In his book Het Nut van God (2001), Hans Jansen argues that for a religion to remain attractive, it requires belief in a creed or assumption that is necessarily unverifiable. This somewhat counterintuitive requirement stems from the fact that religious beliefs, if verifiable, will eventually risk being proven false.
Occasionally, a religious movement begins with a verifiable claim. According to Jansen, such movements inevitably face one of two outcomes. The first is that the claim is disproven, leading to the movement’s disbandment. The second is that the movement adapts, modifying or adopting new claims to eliminate the “problem” of verifiability.
Jansen provides several examples to illustrate this point. One extreme case is that of Lou the eel vendor, who claimed to be the resurrected and immortal body of Jesus Christ. Unsurprisingly, following his death, his movement largely dissolved.
A more common scenario involves predictions of the Day of Judgment within a specific timeframe. For instance, the Jehovah’s Witnesses once claimed to know the exact date of the apocalypse. After successive failed predictions, their leaders revised the claim, asserting instead that the End Times are merely “imminent.” Similarly, the early Christians expected Christ to return within their lifetimes, but this expectation appears to have been adjusted in the Gospel of John.
Jansen also discusses the idea, held by some sociologists, that failed predictions can strengthen belief within religious movements. This notion, based on the 1956 study When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, suggests that cognitive dissonance can lead believers to intensify their faith after disconfirmation. However, Jansen critiques this conclusion, arguing that the infiltration of the studied group by undercover researchers may have altered its dynamics. He notes that, as of 2001, no further research had corroborated the findings of Festinger and his colleagues.
Jansen delves further into how religious movements attract followers and sustain relevance (or fail to do so). For now, I’ll end with a question that just occurred to me. Among apologists and believers, there seems to be a growing trend to defend religious beliefs by claiming that their scriptures contain “scientific predictions.” This trend strikes me as odd for several reasons.
First, since the advent of modern science, religions (at least Christianity in the West) have had to abandon numerous claims about the natural world. For example, it was once widely believed that God used lightning to punish the wicked. I recall reading (likely on Wikipedia, though I’ll allow it for now) that the invention of the lightning rod was initially seen as blasphemous.
Secondly, these so-called scientific truths in scripture can only be discerned after scientists have made corresponding discoveries. The method often involves interpreting ambiguous passages in light of the latest scientific advancements.
Finally, science is an evolving field. While some discoveries stand the test of time, apologists often focus on complex and evolving subjects such as the Big Bang or the structure of the universe. This means that new developments in science will likely render these “scientific predictions” obsolete. Perhaps apologists would be better served by sticking to the strength of their unverifiable claims.
Wednesday 1 July 2020