Soul Laboratory

William Grassie from the Metanexus Institute posted this interesting piece on Huffington Post Religion. I posted this commentin response. However, due to word limits I was not able to post the complete comment. Here it is:

Another excellent article by the author. I have two comments.

First, the author sets up a false dichotomy between “scientific” textual analysis and fundamentalism. I would remind the author and the readers that neither Jewish nor Catholic, nor many mainstream protestant denominations approve of a literal interpretation of sacred texts. Indeed Jewish sources have for thousands of years understood the written, or “revealed” text, as only a fraction of their sacred inheritance, and one which can and will be abused if not understood in light of the entire tradition.

Second, The author’s assertion that textual analysis is scientific, is true only to the extent that it is an alternative to traditional interpretations. To be scientific, an academic endeavor must adhere to the standards of the scientific method as evolved from Locke, Bacon, and Galileo. This method involves conducting prospective research with independent variables that are manipulated before measuring dependent variables, and employing random sampling, random assignment and various types of experimental control. The goal being to establish causal relations, while mitigating the influence of confounds. I challenge the author to present evidence that biblical scholars adhere to these standards, thus producing evidence for hypotheses that can supplant the claims from within the traditions. Without such evidence, the claims of “natural” evidence for the text is exactly as valid – or invalid – as the traditional claims of the supernatural.

Not all science adheres to the strictest standards, but they do so at the expense of the ability to infer causal relations in the natural world. The research carried out by textual analysts is observational. That is textual analysis may identify variables of interest such as variations in usage of the names of the creator throughout the Torah – an important piece of “evidence” for the multiple source hypothesis. However, without being able to employ the more stringent tests of research experiments these observations do not constitute the same level of evidence required to establish laws in natural science. Indeed I would assert that the methods described by the author are in fact elaborate forms of historical analysis attempting to grab the esteem of the label “science.”

This doesn’t mean the historians are wrong and the religious communities are right, it just means that the academic community is not capable of making the kind of claims described by the author.

If you’re interested in this topic read my earlier SoulLaboratory.com post “Digging for the Truth (when Reading is too Hard).” The argument I make is essentially the same as the one described in “Raining Frogs and Limits to Science.”