Is Science a Religion?

[China Cat Sunflower]

The two great myths of modernity are Science and Progress.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

That seems very familiar to me Chris, is it a quote?

David

[Tao_Equus]

I would like to comment on whats been said about Carl Sagan.

He was a man that to me personaly was one of the very few voices in my childhood that brought a charisma to science. His enthusiasim for, his profound love and appreciation in having the capacity to look at the cosmos and attempt to unlock its secrets I am sure in part inspired me to the same. I think in part, and to some, this enthusiasim could be confused for an almost religeous approach to science. However the truth is Carl Sagan always had about him the awe of a child seeing for the first time a beautiful butterfly emerging from its chrysalis. He simply delighted in the ability to observe the infinite little, and not so little, miracles that are the factual reality of our universe.

As to whether he was a religeous man well his Fire-breathing Dragon in the garage parable does no more than say he still reserves judgement due to lack of evidence. I am in the same boat. I cannot have 'faith' for there are too many unanswered questions. (And because I have not yet found a religeon that is not more about controling peoples thoughts than anything else, I dont want to be told how to think.) So in that sense he is up there with Uncle Albert.
The dig at him saying in essence he was 'a jack of all trades and a master of none' was rather below the belt. I think a big problem with the scientific community is the dire lack of inter-disciplinary communication. There is always a need for those gifted individuals who have the ability to sift through whats happening, draw it together into a coherant overview and present it to the wider public in an engaging way. There are very very few with this gift and Carl Sagan should be applauded for this not jibed at. I am sorry that my own children do not have such an effable contemporary to inspire them.

David

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Interesting. I have not read much of Huston Smith but the little sound bites I've heard I generally like and find myself agreeing.

Would you see 'scientism' as a belief system that competes with other religions? Do you see this as something being promoted by certain groups or individuals, or is it just a phenomenon that characterizes our modern outlook on things?

lunamoth

My only experience with it would be through the writings of those like Richard Dawkins and those I've experienced on other bulletin boards.

[flowperson]

Well, I'll try to make some cogent comments, but you all have done a pretty good job of identifying the details in the comparison.

For a long while I worked at this boundary. One of my jobs at a large research university was to run the intellectual property operation when this stuff was all getting started after the Bahye-Dole act was passed by Congress in 1982. This law gave title to staff inventions to universities as long as reasonable money sharing policies were enacted, and provided that universities that held title to such creations were diligent in arranging and monitoring the development of licensed properties by outside interests. To simplify things, we owned property that was developed in ways to earn money for the inventor(s), the university, and the firms which developed and sold stuff based on the inventions in the future.

Lots of times, I, a Less Nessmann-like university bureaucrat, would be sitting across from powerful corporate attorneys and scientists who were trying to acquire rights to research outcomes that they were going to sponsor and that they hoped turned out beneficial for them monetarily. They even accused me from time to time of being an attorney or a PhD! I got involved in some interesting stuff like genetically engineered soybeans that yielded larger percentages of lysine, a possible vaccine for malaria, or an easy to use pregnancy test. This was all back in the mid to late 80's when our current world was being born. It was fun and interesting work, but at the bottom of it all, it was all about money.

Looking into the future, which was required to gauge possible development scenarios and related incomes and risks, was a daunting set of puzzles. This was always required, but at no time do I remember anyone bringing up points regarding what these new science-based lifestyles of the future that utilized university-owned technologies might possibly do to our grandchildren.

When I left the field, I did some serious writing about what the boundary zones between religion and science were all about, and passed it around freely. Then I became intellectually involved with a budding area of science popularly known as chaos theory, or more correctly defined as the study of complex systems. I wrote about that. I was even asked to sit on a learned panel of theologians and prominent scientists to discuss this stuff. Imagine that ! They wanted to know what I thought !

The one professional article that I formally published on this stuff was in the seminar group's journal. In that article I posed the argument that science and technology is a set of activities in the present, based on facual past proofs, that increasingly creates the future, good or bad. While religions are a set of activities in the present that constantly reflect past beliefs, and that works as a sort of governor, a retarding factor, on the engines of science and technology to help us to get into new futures with minimal damage to the great systemic experiment of G-d known as human civilization.

No one screamed that I was wrong, nor claimed that I must have had an Einsteinian brain transplant. But over time my life, such as it was, came apart. Evidently someone, somewhere, who was very powerful, did not like what I had to say, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't G-d. In fact I'd say that G-d has had a lot to do with the fact that I'm still able to write and talk about what I know and think, to a certain extent.

