Discourses: Two Case Studies Õ, International Journal of Science Education 19(2), 125 146. Shipman, H.L., Brickhouse, N.W., Dagher, Z. & Letts, W.J. IV: 2002, ÔChanges in Student Views of Religion and Science in a College Astronomy CourseÕ, Science Education 86, 526 547. Spiliotopoulou, V. & Ioannidis, G.: 1996, Primary Teachers Cosmologies: The Case of the Universe, in G. Welford, J. Osborne and P. Scott (eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe: Current Issues and Themes, Falmer Press, London, pp. 337 350. Stenmark, M.: 2001, Scientism: Science, ethics and religion, Ashgate, Aldershot. Trusted, J.: 1991, Physics and Metaphysics: theories of space and time, Routledge, London. O stman, L.: 1998, How Companion Meanings Are Expressed by Science Education Discourse, in D.A. Roberts and L. O stman (eds.), Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum, Teacher College Press, New York, pp. 54 70.