"God cannot be reduced to a sample for analysis"
About this Quote
“God cannot be reduced to a sample for analysis” lands like a polite refusal to play by the lab’s rules. Kenneth L. Pike is speaking from inside the 20th century’s faith in measurement, when social science increasingly treated human life as data to be gathered, coded, compared. His line draws a boundary: whatever “God” is, it’s not the kind of thing you can put in a Petri dish, operationalize into variables, and then pronounce explained.
The intent isn’t anti-intellectual so much as anti-reductionist. Pike is warning that method can become a kind of metaphysical bully: if it can’t be sampled, it doesn’t count. By saying “sample,” he targets the quiet arrogance of modern research culture, the assumption that reality must be divisible into manageable units before it becomes legitimate knowledge. The subtext: some objects of inquiry aren’t just bigger than our tools; they’re categorically different from what those tools are designed to touch.
Context matters here because Pike’s era was saturated with projects that tried to translate the human (belief, morality, meaning) into the measurable. In that climate, “God” stands in for more than theology. It’s shorthand for ultimacy, transcendence, the total frame that gives experience its shape. A sample implies representativeness; Pike suggests that divinity, by definition, resists being represented by a part. The quote works because it turns a technical term into a philosophical critique, exposing how quickly “rigor” can become a subtle form of impoverishment.
The intent isn’t anti-intellectual so much as anti-reductionist. Pike is warning that method can become a kind of metaphysical bully: if it can’t be sampled, it doesn’t count. By saying “sample,” he targets the quiet arrogance of modern research culture, the assumption that reality must be divisible into manageable units before it becomes legitimate knowledge. The subtext: some objects of inquiry aren’t just bigger than our tools; they’re categorically different from what those tools are designed to touch.
Context matters here because Pike’s era was saturated with projects that tried to translate the human (belief, morality, meaning) into the measurable. In that climate, “God” stands in for more than theology. It’s shorthand for ultimacy, transcendence, the total frame that gives experience its shape. A sample implies representativeness; Pike suggests that divinity, by definition, resists being represented by a part. The quote works because it turns a technical term into a philosophical critique, exposing how quickly “rigor” can become a subtle form of impoverishment.
Quote Details
| Topic | God |
|---|
More Quotes by Kenneth
Add to List








