SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx

SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: Religion and
Science
There exists indeed an opposition to it [building of UVA,
Jefferson's secular college] by the friends of William and Mary,
which is not strong. The most restive is that of the priests of the
different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as
witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the fatal
harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which
they live. In this the Presbyterian clergy take the lead. The
tocsin is sounded in all their pulpits, and the first alarm
denounced is against the particular creed of Doctr. Cooper; and
as impudently denounced as if they really knew what it is.
—Thomas Jefferson,Letter to José Francesco Corrê a Da Serra -
Monticello, April 11, 1820
The well-known German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, born several years before the American Revolution,
found success primarily during the 19th century. Hegel had an
interesting perspective on history, art, and many other life
circumstances. This is often referred to as the Hegelian
Dialectic, meaning two parts that combine to form a new whole.
As explained by this source from Rowan University, Hegel
envisioned a dialectical process by which history evolved.
Similar patterns can also be seen in art and other creative
media, education, and various other areas of life.
As Hegel explained, one particular existing idea, a thesis, would
face a challenge from a competing idea, or antithesis. The two
ideas would then struggle together, producing a dialogue in the
process. A resolution, or synthesis, would then emerge from the
dialogue. A series of syntheses would also yield what Hegel saw
as a zeitgeist, or “spirit of the times,” that indicated a common
characteristic or a particular feeling or flavor, as it were, of a

given period of history. Hegel’s explanation deeply influenced a
young idealist named Karl Marx. But as Marx developed his
own ideas about how the world worked, and became more
cynical than his predecessor, he instead emphasized the conflict
and devalued Hegel’s resolution process. Marx believed the
struggle would never end as long as one idea was more powerful
than the other. The relationship between religion and science
can be seen in terms of both the dialectic and the Marxian
conflict, as we shall see.
To better understand this relationship, let’s start with these
required articles:
Reading 1: Bainbridge, William Sims. 2011. “Science and
Religion,” Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion.
(Make sure you’re logged into your MyASU account. Click on
link, expand “Religion and Boundaries” menu, click on
“Science and Religion.”)
Reading 2:Plantinga, Alvin. 2010. “Religion and Science.”The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online.
Recommended for Further Interest:
Example of Thesis: Horn, Siegfried H. 1980. “From Bishop
Ussher to Edwin H. Thiele.”Andrews University Seminary
Studies, vol. 18, no. 1. Pp. 37-49.
Example of Antithesis: Dawkins, Richard. 2003 (November 19-
20). “The Science of Religion” and “The Religion of Science.”
Transcript of The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Harvard
University. Online.
Example of Dialogue: Peters, Ted. Not dated. “Evangelical
Atheism Today: A Response to Richard Dawkins.” Pacific
Lutheran Theological Seminary. Online.

Example of Synthesis: Eyring, Henry J. 2007. “Faith.” Mormon
Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring. Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book. Pp. 41-70. See also Deem, Rich. 2013. “How Old
is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?”Evidence for
God. www.godandscience.org. Web.
Interesting Case in Point: Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Jerry Z.
Park. 2009. “Conflict Between Religion and Science Among
Academic Scientists?” Journal of the Scientific Study of
Religion, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 276-92. Access also available via
EBSCOHOST; make sure you’re logged in to MyASU, click on
June 2009 edition, scroll down.
One introductory idea we need to revisit is that of a false
dichotomy. Remember, we mentioned this concept in Lesson 2.
A false dichotomy is socially constructed when people only
imagine two extremes of, or positions on, an issue as a pair of
distinct opposite categories instead of considering other
alternatives, including a range of intervening possibilities. The
opposites may well be perceived or socially defined, but true
bifurcation (i.e., a complete split in two) does not exist in an
Objective sense. We can think of it this way. In the Western
world, we often tend to think in “either/or” terms. Either
something is or isn’t, meets a particular definition or doesn’t,
has one quality or doesn’t, and so forth. But the observable
world around us is often more complicated than this. Keep in
mind that false dichotomies include statements as well as
categories. “Hillary Clinton belongs either in the White House
or prison,” for instance (notice the “either/or”?), ( presents a
somewhat overly obvious false dichotomy because the statement
ignores a number of other possible outcomes. But here, we’re
going to consider categories.
For instance, consider “hot” and cold.” They’re opposites,
right? Not necessarily! Thermometers are proof that “hot” and
“cold” exist on a range or spectrum of hotness and coldness.
Let’s just go as far as the moon to see this. Compared to the

moon’s nighttime temperatures, often around minus-170°C
(minus-274°F), your freezer at around minus-18°C (0°F) is a
downright tropical paradise. But even the hottest day ever
officially recorded on Earth—56.7°C (134°F) in Death Valley,
Calif., on July 10, 1913—is still rather cool in the daytime of
the moon, where at around 100°C (212°F) it’s literally hot
enough to boil water. So the moon—like a hot fudge sundae,
fried ice cream, etc. ( —isn’t either hot or cold—it’s hot and
cold, with the areas at the edge of light-and-dark that are in-
between. Considering only the two extremes creates a false
dichotomy.
Because of this, we tend to think of a fair number of concepts as
polar opposites, even when they are not necessarily so but
instead involve a range or spectrum. These might include sick
and healthy, darkness and light, lazy and industrious,
Republican and Democrat, and even good and evil as applied to
particular people. Fine, as we also discussed in Lesson 2,
Absolutes exist, but sometimes they are the end poles of a
spectrum of ordinary experience. But let’s not get too far afield;
there are plenty of additional but tangential questions related to
this, and other mysteries, that remain pertinent to the
philosophy of science and many other fields. The takeaway
point here is that religion and science are likewise false
dichotomies. They have been socially constructed as opposites,
but aren’t necessarily so, and there is a wide range of truth
(presumably even capital-T Truth!) and overlap between them
both.
The idea of a fundamental split between religion and science—
the either/or division—is not as old as many have thought. In
the early years of Westernized culture, many religious men
explored science. Bainbridge (2011) covers the ancient realms
of civilization and early origins of science fairly well, so I’ll
pick it up during the 9th century AD. In Andalucia (Muslim
Spain), for instance, scholars from Islam, Christianity, and
Judaism not only collaborated but explored the wisdom of the

Greeks and Romans in several early universities. As Plantinga
(2010) shows, Copernicus and Galileo both professed religious
faith, despite the latter’s well-known 1633 trial before the
Inquisition and conviction of heresy. During medieval times and
the Renaissance, despite the rise of humanism, many well-
known scholars professed at least a nominal level of religiosity
(Ibid.). Religion and science, along with other areas of thought,
were both considered part of the unknown mystery of existence.
In Plantinga’s terminology, there was possible concord for
religion and science. Here’s more on the history of the religion-
science division.
The trial of Galileo foreshadowed later events. The rise of
humanism led to greater divergence between religion and
science during the 18th century, though in the philosophical
Enlightenment, deism—which was the religious philosophy of
many of America’s founders—and other efforts still served as
something of a bridge between the two. This didn’t come
without problems and some division, as the deist Jefferson
sharply noted of the religious opponents to the founding of the
University of Virginia. Yet Jefferson—again as a deist—
disapproved much more of the fundamental misunderstanding of
scientific enterprises than of religion per se. Even in the 1850s,
Gregor Mendel, the forefather of genetic theory, recorded his
observations in his monastery’s garden, working well within the
framework of religious belief. But as Plantinga points out,
conflict (2010) was brewing in the mid-19th century. The Great
Schism arose with the emergence of natural scientist Charles
Darwin, particularly his publication of The Origin of Species in
1859. Darwin’s observations led to the theory of evolution.
Evolution, and later theories such as the “Big Bang” that sprang
from it, became not only something of a rallying cry for
scientists worldwide, but became seen and used as challenges to
religion and religious belief.
Remember social construction? Deism, as its adherents had

agreed, saw plants, animals, humans, and the natural processes
that governed them as part of God’s orderly system that
marvelously ran by itself. This was one socially constructed
explanation that sought to reconcile religion and science. But
the emerging theory of evolution was another social
construction, and it became construed—and used—as a
challenge to religious belief. Plantinga (2010) cites this as the
primary battlefield between the two. Scientific philosophy
associated with evolution openly contradicted not only deism,
but religious explanations in general—particularly as 19th
century scientists began to question the biblical account of
humanity’s creation by God. Instead, many advanced the
hypothesis, as set forth by Darwin in 1871 in The Descent of
Man, that humans had evolved from an ancestor common to the
apes. (Later critics illogically misrepresented this proposition as
an argument that man descended from monkeys.) As scientists
considered the evidence available to them and agreed upon how
the theory of evolution explained that evidence, a competing
social construction was born. These two constructs soon began
to fight.
Perhaps nowhere was the conflict more evident than in tiny
Dayton, Tennessee, in the sweltering summer of 1925. In the
then-recently passed Butler Act, the state of Tennessee had
outlawed teaching evolution in its public school classrooms.
This troubled scientists and others who agreed, including the
young American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Dayton science
teacher John Scopes had agreed to become a test case for
evolution for the ACLU by teaching the then-banned theory.
Several students and their parents reported him for violating the
Butler Act, and the state prosecuted.
Formally named The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
(usually truncated to Tennessee v. Scopes), the press nicknamed
it the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” Curious onlookers and news
reporters alike descended on the town, then of around 2,000;

various entrepreneurs cashed in, including the owner of a highly
trained chimpanzee. This early showdown between the ACLU
and the Christian Right featured atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow
and noted political figure and true believer William Jennings
Bryan. After several days of argument, Darrow cut the trial
short by entering a guilty plea. The jury agreed. This was
strictly a legal ploy; Darrow went on to appeal the verdict in
order to undermine the state’s law against teaching evolution,
eventually resulting in the repeal of the Butler Act. On the other
side of the case, mere days after the trial concluded, Bryan died
of a sudden illness, perhaps a stroke or heart attack. See this
site from Tennessee’s State Library and Archives for more on
the “Monkey Trial.”
As suggested at the top of the module, religion and science can
be considered as a Hegelian dialectical process. The thesis:
Religion as the original historical paradigm of “the known
truth,” though the paradigm—a time-honored interpretation of
the Genesis Creation account, emerging in medieval times and
reinforced with the Bible’s mass publication in the mid-15th
century—was socially constructed. Horn’s discussion of the
religious account in our optional readings represents this thesis.
Perhaps most notably, consider Bishop Ussher’s 17th century
chronology of Genesis that rather interestingly set the date of
The Creation as October 23, 4004 B.C.; moreover, after
dialogue with Sir John Lightfoot of the University of
Cambridge, the time of the event was set at 9:00 a.m.! Ussher
(and Lightfoot!) was not the first to attempt to delineate the
supposed 6,000-year history of the Earth, but his timeline is
probably the most well-known.
Scientific exploration, arising as an alternative explanation (and
in the socially constructed case of evolution, an outright
challenge) to the existing paradigm, serves as the anti-thesis.
Richard Dawkins’ modern, um, challenge to religion (to put it
lightly) represents this. Religious-based explanations such as