Two disparate things stick in my mind from this set of experiences and memories.

The first was an article in the NY Times a few years ago that was about the theologian advising the MIT Technology development operation regarding the development of the university's intellectual properties. (Hey, maybe someone is paying attention out there !) I recalled that this lady, as a post-doc, sat in on some of the seminar sessions that I had been involved in. Her profound observation was something to the effect, "There's something profoundly wrong with a society that operates to force humans to behave more and more like robots, and that also wants to make robots that behave and operate as if they were human."

The other was a friendship that I had with a professor at the university that employed me also. He was from India originally, and was much in demand for interviews all over the world in those days for he had invented the first human-made lifeform, a bacteria that digested crude petroleum and other toxic substances. He sometimes wore huge white horn rim eyeglasses. He would sometimes look at me, blink a few times and say. "You know, this might be a very beneficial thing in the future if only it is developed appropriately."

Oh, I almost forgot my closing line in the published article that I wrote. It said something about, "It was going to be hard to make a viable and moral future when many scientists and theologians were trying so hard to eat each other."

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That seems very familiar to me Chris, is it a quote?

David

Not a direct quote, but along the lines of something I read in Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes, by Jacques Ellul. He says that the great foundational myths of modern society are: Science, History, Progress, Work, Nation, Youth, and the Hero. From these, he says, come the shared presuppositions that man's aim in life is happiness, that man is naturally good, that history develops in endless progress, and that everything is matter.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Flowperson, and welcome to CR!

Well, I'll try to make some cogent comments, but you all have done a pretty good job of identifying the details in the comparison.

Thank you for the validation. Thomas Kuhn wasn't so far off after all, yes?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Juan and I and a few others have discussed this point before but I think it has always been buried in other threads. The question is Is Science a Religion? I think we need to look at a few different questions as we examine this.

1. What defines a religion the way we are using it here?

2. How does science fit these criteria?

3. Do you think that many people view science as a religion competing with other religions?

Of course all other comment is welcome, whether or not you wish to address these questions.

For a great starting point I recommend Okie In Exile's excellent essay on this subject, found here:
Science, the Religion

lunamoth

Well, I am coming a bit late to the conversation, and much of what I would say has been said! So I'll just answer the questions, briefly.

1. Religion: human transformation in response to a perceived ultimacy.

2. It could fit the criteria, but rarely really does. Science generally does not transform individuals, nor is it in response to a perceived ultimacy (God, karmic cycles, spirits, whatever). Science is really more a system of techniques/tools by which to generate theories about observable phenomena. Religion is a system that generates theories about how to transcend ordinary life in response to perceived, but not verifiable ultimate reality/realities. I tend to think religion has a lot to do with transcendence. Science generally does not. But...

3. There are two issues here to me. The first is the very blurred boundary between science and religion, which has generally been the case in most human cultures and throughout human history. It is only very recent in human history, and pretty much only in the first world, that science and religion have come to be separate categories of inquiry. Consider that in most traditional societies, ecology, medicine, and other "scientific" areas of inquiry and application are wrapped up in religious systems. So we get various folk sciences such as feng-shui that arise from the melding of observable and even experiment-based inquiry, with ideological explanation/theory. The thing that is interesting is that this melding of science and religion is generally very beneficial. The science part of it allows for practical application. The religious explanations allow for the motivation of people.

This motivation issue is very important. Consider that most Americans know the scientific reasons why it's a bad idea to build in a flood plain or at the base of a steep hill. Then consider that no one cares, and we have homes buried in mud each year in southern California during the rainy season. Then consider that in traditional China, though the theory was religious (and obviously incorrect from a Western science perspective)- dragons and tigers lived in the hills and would get angry and shake, for example, if you "cut their pulse" to build on top of them- this motivated people to not build in inappropriate places. Anthropologists find that people typically are motivated more by religious systems than purely "scientific" ones. So, for most of human history and most cultures... it's a bit of a non-issue. Science and religion and magic all go hand in hand. They don't compete, they cooperate- the result being motivating people to behave in ways that ensure group survival and wise use of resources.

I think we are gradually moving back to this traditional, time-tested model of inquiry into our world after a strange hiatus of separating science and religion into dichotomous categories. But we are moving back with a new paradigm. Consider the cutting-edge scientific theories going on in physics and you see parallels to philosophy and religion. What string theorists are just beginning to mathmatically prove has been discussed by shamans and mystics for ages.

