It is commonly assumed that, methodologically, religion and science are poles apart. Science is strictly inductive and empirical; religion is deductive and intuitive. We have seen, however, that once we look beyond what scientists and religionists say they are doing to what they actually do, the differences in methodology become somewhat less impressive. The question: Which do you believe to be most fundamental, the differences or the similarities in the methods of science and religion? Adduce examples to support your more general and theoretical assertions.

NOW -- You don't have to have an opinion concerning the question. If you choose to do so, you can present both the similarities and differences in the methods of religion and science, and then declare that you aren't sure which is most fundamental. The question is merely a vehicle with which to organize your presentation of the course material. Remember -- regurgitation (the presentation of LOTS of course material) is good in a test.

Things to think about including:

The phenomenology of religion and Wach's descriptive definition of religion

Mysticism, the methodological heart of religion

The inductive method of the sciences and Dessauer's workup of that method

The social epistemology of the sciences of Thomas Kuhn

Barbour's "critical realism"

The seven assumptions about science that constitute the "myth" of science and the scientist

Pseudoscience as a blend of (methodologically) bad religion and bad science

Fallacy as the hallmark of pseudoscience including the Radners' fallacies presented in class

lectures and the five fallacies of theory testing

A discussion of the three possible pseudosciences presented in class: Creation "Science,"

Parapsychology, and Continental Drift Theory.