Science and Religion by Daniel C. Dennett

Can religion be studied scientifically? Should it be? Here’s what Dennett thinks.

Overview

In his article Science and Religion (2014), Daniel Dennett examines the relationship between scientific knowledge and religious belief. He argues that religion is a subject of great importance and influence in human affairs (including ethics, politics, culture, and social behavior), and that scientific study of religion is necessary in order to fully understand it.

He challenges the notion that science and religion have inherent conflict and argues that both can coexist in a meaningful way. Science can be used to answer questions about the physical world, while religion can be used to explain questions about morality and meaning.

He also discusses the potential of science to provide evidence for religious beliefs, and the potential of religion to inform our understanding of scientific facts. He argues that the two can be seen as complementary, rather than as competing forces.

About Daniel C. Dennett

American philosopher Daniel Clement Dennett is a professor at Tufts University. He specializes in research in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind and philosophy of biology. He has written a number of books, most notable of which are — Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (1995) and Consciousness Explained (1991).

Religion as a natural phenomenon

Dennett admits the influence of Hume’s book The Natural History of Religion on his work. Two questions of utmost importance about religion, as emphasized by Hume, are regarding its foundation in reason and its origin in human nature.

Dennett claims that religion is a human phenomenon, as opposed to the common misconception of it being supernatural. It can be seen to be made up of certain patterns, systems, events and organisms. These things function as per the laws of biology or physics, and are not miraculous. Religion can (and should), therefore, be subject to scientific scrutiny.

He then emphasized how even those people who believe in the miracles in religion are better off adopting the scientific method to explain religion (and if science would fail to explain certain events, their claim as them being miracles could be strengthened). He said that, keeping the aforementioned in mind, no religious person should be averse to the scientific scrutiny of religion (in order to explicate it as being a natural phenomenon) as that would only raise suspicion about the lack of conviction about its supernatural basis on their part.

Dennett explains how his assumption of religion being natural has no implications about its value to humanity. The natural sciences include within them a wide scope of things — from music to drugs to cities (and essentially everything that is there is in the world).

Dennett’s central aim is not to comment on and critique the arguments for the existence of God, but to speculate about the point of religion — what it is, and how it came to be such an important part of a major percentage of the human population.

Can religion be studied by science?

Dennett clarifies the grounds of his belief of religion being a natural phenomenon. Components of it, like texts, artifacts, experiences, beliefs, practices, institutions are undoubtedly natural.

He then discussed Stephen Jay Gould’s hypothesis of religion and science being “non-overlapping magisteria”. As long as one is not interfering in the other’s domain, they can co-exist peacefully. Science deals with the study of factual truths and natural world, whereas religion deals with matters of morality and meaning of life. But only a few readers believed that an interference in what has been supposed as each’s domain was a cause of all conflicts. Additionally, both sides had reasons to disagree with Gould. Religious people were unwilling to accept that factual truths and natural world are completely distinct from religion, as that would imply things like God did not create the universe (and similar beliefs that they were not willing to give up). Secularists were also unhappy with such a hypothesis, as they did not like the power/monopoly over morality that religion was claimed as having.

Here, Dennett asserts that his concern is different from Gould’s. Irrespective of who is right (Gould, religious people or the secularists), science still can and should study religion.

“I am not suggesting that science should try to do what religion does, but that it should study, scientifically, what religion does.” — D. Dennett

He emphasizes how there is an absence of information about what religion is. He acknowledges the wealth of scholarly work that has been done till date, but comments how most of this work has not been neutral.

“Researchers tend to be either respectful, deferential, diplomatic, tentative — or hostile, invasive and contemptuous…many people view neutrality itself as hostile…People who want to study religion usually have an axe to grind. They either want to defend their favorite religion from its critics or want to demonstrate the irrationality and futility of religion, and this tends to infect their methods with bias. Such distortion is not inevitable ”— D. Dennett

Furthermore, there is a conviction amongst people that they know all that there is to know about religion, and no ‘received wisdom’ is potent enough to evoke a refutation or extension. The belief that scientific scrutiny of religion would violate a taboo, or would poke into sensitive matters that are best left alone, is also prevalent and prevents most researchers from delving into it.

Problems faced by philosophers of religion

Dennett has identified several problems that arise when studying religion from a philosophical perspective. Here are some of them:

1. The problem of defining religion: There is no widely accepted definition of what constitutes a religion. Different religions have different beliefs, practices, and cultural contexts, making it difficult to find common ground for analysis.
2. The problem of religious diversity: There are numerous religions with different beliefs and practices, making it challenging to make universal claims about religion.
3. The problem of religious authority: Religions often have authoritative texts and leaders who claim to have special access to knowledge about the divine. This creates challenges for those who wish to study religion objectively.
4. The problem of religious skepticism: Some philosophers, including Dennett, approach religion with skepticism, which can make it difficult to engage with religious beliefs and practices on their own terms.
5. The problem of secular bias: Some philosophers may have a bias against religion or a preference for secular explanations of the world, which can influence their analysis of religious phenomena.

Dennett believes that despite these challenges, it is possible to study religion in a rigorous and objective way that takes into account its cultural and historical context. By adopting a naturalistic approach that examines religion as a human phenomenon, philosophers can shed light on its origins, functions, and impact on society.

Different methods of scientifically studying religion

According to Daniel Dennett, religion can be studied by science through various methods and approaches. Some of them are:

1. Evolutionary Biology: Religion can be studied as a natural phenomenon that has evolved over time through the process of natural selection. Researchers can examine how religion has adapted to different environments and how it has influenced human behavior and culture.
2. Cognitive Science: Religion can be studied from a cognitive perspective, which involves examining how religious beliefs and practices are processed by the human brain. This approach can help researchers understand how religion affects human cognition, emotion, and behavior.
3. Neuroscience: Researchers can examine how religious experiences are processed in the brain, and how they relate to other mental processes, such as emotion, memory, and perception.
4. Anthropology and Sociology: Researchers can examine how religion is practiced and expressed in different cultures and societies, and how it shapes social norms, values, and beliefs.

