| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 07:13:20 PM |
| Object: |
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? |
---
Skeptical Inquirer magazine : July/August 1999
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
by Paul Kurtz
http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/kurtz.html
---
Excerpts:
The relationship between science and religion has
engendered heated controversy. This debate has its
roots in the historic conflict between the advocates
of reason and the disciples of faith.
... Should the skeptical movement extend its inquiry
to religious questions? Some influential skeptics think
we should not. In my view, skeptical inquirers definitely
need to investigate religious claims.
- - -
... Religious behavior has been investigated by a wide
range of disciplines:
o Anthropologists deal with the comparative study of
primitive religions, examining prayer, ritual, the rites
of passage, etc.
o Sociologists have investigated the institutional aspects
of religious behavior, such as the role of the priestly
class in society.
o Ever since William James, psychologists of religion
have studied the varieties of religious experience, such
as mysticism, ecstasy, talking in tongues, exorcism, etc.
o Similarly, biologists have postulated a role for religious
beliefs and practices in the evolutionary process and
their possible adaptive/survival value. They have asked,
Does religiosity have a genetic or environmental basis?
o Others have focused on the neurological correlates of
religious piety, and still others have attempted to test
the efficacy of prayer.
- - -
One can deal with religion in contemporary or historical
contexts.
A great deal of attention has been devoted to the histor-
ical analysis of religious claims, especially since the great
classical religions are based on ancient documents (the
Old and New Testaments and the Koran), as are some
of the newer religions (such as the nineteenth-century
Book of Mormon).
These texts allege that certain miraculous and revelatory
events have occurred in the past and these warrant reli-
gious belief today; and it is often claimed that belief in
them is based upon faith.
I would respond that scientific methodology has been
used in historical investigations to examine these alleged
events.
Archaeologists seek independent corroborating evi-
dence; they examine written or oral accounts that were
contemporaneous with the events (for example, by com-
paring the Dead Sea Scrolls with the New Testament).
The fields of "biblical criticism" or "koranic criticism" have
attempted to use the best scholarly techniques, historical
evidence, and textual and linguistic analysis to ascertain
the historical accuracy [insert -- and inaccuracy -- end in-
sert] of these claims.
- - -
... What is the truth value of theistic claims? In the great
debate between scientific or philosophical skeptics and
theists, agnostics/nontheists/atheists maintain that theists
have not adequately justified their case and that their claims
are unlikely or implausible.
... God talk is by definition difficult or impossible insofar as
it transcends any possible experience or reason and lurks
in a mysterious noumenal realm.
There are surely many things that we do not know about the
universe; but to describe the unknown as "divine" is to take
a leap of faith beyond reasonable evidence.
... God talk should be construed primarily as a form of per-
sonal and social moral poetry. If this is the case, then reli-
gion does not give us knowledge or truth; instead it expres-
ses mood and attitude.
... religion should not compete with science about the
description and explanation of natural processes in the uni-
verse. Science deals most effectively with these questions,
not religion. To claim to believe in the theory of evolution,
and yet insist the "human soul" is an exception to evolution-
ary principles because it is created by a deity, is an illegiti-
mate intrusion of an occult cause. Similarly, to seek to trans-
cend the "big bang" physical theory in science by postu-
lating a creator is to leap beyond the verifiable evidence.
- - -
... The key question that I wish to address is,
Should skeptical inquirers question the regnant sacred
cows of religion?
There are both theoretical and prudential issues here at
stake.
I can find no theoretical reason why not, but there may be
practical considerations.
For one, it requires an extraordinary amount of courage
today as in the past (especially in America!) to critique
religion.
One can challenge paranormal hucksters, mediums,
psychics, alternative therapists, astrologers, and past-life
hypnotherapists with abandon, but to question the revered
figures of orthodox religion is another matter, for this may
still raise the serious public charge of blasphemy and her-
esy; and this can be dangerous to one's person and career,
as Salman Rushdie's fatwah so graphically demonstrates.