Creationism and intelligent design have countered the notion of
evolution; intelligent design has raised the particularly thorny
question of irreducible complexity, as in the link above. Still,
no religious-based explanation has been empirically accepted or
even come anywhere close. Mr. Peters’ response to Dawkins
then enters as just one example of dialogue—which is
admittedly a great deal more complicated than just this single
example demonstrates. We are currently engaged in the process
of dialogue, with the resulting conflict between science and
religion characteristic of the zeitgeist of our times.
Dawkins’ comments also underscore an interesting point:
Though he probably didn’t intend this, the outspoken atheist
and critic of religion in speaking of the “religion of science”
demonstrates that the discourse of religion and ideology is
inevitable—even when advocating atheism. Using a photo of
four girls playing roles in a Christmas program, Dawkins argues
how horrible it would be if we designated them by economic
ideology as Marxist, Keynesian, etc. His example could be
criticized as problematic in the proverbial “apples to oranges”
sense, but it aptly demonstrates the inevitability of ideology.
Science, in fact, furthermore shares some common ground with
Bellah’s framework of civil religion. Empiricism is a guiding
doctrine and the theory of evolution operates as dogma,
complete with criticism of evolution as tantamount to
blasphemy. Patron saints include Galileo and Darwin, peer-
reviewed scientific studies form its sacred literature, and so
forth. There are various “churches” and “sects” within the
religious field, with their own leadership structures, and a clear
process of conceptual development and progression by social
construction. Scientists are socialized into a particular way of
thinking and reinforce each other’s orthodoxy via the peer
review process. Science even has its crusaders and militants—
Dawkins, Michael Shermer, the late Christopher Hitchins, and
so forth—as well as recruiters. Bainbridge (2011) further points

out that some believers can consider science a religious activity,
particularly if the scientist feels he or she is discovering more
about God. Scientists, whether or not they ever admit it, even
take a certain degree of knowledge on faith!
Not all is parallel; “scientific rituals” vary by discipline and
context, for one thing; holidays other than those of the secular
workday calendar are few, for another. The “religious garb” of
the white lab coat is also not exactly universal. But the
discourse and structure of religion can certainly be applied to
the scientific field. Plantinga (2010) further discusses the idea
of “evidentialism.” This epistemological idea postulates that
some believers see religion as valid due to reasoning and
evidence, while others believe that other means of “knowing”
such as intuition can also testify of the Ultimate Reality of
religion, independent of the it application of reason.
Note also that the tension between religion and science,
especially when focusing directly on the battle with evolution,
can be considered in Marxian terms. Marx, as we know, was a
great deal more revolutionary than Hegel; hence, Marx steers
away from dialectical resolution and underscores incessant
struggle and conflict. As Marx saw it, the lower-class
proletariat continually struggles to resist the power and
oppression of the upper-class bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie also
subtly persuades the proletariat to accept their “lot in life”
using religion, Marx’s “opiate of the people.” So the religious
camp takes the role of the bourgeoisie, while the scientists
represent the proletariat. Yet is this the best fit, particularly for
the American context? Are scientists downtrodden, poverty-
stricken, and oppressed? Or are they part of a cultural and
intellectual elite that Marx himself didn’t envision, though later
Marxists expand the framework to include this dimension? Does
the entire history of religion and science present a never-ending
power struggle? Though all these points could be debated, doing
so might well force the point. While Marxist analysis applies in

more than a few contexts, it seems an awkward fit in this case.
Adding even more complexity, Bainbridge (2011) agrees with a
semi-harmonious view of religion and science, citing for
instance the tremendous amount of government funding for
scientific efforts in late 20th century America. Bainbridge sees
modern religion as evolving in light of scientific advances. Yet
Bainbridge also argues that the average American doesn’t
understand the everyday implications of science or speak/think
in scientific terms. He cites, for instance, pre-Copernican (and
partly Hellenic) imagery of the sun moving through the sky
rather than the Earth revolving on its axis, an idea that
continues in our modern language. So the words “sunrise” and
“sunset” imply the Sun moves around the Earth instead of vice
versa. Even the language we use oversimplifies the role of
science in everyday life. To Bainbridge, this allows the public,
and religious conservatives in particular, to overlook
oppositional nuances and accept science in general without
personal opposition to actual scientists.
In short, Bainbridge doesn’t believe religion and science co-
exist semi-peacefully, since people actually understand either of
them, particularly science. Yet Bainbridge doesn’t consider at
length another set of recent serious public debates over the
ethical implications of cloning and stem-cell research among
the public at large, which counter his view of science as
uncritically and/or passively accepted by most of the public.
While his argument has some merit, he may also be selling the
public view of science just a little short.
In any case, to return to Hegel, where is the synthesis? We are
living amid the dialogue stage, but some ideas have emerged as
potential syntheses of religion and science. Some may see the
Christian Science sect as one of these, though the group’s
scientific focus lies primarily on healing and medicine. Though
Christian Scientists reject evolution and Creationism alike, it is

not completely clear what they believe instead. Many groups
within the Judeo-Christian identity attempt to reconcile belief
and science; two such efforts are outlined in our optional
readings.
As an example of integrating religious belief and scientific
explanations, Bible commentator Rich Deem draws upon
Hebrew usage of the word “day” (and we sometimes use it in a
similar sense) to suggest that we have more to learn about the
time periods during which God created the Earth. These were
not, Deem suggests, literal 24-hour days but time periods of
indeterminate duration, as in “a new day is dawning.” This
suggestion not only opens up the Biblical time frame
substantially, but risks blowing it wide open. A Mormon thinker
makes a similar suggestion, as mentioned by Dr. Henry J.
Eyring of Brigham Young University-Idaho. Writing about his
grandfather, Henry, and his Mormon perspective on science, Dr.
Eyring ultimately concludes that Ultimate Truth exists, and
what is True about science and religion alike is part of it. In this
view, God not only gave us the Bible, but gave the tools and
reasoning of the scientific method as well. If both religion and
science are properly understood, applied, and interpreted, they
will lead to discovery of Ultimate Truth.
For instance, as Eyring and other Mormon scholars have
postulated, it could well be true that the Earth itself is billions
of years old, even if the Creation of humans occurred much
more recently. But in Eyring’s view, we humans just don’t yet
know enough about either science or religion—and when we do,
we will ultimately see no discrepancies. (By the way, for those
familiar with Mormonism, President Henry B. Eyring of the
LDS Church’s First Presidency is Henry’s son and Henry J.’s
father. Hopefully this helps keep track of which Henry Eyring is
which.) (
Furthermore, and significantly, both Deem and Eyring suggest

that the religious explanation for Earth’s origins and life on our
planet may need to be open rather than closed. Our religious
understanding may need to adapt every bit as much as our
scientific reasoning as we learn more about Ultimate Truth. If
this conclusion is true, the implications are potentially earth-
shaking, especially from the (admittedly somewhat
stereotypical) perspective of religion as The Answers That
Should Not Be Questioned. Can they be questioned after all? Is
there more to learn from a religious perspective? Moreover,
from an epistemological standpoint, does religion really know
what it says it knows? Have the historical processes of social
construction of existing tradition and interpretation of religious
texts resulted in a great many errors in modern understanding?
From this standpoint, religion may well seem old and
antiquated.
However, science—The Questions That Should Be Answered—
likewise is far from immune from epistemological critique: How
do we know our evidence has been correctly analyzed and
interpreted? Are the results established via science Absolute
Truth, or do scope conditions apply? Have we even discovered
all possible plausible competing explanations—much less ruled
them out? In short, have we as scientific analysts correctly
answered the questions we’re asking? Moreover, what about
questions of larger meaning? How do the various pieces of
evidence fit together to explain our existence and why we are
here? How can we scientifically explain phenomena such as art
and literature, imagination, right and wrong, altruism,
spirituality, love, and our persistent human habit of questioning
where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going?
Science has a difficult time answering all these issues and more.
From this stance, the strident and withering anti-religion
critiques of Richard Dawkins and friends seem a bit
presumptuous, if not arrogant and self-limiting. So here’s an
interesting thought: Useful as science is, perhaps we also need
creativity, philosophy, ethics, and even religion (in some form)

to explain the Unexplainable and help us navigate the mysteries
of our own existence.
In any case, doubts exist on both sides of the equation.
Resolving the doubts as shown in the illustration at left requires
religion and science alike. Ba’Hai teachings, which seem
instructive in this context, likewise suggest a religion-science
synthesis. Like two wings of a bird, both are seen as valid ways
of learning and advancing our modern world. This may not
reflect the division between religion and science for about the
past century and a half—our modern zeitgeist!—but it reflects
long-established historical realities of those who tried to grasp
the mysteries of existence. For centuries, people with religious
views engaged science. Only recently has an “either/or” choice
loomed between the two. Perhaps as we learn more, we will re-
discover that choosing both science and faith is still possible.
Karl Marx built upon G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy (the word
spelled in the building blocks, BTW). Image from
theimaginativeconservative.org.
The late American science fiction writer Ray Bradbury often
included religious themes in his work. According to
raybradbury.com, the quote shown above originates from a 1996
Playboy Magazine interview. Image and text from izquotes.com.
Image of Albert Einstein from quotes-central.com; see also �
HYPERLINK "http://www.sacred-
texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm" �http://www.sacred-
texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm� for more of the venerable
physicist’s thoughts on the subject.

