Episode 68. John Haught defines the scientific skeptics in quote 2. They are people who reject religion in the name of science. From their perspective, religion is the oppressor and the enemy of truth and enlightenment, and science is the liberator and the savior. The scientific skeptics have a number of criticisms against religion. First, they state that there are epistemological problems. In particular, religion is not testable, and it is not objective. As quote 3 states, religion tries to sneak by without providing any concrete evidence, that is, scientific evidence, of God's existence. But here's the question, do God and religion lend themselves to scientific methods and standards? Second, scientific skeptics claim that there are historical problems with religion. They often point to the religious prosecution of Galileo in the 17th century and the church's rejection of Darwin in the 19th century. But is this good history? We'll examine both of these historical episodes later in the course. Third, there are hermeneutical problems. Skeptics claim that the Bible is full of contradictions. Ironically, scientific skeptics are literalists just like young earth creationists. But is this good hermeneutics? I'm sure you're developing an opinion on this topic. Finally, scientific skeptics claim that religion has ethical problems. They ask the age-old question, why is there suffering and evil in the world? And indeed, this is a serious challenge for religion. Why would an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God allow the Holocaust and the murder of six million Jewish people by the Nazis? And yet religious people just keep on believing. But is the problem of suffering and evil that simple? In the last section of this course, we'll explore this challenging issue. The conflict relationship of the scientific skeptics is the common perception of science and religion by those who reject religion. With regards to religion, they believe it is based on mindless faith. In particular, it is a priori reasoning, that is, it uses deduction. The Latin a priori means from something earlier and which is not based on observation and experience. This method of arguing goes from the general rule to the particular case. In other words, religious people begin with the religion and scriptures, and then they attempt to explain the world. Scientific skeptics view religion as merely emotional and irrational. In sum, they contain that religion is nothing but subjective nonsense. In sharp contrast, scientific skeptics believe that science is based on hard facts and logic. It is a posteriori reasoning, that is, it uses induction. The Latin a posteriori means from something later and that it is based on observation and experience. This approach moves from the particular case to the general rule. In other words, scientists collect facts and construct scientific theories describing reality. Scientific skeptics believe that science is dispassionate and rational. And in particular, it is purely objective. Now I'm sure that you've noticed that the science versus religion relationship of the scientific skeptics is trapped in simple dichotomies and conflations and that they are entrenched in black-and-white and either/or thinking. End of episode.