OK – I’m officially over it!
The number of times I hear people spruiking science as the answer to religion is really getting up my nose (maybe that’s why I’ve been sneezing so much lately).
I thought I’d come up with a new term – scientism – to cover people who’s attitudes are patently religious (in the negative or pejorative sense), but have found that’s it’s already been done.
According to Wikipedia; “Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”
If that were the way scientists operate I would applaud it.
However, I find scientists are just as bigoted and fanatical about their beliefs as any religious fundamentalist.
Let’s start the other way around and go back to something much simpler – the definition of religion.
There are a number of interesting definitions of what religion is – see http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn2.htm
For me it’s not so much a philosophical question as one of systems and structures.
A religion generally has the following:
– a belief in something unseen as controlling the world
– prophets who are seen as the messengers of some special information
– priests or chief practitioners who determine what is acceptable and what isn’t
– dogma or limitations on what is legitimate within the system
– fanatical practitioners calling for the death of all non-believers (in some religions. Thankfully, this is not a universal attribute of all religions.)
I see modern scientists having all these attributes.
While they appear to be calm and rational and claim to base their opinions on experimental evidence, sadly this often isn’t the case.
In the 7.30 Report of Monday 29th June, Leigh Sales interviewed Prof Lawrence Krauss, a Theoretic Physicist and Cosmologist.
The beginning of the interview went well with discussions about the lack of general scientific knowledge (eg one third of Australians don’t know it takes the Earth a year to orbit the Sun) and why it’s important for people to have a good background in science.
As Prof Krauss pointed out, children are natural scientists – they are curious and want to know about the world and how it works.
The challenge, as he pointed out, was not to engage children in science but to prevent them from dis-engaging.
Prof Krauss told the story of the question asked by a senator of one of the head scientists when the Fermi Particle Accelerator was built – “will it aid in the defense of the nation?” He replied; “No, but it will help keep the nation worth defending.”
He also commented “science is not just there for technology, it’s about addressing who you are in the universe and understanding your place in the cosmos”
All good stuff.
Then the interview wept pear-shaped.
Leigh asked; “Why has science not done away with the belief in God?”
Prof Krauss then went into an anti-religion diatribe finishing with the quote from a Nobel Prize winning friend of his “There are good people and there are bad people. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things. When good people do bad things, that’s religion.”
Say what!
I keep hearing this type of attitude in many places.
In LinkedIn groups built around the TED phenomenon the question is often raised about “how can people still believe this rubbish? and when will they stop running their lives based on mythology and superstition?”
As someone who has been trained in science and has a great deal of respect for the scientific approach I find this alarming.
As with classical religions we have the prophets; Newton, Keplar, Darwin, Einstein and others.
(In many cases these are people with strong religious views, but that is ignored when they are lauded as prophets of the new age and new ways of thinking and seeing the world.)
Often their ideas are ridiculed at the time, only to be proven correct may years later.
A recent example is the treatment of Emmanuel Velikovsky, the author of a number of books including “Worlds In Collision”, “Ages In Chaos” and more.
While his ideas may (or my not) have been wrong, his treatment by the scientific community certainly was.
A similar example is the treatment of Peter Andrews in Australia.
His revolutionary ideas turned ‘environmentally bankrupt’ farmland into green and fertile pasture but he’s been hounded by the rural establishment and government departments responsible for protecting this country.
As you know I’m very actively involved with Astrology.
Before Astronomy, there was Astrology.
From a scientific perspective Astrology is the most empirically (ie evidence) based branch of science of all areas.
It has been studied consistently for as long as human beings have existed.
And yet, there isn’t a scientist who would be willing to come out and state that it has validity.
I consistently hear award winning scientists ridicule Astrology with the old furfey “there’s no evidence”.
Of course there’s no evidence if you refuse to see it.
Even, IONS, the Institute Of Noetic Science, which carries out studies in PSI, Telepathy and many other “mystical” areas, seems to avoid Astrology.
So, get a grip people!
Start to use an analytical approach, which is what science is supposed to be about, and see where that takes you.
Religion has been around since the dawn of mankind and humanity has managed to live on this planet for that entire time without destroying everything, even the planet itself.
Modern science has been around for a couple of hundred years and in that time has managed to destroy a large number of plant and animal species, has brought the planet to its knees environmentally, and has provided us with tools like nuclear weapons.
Take Australia as an example.
For over 40,000 years the aboriginal people lived and thrived in this land.
Within 200 years of white settlement, Australia has been overrun by introduced species of animals, many native animal species are now extinct with many more (as well as native plants) heading in that direction.
Is this what we call progress?
Is this what science has to offer the world?
Albert Einstein, a rather well known scientist once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
For me, science has now reached the point where it’s “thinking” has to be re-thought.
What we now have is not science but “Scientism”, a religious fanaticism desperately trying to hold on to an outmoded way of thinking.
What we are also seeing is a revival of traditional religious thinking reframed and called “spiritual”.
I come across many people who tell me “I’m not religious, I’m spiritual”.
When understood properly, and we take away the fanatical and dogmatic elements of traditional religions (in which I now include Scientism) with their hierarchies and controlling mechanisms, they are all talking about the same thing: understanding our place in the cosmos and how to get on with each other on this limited planet.
Thanks to Robert Lanza for the image.