ACLU attorney Clarence Darrow, left, with William Jennings
Bryan at the Tennessee v. Scopes trial in Dayton in 1925. Image
from cr4.globalspec.com.
Marx on Religion
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It
is the opium of the people." (From Critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right, 1843. See � HYPERLINK
"http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/300700.html"
�www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/300700.html�.)
Even our language contains artifacts of pre-Copernican
astronomy. Is there a more scientifically accurate word for
“sunset”? Image information: Sunset over San Tan Valley,
Arizona, December 1, 2005. Photo by Alden L. Weight. All
rights reserved.
Graphic from blog.faithlife.com, citing information from
veritas.org.
Quote from bahaiteachings.org. Image and quote from
kiwibahai.wordpress.com.

1
SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: Religious
Experiences
One of the inspirations for the formation of the Ithaca College
research group that conducted the survey was an article
published by the American Psychological Association on
reducing student beliefs in the paranormal to help them become
more critical thinkers (Beins, 2002). While the article focused
on using counter-attitudinal advocacy, a technique where
students argue against their own beliefs to see if they can be
changed, the meta-analysis we are adopting asks why
paranormal beliefs were used and not beliefs in religion, family,
higher education or democracy. In an assignment where students
in the Anthropology of the Paranormal class reflected on the
article, some have stated: “I think that this is ethnocentric
because the author is completely assuming that there is zero
legitimacy in paranormal experiences/accounts.” Another
student commented:
“These psychologists are basically saying that there can only be
one right answer and it’s a scientific one. I feel it is a very
narrow-minded approach to the questions humanity has about
the universe. On the other hand, I do feel that students, as well
as anyone, should question their beliefs. I do think it’s
important to know both sides of the story and try to understand
both a divine and scientific answer to the paranormal. An
anthropological approach would be less abrasive and more
respectful to students’ beliefs in the paranormal.”
—Quote from Hansen, Brooke, with Luke St. Clair and Jessica
Mancuso. 2015. “Paranormal Beliefs in College Culture: In My

House, We Have a Ghost Named Isaiah.” Paranthropology:
Journal of Anthropological Approaches to the Paranormal. Vol.
6 No. 2, pp. 46-47.
Why are paranormal/metaphysical phenomena important in the
sociology of religion? As many of you know, encounters with
the spiritual realm are often highly prized and sought after
among believers. In fact, experiences of communication with
deity are not only frequently recorded in texts that believers
consider sacred, but direct revelation from the spiritual world
plays an integral role in the origin stories of many religious
identity groups, including Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
and Mormonism.
Even more, believers in many (though not necessarily all)
religious groups feel the need for these experiences, thereby
giving them communication, if not a relationship or connection,
with deity. In the 15th century, for instance, Joan of Arc felt
that God had called her to lead the French army, and managed
to partially convince the king before enemies captured and
burned her at the stake. More currently, some evangelical
Christians may feel the distinct impression that God has
“called” them to do a particular work or follow a particular path
in life as a result of fervent prayer or a particular religious
experience. Various New Age practitioners seek to experience
astral voyages or projections, with their spirits liberated from
their bodies then freed to explore unknown realms of the unseen
universe. Many, many more examples of spiritual experiences
from many more religious traditions have become important to
believers.
Believers of multiple religious identities and groups seek for
experiences with the unseen to confirm their beliefs. In a sense,
this search for religious experience may well be the essence of
religion itself. For this reason, this module is just a page or two
longer than the others, though hopefully no less interesting or
useful.

To better understand this dimension of religion, let’s start by
reading these two required articles:
Reading 1:Goldstein, Diane E. 2007. “Scientific Rationalism
and Supernatural Experience Narratives.” In Haunting
Experiences: Ghosts in Contemporary Folklore. Goldstein,
Diane E, with Sylvia Ann Grider and Jeannie Banks Thomas
(eds). Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. Print. Please
read pages 60-78 of the text (PDF viewer screens 71-89),
remainder optional.
Reading 2: Yamane, David. “Experience.” Encyclopedia of
Religion and Society.Ed.William Swatos. New Haven, CT:
Altamira Press. (Hartford Seminary.) Online.
Note that this is a somewhat lengthy list, but of course, all are
optional. Feel free to save this list and go back to these readings
as your time permits if this topic truly interests you.
“Religious Experience,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The discussion of epistemology gets rather confusing, but
otherwise a good resource.
Baker, Joseph O., with Scott Draper. 2010. “Diverse
Supernatural Portfolios: Certitude, Exclusivity, and the
Curvilinear Relationship Between Religiosity and Paranormal
Beliefs.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 49,
No. 3, pp. 413-24.
Greyson, Bruce. 2007. “The Mystical Impact of Near-Death
Experiences.”Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness. No. 17,
pp. 9-13. Online.
James, William. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A

Study in Human Nature.[email protected] (University of
Adelaide, Australia). Online. [Yes, it’s more than a hundred
years old, but still considered a classical text in the literature of
religious experience.]
Lichfield, Gideon. 2015. “The Science of Near-Death
Experiences.” The Atlantic Magazine, April 2015. Online.
List of Resources from Boston University, including many
summaries of classic and contemporary work on religious and
paranormal experience.
Paranthropology: Journal of Anthropological Approaches to the
Paranormal.
Joan of Arc, 2015. BYUtv Documentary. This docudrama
includes commentary from religious leaders and scholars about
this fascinating 15th century historical figure and the spiritual
phenomena that inspired her.
To begin, let’s go back to a couple of key terms in Lesson 2.
It’s important to understand the critical difference between the
paranormal and the metaphysical. The paranormal, as expressed
earlier, involves phenomena that can’t be analyzed by our
current scientific methods, since they have to do with events
and entities that lie beyond our current realm of understanding.
Legendary creatures—faeries, gnomes, trolls, mermaids, etc.—
for instance, are generally considered part of the paranormal,
along with UFO sightings, tales of Atlantis, rumors of
spontaneous human combustion, telekinesis, ESP, and so forth.
A related term, “supernatural,” is often considered synonymous
with paranormal, but is usually applied to spiritual
manifestations—ghosts, angels, demons, poltergeists, and so
forth, so see below. ( Though the vast majority of people today
generally consider paranormal phenomena the stuff of legends
and folklore, a small number continue to affirm their existence

and swear they have found evidence of Bigfoot, been abducted
by aliens, passed through time warps, and sure, yes, even seen
mermaids. (Always think critically, but if YouTube footage is to
be believed and accepted on its face as genuine and not
artificially manipulated, ( there’s also evidence of mermaid
sightings there.) The paranormal may or may not necessarily be
considered Real, in the language of Lesson 2. (
The metaphysical, on the other hand, has to do with phenomena
that are considered Real in terms of experience on another level
of Unseen Existence. This includes much of religious/spiritual
experience such as ghosts, dreams and visions, NDEs (near-
death experiences), heavenly messages (and messengers),
demon encounters, and so forth. Though not used exclusively in
a religious sense, the term is often considered most applicable
to religious phenomena. For this reason, “supernatural” is often
particularly applied to the metaphysical.
Also interestingly, the relationship between the metaphysical
and the paranormal is also sometimes under debate. Many
positivist-empiricist scientists consider the metaphysical a mere
subset of all that is paranormal—some, in fact, believe there is
no difference. Others believe that there is overlap between the
two—ghosts are frequently cited as both paranormal and
metaphysical, for instance. In that framework, the
“supernatural” designation would be applied to that supposed
paranormal/metaphysical overlap. The issue of what is and isn’t
Real generally plays into the classification of which phenomena
belong where. Few scholars believe that the metaphysical and
paranormal are completely distinct, though many people tend to
see them that way.
What about the Ultimate Reality of the phenomena we—
usually—cannot see, hear, or otherwise experience for
ourselves? Not to drag Harry Potter into this class again, ( but
to illustrate this, consider the exchange between eccentric
believer Xenophilius Lovegood and rationalist Hermione

