Oxford’s God Study: No Psychologists?
by Sara on 02/20/08 filed under Other Claims
On February 19, 2008, several online news sites ran an article by the Associated Press titled Oxford to Study Faith in God (I’ll link to this one, if you’d like to read the short article in full). The first paragraph reads:
University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God. The grant to the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics together for three years to study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind’s makeup. – AP
No Mention Scientists Who Study the Brain and Thought Processes?
The Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion is said to be bringing in “anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics”. I realize this is a preliminary announcement containing only barebones information, and it’s also unclear exactly what ‘academics’ refers to. But what about psychologists? Or scientists involved in the human brain such as neurologists?
If the study ends up omitting these types of researchers in the project, I’d be skeptical of the research’s findings. Perhaps the results would be skewed if the research team did not adequately consider the science of the brain.
Are Atheists, or at least religious skeptics being left out?
Atheism is a point of view that is in danger of being left out. What about inviting someone like Michael Shermer? Despite his bias on the topic of religion, Dr. Shermer is a scientist who depends on scientific evidence and data. He’s written several books about the human brain and how it works. Could Dr. Shermer, or one of his peers make a good addition to help round out the Oxford research group?
In Anticipation of the Guest List
I have not been able to find any more detail on exactly who will participate in the study. I am very excited to hear of the study’s findings and certainly don’t want to discredit the project before it even begins. I just hope the effort isn’t rendered ineffective from the start by choosing an uneven research team.
lowrads
Feb 20th, 2008
I very much doubt empiricists of any stripe will be excluded. However, it is also likely that a large number of persons who don’t accept the idea that there is something to be gained, lost or misrepresented in these discussions.
A skeptic is being a bit more comprehensive if they readily admit that empiricism has philosophic limitations, and often entails certain logical and semiotic leaps in explaining relations between concepts, or axioms. Lastly, it’s hard to claim to be a skeptic when you believe the universe really cares what you think about it.
The Monkey
Feb 20th, 2008
lowrads, my reaction to ‘Oxford’s God Study’ was pure speculation. I’d like to think Oxford’s research group will include an evenly distributed variety of related subject matter experts, but I was not assured of that by the AP article.
I do believe empiricism tends to have philosophical limitations and relies more on scientific and empirical associations to explain things. Philosophy, theology and anthropology don’t necessarily have these philosophical limitations. I hope Oxford’s research group includes researchers with and without philosophical limitations.
lowrads
Feb 20th, 2008
Anthropology comes from the root words anthropos, and logos. There are deep philosophical (and philological) problems down to the semiotic level in developing an empirical grasp of the axiomatically grandiose concept of logos. The scientific method, too, is a product of language. The kind of ideas we can have seem to be limited by our grasp of language. We certainly don’t have a scientific protocol for dealing with the inductive aspects of experimentation.
Logical positivists tend to be rather belligerent when it comes to discussions of philosophy and the course of ideas. They are often even hostile to the notion that philosophy of science has contributed anything to the corpus of scientific investigation. The main reason for studying philosophy is that people have a common repository of ideas and works on which to base discussion. Your average scientist is trapped in such a reductionist frame of reference that your typical philosopher has to work over time just to translate material for their selective consumption and rebuttal processes.
The purpose of these events focuses on the sharing of ideas. That’s a two way process.
The Monkey
Feb 20th, 2008
Ok, so you don’t agree. Got it.
I can’t say I agree with that statement, unless you replace the word philosophy with scientific research.
I agree with your mention of sharing ideas; I hope it can be a two-way process between theists, philosophers and scientists alike. Are you proposing science doesn’t need to be in this equation because they tend not to think as creatively as philosophers?
lowrads
Feb 21st, 2008
Scientists are a pretty varied lot. Some of contemporary scientific culture frowns on non-reductionist speculation in the wrong venues. Certainly, you find pretty swift criticisms of scientific compositions that are too ‘literary.’ Sorry about my editing up there – sometimes I adjust my thoughts mid-sentence while shooting from the hip and don’t realize it. Can’t exactly go back and mend it with this interface.
My main thrust is that these conferences are not as big a deal as your article seems to imply. They probably aren’t democratic, but then, they also aren’t political institutions either. Nobody participates in turn of the century modernist dialogs anymore, nobody is trying to establish grand certainty on these matters. Arguments tend to be connotative rather than declarative or definitional. That would be kind of distasteful.
Logical positivism is hardly a new or radical set of ideas in acadaemia. What’s relevant is that academics are involved, and thus tongue-in-cheek academic culture. These people get paid to extend and widen debate, not attempt to finish or constrain it. Their idea of logical argument is to try to setup hoops, hurdles and bypasses for their peers. For them, it’s not enough to remember a rote set of rules about logic, but must further speculate on the semiotic significance Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction, and as of this decade, its implications for women’s studies and queer theory or something. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it even if only a bunch of priests attended. In a way, the academic monks of the medieval period were like the internet message board creatures of contemporary times. From what I’ve seen, some of their dialogues were often trivial and more than a little catty.
The Monkey
Feb 21st, 2008
“My main thrust is that these conferences are not as big a deal as your article seems to imply.”
You’re right, I feel this got blown out of proportion. It was never my intention to declare a huge concern with this initiative based on five-paragraph press release vague lacking specific details. I ’shot from the hip’ when writing the original article on my lunch break.
I accept your depiction of ‘academics’. I do not doubt those attended (whoever they end up being) will do their best to play devil’s advocate and ‘cover all their bases.’ I’d be interested in the study’s finding regardless of who is involved. However, I did not read about about scientists or psychologists in the article, which immediately set off a red flag in my head and raised the question I detailed above.
Y. V. SUBBA RAO
Feb 28th, 2008
Religion says to Science “Thus far and no further”. Oxford’s God study can definitely come out successfuly involving evolution concept according to Hindu Philosophy, the lore of planets in our Solar System and the esoteric meaning of the Solar System and the law of doctrine of causation.Orderliness of the Universe is Nature. Nature is Belief. Belief is faith. Faith is Religion.Religion recognises Nature as GOD. Belief in God is Nature and not nurture. Eveolution confers natural advantage to belief in God.
Charles Clever
Mar 11th, 2008
All the psychology books I studied were natural science and left out the supernatural as well as demonic influences.
One psychology book stated that the prophets in the Bible were schitzophrenic and hallucinating.
If they include psychologists, they will stack the deck against truth.
Blessings, Charles
The Monkey
Mar 11th, 2008
Interesting point Charles. I hope not all psychologists are like the ones described in the book you referred to, that’s not an unbiased perspective either.
I don’t think all psychologists would stack the deck against [your] truth. Some might, some might not. But at least people that study the human brain and behavior are involved.
Emma
Mar 14th, 2008
Just a note to clarify that the Principal Investigator on the project, Dr Justin Barrett, is a psychologist (developmental/experimental). Most of the scholars engaged in cognitive studies of religion are atheists.
I am a member of the project team (cognitive anthropologist), commenting here (and only here) because I appreciate the author’s interest, and reticence to leap to unwarranted conclusions.
For some clear, accurate info about the project, please refer to our FAQs page posted online recently:
http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/cognitionreligiontheology/documents/FAQs.pdf
By the way, there is another big EC-funded project, called Explaining Religion, that might be of interest also (5 psychology post-docs; 10 leading European and North American partners and consultants – all psychologists). Their website is in construction, I think, but outline info here: http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/exrel/