Submit content / news
For the printed magazine:
For the website or news columns:
Read the submission guidelines.
Welcome to The Skeptic Magazine (UK)
This issue, we’re very lucky to have an interview with Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist who has probably done more to alter the way we think about the formation and malleability of memories. Professor Loftus’s work has had a bearing on many legal issues, including the reliability of eyewitness testimony and identification, and ‘recovered’ memories of abuse. The interview was conducted by Professor Chris French, our former editor, earlier this year at Goldsmiths.
Nelson Jones has written how to make a saints; perhaps unsurprisingly, the best way appears to be to start with a Pope.
Dr. John E. Bucker and Rebecca Anders-Buckner look at how disconfirming evidence may be assimilated by believers in extraterrestrial UFOs.
Alice Herron looks at how atheists deal with a common human event - the ‘mystical experience’.
Professor Brian Morris revisits the circumcision debate with a reply to Dr. Marianne Baker’s ‘The First Cut is the Deepest’, published in The Skeptic Winter 2012 issue.
There’s all the regular columns and content, including another visit from Brum Skeptics’ own Patrick Redmond. This issue’s ‘Skeptic in the Courtroom’ now debuts the second of our two resident legal columnists: Helen Dale blogs as skepticlawyer and is well known in sceptical circles in both Australia and the UK.
This, plus all the usual columns, cartoons and extras.
Richard Firth-Godbehere contemplates the historical provenance and value of religious texts.
Published for The Skeptic online on 17th April 2013.
Photograph: Kevin Peters
There are a great many historians who practice religions of all flavours. Some historians jump headlong into the history of their particular faith, blending it with apologetics and philosophy. Others simply ignore their religious predilections and concentrate on other areas of history, sealing their faith in a mental box with a sign huge on the lid reading ‘do not enter while studying’. I am sure this arrangement or something similar to it is found throughout all walks of academic life, but I find it particularly puzzling when I find it amongst historians. I know of many good historians who take their collection of fables as absolutely true; it is one of the most fascinating and puzzling examples of cognitive dissonance I know of.
After all, a historian is, by definition, someone who is deeply sceptical about old texts and artefacts. It is a historian’s job to dust off manuscripts, wade through archives, dig things out of dark corners and not believe a word of it (unless there is some good supporting evidence, of course). Even when a historian does believe a word of it, he tempers this with a deep analysis of the text or object at hand, stripping it down in order to work out what the narrative really is, as opposed to what the text or object claims it is. In short, we historians are deeply sceptical pedants: each and every one of us. So why does pedantry, suspicion and obsessive checking, cross-checking, double checking and rechecking disappear so often in the face of a religious text? Here, I’ll take a lightly meandering journey through the peripheries of the philosophy of history in order to find out if there is any validity in accepting a religious text as good source of history.