Granger in Deathly Hallows (p. 411) about the Resurrection
Stone. When Hermione declares that the Resurrection Stone
can’t possibly exist, Xenophilius challenges her to prove that it
isn’t real. Hermione correctly states that this effort would be
absurdly difficult, requiring her to find, examine, and rule out
every single boulder, rock, and pebble in the world. She then
adds that anything could be considered real if it’s necessary to
disprove that it exists; Xenophilius then congratulates her on
opening her mind.
To be sure, Xenophilius here rather absurdly commits a rather
flagrant logical error—the utter lack of evidence and inability to
disprove is hardly tantamount to proof of his outlandish beliefs!
Even further, the fictional exchange helps metaphorically
illustrate the tension between paranormal-metaphysical claims
and empirical science. As Goldstein (2007) attests, the two have
long had a hard time mixing. For instance, despite thousands of
reported sightings, scientifically admissible evidence
confirming the existence of UFOs (Roswell notwithstanding) (
and Bigfoot is absent. No wreckage, no bodies. Despite a fair
amount of anecdotal evidence, Western medical science has
never confirmed and documented a case of spontaneous human
combustion. Even the would-be-empirical evidence collected by
“ghost hunters” is usually far too ambiguous to be accepted as
scientifically valid, even though collected via modern
technology. Faint and cryptic voice recordings, video of erratic
moving lights and objects appearing to move all by themselves,
blurry photographic images, and so forth don’t convince either
scientists or skeptics that their evidence of ghosts is genuine.
For better or worse, religious experience from the dramatic
(visions, dreams, angelic visitations, etc.) to the subtle (feelings
of “being prompted” or “being called,” etc.) tends to be painted
with the same brush.
Yet, despite Xenophilius’ absurdly backwards conclusion, the
problem he presents to Hermione remains real: Though little if

any concrete empirical evidence exists to support the
paranormal, ruling out most paranormal phenomena would
require a virtually impossible empirical test. Like Hermione,
many otherwise brilliant, highly rational scientists fall into an
error almost as silly as our Mr. Lovegood’s, though at the
opposite end of the spectrum. To explain, consider the
epistemological difference between two statements that are
frequently confused with each other, though they actually mean
VERY different things:
1) We have no evidence to support this idea and cannot support
it as true;
2) We can safely conclude, based on the known evidence
discovered and presented, that this idea is false.
Again, the two statements are NOT synonymous. Think it
through carefully. Empirical evidence cannot and does not
support the Ultimate Reality of virtually any metaphysical
experience. In fact, concrete and scientifically valid evidence
confirming the paranormal often can’t really be gathered.
However, it is likewise empirically impossible to rule out the
possibility that the experience really did occur. An utter lack of
evidence that the experience DID happen is far from the same as
possessing valid, credible, and incontrovertible evidence that
the experience did NOT happen. A lack of data is just that—a
lack of data. No, an absence of data can’t prove the reality of
any idea, outlandish or not—but neither does it refute it.
Therefore, from an epistemological perspective, no truly
informed empirical conclusions really can—or should—be
drawn about whether paranormal phenomena, including
religious experiences, actually have occurred. In the absence of
data, what remains is opinion—and only opinion. Every
scientist and student out there should feel free to have and hold
opinions, but in the full knowledge that without data, they ARE
merely opinions. Empirical evidence and religious experience

make different claims about different aspects of existence and
are hardly interchangeable. Religious experiences such as
answers to prayers, miracles, conversions, and the numinous—
the feeling that one has made a spiritual connection with deity
or something greater than the self—may not be able to be
confirmed via empirical scientific methods. But on the other
hand, their existence and validity cannot be ruled out—
especially since they are a key area of study and concern in the
field of the sociology of religion.
It is also unnecessary to believe in all paranormal phenomena at
once, which is likely the exception rather that the rule. Some
believers may, for instance, readily accept the idea of generally
unseen spirits and demons but scoff at the notion of mermaids,
The Jersey Devil or Loch Ness Monster. Others may accept
miracles and prayer but reject UFOs and spontaneous human
combustion. It is a rare believer indeed, actually, who like our
good friend Xenophilius ( seems to accept virtually all
paranormal phenomena as plausible in the “real world” of
everyday experience. Various individual or group belief-system
rationales are usually more compatible with some paranormal
phenomena than others. So many paranormal phenomena exist
on a range of plausibility, and some phenomena are more
plausible to individual believers than others.
In contrast, as we know, the scientific perspective requires
evidence. The best scientists follow the data, wherever that data
lead—or, perhaps much better said, where they believe the data
lead. (Data are always interpreted according to a particular set
of beliefs, but we will leave that can of worms unopened until
you want to get into the philosophy of science.) ( This
sometimes produces some intriguing outcomes. For instance,
consider Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anthropological scientist at Idaho
State University, who has rather controversially concluded that
the evidence he’s analyzed—at least what is valid and reliable—
likely confirms the existence of Bigfoot, according to NBC

News.
Still, let’s keep our shoes on. Yes, Meldrum concedes that some
Bigfoot “evidence” is obviously fictitious, produced by hoaxers
and practical jokers. Yet he sees striking commonalities and
consistencies in other data, which lead him to conclude that
Bigfoot’s reality is the most reasonable explanation. From the
social construction view, this obviously clashes with the current
academic-public paradigm that Bigfoot is merely the stuff of
legends and tall tales. Meldrum may be his university’s poor
stepchild right now, but he is at least going where he believes
the evidence leads, willing to play the fool—or perhaps one day
be recognized as ahead of his time. As noted in the NBC News
link, no less than primate expert Jane Goodall is keeping an
open mind on Bigfoot. So if any of the rest of us follow her
lead, no worries with me. (
This is precisely why it’s important to reach for the social
meaning of metaphysical and paranormal experiences.
Meldrum’s position illustrates the generally perceived status of
paranormal claims in academia. Examining the paranormal is an
interesting but controversial enterprise. It is, nearly literally in
terms of social construction, the meeting of two very different
socio-cognitive worlds. As Goldstein (2007) attests in her
folklore-oriented analysis, the empirical-rational school of
thought assumes the public at large—the other camp, which
belongs to the world of ordinary experience—will eventually
“evolve” to their way of thinking and old “superstitions” of the
past will disappear.
At best, this gap between the cognoscenti and the vulgi
ignobilis has taken the form of a condescending elitist put-down
of the proverbial unwashed masses; at worst, it has approached
repression of belief due to self-assumed greater wisdom.
Professing actual belief in Bigfoot—or ghosts, ESP, UFOs,
leprechauns, angels, and the like—is far from welcome in the

empirical world, much as true believers may truly believe it.
Even bringing up religious experiences in an academic context
can be a bit dicey. I have had several experiences throughout
my life that I cannot explain in any other terms than as religious
experiences, and what happened is very Real to me. But even
now is not the time or place to discuss these experiences in
depth; what they mean to me is not the same as what they would
mean to all of you, perhaps even for members of my own faith
tradition. Still, even setting aside the question of whether the
phenomena is Real, it is abundantly clear that any given
religious experience means something to the believer(s). That—
the social meaning of the phenomenon to the group—is an
empirically valid social proposition. Illuminating that is our
goal.
With this said, as Yamane notes in The Encyclopedia of
Religion and Society, the literature of religion is replete with
discussion of the human spirit and encounters with deity. In a
very literal sense, this can be seen as the purpose of scripture in
many faith traditions—a record of the interaction between deity
and humanity. It is important to note that, even though we tend
to remember the more dramatic religious experiences, even
more common are the quiet and subtle encounters with deity
(Ibid.).
The many stories of the Bible, for instance, illustrate a pattern
of religious experiences, beginning with Adam and Eve, who
the record testifies were able to walk and talk with God,
especially before the expulsion from Eden. The Bible also has
accounts of many other religious experiences, though the
dramatic types of experience tend to predominate: Noah and the
ark, Moses and the stone tablets, Samuel hearing the voice of
God, Jesus Christ communing with God in the wilderness and
being transfigured before his disciples, Peter seeing the vision
about preaching to the Gentiles, Paul’s vision and conversion on
the road to Damascus, and so forth.

Religious experiences are far from limited to the Judeo-
Christian tradition; the Bhaghavad Gita tells of accounts of
mortal encounters with Hindu deities. There is no written
record, but legends and tradition hold that Buddhism originated
as Prince Siddhartha Gautama meditated all day and all night on
the issue of mortal suffering and attained Enlightenment. In
Islam, the Qu’ran itself is a record of the religious experience
of Mohammed receiving what Muslims accept as God’s word. In
Mormon tradition, the Book of Mormon tells of many dreams,
visions, spiritual promptings, and other divine encounters. Even
Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology relate tales of how the
gods of the Pantheon favored various mortals, at times
communicating with them directly. Religious experience is key
in many religious traditions.
Neither are sacred experiences merely a matter of stories told in
ancient scripture. Earlier, we mentioned Joan of Arc, who as
somewhat glowingly described here not only helped keep France
free from English conquest but seemingly did so on divine
command. In even more modern times, in his most well-known
account of his vision (and in all fairness, several accounts were
attributed to him), LDS Church founder Joseph Smith relates
how he was called as a modern prophet. Mary Baker Eddy
experienced a miraculous healing that inspired her to go on to
found the Christian Science movement. Also notably, Mother
Teresa embarked on her life’s work because of a religious
experience, though her personal correspondence reveals that she
suffered intensely from doubt and depression throughout her
life. William James, reviewing a wide variety of spiritual
accounts, concludes in his 1902 classic text Varieties of
Religious Experience that virtually all major religions
originated from a religious experience of some sort or another
(Yamane).
Of course, religious experiences aren’t reserved for major
religious figures; ordinary rank-and-file believers experience

them as well. We have already discussed elsewhere the
conversion story of C.S. Lewis and the experience of John
Groberg in Tonga. An online repository of stories (see
http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/real-spiritual-stories.php)
purports to recount real-life religious experiences of ordinary
people; British academic researcher Alister Hardy has also
collected such accounts, accessible at
http://studyspiritualexperiences.weebly.com/personal-
stories.html, with several experiences shown on that link,
though apparently the site’s full resources are available for a
fee. Many accounts are fairly dramatic, though again, the quiet
and subtle tend to predominate (Yamane). So for every
spectacular account such as Moses seeing the burning bush,
there are many more like that of Elijah hearing the “still small
voice” that was not in the fire, wind, or earthquake.
What is the appeal of religious experience to individual
believers? Two religious philosophers, Rudolf Otto and Martin
Buber, help answer that question. Otto explores the emotions
associated with divine encounters, asserting that even though
believers desire to encounter the Divine (or in Otto’s terms, the
“numinous”), when they do, they tend to feel a sense of dread
and awe, or the mysterium tremendum. Believers sense the
power of deity and their own nothingness relative to the
numinous. Hence the frequent accounts of believers falling to
their knees and so forth during religious experiences, as well as
the occasionally recorded refusal of angels—seemingly as mere
representations or representatives of the numinous rather than
the numinous itself—to accept worship, as in the biblical
account of Revelations 22:9. Even the more common “still small
voice” accounts tend to evoke this sense of awe (Yamane).
In a sense, then, those who seek religious experiences may
rather paradoxically desire yet also fear them. So why seek
them at all? This is where Buber comes in, arguing that seekers
desire not only acceptance, but closeness to the Divine. Keep in

