Submit content / news
For the printed magazine:
For the website or news columns:
Read the submission guidelines.
Welcome to The Skeptic Magazine (UK)
Language & Dictionaries
Words are slippery customers and dictionaries are imperfect...so what do they really do
The Skeptic Interview with Eugenie Scott
The recently retired Executive Director of the USA's National Center for Science Education looks at the past and future of pseudo-science in the classroom
Does Science Support Infant Circumcision?
Revisiting the infant circumcision debate with a reply to Brian Morris from The Skeptic 24:4
Do You Remember?
'Sybil' & 'Eve' were famous and remarkable cases of 'multiple personality disorder' - but was it the psychiatrists who were deluded by 'recovered' memories?
Common Mythconceptions - the world's most contagious falsehoods
Plus all the usual columns, puzzles, reviews and features.
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.