... acquiescence by skeptics to the fideist's [a fideist is
one who relies on faith alone, rather than scientific rea-
soning or philosophy in questions of religion] rationalization
for his beliefs is profoundly mistaken.
Similarly, in answer to those theists who maintain that there
is adequate evidence and reasons for their belief, skeptical
inquirers should not simply ignore their claims, saying that
they are beyond scientific confirmation, but should examine
them. Since the burden of proof is always upon the claim-
ant, skeptical inquirers may question both the fideist and
the partial-evidentialist in religion, if they do not believe that
they have provided an adequate justified case.
- - -
Conclusion
The upshot of this controversy, in my judgment, is that scien-
tific and skeptical inquirers should deal with religious claims.
Not to do so is to flee from an important area of human be-
havior and interest and is irresponsible.
... I disagree with those who counsel caution in applying sci-
entific skepticism to the religious domain. In my view science
should not be so narrowly construed that it only applies to
experimental laboratory work; it should bring in the tools of
logical analysis, historical research, and rational investigation.
In this sense, I submit, religious claims are amenable to sci-
entific examination and skeptical inquiry.
... Although disbelief about religious claims is higher among
scientists (an estimated 60 percent) than the general popula-
tion (perhaps 10 percent), some scientists fail to rigorously
examine their own religious beliefs. They may use rigorous
standards of inquiry in their particular fields of expertise, yet
throw caution to the wind when they leap into questions of
religious faith.
... questionable religious claims are proliferating daily and
they are not adequately evaluated by skeptical scientists.
In my view, we need more skeptical inquirers who possess
the requisite expertise and are able to apply their investiga-
tive skills to religious claims. Such skeptical inquiry is sorely
needed today. It could play a vital role in the debate between
religion and science.
- - -
... About the Author
Paul Kurtz is founder of CSICOP and author or editor of over
30 books. ...
- - - end excerpts - - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? |
15 Jan 2005 07:32:03 PM |
|
|
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohumanist@gr8mail.com> wrote in message
news:34qjvdF4erf9kU1@individual.net...
---
Skeptical Inquirer magazine : July/August 1999
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
by Paul Kurtz
http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/kurtz.html
---
Nice article. Dawkins has been saying the same thing. Another confirmation
that SJ Gould's NOMA doesnt hold any water.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? |
15 Jan 2005 01:36:57 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <34qjvdF4erf9kU1@individual.net>, Pro-Humanist
FREELOVER lept out of the bushes shouting:
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? by Paul Kurtz
Where's he been?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? |
15 Jan 2005 01:23:27 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
[...]
... I disagree with those who counsel caution in applying sci-
entific skepticism to the religious domain. In my view science
should not be so narrowly construed that it only applies to
experimental laboratory work;
It doesn't only so apply. If it did that would make astronomy,
for example, a non science.
it should bring in the tools of
logical analysis, historical research, and rational investigation.
In this sense, I submit, religious claims are amenable to sci-
entific examination and skeptical inquiry.
Science is about observation, generating hypothesis' to
explain those observations, and then testing those
hypothesis' by making non-trivial predictions of future
events or future observations based upon them. When
and if those predictions of future events or observations
come to pass (and where a failure to do so would put the
hypothesis in serious doubt) the hypothesis graduates to a
scientific theory. This is a bit of an over simplification
but the point is, science is methodologically naturalistic:
It must assume natural causes as a method to reliably find
out about the world. That puts supernatural claims outside
the domain of science. If one starts assuming supernatural
causes for things that would quickly lead to things like "Last
Tuesdayism"--if anything is possible then maybe the world
was created last Tuesday and our memories of time before then
was simply implanted in our brains. Science would quickly
collapse as a viable tool of discovery if it were not
methodoligically naturalistic.
... Although disbelief about religious claims is higher among
scientists (an estimated 60 percent) than the general popula-
tion (perhaps 10 percent), some scientists fail to rigorously
examine their own religious beliefs.
Maybe. So?
They may use rigorous
standards of inquiry in their particular fields of expertise, yet
throw caution to the wind when they leap into questions of
religious faith.