mind that Buber does not see the mysterium tremendum as the
only aspect of the religious experience. So even if the initial
encounters may be fearful, over the long term, they lead to a
sense of familiarity and ultimately turn to joy. To Buber, the
Divine not only inspires awe, but may also awaken in believers
a craving for dialogue, connection, and spiritual intimacy—
because the Divine is more loving and familiar with us than we
are with our own selves. Buber designates this quest for
dialogue and connection the “I-Thou” relationship.
Relationships to other things and people, particularly rather
distant ones in which the end goal is more control than
connection (“I-It”), may feature various degrees of
objectification by comparison. However, the I-Thou relationship
fully involves a sense of immersion of identity; nothing is
withdrawn or held back in the sense of warm closeness and
dialogic connection with deity. In a way, this is part of the
mysterium tremendum, since the Divine knows us well enough
to know what is non-divine about our own selves. But the
Divine has the capacity to love us, regardless, and desire to
establish a relationship with us.
So this I-Thou quest to approach divinity is the end goal of
many religious traditions from an experiential standpoint.
Whether becoming One With The Universe, developing a
personal relationship with Jesus, returning to the presence of
the Father, or other ways of conceptualizing becoming one with
deity, believers pursue this sense of connection. Often, and
interestingly, as Yamane points out, this sense is not found in
the spectacular but in the subtle: spiritual promptings, an
answer to prayer that is felt in the heart, a particularly
overwhelming feeling that deity has taken notice and/or been
nearby, and so forth. . But once realized, the believer attains the
sense of the Ultimate Reality that Berger (1973) discussed in
The Heretical Imperative, as we considered in Lesson 1. Once
the believer attains the understanding of the Ultimate Reality,
that becomes what is Real and the day-to-day world around us

becomes the illusion.
Yamane points out some facilitators and consequences of
religious experience. Likely the most significant consequence is
a sense of satisfaction from the believer, not necessarily with
his or her immediate life situation but in a long-term sense of
purpose. No matter what happens, the believer understands that
deity has taken notice of that situation and that all will turn out
for the best. How do believers approach the religious experience
when trying to approach deity? What do they do to attempt to
bring the experience about? Yamane cites a set of psychological
facilitators, chief among which seems to be a form of “cognitive
restructuring” in the face of a crisis. The religious experience
helps produce a different way of seeing the crisis and situation,
such as Groberg’s observation: Finding the link between Heaven
and Earth makes everything meaningful, even death, while in its
absence, all is meaningless, even life. Interestingly, social
factors such as religious participation seem less influential than
the subjective, since the experience often takes an
individualized form. Presumably, though the group can
contribute a conducive setting and principles, the religious
experience is often a result of individual effort.
Yet the problem of studying these accounts by empirical means
remains. Bridging this gap between the empirical world and that
of everyday experience, as suggested by the quote at the top of
this module, as well as Lesson 2, is a small but significant third
camp. The anthropological perspective basically takes a
phenomenological approach to religious experiences. Well,
welcome to camp! (
Let’s briefly review phenomenology, which is essential to
correctly understanding this approach. Some past students have
grossly misunderstood this perspective. One once summarized
phenomenology more or less this way: “Any rational human
being clearly knows the idiot I’m hearing is pathologically

delusional, but hey, I was told I had to accept this complete
load of #[email protected]%X& as Absolutely True, so I guess
I’ve got to humor this poor sap.” Uh, no. Not at all, and actually
really rather sad, my friends. ( Instead, as we’ve previously
mentioned (several times, actually), ( we’re not declaring those
paranormal experiences as truly Real; neither are we saying
they’re fictitious or delusional.
Remember, as in Lesson 1, we are inductionists! We are also
after the social meaning of these experiences. Phenomenology is
all about this: Understanding the individual and social meaning
of the subjective experience, including religious and/or
supernatural phenomena. ”The Basics of Philosophy”
sufficiently recaps the basic points of phenomenology; the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a much more in-
depth treatment. As in the Dumbledore example from Lesson 2,
what is happening in the head is assumed to be real—even if
only to the person who is experiencing it. As its key proponents
Edmond Husserl and Martin Heidegger conceptualized
phenomenology, it studies how the experiences are structured in
the minds of those who perceive them, as well as the
intentionality of those experiences—that is, the way those who
receive these experiences then intentionally relate them to the
outside world. Hence, the actual experiences might or might not
be Objectively Real, but the intentionality is very real indeed.
So we leave the actual confirmation of whether the experience
actually occurred to the true believers, psychologists,
theologians, and other interested parties. Given our scientific
approach, our primary source of empirical data is always a piece
of observable information, preferably one we have actually
obtained first-hand. This includes a self-reported response to a
survey, an act or decision observed in a laboratory, the actual
account(s) of believers, and so forth. Interestingly, we find
religious experiences among all social categories, even among
the highly educated, as Goldstein (2007) attests. It is not

necessarily true that education and sophistication precludes the
ability to have religious, supernatural, and/or paranormal
experiences. Goldstein further observes a curious tension
between rationality and the paranormal in personal narratives.
Those she interviewed were often able to treat accounts of
second- and third-hand paranormal encounters in a casual,
almost joking way. But first-person supernatural accounts were
often more serious—even somewhat defensive—as if the
storyteller wanted to assure the interviewer as well as him- or
herself that he or she was still sane. This is our modern sense of
rationality; we can shrug off the paranormal in others, but we
find unsettling what we can’t explain in our own lives.
With this said, an interesting development continues to unfold:
studies of near-death experiences, or NDEs, are gradually
becoming more prevalent, particularly in the medical field.
Physician and medical researcher Bruce Greyson has
extensively researched NDEs from a medical standpoint, for
instance. Intriguingly, though medical-type studies have
managed to imitate some NDE elements, no researcher has yet
reproduced anywhere close to an entire experience in a clinical
setting. Also lacking is a sound psychological-biological
explanation for how these occur—much less how people seem to
be capable of accurately observing events from outside their
own bodies that occur while sensory organs are non-functional.
Notably, the theological explanation in many religions—that
bodies have an independent consciousness and form of identity,
often called a spirit, which is released from the body at the time
of death—is not on the table as a possible scientific explanation
for NDEs. It isn’t even in the same room—or building, for that
matter.
After all is said and done, what remains as primary evidence
for religious experiences? Story and narrative. How do we
examine story and narrative as social scientists?
Phenomenology and anthropology. As the student at the top of

the module suggested, the anthropological explanation—a close
cousin to phenomenology and nearly identical in its approach—
may be something of a bridge between ideological camps.
Because of the difficulty of using empirical methods to examine
religious experience, the phenomenological/anthropological
approach remains our best—and to date, only—alternative for
examining the social value and meaning of these experiences.
All else is insufficient.
In conclusion, there is substantial value in questioning and
interrogating one’s own beliefs. A search for Truth generally
requires the admission that the believer needs to understand
much more than he or she already knows, and science may well
yield some of that understanding. However, there is also much
worth in finding lasting and permanent answers to highly
puzzling questions, and this is partly what religion is all about.
The search for religious experience is at the heart of many faith
traditions, as believers seek contact with the unseen world
around us to help give them answers to questions that have long
plagued humanity. Keeping an open mind as we all search for
Truth is therefore paramount, and uncovering the social
meanings of paranormal and metaphysical experiences is our
core objective as social scientists.
Key Difference in Terms
Metaphysical = Other-worldly (spirits, angels, God, Heaven,
etc.), usually applied to the religious context. Often considered
part of the paranormal.
Paranormal = Beyond current scope of scientific understanding
(UFOs, chupacabras, telekinesis, ESP, much of metaphysical
phenomena, etc.). “Supernatural” is sometimes used for the
paranormal-metaphysical.

Xenophilius Lovegood explaining the the Deathly Hallows to
Harry Potter and friends, according to the 2010 Warner Brothers
film. Image from es.harrypotter.wikia.com.
Mermaids are Real! At least some people even today still say
so, based on Internet lore. There are centuries’ worth of
anecdotal evidence, after all. Of course, most historians think
sailors under the influence of heatstroke or grog really saw
manatees or sea lions. Still, mermaids are indisputably very
real—as part of our modern folklore. We lack evidence to
confirm mermaids’ real-life existence, but we cannot
empirically prove that they don’t exist. Image from
myths.e2bn.org.
Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University holds what he
believes is an authentic Bigfoot print. � HYPERLINK
"http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html" �This is his
argument that some of these prints are in fact real�. Image from
duluthnewstribune.com.
Joan of Arc, who claimed visitation from several divine
messengers, convinced the French king that her experiences
were authentic and led a French army to victory over English
troops. The English captured and executed her for heresy,
witchcraft, and dressing like a man, as she had done for her own
protection. Image from keen.com.

In a 2009 Pew Forum study…
… 49% of respondents reported having a religious experience
sometime during their lives,
… 29% said they’d been in contact with someone who had died,
… 18% responded they’d had encounters with ghosts, AND
… all three trends represented increases when compared to the
results of previous research!
� HYPERLINK "http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-
americans-mix-multiple-faiths/" l "6" �See the study results
report here.�
Image from slideshare.net.
An NDE illustration from theatlantic.com, found �
HYPERLINK
"http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-
science-of-near-death-experiences/386231/" �here�.