Unfortunately, I think a significant number of people still buy into the (false) dichotomy and put themselves in one "camp" or the other, much to the detriment of both science and religion. Open mindedness, and a humble attitude about one's own perspectives and knowledge, can lead to amazing revolutions in thought. Consider Einstein... And Darwin... I think Darwin would be chagrined to find he is held up in some circles as the poster child for an atheistic science (and it isn't the scientific circles who do this). I think it is pop culture stereotypes and a general lack of education in the history and contemporary practice of science that allow people to continue to think that science and religion are oppositional categories of inquiry. Any serious investigation of the history of these fields in human cultures, and their history in many individual scientists (as well as traditional religious pracitioners like shamans), would find that the boundaries between the two are fuzzy at best, and sometimes entirely the result of our own cultural imagination.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Well, I am coming a bit late to the conversation, and much of what I would say has been said! So I'll just answer the questions, briefly.

1. Religion: human transformation in response to a perceived ultimacy.

2. It could fit the criteria, but rarely really does. Science generally does not transform individuals, nor is it in response to a perceived ultimacy (God, karmic cycles, spirits, whatever). Science is really more a system of techniques/tools by which to generate theories about observable phenomena. Religion is a system that generates theories about how to transcend ordinary life in response to perceived, but not verifiable ultimate reality/realities. I tend to think religion has a lot to do with transcendence. Science generally does not. But...

3. There are two issues here to me. The first is the very blurred boundary between science and religion, which has generally been the case in most human cultures and throughout human history. It is only very recent in human history, and pretty much only in the first world, that science and religion have come to be separate categories of inquiry. Consider that in most traditional societies, ecology, medicine, and other "scientific" areas of inquiry and application are wrapped up in religious systems. So we get various folk sciences such as feng-shui that arise from the melding of observable and even experiment-based inquiry, with ideological explanation/theory. The thing that is interesting is that this melding of science and religion is generally very beneficial. The science part of it allows for practical application. The religious explanations allow for the motivation of people.

This motivation issue is very important. Consider that most Americans know the scientific reasons why it's a bad idea to build in a flood plain or at the base of a steep hill. Then consider that no one cares, and we have homes buried in mud each year in southern California during the rainy season. Then consider that in traditional China, though the theory was religious (and obviously incorrect from a Western science perspective)- dragons and tigers lived in the hills and would get angry and shake, for example, if you "cut their pulse" to build on top of them- this motivated people to not build in inappropriate places. Anthropologists find that people typically are motivated more by religious systems than purely "scientific" ones. So, for most of human history and most cultures... it's a bit of a non-issue. Science and religion and magic all go hand in hand. They don't compete, they cooperate- the result being motivating people to behave in ways that ensure group survival and wise use of resources.

I think we are gradually moving back to this traditional, time-tested model of inquiry into our world after a strange hiatus of separating science and religion into dichotomous categories. But we are moving back with a new paradigm. Consider the cutting-edge scientific theories going on in physics and you see parallels to philosophy and religion. What string theorists are just beginning to mathmatically prove has been discussed by shamans and mystics for ages.

Unfortunately, I think a significant number of people still buy into the (false) dichotomy and put themselves in one "camp" or the other, much to the detriment of both science and religion. Open mindedness, and a humble attitude about one's own perspectives and knowledge, can lead to amazing revolutions in thought. Consider Einstein... And Darwin... I think Darwin would be chagrined to find he is held up in some circles as the poster child for an atheistic science (and it isn't the scientific circles who do this). I think it is pop culture stereotypes and a general lack of education in the history and contemporary practice of science that allow people to continue to think that science and religion are oppositional categories of inquiry. Any serious investigation of the history of these fields in human cultures, and their history in many individual scientists (as well as traditional religious pracitioners like shamans), would find that the boundaries between the two are fuzzy at best, and sometimes entirely the result of our own cultural imagination.

Thank you for that perspective Path, I think it adds an important nuance to the discussion, and one that I agree with. Science is not a competing religion, and I would not label it a religion at all, but scientific inquiry is on a continuum of the human quest for truth that includes scientific knowledge and divine revelation/spiritual awakening.

luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by flowperson

The one professional article that I formally published on this stuff was in the seminar group's journal. In that article I posed the argument that science and technology is a set of activities in the present, based on facual past proofs, that increasingly creates the future, good or bad. While religions are a set of activities in the present that constantly reflect past beliefs, and that works as a sort of governor, a retarding factor, on the engines of science and technology to help us to get into new futures with minimal damage to the great systemic experiment of G-d known as human civilization.