It is apples and oranges.
... questionable religious claims are proliferating daily and
they are not adequately evaluated by skeptical scientists.
And what do you see science doing about it? Like maybe
proving those claims wrong? Unfortunately "certainty" is
not a justifiable state of mind regards scientific findings.
From "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen W. Hawking:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is
only
a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the
result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure
that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the
other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding a single observation
that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Another source:
"Although the scientist seeks understanding, he never
achieves it completely. The game of science never ends;
all conclusions are tentative. No matter how much
information a scientist has, he can never be certain of
any of his conclusions...The problem is at base a logical
one. Philosophers of science currently believe that certainty
is a logical impossibility. There are areas of endeavor that
are certain, such as logic and mathematics, but these
disciplines are certain only insofar as they say nothing about
the real world." -- McCain, Gravin and Erwin M. Segal.
The Game of Science. 1st. ed., Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company Inc., 1969. p. 53
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion? |
15 Jan 2005 06:44:14 PM |
|
|
In message <1105752207.851559.318640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net writes
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
[...]
... I disagree with those who counsel caution in applying sci-
entific skepticism to the religious domain. In my view science
should not be so narrowly construed that it only applies to
experimental laboratory work;
It doesn't only so apply. If it did that would make astronomy,
for example, a non science.
it should bring in the tools of
logical analysis, historical research, and rational investigation.
In this sense, I submit, religious claims are amenable to sci-
entific examination and skeptical inquiry.
Science is about observation, generating hypothesis' to
explain those observations, and then testing those
hypothesis' by making non-trivial predictions of future
events or future observations based upon them. When
and if those predictions of future events or observations
come to pass (and where a failure to do so would put the
hypothesis in serious doubt) the hypothesis graduates to a
scientific theory. This is a bit of an over simplification
but the point is, science is methodologically naturalistic:
It must assume natural causes as a method to reliably find
out about the world. That puts supernatural claims outside
the domain of science. If one starts assuming supernatural
causes for things that would quickly lead to things like "Last
Tuesdayism"--if anything is possible then maybe the world
was created last Tuesday and our memories of time before then
was simply implanted in our brains. Science would quickly
collapse as a viable tool of discovery if it were not
methodoligically naturalistic.
... Although disbelief about religious claims is higher among
scientists (an estimated 60 percent) than the general popula-
tion (perhaps 10 percent), some scientists fail to rigorously
examine their own religious beliefs.
Maybe. So?
They may use rigorous
standards of inquiry in their particular fields of expertise, yet
throw caution to the wind when they leap into questions of
religious faith.
It is apples and oranges.
... questionable religious claims are proliferating daily and
they are not adequately evaluated by skeptical scientists.
And what do you see science doing about it? Like maybe
proving those claims wrong? Unfortunately "certainty" is
not a justifiable state of mind regards scientific findings.
From "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen W. Hawking:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is
only
a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the
result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure
that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the
other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding a single observation
that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Another source:
"Although the scientist seeks understanding, he never
achieves it completely. The game of science never ends;
all conclusions are tentative. No matter how much
information a scientist has, he can never be certain of
any of his conclusions...The problem is at base a logical
one. Philosophers of science currently believe that certainty
is a logical impossibility. There are areas of endeavor that
are certain, such as logic and mathematics, but these
disciplines are certain only insofar as they say nothing about
the real world." -- McCain, Gravin and Erwin M. Segal.
The Game of Science. 1st. ed., Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company Inc., 1969. p. 53
Well said.
You could have quoted yards of Popper as well.
It's a simple message, but apparently difficult to get across.
And there is the danger that people may react, "Well, if scientists are
so unsure of themselves, why should we pay so much attention to what
they say?"
So we have to point out that, even if scientific models of reality are
imperfect, they are the best we have. When technology which rests upon
them succeeds as brilliantly as it often does, then we should recognise
the practical benefits of accepting what the scientists say - until a
better model is suggested.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