1
SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: Current
Issues in Marriage, Family, and Religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
—First Amendment to the US Constitution
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transc
ript.html)
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court forever
altered the cultural landscape of America. In the landmark
ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court concluded years of
debate over same-sex marriage by declaring that states have no
constitutional right to prevent the practice. In the weeks since
then, the decision seems to have validated the status of the
same-sex couple and family in American society. Many couples
have celebrated their legally approved unions. But religious
concerns about this decision remain. Leaders of religious groups
who disapprove of homosexuality have voiced concerns about
being able to freely practice their faith. Episodes such as
wedding photographers, florists, and bakers being forced by the
courts to provide goods and services despite their conscientious
objections helped fuel the debate. Some advocates of same-sex
marriage have “outed” supporters of California’s controversial
Prop. 8 and others have vowed retaliation against people and
organizations who opposed them, such as lawsuits to revoke the
tax-exempt status of conservative churches.
Though the vocal arguments have largely died down, we remain

in a deeply fractured cultural environment. Episodes such as
Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refusing to grant marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs,
provoke a great deal of emotion, whether for or against her
position. Many have staked out their positions and while some
seem inclined to at least listen and try to understand, few seem
willing to change sides. At least one lesson seems clear. If we
have learned anything in this whole uproar, we have learned
that marriage and family—and how different groups of people
define both terms—matter tremendously to modern-day
Americans. A desire to marry is still very much alive, despite
decades of downplaying and even attacking this social
institution; a deep attachment and care for families and family
life is still very much evident, even though (and perhaps partly
because) many commentators have worried about the health and
status of the family unit in America. Likewise, religious belief
is still very much alive, as are corresponding traditional
American beliefs in fairness and unwillingness to discriminate.
Yet instead of the time-honored harmonious relationship these
ideals have enjoyed, many have now been put at odds with each
other. How Americans work through this situation will mean a
great deal to our future as a nation.
To explore these issues, let’s turn to the following required
readings:
Reading 1: Edgell, Penny, 2011. “Religion and Family,” Oxford
Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Online. (Make sure
you’re logged into your MyASU account. Click on link, expand
“Secularization” menu, click on “Religion and Family.”)
Reading 2:Berg, Thomas C. 2015. “Protecting Same Sex
Families and Religious Dissenters after
Obergefell.”Cornerstone: A Conversation on Religious Freedom
and its Social Implications. Berkeley Center for Religion,
Peace, and World Affairs: Georgetown University. Web.

Jordan, Mark D. 2015. “Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Leaves
Religious Questions Unanswered.” Harvard Divinity School:
News and Events. Web.
Rausch, Jonathan. 2015. “The Supreme Court Weds Gay
Marriage to Family Values.” The Brookings Institution. Web.
Lerner, Adam B. 2015. “The Supreme Court’s Most Memorable
Opinions on Gay Marriage.” politico.com. Web.
Marist Poll. 2013. (March 13.) “Tolerance for Religious
Rights.” Marist College. Web.
Before continuing, let me disclose my subjective interest in this
issue. As I told my students at the time I first wrote this
module, this particular piece was by far the hardest to write of
all of them. If you’ll excuse the personal aside, here’s why that
is. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I am a practicing member of the
LDS Church. For better or worse, I grew up seeing LGBT
people as deviant, though I never held malice in my heart
towards them. Yet one fall night in 1995, one of the best friends
I ever had in my life “came out” to me as bisexual; I found over
the next decade that several other good friends from high
school, guys and girls, had also declared themselves as gay—as
well as one of my favorite cousins. As we know from sociology,
our perspective on those we define as “others” changes when we
actually get to know and care about people in that “other”
group. That was definitely true in my case. Knowing all this
rocked my world. Seriously.
So as I realized I needed to understand this issue more
profoundly, I began to ponder and study what my church really
taught about gay and lesbian issues. That included a

providential article from church leader Dallin H. Oaks in 1995.
I soon saw there was ample room in Church teachings for
sympathy, tolerance, and kindness for LGBT individuals. Yes,
the church taught, and still teaches, that homosexual behavior,
though not orientation, is a sin—along with a whole boatload of
other issues, so that none of us get off scot-free. As another
leader, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, has more recently taught, we should
follow the wisdom of the saying: “Don’t judge me because I sin
differently than you.” Heterosexuals are every bit as capable of
being evil.
The LDS Church supports traditional marriage and family,
not—contrary to many accusations—out of hatred for gay
people. These are NOT the Westboro Baptists we’re talking
about here, folks. (The WBC, incidentally, also despises
Mormons. Big surprise. Add them to the long list.) ( Rather,
Mormons have a sincere belief and conviction that God intended
a mother-father family to bless and perpetuate society and that
we only tamper with that divinely established institution at our
own risk. And the church has also long taught—as in the
previously cited Oaks article—that it is wrong, offensive,
criminal, and against the nature of Christ Himself to “bash” gay
and lesbian people, literally or figuratively. As with any
religious principle, some individual members may have learned
that lesson better than others, of course.
In any case, I learned that I could and should still be merciful
and kind to all people, including my gay and lesbian friends.
They and I have had to agree to disagree on several issues, but
on the whole, I value them and their human potential. Here at
ASU, some of the best students I ever taught have been openly
LGBT (along with others who weren’t so public about it), and
I’ve been happy to give many of them well-earned A’s. ( In
short, I follow my church leaders and support them completely
as they show concern for the traditional family, social health,
and religious freedom—AND I also follow the route they’ve

taught of compassion and kindness for LGBT individuals. So as
we turn to addressing the historical value of families, we can
remember kindness and compassion for all people, no matter our
differences. I certainly endorse that position.
Penny Edgell (2009) in the Oxford Handbook of the Sociology
of Religion draws out that historical value of the family—
particularly a traditional mother-father family—to society at
large. Keep in mind, of course, that we’re not necessarily
talking about the Father Knows Best-type nuclear family unit
(which Edgell refers to as “Ozzie and Harriet,” more or less the
same 1950s family sitcom concept) ( as generally defined in the
North American social milieu—a mother, father, and children
all living under one roof and operating relatively autonomously
from the extended family.
Sometimes we are under the impression that the nuclear family
as we know it has always been the norm worldwide. This is not
exactly true—and definitely not true as we North Americans
have generally defined the nuclear family, particularly as
autonomous from and superior to the extended family structure.
Instead, our modern nuclear construct has actually been a
family form that has predominated only since the first Industrial
Revolution, as Bengtson (2001) sagely points out.
Bengtson further explores the value of multi-generational
family ties. This is significant, since if any family structure or
type has been anything close to historically normative, it has
been a multi-generational arrangement (Ibid.). This general type
consists of a large kinship network with extended family
members—grandparents and/or great-grandparents, with aunts,
uncles, cousins, whether first- or second-generation, etc. The
kinship network then featured largely dependent or
interdependent nuclear subunits nested within it that produced
the children. The nuclear subunits were rarely independent of
the larger familial context, and they had little reason to be.

Such kinship networks, often led by their frequently venerated
older members, were capable of providing emotional,
psychological, and sometimes financial support to the
individuals within the structure. In a number of social contexts
throughout history, kinship networks further formed alliances
with multiple others to become tribes. Tribal cultures depended
on kinship networks for their stability.
There were variations within such kinship networks, sometimes
taking the form of communal rather than biological
relationships; some “nuclear” contexts have also at times
involved polygyny or plural wives and (much more rarely)
polyandry or plural husbands. But the kinship network
arrangement has been both most prevalent and normative in
most societies throughout history. As Bengtson points out, the
resulting social and emotional ties to extended family members
were usually beneficial in such multi-generational structures. In
any case, many successful modern nuclear families have
successfully tapped into the value and power of the multi-
generational structure, particularly to obtain and/or provide
emotional and psychological support for their members that a
well-functioning kinship is able to supply.
So in line with Edgell (2009), a “nuclear family” in terms of an
autonomous and distinct unit from the kinship hasn’t been the
norm worldwide. Still, societies that have had a nested nuclear
structure—a mother and father with children integrated into a
larger kinship network—tend to have best perpetuated
themselves. This is true not only of literal reproduction but of
cultural replication and transmission over time, given the strong
support and integration from extended family members that
presents itself in kinship networks.
This support network helps cope with the stress and challenges
that frequently present themselves in modern nuclear families.

