Science as Religion
The concept of science as religion is apparently growing. In Berkeley, a new "temple to the religion of science" is soon to open. From the New Scientist story:"Praise be to Darwin! We are gathered here today to give thanks to those scientists who have given us something to sustain our spirits in this time of religious vacuity. Not that we believe there is such a thing as a spirit, or a soul, but you know what I mean."
The temple is actually a work of art, but which explicitly supports scientism. I went to the Web site, and found this quote:
This, I imagine, is the sort of thing that might kick off "science worship" sermons in the "Atheon"--a two-story downtown Berkeley building conceived "to provide a spiritual home for rational people in California".
The Atheon is a secular temple devoted to scientific worship. Delivering spiritual fulfillment through exposure to the latest research in fields ranging from cosmology to quantum mechanics, the Atheon offers a nondenominational alternative to theocentric religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Our credo is to make faith rational.Well, that's oxymoronic, isn't it? Faith can be backed up with rational reasons and evidence to support belief. But by definition, faith is not in the rational sphere.
The shrine was partially funded, the site states, by UC Berkeley. If science is indeed to morph into religion, is this a violation of church and state? (I know, it's an art project.) On a more serious note, I think that the artist Jonathon Keats is right about one thing: Humans have spiritual as well as physical needs and long to find transcendence. We are the only species that have such yearning. In that, we are exceptional.
Labels: Scientism. The Meaning of Life. Human Exceptionalism.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:22 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Science cannot be a religion, or replace religion, without adding that which is not science to it. Science is an epistemic process (a highly successful one) that can only compete with other epistemic processes, perhaps such as those used anciently or contemporarily by religions. However, while religions depend on epistemic processes, they are not merely epistemic processes. They are also systems of ethics and esthetics.
If science is the new religion, I dread what their idea of the crusades might be...
I have been reading your blog the past few weeks, and feel obligated to comment on this for the first time, because I see many average people who think "science" is infallibly good, and don't realize research is what we make of it; either good or evil. That troubles me deeply. I think it clouds their judgment and lets people who believe in the "malleability and perfectibility of man" lead them down an all too familiar path. Please keep it up!
I think Ernest Becker has a compelling perspective on how virtually any cultural world view (including science, nationalism, or art) can function as a religion on the psychological level.
(Wikipedia) The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism...Since man has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, man is able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, a concept involving his symbolic half. By embarking on what Becker refers to as an "immortality project" in which he creates or becomes part of something which he feels will outlast him, man feels he has "become" heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to his physical body that will die one day. This, in turn, gives man the feeling that his life has meaning; a purpose; significance in the grand scheme of things...Another theme running throughout the book is that humanity's traditional "hero-systems" i.e. religion, are no longer convincing in the age of reason; science is attempting to solve the problem of man, something that Becker feels it can never do. The book states that we need new convincing "illusions" that enable us to feel heroic in the grand scheme of things, i.e. immortal. Becker, however, does not provide any definitive answer (though he is particularly respectful to certain religous expressions), mainly because he believes that there is no perfect solution. Instead, he hopes that gradual realization of man's innate motivations, namely death, can help to bring about a better world.
Needless to say, I highly recommend Becker/Denial of Death to those unfamiliar with his work.
Simple for me. There are no real abstracts in this world for God because He invented Science. Everything fits because He made it fit. However, He also gave us a Great gift. Curiosity and wanting to find out how things fit.
Actually Human Beings invented science and it seems most likely that they invented God as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James: I deleted your comment because it was irrelevant to the post. Thanks.
Excuse me Pete but the absolutes of Science are their and we try to measure them and in so doing we unlock mysteries . We didn't invent Science as we are the ones trying to unlock those absolutes that were always their and by my belief they were put there by a creator. We might have invented the word Science but in no way did we combine H2O in the beginning.
Legions of middle-class pseudo-intellectuals are lapping up these "science" coffee table books, trashing the subtle nuances and textures of faith based religion in the most simple-minded ways possible, while at the same time becoming proto-disciples in a new faith-based religion
As someone who remains unafilliated with any dogma, be it religious or religio-scientific, I can but laugh
Both scientists and religious people start with the idea that there is nothing better in the world than human thinking. We are the landlords of the universe. There is nothing between god and man. That could be the fundamental mistake.
Our thinking is based on perfect straight lines, perfect circles and the Euclidian geometry.
Look at the stars. They don't have any use for our brand of perfection. They have black holes, grey matter... They follow other guidelines. What would you think of a universe built like a staircase (or like our DNA) There are 3 levels below us: matter plants and animals. We are on step 4 and there is plenty of room up-there for many more steps. If you have a need for closure you could have a limited number of steps and place your god on top of the staircase.
We could be nothing more than the environment of Level 5. We could live under their influence like we live under the influence of the weather. That would change the way we look at spirituality, the environment, cosmology...
For more details see my blog http://www.BetterThanThinking,com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home