The Critical Analysis of a Text Logics This house believes that religion is a force for good.

Oct 5th 2010 | Mark Oppenheimer | The Economist

I am so happy to be invited to argue the affirmative. To clear the air I will be gin by conceding two points. First, while some religion may be true, religion may also be entirely untrue. I f what we mean by religion is the particular claims of scriptures and religious legends, then at the very least, a lot of religion has to be untrue, since maj or religions make conflicting claims. If Jesus is in fact the messiah, then we can safely say that contemporary Judaism and Islam are false, or at least deepl y mistaken; if Jesus is not the messiah, then there are big problems for Christi anity. If certain Wicca claims are true, then certain claims of Hinduism are no t. And so forth. Second, it is clear that religious institutions and people are responsible for m ajor crimes throughout historymaybe more so, all things being equal, than th eir irreligious peers, 1maybe less so. I am not sure how we would quantify such things. And as a historian and journalist, I am firmly in the camp that bel ieves too much religious "journalism" just sucks up to clerics and churches. Our job should be to report fairly and unflinchingly, and that means often showing just how crooked religious folks, like the rest of us, can be. Basically, I think of religion as a major human institution, like markets, or ma rriage, or government. These major institutions are powerful and persistent, and they can lead to profound happiness, deep misery and a lot in between. They are not logical necessities of human existencethat is, we can conceive of a world wi thout any one of thembut they seem not to be going anywhere. Lastly, let me add that while some scholars can call anything religious, from th e cult of Lady Gaga to the Super Bowl, I will trust that we know what we are tal king about. It might be interesting if Sam Harris, my interlocutor, wants to tal k about "spirituality", which I generally take to be more personal and less comm unal than "religion". But I will avoid that thicket for now. So what might we mean by saying that "religion is a force for good"? I'll talk a bout three things today. First, religion responds to a deep, satisfying human need for ritual. Throughout human history (and certainly among my three young daughters, who are the neares t evidence at hand), people have liked occasion, routine, ceremony. We like regu lar, predictable occasions to come together, offer thanksgiving, celebrate commo n history and experience, and affirm our ties of community. Such rituals do not have to be religious, of course: there are civic rituals, wh ich in America include Independence Day (and its fireworks), Thanksgiving (and i ts meal) and Memorial Day (often with a picnic or barbecue). But many of the bes t, most enduring rituals are religious: Christmas, Easter, Sukkot, Passover, Ift ar, etc. And it is worth noting that even supposedly secular rituals tend to acc rue quasi-religious elements to lend them meaning: prayers, invocations, discuss ions of a people's "destiny". In other words, it is hard to keep such rituals pu rely secular, although I am sure it can be done. By the way, the best religious ritual of all is the Sabbath, and it so happens t hat religious people are much better at keeping a day of rest than secular peopl e who make periodic resolutions to keep a "secular Sabbath" or just to "slow dow

n". It seems to be a particularly, if not uniquely, religious good. Second, religion often organises the human quests for ethics and meaning. To thi nk about the common good, the purpose of life and how to live, it has proven use ful to use religious stories or theology. Pure scientific materialism is much be tter at describing how people evolved, and evolutionary biology and psychology a re the best ways to inquire about human nature. But these are insufficient tools for thinking about value and meaning. At the very least, they are not the only tools. Let me offer a specific example of what I mean. Discussing the Old Testament con cept of a jubilee year, with the land lying fallow and property returned to its original owners, is morally valuable and inherently interesting. Maybe one could start that conversation with science, or with a purely secular ethics, but I ha ve no reason to believe those are better ways to begin the conversation. Finally, religion is fun! As a philosopher might say, it generates utility. Not everyone will enjoy reading religious books, or singing hymns, or puzzling over theological puzzles, or hunting for Easter eggs, or hearing a great sermon. And in a free societythe best kindnobody has to. But for people who do enjoy these thi ngs, religion is certainly a force for good.

1. In a brief introduction, give the source of the text, together with any rele vant comments on the authorship. Give a summary of the content. (6 points) The text arguing that Religion is a force of good is retrieved from the Debate pag e of the The Economist website, a reputable publication. The debate page specifica lly motivating people to think analytically of different topics. Asserting in fa vor of the claim is Mark Oppenheimer, who writes a column about culture and reli gion in The New York Times and is author of a history of religion book. Holding a PhD in religious studies from Yale, he is an authority in this domain, capable to state his opinion about the topic and therefore being a trustworthy source. The essay is written for a diverse audience that doesn't necessarily agree with th e author's perspective to begin with. The point of the text is to serve as the sta rting point for a debate making the best possible case for the writer's opinion. E ven if not sharing the same beliefs as the author, the readership will be intere sted in his opinion, as this will further help them in debating the topic or eve n shaping their perspective. In the first four paragraphs Oppenheimer sets clear boundaries to the scope of h is essay: its point is neither to argue that religion is true or false (he consi ders arguments in favor and against and concludes it is unclear) nor that religi ous institutions are good or bad. The point is to show that religion, which is h ere to stay, is a force for good. The examples he brings supporting the thesis a re firstly, that religion satisfies people's need for ceremonies. Secondly, he sta tes that exact sciences are insufficient to discover the meaning and values of l ife. Lastly, he characterizes religion as being fun by describing some rituals i t involves. 2. Consider the approach: is it purely analytical, or is a more instinctiv e approach used? Justify your response. (3 points) The goal Oppenheimer's article is to influence readers to vote in favor of the res olution. Therefore, he has to present very strong arguments to convince even the readers who would press the no button before reading it. However, claims on the topic of religion are based on each person's values and beliefs and cannot be pro ven by facts. Therefore Oppenheimer has to be subjective. The reader can recogni ze his instinctive approach through the use of the first person and as he makes statements based only on his personal experience, not being backed up by facts th e best religious ritual is the Sabbath (ll 38). He also limited the support for h