No one screamed that I was wrong, nor claimed that I must have had an Einsteinian brain transplant. But over time my life, such as it was, came apart. Evidently someone, somewhere, who was very powerful, did not like what I had to say, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't G-d. In fact I'd say that G-d has had a lot to do with the fact that I'm still able to write and talk about what I know and think, to a certain extent.

Hi flow, that's a pretty interesting experience you've described. I hope you feel that your life has taken the course it's meant to, and that when this particular set of doors started to close you found another set opening.

Haha--I can imagine how well it went over having the topic of religion as a mitigating factor brought up openly in a scientific journal. I think there is a great deal of respect on an individual level for scientists who are known to be adhering to their religious principles when it comes to ethics in science, as there is respect for anyone who is putting ethics and integrity above ego and money (but a lot of times the good guy finishes last...). But, I can see that where there would be less tolerance for promoting religion in general as governing factor for science. The first question would certainly be...well, whose religion?

Thanks,
lunamoth

[Tao_Equus]

Reading these great posts does broaden out the picture. Looking at the evolution of science and technology it cannot be denied that much of the progress was made by religious men, or at least those educated in a religious background. Without education there can be little scientific progress and throughout the world and throughout history, and until very recently, educational provision was a monopoly of the organised religions. Science for most of its history was almost exclusively a monastic pursuit.

It is interesting to note then that it only truly flourished when unshackled from having to accord with any doctrine. And its worth pondering on how much truly life changing revolutionary science is now ignored because it would upset the balance sheets of our capatalist Gods. The more I think on it the more I see science can never be equated with religion. In that it can be considered an intelectual tool is its only common ground with religion. And in that role either can be used for good or bad.

David

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Not a direct quote, but along the lines of something I read in Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes, by Jacques Ellul. He says that the great foundational myths of modern society are: Science, History, Progress, Work, Nation, Youth, and the Hero. From these, he says, come the shared presuppositions that man's aim in life is happiness, that man is naturally good, that history develops in endless progress, and that everything is matter.

Chris

Thats great, thanks Chris, never read it......and dont think I want to

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thats great, thanks Chris, never read it......and dont think I want to

I don't blame you, it's a pretty stiff read! But, I gotta say it's about the scariest book I've ever read in my life because it dissolves the idea that anyone is immune to propaganda. It really made me think about just how much programming I've swallowed and never knew it. Makes me question whether I actually know anything.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't blame you, it's a pretty stiff read! But, I gotta say it's about the scariest book I've ever read in my life because it dissolves the idea that anyone is immune to propaganda. It really made me think about just how much programming I've swallowed and never knew it. Makes me question whether I actually know anything.

Chris

I wouldn't worry about it too much China Cat. I think we build all of our reality from illusion. That's why I think it's better to choose positive/life-affirming/compassionate beliefs.

I don't know about you, but I was born lacking the God-gene allele. I have to think about it, and choose.

lunamoth

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi flow, that's a pretty interesting experience you've described. I hope you feel that your life has taken the course it's meant to, and that when this particular set of doors started to close you found another set opening.

Haha--I can imagine how well it went over having the topic of religion as a mitigating factor brought up openly in a scientific journal. I think there is a great deal of respect on an individual level for scientists who are known to be adhering to their religious principles when it comes to ethics in science, as there is respect for anyone who is putting ethics and integrity above ego and money (but a lot of times the good guy finishes last...). But, I can see that where there would be less tolerance for promoting religion in general as governing factor for science. The first question would certainly be...well, whose religion?

Thanks,
lunamoth

Hi Luna:

Hmmm, well doors keep opening, closing, and sometimes slamming for me. But seriously, we confront the darkness, do our best to discern its purpose, and cleave to the light as much as possible. That's the only way I've been able to get this far along in life.

The fears within those who confront and oppose you though is the most unsettling thing to me. I just can't imagine the levels of fear and loathing it takes to attack others for what they do or do not believe, or even for their appearance or country of origin. But, stuff happens, and things change I guess. Intolerance and hypocrisy are the real enemies, not necessarily the people who espouse them.

The journal I published in was one that accepted articles having to do with the interactions of science and religion. I doubt if a scientific journal would have touched what I wrote. The journal is no longer published I believe. Thanks for your response.

flow....