It is unquestionable that most of the writing in the field of religion and science proceeds along argumentative lines that interact with ideas and frequently ground these more lofty discussions with case studies. In that body of literature, sophisticated philosophical, theological, and spiritual concepts are often treated in relation to contemporary natural and theoretical science. Arguments focused on social, ethical, and even political topics sometimes feature. Yet, rarely are they backed up by empirical social scientific research. Elaine Howard Ecklund is well known in the field for bucking this trend with her successful book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (). Therein, she presented the results of her work with elite scientists working at U.S. universities.

The present volume's title invokes that success but also expands the remit of the research, this time in collaboration with fellow sociologist Christopher P. Scheitle. Together, they have crafted a mixed‐methods research framework that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to social research. This framework allows Ecklund and Scheitle to gain access to people's views on a range of scientific questions from the anthropogenic nature of global climate change to the proper application of in vitro fertilization techniques. The data they generated are interesting and reported in this book in conversation with some theological and philosophical concepts, other empirical research, insights from academic conferences, and ideas from popular media. In this manner, the authors present a picture of a less conflict‐laden relationship between religion and science. This picture is filled in when the volume moves beyond the antireligious rhetoric of figures like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and even beyond the academy. As such, for example, the authors are able to report that scientists who are not employed at universities are as likely to be religious as the general U.S. population. In this volume, they also focus on the views religious people hold about science and are able to discern marked attitudes, particularly among U.S. evangelicals, that reflect a deeply held (mis)understanding that most scientists are disrespectful of faith‐driven worldviews.

This example is also indicative of how this volume includes not merely reporting, but also recommendations (though not always firmly linked to the social scientific data) for overcoming conflict. Most of these recommendations center on creating better communicative processes, based on on the premise that “religious believers and scientists need to meet face‐to‐face” (p. 141) so as to break down stereotypes that impede dialogue. Ecklund and Scheitle frame such encounters as allowing to surface a basic respect for science that they found active among religious people to surface. These encounters can also operationalize an openness to religion particularly present in scientists based outside of universities. To activate this dual‐track potential, they recommend beginning by focusing on topics where there is little tension. One promising area identified in this regard is the pursuit of common interests, for example, of a shared interest in alleviating human suffering.

One tension to note from a more international perspective is that the title implies a universalism, where in fact it deals with the U.S. context almost exclusively in terms of the social scientific data collected. More substantively, the authors may be overreaching with their claims concerning the importance of this volume as represented by their summative assertion that

in these chapters, we have heard the voices of religious Americans from different faith traditions. We have looked at the survey statistics and listened to the interviews. We have dispelled myths and uncovered realities….We have pushed scholars to move in new directions. We have addressed the scholarship of theologians, historians, and philosophers by advancing knowledge of what contemporary people from different religious groups really think about scientists and science and how they see the relationship between religion and science. (p. 139)

The relevant issue belittled by such grandiose claims is that much of what Ecklund and Scheitle present in their analysis and recommendations is already “old hat” to those who reflectively consider scientific issues across religious and denominational boundaries. This outcome may be taken as indicative of a certain lack of breadth and depth of engagement with the above‐mentioned argumentative and theoretical work that has already tackled many of the promises and perils present when science and religion meet.

In this regard, it should be emphasized that Ecklund and Scheitle helpfully use the softer science of sociology as a bridge to present empirical data, which is so important in much of the contemporary scientific enterprise. However, they ultimately run up against the same barriers and suggest comparable solutions to those already identified and addressed in the existing theological, philosophical, and historical literature. This is not to undermine their basic insight about asking people what they think about relationships between science and religion. Rather, their contribution should be recognized for adding a more substantive empirical foundation to an already active conversation, one taking place not only in the United States but in other contexts around the world.

Further, the authors fail to meaningfully address that this conversation may have already influenced some of their respondents' views. In this light, and thinking of possible readers who are likely to pick up this book, this book will be valuable for those working to foster dialogue on religion and science, providing context, paths, and suggestions beyond those available in more esoteric discussions. Another constituency whose members may be likely to be moved by reading this book are the aforementioned elite scientists who work at universities. For them, the volume's empirical methodology that largely precedes the discussion of the social and ethical implications of encounters between religion and science may provide the entry point they need to overcome stereotypes about religion, and those of U.S. evangelicals in particular. This broadening of horizons can, in turn, open spaces for dialogue. As Ecklund and Scheitle's research, reporting, and analysis in this volume imply, given the political influence of those two groups in the United States, combined with the politicization of scientific issues with social impact like global climate change, such dialogue is valuable in and of itself. As such, this volume offers cogent insight, most especially for readers interested in one of the goals of this journal: engaging the intersections of science and religion as they function in the lives of individuals and in societies.