Should religion be studied by science?

The Five Hypotheses

Dennett presents five hypotheses about the future of religion, based on his observations of trends and developments in society and culture:

1. Disappearance of Enlightenment and diminishing of secularization, as religion grows in importance: This hypothesis suggests that the Enlightenment values of reason, science, and individualism will decline in importance as religion becomes more influential. Dennett argues that this could lead to a world in which religious authority is dominant and dissent is suppressed.
2. Religion being in death throes and having ceremonial role: This hypothesis suggests that religion is on the decline and will eventually disappear. However, even in its death throes, religion will continue to play a ceremonial role, providing comfort and community for its adherents.
3. Religion becoming creedless associations selling self-help and enabling moral teamwork and using ceremony to build fan loyalty: This hypothesis suggests that religion will become more focused on practical benefits for its members, such as self-help and moral teamwork. It will also become less focused on specific creeds or beliefs and more focused on providing a sense of community and identity.
4. Religion diminishing from prestige and visibility and possibly being outlawed: This hypothesis suggests that religion will become less influential in society and may even be outlawed in some places. Dennett argues that this could be due to factors such as secularization, increased skepticism of religious claims, or political changes.
5. Arrival of Judgment Day: This hypothesis suggests that religious beliefs about the end of the world will come true, leading to a final judgment and the end of human civilization. Dennett argues that this scenario is unlikely, but that it continues to exert a powerful influence on religious believers.

Dennett adds that there are, of course, other possibilities, but these five are the most extreme ones. And each of them have at least some fervent supporters. Not more than one of these will turn out to be true (that is, if any of them even does). This would render the rest as wildly wrong. Supporters of each might have conviction that theirs will be the one to prevail, but they have no concrete grounds for such a belief. This being said, the consequences of each would be serious. It gives us a strong enough reason to study religion scientifically — People who believe in the fifth hypothesis try to find evidences that fit their prophecy, and evaluate their sources accordingly. They believe that the course of future events is beyond human determination. But, the rest of the people (who do not believe that the fifth hypothesis will turn out to be true) have a bigger reason to embark on such a study.

“The rest of us have all the more reason to investigate the phenomena (religion), since it is quite obvious that complacency and ignorance could lead us to squander our opportunities to steer the phenomena in what we take to be the benign direction.” — D. Dennett

Reasons why one should study religion scientifically

Dennett thinks that religion should be studied by science for several reasons.

First, he believes that religion is a natural phenomenon that has evolved over time, and therefore, it is subject to scientific investigation. He argues that just as scientists study the natural world and human behavior, they should also study religion in order to gain a deeper understanding of it.

Secondly, Dennett contends that religion has a significant impact on human behavior, culture, and society. By studying religion, scientists can gain insights into how it affects people’s lives, beliefs, and values. This, in turn, can help policymakers, educators, and others make more informed decisions about social and cultural issues.

Finally, Dennett suggests that studying religion can help promote a more open and rational dialogue between believers and non-believers. By approaching religion from a scientific perspective, he believes that people can have more productive and respectful discussions about the role of religion in society.

Dennett also notes that religion has historically been studied by scholars in fields such as anthropology, sociology, and psychology, but that these studies have often been based on assumptions and methods that are not scientific. He argues that applying scientific methods to the study of religion can provide more accurate and rigorous insights into the nature of religion, its historical development, and its effects on human behavior.

Overall, Dennett thinks that studying religion through scientific inquiry can help shed light on a complex and often controversial topic, and lead to a better understanding of human nature and culture.

Music analogy

Daniel Dennett uses a music analogy to explain the relationship between science and religion. He argues that just as music can be analyzed and studied from different perspectives, such as acoustics, psychology, and cultural history, religion can also be studied from different angles, including anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. Dennett suggests that studying religion through these different lenses can help us gain a more comprehensive understanding of it.

Dennett also suggests that just as musicologists can appreciate and enjoy music without necessarily believing in its supernatural origins or significance, scientists can study religion without necessarily endorsing its truth claims. In other words, he suggests that it is possible to appreciate the cultural and social significance of religion without accepting its supernatural claims.

Thoughts and Conclusion

Daniel Dennett’s assessment of the relationship between science and religion is an important and insightful one. He has argued that science can and should study religion. He contends that just as science can study the natural world and the human mind, it can also investigate the origins, evolution, and impact of religion.

However, he is not suggesting that science can “explain away” religion or reduce it to purely materialistic terms. Rather, he believes that scientific inquiry can provide valuable insights into the nature of religion and its effects on human behavior and culture.

Through the music analogy, he highlights the idea that there are different ways to approach the study of religion, and that it is possible to appreciate and analyze it from a scientific perspective, without necessarily endorsing or rejecting its beliefs.

One part from the article that I particularly liked was about Dennett’s appeal to those who are dubious about scientific scrutiny of religion. He said that if we do not embark on such a study, we would pass on a legacy of even more toxic religious systems to our successors (and without scientific scrutiny, how would there be reforms or revisions to make religion more amicable?).

He demonstrates that science and religion are not necessarily at odds, and that a healthy relationship between the two can be beneficial for both. He argues that by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each, and recognizing that both have something to offer, we can create a more balanced approach to knowledge and faith. Ultimately, Dennett believes that science and religion can work together to foster a more enlightened and compassionate world.