is arguments to very limited examples certainly among my three young daughters,[. .] people have liked occasion(ll 28-29). The experience with his two daughters ca n be easily proven to be irrelevant as he speaks of a matter that concerns the w hole population. But to distract the reader's attention from the fact that he is not objective he b oasts about respecting the journalist duty to report fairly and unflinchingly (ll 13). Nevertheless, his approach is at times also analytical, as he is open, considers alternatives and agrees also with statements that speak against the resolution r eligious people are responsible for major crimes(ll 9) .He considers to distincti ve points of view, concluding that religion is unlikely to be true. He also adopts a candid tone, therefore enhancing the persuasion level of the es say, as many readers can empathies with this form of argumentation. 3. Find two examples of different kinds of reasoning in the text (deductiv e, inductive, causal or analogical). Examine them in terms of strength and cogen cy (validity and soundness). (10 points) DEDUCTIVE REASONING P1: If Islam is true, then Jesus is not the messiah P2: Islam is true -> C1/P3: Jesus is not the messiah. P4: Is Christianity is true, then Jesus is the messiah. -> C: Christianity is false. -------------------------------------------------------------------P1: Is Christianity is true, then Jesus is the messiah. P2: Christianity is true -> C1/P3: Jesus is the messiah. P4: If Islam is true, then Jesus is not the messiah. -> C: Islam is false. The author uses deductive reasoning to form his argument, as proves the if then: structure. Furtermore, the argument is valid as it is not possible for all the p remises to be true and the conclusion to be false. This is a reductio ad absurdu m argument, therefore it cannot be sound. It takes as one of its premises, that Christianity and Islam to be true together only to prove by means of argument th at this (in this case) is impossible to be true together. Thus, it had one false premise and an argument with one or more false premises is by definition unsoun d. The two strings of reasoning are two faces of the same argument. I have used them to make the reduction ad absurdum argument more clear. By looking at both c onclusions we can assert Oppenheimer's idea that if one belief system that makes u p a religion is true, then the one of the other religion cannot be true and vice - versa. => P1: If major religions make conflicting claism, then a lot of religi on must be untrue. P2: major religions make conflicting claims ->C: a lot of religion must be untrue ANALOGICAL REASONING P1: religions are like major human institution, like markets, or marriage, or government P2: major human institution, like markets, or marriage, or government [..] are constants of our lifes. C: religion is a constant in our life Here, the author uses a literal analogy, comparing two things. However, one has to check if there are more similarities than differences between the two objects compared. To continue, I noticed that religions do not corresponds to markets f or example in one essential trait: one can maybe life without religion, as do in

creasing numbers of people, however it's hard to imagine a life with no markets, n o economy, no exchange of good what so ever. One could imagine a hermit living s ecluded, far from civilization, providing for himself and independent from econo my, however this scenario is extremely rare compared to the possible existence o f non religious people. Therefore, the conclusion is not necessary true, as the premises have proven to be debatable.

4. Find an assumption present in an argument of the text. As a critical t hinker, can this implicit claim be challenged? How? . (6 points) P1: reading religious books, or singing hymns, or puzzling over theological puzzles, or hunting for Easter eggs, or hearing a great sermon generates pleasu re. Hidden P2: reading religious books, or singing hymns, or puzzling over the ological puzzles, or hunting for Easter eggs, or hearing a great sermon = religio n > C1/P3: Religion generates pleasure. Hidden P4: If something generates pleasure, then it is a force for good. > C: Religion is a force for good If we look at the argument we can see that there have to be two hidden premises for the argument to be deductively valid. However if we consider the two assumpt ion, we will have to acknowledge that the author avoids make them explicit with a specific purpose of manipulation, as the two assumptions are easily proofed un sound. Next I will prove my point by presenting counter arguments to the hidden premise s, proving that they are unsound. Firstly, let's consider HP2. If we look at religion, for example Christianity we c an discover that the pleasurable aspects listed by the author are merely superfi cialities. At the core, Christianity is not about pleasure but about accepting y our sorrow and taking on the sorrow of others ,about turning the other check, in o rder to secure pleasure in the afterlife in heaven. Consequently, religion as a whole does not generate pleasure. P2 is a false statement, making the argument u nsound. Now on to P4. This statement is easily refuted as there are people who gain plea sure from theft, murder, rape, and so on. However, in our society (especially in religion) we universally regard these acts as bad. Thus, not everything that ge nerates pleasure is a force for good. In conclusion, the two assumptions are false, therefore the argument is not soun d.

5. In terms of critical thinking, identify one strength and one weakness i n the text. (5 points) STRENGTH One positive trait of Oppenheimer's essay is the fact that this examples are so pe rsonal that almost any reader can empathize. He uses arguments like feasts and r ituals know to every person: Thanksgiving, Christmas, Sabbath,.., examples relatin g to his personal experiences and family. Therefore, he triggers the reader's emot ions by appearing honest (the scope of journalists ll 13) and straight forward. WEAKNESS However his manipulation techniques can also be seen as negative, as it is not m oral to influence the reader's trough this methods. A journalist has to present fa cts and be objective, as Oppenheimer too admits in line 13. It is easy to argue against his statements as proven before in the essay, becaus

e he uses arguments which, by being too focused on personal experience are not c onvincing in a journalistically fair way.

Bibliography The Economist. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2011, from http://www.economist.com/debate /days/view/591 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2011, from Nicholas Rescher: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/ RationalWiki. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2011, from http://webcache.googleuserconten t.com/search?q=cache:Lz5-9Zsi8NgJ:rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum+red uctio+ad+absurdum+valid&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk