2003 08 00 History of Religions - Vol 43 No 1 - Joel Sweek

Magazine Overview

This document is a scanned page from the academic journal *History of Religions*, Volume 43, Issue 1, published in August 2003 by The University of Chicago Press. The primary content visible is a book review section, featuring reviews of Brenda Denzler's "The Lure of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs" and an introduction to Suzel Ana Reily's "Voices of the Magi: Enchanted Journeys in Southeast Brazil."

Book Review: The Lure of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs by Brenda Denzler

Review by Gregory D. Alles

Gregory D. Alles begins his review by noting that studies of religion often lean heavily on theory rather than method. He expresses a preference for interesting claims over methodological precision but cautions that this can lead to a culture of bold assertion where evidence and argument are lacking. Alles finds that Denzler's account, at several points, lacks specific evidence to support general claims, beyond anecdotal examples. He notes the absence of crucial data like maps of the Crystal Palace and Columbian Exposition grounds, which would be expected in historical studies. Furthermore, Alles argues that Denzler fails to adequately grapple with logical fallacies such as 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' (confusing temporal succession with causality) and the problem of identifying necessary or sufficient conditions within historical context.

Alles questions Denzler's claim that "Evolutionary thought in general—and social evolutionism specifically—could never have gained ascendancy as quickly as they did without shining examples such as the Great Exhibition and the ensuing international expositions of how the idea might be useful in making sense of a frighteningly diverse human world." He suggests that astute undergraduates might dismiss this as a bald counterfactual. Consequently, Alles concludes that Denzler's account of the conditions that made a field of religion possible is interesting and suggestive but not yet compelling.

Alles also points out that Denzler occasionally shifts from a historical concern with the field of religion to a normative advocacy for it as an instrument of universal salvation. He cites Denzler's statement that a critical task for the field of religion is to develop means by which religious categories can avoid being defined by their cultural context, allowing the "unique voice of ‘religion'" to be heard. Alles suggests that for those for whom "the field of religion" is their personal religion, this is a pressing concern, but for others, the goal is simply to use religious categories for scholarly tasks, despite contextual limitations.

Review by Joel Sweek

Joel Sweek's review focuses on Denzler's approach to UFO belief and its connection to religious belief. Sweek notes that Denzler suggests scholarly study of "the role of religion" in UFO belief has improperly concentrated on "contactees or their disciples." Denzler's aim is to explore the tension between science and religion within the UFO community, positing that most ufologists distance themselves from religious-sounding claims. Sweek questions Denzler's methodology, particularly her self-identification as a "participant-observer," and suggests her study is biased toward ufology's self-narration in its initial chapters. He describes chapter three as relating ufology's attempted assimilation to science and subsequent disappointment. Chapter four, "Ufology and the Imaginal," discusses a concept that is non-religious yet "outside of science." Chapter five, "Ufology, God-Talk, and Theology," is noted as potentially benefiting from discourse on the argument from experience. Denzler's afterword, based on her surveys, generates a "UFOs-of-the-gaps" ufology.

Sweek highlights that for UFO believers, the reports themselves are what matter, not necessarily the phenomena. He criticizes Denzler's somewhat patronizing attitude toward believers and notes that critics have long considered UFO belief proper for the study of religion, evidenced by Duke's Department of Religious Studies accepting her dissertation.

Sweek observes that Denzler's book draws little upon the intellectual resources of the academic study of religion, despite frequent references to "belief." He questions whether her study constitutes cogent participant observation, suggesting that she assumes the position of an observer while claiming academic status. Sweek points out that Denzler neglects to cite her own paper, "Who Are We?", which reports on survey results she repeatedly references.

Denzler's survey indicates that ufologists appeal to "personal experience" for corroboration, yet Sweek notes her neglect of philosophical discourse on the argument from experience. He critiques Denzler's account of the larger UFO myth, particularly her characterization of science and her understanding of "religion." Sweek argues that Denzler's view is unnuanced and that it is peculiar to suppose religious adherents relate their history as not "real." He also questions her insinuation that a "psychological... impact" might have contributed to assimilating UFO belief to religion.

Sweek further discusses Denzler's description of "Raelian" UFO religion and its dictum, "Science replaces Religion." He notes that Denzler's description evokes James on mystical religious experience, whom she neglects to cite. Sweek agrees with Denzler that varieties of UFO belief should be distinguished but criticizes her caricature of scholarship as exclusively concerned with contactees. He argues that "scientific" ufologists swim upstream not against the scientific establishment but against the wider ufological community.

Sweek expects the book to concern itself with ufology's appeal to reports, noting that eyewitness reportage is notoriously faulty. He suggests that it would be difficult to differentiate UFO belief from other instances of (religious) believing. He references Carl Sagan's critique of UFO reports and notes that ufology explains the absence of evidence by referring to conspiracy. Sweek criticizes Denzler for giving short shrift to ufological conspiracism. He observes that ufologists simulate science, habitually asserting methodical scientific inquiry, yet their labors are upon the fantastic. He quotes Richard Hofstadter on the "paranoid style in American politics," noting that the fantastic conclusions of such styles are argued out along factual lines, with heroic strivings for evidence.

Sweek concludes that while Denzler's book gathers pertinent material, its analysis fails to distinguish between the believer's account and social-scientific explanation. He notes that Denzler imagines allies in the postmodern critique of science but exercises no hermeneutic of suspicion herself. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that she has provided an impetus and bibliography for others to critically examine UFO experiences.

Book Introduction: Voices of the Magi: Enchanted Journeys in Southeast Brazil by Suzel Ana Reily

This section briefly introduces Suzel Ana Reily's book, describing it as a rich musical ethnography of the *folia de reis*, a popular Catholic procession honoring the Three Kings. It complements existing literature on Brazilian popular religion and music. The book reenacts the journey of the Three Kings and explores the gifts they received. Reily's work is praised for its thorough ethnographic material and detailed analysis, though the theoretical discussion is noted as underdeveloped.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the reviews is the critical examination of how UFO belief is studied and understood, particularly in relation to religion and science. The reviews highlight the methodological challenges in studying belief systems, the reliance on personal experience versus empirical evidence, and the role of conspiracy theories in ufology. There is a consistent critique of approaches that may lack rigor or present an unnuanced view of religious belief or scientific inquiry. The journal's stance, as indicated by the content, is to foster critical academic analysis of religious phenomena, including those that intersect with popular culture and belief systems like ufology.