Abstract
In Secular Religion, his posthumously published book, Kelsen intended to defend the prevalent theories in the social sciences from the threat of discredit. The drawing of analogies between the social sciences and religion was indeed quite common at that time among intellectuals (such as Eric Voegelin, Raymon Aron and Ernst Cassirer) and Kelsen thought that this analogy created a serious risk to the credibility of the social sciences. I argue that (1) the drawing of analogies between social sciences and religion is not necessarily bad for the social sciences (2) this rhetorical battle between historians of ideas was much less dangerous for the credibility and survival of the social sciences than Kelsen estimated (3) the method chosen by Kelsen to defend the social sciences, conceptual analysis, might not have been the best method for this purpose.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See the editorial remarks by Clemens Jabloner- ->, Klaus Zeleny- -> and Gerhard Donhauser- ->, in Hans Kelsen- ->, Robert Walter, Clemens Jabloner and Klaus Zeleny (eds), Secular Religion: a Polemic against the Misinterpretation of Modern Social Philosophy, Science and Politics as “New Religions”, Wien: Springer, 2012, p. xi–xv
- 2.
Rudolf A. Metall, Hans Kelsen - ->, Wien: Deuticke Verlag, 1969, p. 91.
- 3.
Bertrand Russell- ->, Religion and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935. Julian Huxley- ->, Religion without Revelation, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group Incorporated, 1979.
- 4.
See Oliver Rathkolb- ->, „Hans Kelsen- -> und das FBI während des McCarthysmus in den USA“, in: Robert Walter/Werner Ogris/Thomas Olechowski (eds.), Hans Kelsen: Leben-Werk-Wirksamkeit, Wien: Verlag Manz, 2009, p. 339–348.
- 5.
Barry Cooper- ->, Beginning the Quest: Law and Politics in the Early Work of Eric Voegelin - ->, Columbia (MO): University of Missouri Press, 2009, p. 220.
- 6.
Eric Voegelin- ->, The New Science of Politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- 7.
Eric Voegelin- ->, Wissenschaft, Politik und Gnosis, in Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works, Columbia (Missouri): University of Missouri Press 2000, pp. 26–27, quoted in Hans Kelsen- ->, Secular Religion, p. 50.
- 8.
Eric Voegelin- ->, ibid.
- 9.
Eric Voegelin, Collected Works, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995.
- 10.
Hans Kelsen- ->, Pure Theory of Law,Berkeley- ->: University of California Press, 1967.
- 11.
And this has led to many debates. See for instance the recent debate that has opposed Steven Pinker- -> to Leon Wieseltier- -> in the pages of the New Republic. Steven Pinker, “Science is not your enemy: an impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians”, The New Republic, 6 August 2013. Leon Wieseltier, “Crimes against Humanities: Science wants to invade the liberal arts, don’t let it happen”, the New Republic, 3 September 2013.
- 12.
Raymond Aron- ->, L’avenir des religions séculières, in Raymond Aron, 1905–1983: Histoire et politique: Textes et témoignages, Paris: Julliard, 1927, quoted in Kelsen- -> H., Secular Religion, p. 23–24.
- 13.
Raymond Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: a Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, in Review of General Psychology, 2 (2), June 1998, p. 175–220.
- 14.
Crane Brinton- ->, A History of Western Morals, San Diego: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959.
- 15.
Reynhold Niebuhr- ->, Faith and History: a comparison of Christian and Modern Views of History, London: Nisbet, 1949, p. 210–213. Arnold J. Toynbee- ->, A study of History, IX, p. 583, both quoted in Kelsen- -> H., Secular religion, chapter 3.
- 16.
Arnold J. Toynbee- ->, A study of History, IX, p. 583.
- 17.
Karl Löwith- ->, Meaning in History: the theological implications of the Philosophy of History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy- ->, The Christian Future: or the Modern Mind Outrun, London: S.C.M. Press, 1947. Etienne Gilson- ->, Les Métamorphoses de la cité de Dieu, Paris: Vrin, 2005. Eric Voegelin- ->, The New Science of Politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- 18.
Crane Brinton- ->, A History of Western Morals, New York: Harcourt, Brace & co., 1959. Hans Jonas- ->, Gnosis und spätaniker Geist, Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1934. Eric Voegelin- ->, The New Science of Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- 19.
Crane Brinton- ->, op. cit., p. 275. Quoted in Hans Kelsen- ->, op. cit., p. 252.
- 20.
Ibid., p. 255.
- 21.
Gilles Kepel- ->, La Revanche de Dieu: Chrétiens, Juifs et Musulmans à la reconquête du monde, Paris: Seuil, 2003.
- 22.
Samuel Huntington- ->, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order, New York City: Simon & Schuster, 2011.
- 23.
The movement of analytical Marxism, which originated in the 1980s, claimed to do just that: to present a more rigorous defence of Marx- ->’s theory. Among this movement’s famous members were G. A. Cohen- ->, J. Roemer- ->, J. Elster- ->, H. Steiner- ->, P. van Parijs, A. Przeworski- -> and E.O.Wright- ->. See Gerald Allan Cohen, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: a Defence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
- 24.
Hans Kelsen- ->, op. cit., p. 38.
- 25.
This being said, religion might have a big influence in the use and application of scientific advances (think of stem cell research for instance).
- 26.
Richard Dawkins- ->, The God Delusion, New York City: Bantam Books, 2006, Daniel Dennett- ->, Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon, New York City: Viking, 2006, Christopher Hitchens- ->, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, New York City: Twelve Books, 2007. Michel Onfray- ->, Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam, New York: Arcade Publishing Inc., 2007.
- 27.
Alvin Plantinga- ->, “The Dawkins- -> Confusion- Naturalism ad absurdum”, in Books & Culture: a Christian Review,, 2007, http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html. Thomas Nagel- ->, “The Fear of Religion”, in New Republic, 2006. Michael Ruse- ->, “Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion”, in Isis, vol. 98, n. 4, 2007.
- 28.
Stephen Jay Gould- -> had defended the view that there should be two non-overlapping magisterial: the empirical and the moral. Whereas the empirical domain could be appropriately taught by science, the moral domain ought to be taught by religion. This triggered a strong reaction among the New Atheists. Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.
- 29.
John Gray- ->, Black - -> Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007.
- 30.
Mark Lilla- ->, “Mr. Casaubon in America”, in The New York Review of Books, June 28, 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Couto, A. (2016). Purity in Concepts: Defending the Social Sciences. In: Damböck, C. (eds) Influences on the Aufbau. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21876-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21876-2_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21875-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21876-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)