The current attack on religion by the sciences of economics and anthropology is explored by the Economist in an on-line version, 3-19-08, of an article published in its Economist magazine. As is admitted at the very end of the article, the science is conducted by admitted atheists, and is expected to support their worldviews.
Interestingly, however, the article outlines the recording of many features of "religiosity" that are beneficial rather than harmful. Accordingly, these are attributed by the atheist scientists who interpret the results to aiding in the evolutionary process.
But there is no skepticism of the chosen experts. What is not highlighted is the question of what exactly is science? While science is the aggressor here, it is not questioned as to its empirical validity or intellectual integrity. Anthropology, for example, might never truly recover any semblance of intellectual integrity after the abuses of Margaret Mead, and other "interpreters" of primal societies, who actually inject their own social proclivities into the analysis. Moreover there is no practice of any empirical rigor involved in such studies; they are at best anecdotal. And at worst, blatantly false.
Economics as a science? Check your 401k.
And the use of brain probes to "comprehend" religiosity in the brain? There is no mention of brain plasticity here, as if probing a spot of activity proves everything. Such science writing is 20 years behind real science.
But even so, the actual finding of the probing is that religiosity spans the (rational) frontal cortex and many areas of the brain, but not the limbic (emotional) portion:
"Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story. "
From this it could well be interpreted that religious activity is rational, while secular activity is not!
But there are always the disclaimers:
"Dr Azari, however, is sceptical that such work will say much about religion's evolution and function. For this, other methods are needed."
So the last scientific resort here is to ethnology and psychology. These are expected to find the underlying cause of religiosity. But the question not asked: Are these considered science? In the same fashion as Physics and Chemistry? The empirical study of humans is not in the same category as the empirical study of particles. Reactions of humans to a given stimulus are not consistent, even within the same individual at different times. There are general types of behavior that can be categorized, but the human never behaves in a deterministic fashion. Not every human action meets with an equal and opposite reaction. If science requires determinism and verifiable repeatability, then psychology, ethnology and anthropology do not qualify.
Then why are these fields awarded such respect in articles such as this? Is it because the magazine itself is antireligious? This article tends to defend the value of religion while lionizing the science that attacks it. Is it looking toward the conclusion that religion is here because it is valuable as a tool for social evolution?
I think this is the only possible explanation for an article of this weakened logic. Science does not "Explain Religion" as the title projects. And the weak-kneed pursuits that are documented are not even empirically valid sciences. The article is a thinly veiled exposition of a desired worldview: evolution as the explanation of everything, and religion as a human construct to benefit the weak. As with all atheist materialist worldviews, it doesn't wash.
2 comments:
Sounds as if someone or someones in the article is guilty of rhetorical overreach. Hope it's not the 'scientist', but of course it could be.
If I might make a suggestion, this sentence could be improved as follows: "This article tends to defend the adaptive value of religion while lionizing the very science that attempts to demythologize it."
That would essentially answer the question posed by your next sentence, but still maintains the implicit irony. When science is lionized in a reflexive and uncritical way, it is in danger of becoming something like faith, with all that implies.
BTW, there is a raging mini-controversy about whether religion itself is/was adaptive, or whether religion itself somehow feeds off of other, more primal behavior, some of which may be adaptive, some not.
That is true. But it is more than just that. Actually I referring to this admission:
"Dr Wilson quips that “secularism is very maladaptive biologically. We're the ones who at best are having only two kids. Religious people are the ones who aren't smoking and drinking, and are living longer and having the health benefits.”
I suppose that if health and reproductive success is adaptive in the minds of "the fittest survive" tautology camp, then all religious behavior (defined as Christian, of course) is adaptive by definition. This could be a first principle for ethnology since it is a tautology. It has exactly no empirical force.
These secularists don't differentiate between organizations called "religion" and personal faith called "religion", much less rational rejection of materialism which is also called "religion".
They are groping in the dark about something they don't understand but wish to reduce to material components. They will succeed in getting stupid antireligious arguments published from time to time, yet will produce nothing of empirical substance because it is all abductive.
Rejection of the sunset by a blind man has no meaning.
Post a Comment