The "Boundary" Issue in the Skeptic Movement

As alluded to in my post about Bill Maher, a hot topic among skeptics right now is the proper bounds of skeptical inquiry. Massimo Pigliucci, contributor to Skeptical Inquirer and blogger, has some thoughts on the matter here. He ponders why if the domains of the skeptical inquiry, political philosophy, and atheism are are so well defined, do we so often see so much "crosstalk" between them:

Because the three areas in question do have a common underpinning, as illustrated by the diagram accompanying this article: atheism, skeptical inquiry, and political philosophy are all exercises in critical thinking and rational analysis. The differences among them is in the relative role that philosophical and scientific/empirical considerations play in each case.

That is why, for instance, I can coherently say that Penn and Teller are wrong about their libertarianism and about their position on global warming: in the first case, I am talking about philosophy, in the second about science. There is, of course, much more leeway in the first than in the second case. That’s also why there is no contradiction in me praising Bill Maher for his political views and yet thinking of him as a hopelessly inept commentator when it comes to his opinions on medicine. To consider one more example, this is also how I can agree with Dawkins’ and Coyne’s philosophical positions (and disagree with “accommodationists” like Ken Miller) and yet distance myself from them on the ground that I think they are stretching the tools of science beyond what is reasonable.

In Massimo's view, the problem is that some people talk about scientific issues using the discourse of their political philosophy or religion, talk of religious issues in scientific terms, and so on. I don't think he's saying that these areas are "non-overlapping magisteria," rather I believe he is saying that what counts as sound reasoning in one discourse doesn't necessarily work in another. Thoughts?

Sullivan Reacts to the Catholic/Anglican Merger

Andrew Sullivan the openly gay conservative blogger (and practising Catholic) over at the Daily Dish has this to say about the Pope's recent announcement:

For now, however, it seems an almost baldly political move, made at a pace more reminiscent of modern politics and public relations than the traditional ecclesiastical creaking of the wheels. That is troubling to me. Churches are supposed to be about eternal truths and freedom of conscience, not what amounts to an unfriendly take-over bid for a franchise.

And it does not seem to have occurred because of some deep resolution of the theological disputes between Anglicans and Catholics, but merely by a shared abhorrence of women priests and openly gay ones. If you want to switch churches, prejudice seems a pretty poor reason for doing so. But this is so sudden it will take some time to absorb and it's a little hard to take in. Stay tuned.

I appreciate Mr. Sullivan's take on this matter but I am surprised by his "innocence" on the baldly political nature of the Church. The history of all faiths have deep connections to politics. Anglicanism would not exist if it were not for Henry's political concerns about an heir, the Prophet was both a religious and political leader for early Muslims, Shinto is in large part the cult of the Emperor, and so on.

As a believer he comments that a church is "supposed to be about eternal truths and freedom of conscience, not what amounts to an unfriendly take-over bid for a franchise." While this may be the ideal of many churches, however, it is rarely their practice. Churches have always been and will always be, in part, political for the simple reason that people differ on what the "eternal truths" are. So long as there is "heresy" there religions will act in "baldly political" ways to preserve themselves. Without the challenge of the Marcionites and other gnostic sects, the Catholic Church itself would never have coalesced and the canon would never have been compiled.

Aristotle's observation that man is a zoon politikon (a "political animal") helps explicate this matter nicely. Outside the body politic are only beasts and gods.

Anglican? Don't like gay clergy? The Pope Wants You!

Interesting. The Catholic Church has announced that Anglicans can become Catholic en masse and still retain some Anglican traditions. Obviously the Anglican/Episcopalian schismlet over gay clergy will have some effect on this:

Cardinal Levada said the Vatican created the structure in response to many requests from Anglicans over the years since the Church of England first ordained women in the 1970s and more recently when it faced what he called “a very difficult question” — the ordination of openly gay clergy and the blessing of homosexual unions.

The American branch of the Anglican Communion, known as the Episcopal Church, has come close to schism over these issues. Disaffected conservatives in the United States announced in 2008 that they were organizing their own rival province of the church in North America.

In other words, many Anglicans may decide that debate over gays and women isn't worth it and join the Catholic fold. That's unfortunate, further polarization of religions is unlikely to be helpful to skeptics. It will be harder to engage in dialogue if people simply retreat to the safety of conclaves made up of homogeneous beliefs. Not that religion is a paragon of internal debate on these issues... but this doesn't help.