Should Skeptical Inquiry be Applied to Religion?
Paul Kurtz
May 10, 2023 DOI: 10.4324/9781003417798-11 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that religious claims originated as prescientific assertions based on myth, metaphor, and metaphysics rather than testable claims, so "religious truth" cannot be appealed to against verified scientific findings. Because the burden of proof lies with the claimant, the author contends that skeptics may question fideists and partial-evidentialists who have not made an adequate justified case. |
Abstract
The relationship between science and religion has engendered heated controversy. 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. Historically, the claims of religion were taken as true, but this was a prescientific posture drawing upon myth and metaphor, metaphysics and speculation, not testable claims. Thus “religious truth” cannot be appealed to in order to contest the verified findings of the sciences. Since the burden of proof is always upon the claimant, 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.