How should we study religion?

The philosophers Daniel Dennett and Richard Swinburne debate the correct approach to the study of religion

by Daniel Dennett / March 22, 2006 / Leave a comment

Published in March 2006 issue of Prospect Magazine

Dear Richard
5th January 2006

It’s high time science took a good hard look at religion. Why? Because it has become evident in recent years that if we are to make progress on the world’smajor problems, we will have to learn more about religions and the influence they wield over people’s lives and actions. Failure to appreciate the dynamics of religious allegiance, and the psychological impact of religious differences, may lead us to invest heavily in counterproductive policies. The phoenix-like rebound of religion in the former Soviet Union suggests to many that just as prohibition and the war on drugs have proved to be disastrous, if well-meant, attempts to deal with the excesses of these popular indulgences, so any ill-informed effort to rein in the fanatical strains of religion will probably backfire badly if we don’t study the surrounding phenomena carefully and objectively.

From a biological perspective, religion is a remarkably costly human activity that has evolved over the millennia. What “pays for” this profligate expense? Why does it exist and how does it foster such powerful allegiances? To many people, even asking such a question will seem a sacrilege. But to undertake a serious scientific study of religious practices and attitudes, we must set aside the traditional exemption from scrutiny that religions have enjoyed.

Some people are sure that the world would be a better place without religion. I am not persuaded, because I cannot yet characterise anything that could replace it in the hearts of most human beings. (Perhaps we should try to eliminate music while we’re at it. It inflames the passions and seduces many young people into wasted lives.) What people care about deeply deserves to be taken seriously. Exempting religion from scrutiny is actually a patronising way of declaring it to be all just fashion and ceremony.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

The Bible story that unites politicians from Thatcher to Corbyn

Nick Spencer / November 7, 2017

Despite their sometimes strange interpretations, we should welcome the use of the...

A man of his words: how William Tyndale shaped our world

Melvyn Bragg / December 13, 2017

Tyndale’s radical take on the structure of Christianity prodded into life a debate on...

Comments

cosley sathekge
September 22, 2009 at 12:02
yes i do agree with the fact that religion should also be studied as nature but not creating theories that scientists create to refute the nature of God.
The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Studying Religion
October 2, 2009 at 18:23
[...] a debate between Daniel Dennett and Richard Swinburne on How Should We Study [...]
Philosopher of Religion
July 23, 2010 at 14:31
Correction: For the record, Swinburne is not a theologian. He is a philosopher of religion (one that happens to be a theist).
fax2email
August 16, 2011 at 08:59
as with the historical story of religion, so also with whether religion makes us better people, our conclusions will be much affected by whether we have good reason to believe that there is a God and other claims of religion. There’s no avoiding those issues.
Pat Hayes
April 4, 2014 at 05:35
It saddens me that Dan Dennett is wasting his valuable time having such an utterly pointless conversation with such a fool. Richard claims to have all kinds of 'explanations', but never actually gives us any. Take just one: the reason that all atoms (of a given element, I presume) are alike is because God fixed this so that moral human beings could exist. This is a complete non-sequitur. Why couldn't moral creatures exist in a universe made of dissimilar atoms? We have no idea what such a universe would be like, but I see no clear reason why consciousness could not exist in it. And why, for that matter, would a good God wish to create other conscious beings, in any case? Having other consciousnesses exist does not seem to be particularly morally good or beneficial in itself, given that God is already (by hypothesis) perfectly perfect. And so on: all through these absurd responses there are no actual clear arguments at all, only empty verbiage crafted to fit a narrowly Christian doctrine. A waste of time to read, and a waste of time to have written.