Freethinkaluva

Is "peer-review" important on the subject of religion in your opinion?

What are your thoughts?

I'm asking specifically on religion here. I see peer-review on other hard sciences very useful and appropriate, especially when one can test things independently. Conversely, when the topic is religion it seems very susceptible to abuse and fraud. Christians peer reviewing other Christian material for example or atheists peer reviewing other atheist material.

When it comes to religion, I tend to be skeptical or at least cautious of "peer-review". I would like to see what experts in the field have to say...

Toto

Peer review is an established routine in the sciences, where experiments are repeatable.

I don't think that peer review can be done with the same rigor in the humanities, but it is generally very useful for a scholar to interact with peers, and fields that aim to be scientific try to incorporate some form of peer review.

I'm not sure what you mean by "religion." Sociology of religion? History of religion? Preaching?

And who would be the experts in the field, if you reject peer review?

Freethinkaluva

Comparative religion is what comes to mind.

I was thinking of folks with some sort of religious or comparative religious credentials or a related field. Dr. Robert Price comes to mind for one example or maybe Richard Carrier - I'd like to get his opinion on this. Maybe Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris' opinion would be helpful here too?

I would agree that it is "very useful for a scholar to interact with peers" but what then defines a "peer" and can we consistantly rely on peer review on religion in the same way as other sciences such biology or geology?

Toto

Richard Carrier's field is Ancient History, not religion.

Feel free to email any of these people and ask their opinions, but note that Dawkins is a biologist, and was criticized for writing about religion without consulting the "experts" in that field.

Freethinkaluva

Yes, I know and agree... same with Harris and Hitchens too. Which brings me back to the topic of this thread, I don't see peer review on religion the same as a peer review in other sciences where repeatable experiments are possible. Therefore, peer review on religion must be kept in perspective on a case by case basis.

Solitary Man

Harris especially was criticized for not consulting neurologists and neuropsychologists, not those who study religion. Peer review is the established way of making sure that lunatic assessments are kept out of the field, and that the field keeps evolving to keep up with the latest research, whether that be a biological breakthrough or an uncovered papyrus which has an earlier reading of a passage. People often forget just how large a role the field of anthropology plays in historical studies.

Roger Pearse

I think perhaps we are starting at the wrong end of this question.

I find a useful tool to understand something is to ask myself what problem the approach was invented to solve.

The problem is to ensure that a scholarly discipline actually exists. The solution is to ensure that all those participating keep each other from straying off into general arguments, and up to a certain standard. In the sciences there is the additional tool of repeatability which controls matters further.

Of course this is a circular process; only those already within the magic circle can approve work; but the size of the group and tendency of human beings to consider each other as rivals ensures that standards will tend to improve, as kudos can be earned by so doing.

The difficulty arises in scholarship from the fact that it *is* circular. External ideas that affect all or most participants will affect the consensus. These are most likely to be popular religious or political positions which are part of the "clamour of the times". One objective of peer-reviewing is to exclude material not directly relevant to the discipline; but of course this still leaves room for the advancement of theses which owe their existence purely to outside causes. (Marxist interpretations of history by academics spring rather readily to mind).

My own practise is to take the consensus of scholars on a matter of politics or religion as indicative only of the period of history in which they happen to live. The consensus of scholars on a matter of no special controversy may be accepted.

Note that conspiracy theorists who do this may be tempted rather unwisely to presume that *everything* of interest to them is actually a matter of this kind, and so scholars may be ignored.

These are just my opinions, of course, and I could be quite wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Praxeologist

First off, the bible has no scientific veracity to be peer reviewed. Archimedes has much more credibility in being peer reviewed than the bible.

Peer reviews happen in scientific journals. They are not perfect. Sometimes, the more original you, hence challenging the status quo, the less likely you will get published. There are numerous other issues concerning peer reviewed journals and the bureaucracy. It is a process and not a perfect one.

Does this qualify the bible to be peer reviewed? No. A metaphysical book based on superstition and mysticism does not even qualify for peer review.

Ancient scientist, like Archimedes and Newton and countless others between them deserve peer review.

Ray Moscow

I'm no scholar, but of course peer review is important in all scholarly disciplines. This applies to the serious study of religious documents and traditions.

For religion itself, scholarship and its rigours don't seem to play a major role.

Ray

Freethinkaluva

Everyone has made great points here. There is a clear difference between peer review of hard sciences like biology and geology, compared to religion.

When a geologist is peer reviewed it would be by another geologist of course. Should Christian material be peer reviewed by another Christian, or should it be peer reviewed by an atheist?


Praxeologist made a great point - "Peer reviews happen in scientific journals. They are not perfect. Sometimes, the more original you, hence challenging the status quo, the less likely you will get published."

- It is nearly impossible to make any necessary adjustments in religion if challenging the status quo will keep one from getting published. It could earn them ridicule instead, even if they're right. There are so many examples of this - Copernicus, Galileo.

Another example I've seen recently, is Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer how first claimed Stonehenge was an astronomical observatory in the 60's was attacked for 20 years for it. He probably got the idea from Lockyer, another astronomer in the 1800's who wrote about similar subjects.

The dishonesty within religion seems to hold humanity back as it has done for millennia.