|
Abstract:
|
According to hyper-Humeanism, the world of "fact" is utterly distinct
from the realm of "value"-—that is, the realm of morality and religion.
This is a well-known philosophical position, and it more or less follows from
some well-known philosophical doctrines (e.g., logical positivism, and neo-
Wittgensteinianism), but its appeal is not limited to philosophers. Indeed,
an acceptance of hyper-Humeanism seems to be at the root of Stephen Jay
Gould's recent defense of the thesis that science and religion are utterly distinct.
Gould's stated aim in defending this thesis is to settle, or perhaps reveal
as illusory, various conflicts between science and religion. However, I argue
not only that Gould's version of this thesis is defective, but also that hyper-
Humeanism itself is false. If I am right, then "facts" and "values"-—science
and religion in particular—-can overlap in philosophically interesting ways. |