For instance, Balaji et. al. (2007) demonstrate in line with
multiple other findings that mothers function better when they
have access to a social support network of friends and/or
extended family. Quite possibly, the 20th century American
nuclear family did itself few favors by establishing literal,
emotional, and/or psychological distance from extended family
members, especially for mothers. For instance, the well-known
“suburban housewives” who raised children in relative isolation
from extended family and friends, and then wondered why their
stress and misery were real, need wonder no longer. Stay-at-
home moms are wonderful (one raised me), ( but without a
support network providing multiple buffers to relieve the
frequent stresses of raising a family and caring for a home, as
well as teach coping skills and success strategies, the challenges
of stay-at-home mothering often prove formidably
overwhelming. Trying to perform this task alone, especially in
the modern social climate, is an easy path to stress-induced
mental illness.
In any case, the post-Industrial Revolution heterosexual family
has experienced a great deal of stress and challenges, leading in
turn to social problems such as divorce and family instability,
unhealthy and/or dysfunctional relationships, domestic violence,
drug and alcohol abuse, psychological and emotional cruelty,
crime, poverty, and many others. This remains one area of
concern as we look at the current state of families in our world
today. We have long had a certain percentage of heterosexual
nuclear families in that category that are troubled and
dysfunctional. That problem remains very much with us, with or
without the Obergefell decision.
So consider this sobering fact: We only absurdly and naively
assume that same-sex family life will be immune from the exact
same challenges faced by heterosexual couples. Of course same-
sex couples raising families will face these issues, and possibly
even more. Trying to deny this social reality would require

rejecting several decades’ worth of fairly well-done family-
science research! So in our recent redefinition of marriage and
family, not only do we contend with the same problems that
have already long plagued the heterosexual nuclear family
unit—but we have also added an as-yet-unknown percentage of
same-sex-couple families that will likewise face those
challenges.
The long and the short of it is this: We need to pay even more
attention to addressing and resolving the extensive set of
family-related problems our research had already found as early
as the 1960s and how they contribute to the above-mentioned
social issues. Those long-known family-society problems really
should have had our full and devoted attention all along and
still remain to be solved. No court ruling at any level of the
legal system will do that for us. Ever. Despite decades of
knowledge, we have never fully addressed, much less fixed,
these family-related problems, and now the situation is more
complicated than ever before.
So away from that depressing thought ( and back to religion.
What is religion’s interest in family and family life? Edgell
(2009) touches upon this issue as well, though in her book
Religion and Family in a Changing Society (2007), she explores
this issue in more depth. (See Chapter 1 here, for instance.) As
Edgell shows, religions teach about family ideals, encourage
what they see as positive family relationships, and promote
local family health by various means, typically in an agenda-
setting sort of way. In her words: “Religious leaders do not
directly make policy but they do exercise a great deal of
cultural power in American society—the power to bring issues
to national attention, to shape policy debates and media
coverage, and to change individuals' hearts and minds” (2007).
But why do they do this? What is the importance of their
cultural power? What is their motivation and what do they hope
to get out of setting the religious agenda for their followers?

The fact is that religion and family are deeply and profoundly
interdependent (Ibid., Edgell 2009). It is well-known that
families are the basic building blocks of society and perpetuate
its social values and guiding ideologies for as long as the
society functions. For societies, families having and then
socializing children is not only as important as socializing the
adults themselves, but may be even more so.
Much the same is true of religion, which depends on families to
perpetuate the group’s belief, growth, and heritage. Just as
families are the foundational unit of societies, they are also the
foundational unit of religions. Religions do not and cannot
succeed, especially long-term, without healthy families. So the
socialization, growth, and perpetuation of religions hinges in
part in how well they represent their beliefs to families and the
value families see in adopting the beliefs of the religion into
their family life. When a family adopts a religion, it helps
perpetuate that religion.
Those acquainted with Catholic culture, for instance, know this
very well. Families that adopt the Catholic identity tend to
remain Catholic no matter what. They may cut attendance to
once yearly, once every ten years, or even stop attending church
altogether for the rest of their lives. They may be disillusioned.
They may decide the church and its leaders in Rome are off-
base, if not corrupt altogether. They may even reject many of
the church’s official positions, teachings, and religious
practices. By the standards of religious belief and behavior,
they seem no longer Catholic to outsiders. Yet they still claim
themselves as Catholic. This promotion of identity and heritage
perpetuates Catholicism for generations.
Religions have therefore been concerned about redefinition of
the family unit, and the more socially conservative they are, the
more concerned they are. Will a normatively established
“redefined family”—single parent by choice, LGBT couple,

communal, polygamous, or other arrangements—be inclined to
perpetuate the beliefs of the religion, or for that matter, any
particular religion? By extension to society at large, will a
“redefined family” adequately socialize, transmit positive social
values, meet the needs, and demonstrate its ability to perpetuate
society itself? To do this, the family unit—however defined—
needs to socialize children accordingly.
Love or hate it, agree or disagree with it, this has been the core
concern at work from both social and religious standpoints:
How well will a “redefined family” perpetuate itself in social
and biological terms, and how well will it perpetuate the
institutions that depend on it? In the case of gay and lesbian
couples, due to the Supreme Court ruling, the point is now
officially moot, as it’s been for several years while various
states allowed gay marriage. Agree or disagree, the decision has
been made regardless. So it is incumbent upon us to carry
forward and cooperate for the good of society as a whole. Yet
we have a fair amount of work cut out for us—much the same as
we already had before the gay marriage debate, though with the
distinct possibility of new complications coming in.
What are some of these complications? Family scholars have
cautioned since the ‘70s that tinkering with marriage and family
structure could be problematic. For instance, Carroll and
Dollahite (2008) caution that alternative family structures may
create “ambiguous fatherhood” (uncertain or non-existing
paternal relationships) and primarily serve the interests of
adults rather than children in families. More recently, in a study
that quickly became controversial a few years ago, Mark
Regnerus (2012) found “suboptimal outcomes” in the same-sex-
parented children in his sample, relative to those in opposite-
sex households. Yet, as Regnerus himself noted (and as a fair
number of the study’s critics presumably didn’t), ( causality
cannot be inferred, so that the suboptimal outcomes noted could
be a byproduct of other factors—for instance, whether the same-

sex parents in question had previously been divorced from their
opposite-sex spouses before forming the new family unit. So
though the proverbial jury remains out on the same-sex family,
the outlook suggests the road ahead may not necessarily be
smooth—just as it has never been for any family.
Moreover, even Justice Kennedy in the Obergefell ruling
acknowledges a common theme in family scholarship: LGBT
relationships, particularly male-male, tend to be notoriously
unstable. (Though not necessarily true of all such couples, this
is a social reality for many. For instance, one of my own gay
friends was recently devastated when his partner suddenly
moved out and in with another lover, at which point my friend
discovered his loved one had actually been cheating on him for
several years.) Interestingly, research also indicates that some
lesbian couples are highly committed at the opposite end of the
spectrum, thereby often producing a statistical wash-out when
comparing the stability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Manning et. al. provide a good overview of research on
heterosexual and homosexual relationship stability rates. They
conclude that despite previous localized research in various
areas showing higher rates of instability for homosexual
couples, they did not find a statistically significant difference,
though they admit their sample size of homosexual couples was
rather small; because of this, they did not test for a gender
difference in homosexual relationship stability. Same-sex
marriage advocates have responded to the prospect of instability
by saying that allowing legal marriage would add stability to
these relationships. Yet not enough same-sex married couples
have been available for study and not enough time has passed to
see if having a legal commitment actually changes this
particular dynamic.
Another consideration quickly rose to the forefront during the
first decade of the 21st century, leading up to Obergefell: How

to address religious groups that define homosexuality as sinful
and discourage it, whether as behavior only (as in the LDS
view) or as orientation itself (as in a number of traditional
Christian denominations). Would they face recrimination for
their convictions? Would they be forced—whether via court
decision, the denial of tax-free status, or popular demand from
protesters outside the front door and/or using social media—to
accommodate gay marriage despite their own consciences?
Though some pooh-poohed such concerns as unrealistic, others
pointed to the infamous lawsuits over the refusal to bake a gay-
wedding cake or take gay-marriage wedding photographs as
potential precedents for popular and/or government incursion
upon the rights of belief and worship. A march on the LDS
Church’s Los Angeles Temple in 2008 after the controversial
passage of Proposition 8 added to conservative-religious fears
about the potential for backlash.
Fortunately, the Obergefell ruling did not ignore religious
freedom. As Berg (2015) points out, underscored by Rausch
(2015) and Jordan (2015), along with Justice Kennedy’s opinion
in his ruling, the necessity of protecting freedom of conscience
was both considered and established. As a result, it seems likely
that short-term protection for religious objections is protected.
The long-term picture for religious freedom is still rather
unclear, however, which is why some religious groups remain
concerned about it despite all assurances.
In any case, the need for mutual understanding and working
through problems still remains. The Kim Davis episode mere
weeks after Obergefell, for instance, became an unfortunate
representation of the issue of religious freedom. Davis, the
Rowan County (Kentucky) clerk, no longer wanted her name on
licenses—as state law required—as an implicit endorsement of
same-sex marriage, and she was willing to be imprisoned rather
than comply. Upon release, she then altered the licenses so that
they no longer bore her name. Davis faced criticism from even

those who could have been expected to support her, including
even the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. As a non-Baptist
and previous divorcee, Davis was a sinner and worthy only of
condemnation in the eyes of the WBC. (As before, add her to
the long list, too.) Many others from a more legal standpoint
noted her position as an elected public official and refused to
excuse her from following the law due to conscientious
objection. Nonetheless, Kentucky state law has since been
changed so that the county clerk’s name no longer appears on
marriage licenses. But Davis’ indirect association with the
cause of religious freedom has remained.
Yet the Kim Davis episode remains something of a smokescreen
for religious freedom advocates. To them, the much larger core
issue is this: Does government have the right to compel
conscience? Can an act of Congress, presidential executive
order, Supreme Court ruling, or any other act of government
force individuals, groups, corporations, or any other entity to
follow dictates contrary to their own beliefs and/or mission
statements? And if this is the case, is the government also
empowered to compel religious organizations, even despite the
First Amendment? Remember, there are legal ways around the
Establishment Clause—declaring that a particular religious
organization is not actually a church and therefore undeserving
of First Amendment protection, for instance—so religious
protection isn’t necessarily a given.
To some, the answer is easy: Yes! They’re discriminating! Get
rid of the opposition! Make the playing field level for everyone!
But let’s think about that response for a moment, while the
libertarian in me rears its ugly head. ( Two facts to consider:
First, this is a barn door which, once opened, is tremendously
difficult to shut again; and second, if the government has power
to compel someone else’s conscience, beliefs, or faith practice,
they also have power to compel yours. Given this type of power
against religion, when the political winds shift—as they have

