The chief difference between science and religious faith is not the conclusions arrived at, but the attitude and method used. Scientific conclusions can be believed due to religious faith, and religious doctrines could, in theory, be arrived at through the scientific process. Thus, if there is anything in religion which helps science, it must be found in developing attitudes, not dogmas and doctrines.
Fortunately, if we look we can find such things. For example, the Protestant Reformation had at its heart the idea that each individual must be responsible for arriving at truth, and that each individual should be allowed to follow their own conscience, in contrast to the traditional limitations placed upon people by the Catholic Church. The implications for freethought and scientific development are obvious.
On the other hand, his discussion of the reasons for the spread of Christianity has some interesting ideas in it. He argues that there was a stark contrast between the surrounding pagan culture where males were prized and, too often, female infants were killed, and the insulated Christian culture were female infanticide was morally prohibited.
This, combined with the relatively good status women had in early Christian communities, caused those communities to have a disproportionate number of women as compared to men. The large numbers of women would have been attractive to men, and also would have caused the children and sometimes male relatives of those women to also convert.
The superiority of Christian morals over many of the ideas in the surrounding pagan culture are given further credit when it came to plagues. At the time, when a plague hit, most people simply up and ran — even if friends and relatives were afflicted. Christians, however, stayed and nursed the sick. Not only did this allow many to survive, but also created a good example to the pagan survivors who might have found conversion more appealing.
But who is Schlagel’s main audience? Devout believers certainly won’t be swayed and may even be put off by some of the more dismissive comments he makes about religion. But this isn’t surprising — when a person hasn’t reasoned their way into a position, it isn’t likely that they can be reasoned out of it. Much of religious belief is supported by emotional arguments which Schlagel does not really address.
People who are already atheists, however, will already be familiar with much of the material used by Schlagel — which means that he would only be preaching to the choir, if I may be permitted to use that particular metaphor. It is true that unless a skeptic is widely read, they are bound to find some new information — but many skeptics are widely read.
That leaves believers who are already questioning their beliefs and becoming more skeptical of the things they have been taught, or people who have already abandoned their previous religious beliefs but are currently uncertain about where they stand and just how sound their position is.
For them, this book may prove to be quite useful, addressing such a diverse number of issues which are particularly relevant to people in such positions.
« Back...
