Should skeptical inquiry be applied to religion? - Special Issue: Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation?

Skeptical inquirers can and should examine religious claims, though the case can be made that CSICOP should not.

Scientific Inquiry

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. On the current scene, there is a vocal hallelujah chorus singing praises to the mutual harmony and support of these two realms or "magisteria." I have serious misgivings about this alleged rapprochement, but I wish to focus on only one aspect of the controversy, and ask: To what extent should we apply skepticism to religious claims?

By the term "skepticism" I do not refer to the classical philosophical position which denies that reliable knowledge is possible. Rather, I use the term "skepticism" to refer to skeptical inquiry. There is a contrast between two forms of skepticism, (1) that which emphasizes doubt and the impossibility of knowledge, and (2) that which focuses on inquiry and the genuine possibility of knowledge; for this latter form of skepticism ("the new skepticism," as I have labeled it),(1) skeptical inquiry is essential in all fields of scientific research. What I have in mind is the fact that scientific inquirers formulate hypotheses to account for data and solve problems; their findings are tentative; they are accepted because they draw upon a range of confirming evidence and predictions and/or fit into a logically coherent theoretical framework. Reliable hypotheses are adopted because they are corroborated by a community of inquirers and because the tests that confirm them can be replicated. Scientific hypotheses and theories are fallible; and in principle they are open to question in the light of future discoveries and/or the introduction of more comprehensive theories. The point is that we have been able to achieve reliable knowledge in discipline after discipline because of the effective application of skeptical inquiry.

Now the central questions that have been raised concern the range of skeptical inquiry. Are there areas such as religion in which science cannot enter? In particular, 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. I do not think that CSICOP and the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, however, should deal with religious claims; or if they do so, it should be only in a limited way. I shall deal with my reasons for these perhaps surprising statements later in this article.

Science has always had its critics, who have insisted that one or another area of human interest is immune to scientific inquiry. At one time it was proclaimed that astronomers could never know the outermost reaches of the universe (August Comte), the innermost nature of the atom (John Locke), or human consciousness (Henri Bergson). Critics have also insisted that we could not apply science to one or another aspect of human experience - political, economic, social, or ethical behavior, the arts, human psychology, sexuality, or feeling. I do not think that we should set a priori limits antecedent to inquiry; we should not seek to denigrate the ability of scientific investigators to explain behavior or to extend the frontiers of research into new areas.

Can There Be a Science of Religion?

Some have argued that religious phenomena - matters of faith - are entirely beyond the ken of science; but this surely is false because the scientific investigation of religion has already made great strides and there is a vast literature now available. We may talk about religion in at least two senses: First, religion refers to a form of human behavior that can be investigated. Second, it is used to refer to the transcendental, i.e., to that which transcends human experience or reason.

Let us turn to the first area. Religious behavior has been investigated by a wide range of disciplines: Anthropologists deal with the comparative study of primitive religions, examining prayer, ritual, the rites of passage, etc. Sociologists have investigated the institutional aspects of religious behavior, such as the role of the priestly class in society. Ever since William James, psychologists of religion have studied the varieties of religious experience, such as mysticism, ecstasy, talking in tongues, exorcism, etc. 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? 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 historical 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 religious belief today; and it is often claimed that belief in them is based upon faith.