been known to do—the government could then use this power to
legislate or act in favor of religion. This seems unwise at best
and a recipe for disaster at worst.
American freedoms depend instead upon government creating an
environment that protects religious practice and belief in
general, to the extent that such practices and beliefs do not
violate other laws or fundamental human rights. No truly
responsible religious organization insists on the right to commit
crimes or atrocities. But in a truly tolerant society, there must
be allowances made for differences of opinion, belief, and
practice. To the extent that such differences do not cause actual
harm and/or violate laws, they should be tolerated. In a modern
law-abiding society that values human rights and dignity, we
can do better than resorting to force to try to make each other
cooperate. This only results in resentment and anger anyway.
Attaining genuine cooperation through mutual understanding is
a much better and more effective solution to the dilemma of
religious freedom.
So with all that said, let’s wrap things up. It has certainly been
my experience that we can have our religious convictions about
what is and isn't right, and we should certainly be willing to
stand up for those convictions. However, that doesn't mean we
should abandon our understanding, kindness, and compassion--
and it may be that our understanding, kindness, and compassion
may be among the most important principles of all worth
standing up for and defending. The true test of any civilized
society is how its members handle their most profound
disagreements. Employing kindness and compassion in civilized
dialogue as we work out problems—even issues with gulfs as
wide as these—is far preferable to cultural warfare.
Marriage, family and religion are entering new territory that the
United States has never explored. Religion and family can still
work together to ensure freedom, justice, and civility. But this

will take work and mutual understanding. That is the project
that our modern context now requires of us.
Key Difference in Family Structure
Nuclear = mother, father, and typically children; usually a
monogamous arrangement.
Kinship = Surviving family members of several generations,
including grandparents, great-grandparents, first and often
second cousins, etc. Several nuclear families are often nested
within the kinship structure and function either dependently or
interdependently on the kinship. In many cultures across the
world throughout history, tribes formed from a confederation of
kinships.
…and more like this family from India. Kinship families offered
a large network of social, emotional, psychological, and
sometimes even financial support to their members. Many
successful modern families understand the value of finding and
building support networks. Images from reddit.com and
webpages.scu.edu.
Historically speaking, the “traditional family” likely looked less
like this stereotypical American nuclear family from the
1960s…
Possibly more truth to the witticism in this meme than many

reality TV viewers care to admit? Image from pinterest.com.
Image from slideplayer.com, via Aden Stockham, Child, Family,
and Community Socialization and Support.
Religion and family are frequently interdependent. Religions
need strong families to socialize their members, and families
find purpose and direction in following religious belief. Image
from baylor.edu.
Image from freedomworks.org.
Indiana saw an uproar in March 2015 over its proposed religious
freedom law, which allowed businesses to deny service on the
basis of the owners’ freedom of conscience. The statute was
written to avoid the legally forced provision of business
services. But critics charged that the law provided a “blank
check” allowing discrimination for virtually any reason.
Stickers like these cropped up on the doors and windows of
many of the state’s businesses, evidently as a protest to the law.
Some observers also concluded that the free market had
generated its own solution—let businesses market themselves as
all-inclusive. � HYPERLINK
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/indian
a-religious-freedom-law-deal-gay-discrimination/70819106/"
�In early April, the law was revised and assurance given that
its provisions would not be used against the LGBT
community.� Image from washingtonpost.com.

A war of words and images erupted over the issue of religious
freedom, particularly in the wake of several controversial
clauses in Indiana’s state law passed in 2015 to ostensibly
protect that right. On one side, traditional believers worried
about persecution for their beliefs; on the other, believers were
accused of practicing favoritism and hypocrisy, using religion
to discriminate, and promoting bigotry. As the discourse grows
increasingly bitter, the opportunity for dialogue and mutual
understanding diminishes accordingly. Images from
godfatherpolitics.com and aclu-nj.org.
1
SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: The Good,
Bad, and Ugly (Religion’s Social Aspects)
There were honest people long before there were Christians and
there are, God be praised, still honest people where there are no
Christians. It could therefore easily be possible that people are
Christians because true Christianity corresponds to what they
would have been even if Christianity did not exist.
—G.C. Lichtenberg, 18th century German scientist
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own
image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you
do.
—Anne Lamott, contemporary American writer and activist

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this
country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral
person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think
they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to
dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as
a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious
group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I
will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.
—Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator and 1964 presidential
candidate from Arizona
(All three quotes according to
http://www.quotegarden.com/religion.html)
Religion has had a long and colorful history in human society.
Throughout that history, contributions to the development of
society have been attributed to religion, notably positive social
values as well as advances in knowledge and technology.
Likewise, various problems and crises have also arisen. These
have included political involvement in religion, bigotry, wars
over belief and territory that different groups consider sacred,
etc. With apologies to Clint Eastwood, throughout history, we
have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly arise in connection
with religion. Some modern critics blame religion itself for this,
though an even more problematic common thread exists in all
these religion-connected incidents, good and bad alike: The
involvement of human beings. As we’ve discussed in a previous
lesson, it’s a bit nonsensical to label any religion a “religion of
peace” or any other such generalization. This is not because
religions don’t teach peace—virtually all of them do,
particularly the world’s major religious movements. But it’s
then up to the human beings involved in the religion to put

those teachings into practice. Some humans are much better at
practicing peace than others. To somewhat grossly paraphrase
Karl Marx, the history of religion is the history of human
involvement.
Let’s take a look at how human involvement in religion has
produced good, bad, and ugly alike in these required articles:
Reading 1: Idler, Ellen. 2008. “The Psychological and Physical
Benefits of Spiritual/Religious Practices.”Spirituality in Higher
Education (newsletter), vol. 4 no. 2. Pp 1-5.
Reading 2:Dawkins, Richard. 2003 (November 19-20). “The
Science of Religion” and “The Religion of Science.” Transcript
of The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Harvard University.
Online.
Mochon, Daniel, with Michael I. Norton and Daniel Ariely.
2011. “Who Benefits from Religion?” Social Indicators
Research (Springer), vol. 101 no. 1, pp. 1-15.
Public Broadcasting System (no date). “History.”Faith and
Reason. pbs.org. Web.
Now that we’ve covered the readings, just a few words about
the humanity of it all, starting with my own. As noted
elsewhere, I am a religious believer, though I likewise respect
the historic significance of science and the utility of the
scientific process. As such, I have attempted to cover this
subject fairly and with as little bias as possible. But granted,
what bias still remains is likely a believer’s bias—though, as we
shall discuss, the believer’s bias is far from limited to only me.
( As also discussed in previous lessons, I profoundly value the
free marketplace of ideas. So in the interest of fairness, I have

asked you to read this article by Richard Dawkins, even though
I don’t exactly endorse his arguments, shall we say. Still, there
is a great deal to learn from in his ideas; for example, few
experts today understand the scientific process as well as he
does.
Also as noted elsewhere, I see little reason to draw a dividing
line between science and religion. Although the history of both
has seen a fair share of disagreement and even power struggles,
such as the trial of Galileo, the outright attempt to
fundamentally split the two is only recent—since Darwin, in
fact. But in the largely European medieval and Renaissance time
periods all the way through the first half of the 19th century,
religious men (yes, primarily men in these times and places)
explored and shaped what we now know as modern science.
Let’s duly acknowledge an argument from more than a few
believers: Perhaps science and religion alike would not exist
without inspiration and/or revelation from deity. But as with
other belief claims, we will leave the Ultimate Truth of this
question to the theologians and examine the role of humans in
religion and science alike. The origins of religion, science,
philosophy, art, and many other bodies of knowledge may have
stemmed from deity. Yet it seems beyond question that humans
have been primarily responsible for their operation and
development. So we will approach this topic from that
standpoint and examine science and religion alike as largely
human-operated phenomena.
Taking a look at known history, we see a great deal of religious
involvement with the processes of societal development and
knowledge. The Greeks and Romans both had very well-
developed religious mythologies. (Please note that I use the
term “mythology” in the sense of a story considered sacred by a
group of people, past or present, not in the sense of a known
fiction or deliberate falsehood.) Greco-Roman mythology has
since been passed down to us today, most recognizably in the

form of narratives and memorable characters. This may be
particularly true for those of us who have picked up any books
in the Percy Jackson series, though that’s just a few crystals on
the tip of the iceberg. ( Also influential were Egyptian and
Norse mythologies, as well as the Semitic traditions that
produced the Judeo-Christian religious accounts, all of which
likewise influenced world history and literature alike. Hinduism
and later Buddhism also profoundly influenced Asia, though the
influence of these religions remained largely in that area for
centuries.
As we know, all of these but monotheistic Judeo-Christianity
and non-theistic Buddhism were polytheistic societies,
assigning various valued attributes to a pantheon of deities. The
Egyptians had a multitude of traditions that continually
changed, so that different attributes were ascribed to different
deities at different times—hence, the somewhat confusing and
contradictory nature of the mythology we’ve inherited from the
Egyptians. Interestingly, the Egyptian experience even featured
a brief monotheistic experiment under Akhenaten. The Nordic
cultures attributed various qualities, events, and circumstances
to the gods of Valhalla, who rarely intervened in mortal affairs.
The ancient Hebrews, often in defiance of their polytheistic
neighbors, located all positive attributes in a single all-powerful
God, who was very much involved in earthly and human
matters, though at times more subtly than others. The Greeks
and Romans in particular developed similar religious systems
that originated from a common source, though the Romans also
adapted a fair amount of Greek mythology. Parenthetically,
post-Biblical Christianity also borrowed a great deal from
Greco-Roman cultural heritage (in part because many early
Christian converts were Greek and Roman!), though these
contributions aren’t usually as well-noted.
In any case, the Greeks and Romans each saw in their deities
that which they valued most: wisdom, love, and power for the

SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx

SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx

Similar to SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx (15)

More from whitneyleman54422

More from whitneyleman54422 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SOC 420 Lesson 6 Module SEQ CHAPTER h r 1 Religion and Science.docx