The view that the empirical sciences give us knowledge of the facts, whereas religion and ethics give us opinions, preferences, and opinions.
Published in Chapter:
Rethinking the Fact-Value Split: A Place for Religion in the Public Square?
R. Scott Smith (Biola University, USA)
Copyright: © 2017
|Pages: 18
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1955-3.ch003
Abstract
Multicultural, western societies are quite secular, and the secular-sacred divide has been shaped by the fact-value split. But, the fact-value split also influences many other cultures, including in Latin and South America and East Asia. On it, science yields knowledge, but religion and ethics yield opinions and values. Closely related is the public-private split: governments should act on public reasons (ones based on science), and not private ones (ones based on religious and ethical views). Such science is methodologically naturalistic, bracketing anything supernatural or non-physical. This science usually presupposes ontological naturalism: what exists is natural, or physical. But, the author will contend the fact-value split is mistaken; on naturalism, humans cannot have knowledge. At best, people only have interpretations, even in science. However, the author also will argue that people can have moral and religious knowledge. If so, there will be many practical implications for public policy and religious practice.