A scientific discipline: the persistence of a delusion?

Author: Kundt, Radek
Source document: Religio. 2012, vol. 20, iss. 1, pp. [39]-42
  • ISSN
    1210-3640 (print)
    2336-4475 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license
In my response to Martin and Wiebe's academic "confession", I try to show that there is a major inconsistency in their argument. This inconsistency resides within their partial and therefore biased application of universal unconscious mechanisms that constrain the human mind, where the application should have been complete. Their argument should have been directed at all sciences or at science in general in order for it to be sound, and not particularly at Religious Studies. This would result in the argument that any scientific discipline is a delusion, which is an outcome Martin and Wiebe do not hold, as they make science a sine qua non for their own argument.