Writing in Salon, physicist Karl Giberson identifies P.Z. Myers as a Torquemada in the Religion of Science:
As a fellow scientist (I have a Ph.D. in physics), I share Myers' enthusiasm for fresh eyes, questioning minds and the power of science. And I worry about dogmatism and the kind of zealotry that motivates the faithful to blow themselves up, shoot abortion doctors and persecute homosexuals. But I also worry about narrow exclusiveness that champions the scientific way of knowing to the exclusion of all else. I don't like to see science turned into a club to bash religious believers.
He goes on to talk about people like Myers and Myers' betters, who make science into a kind of religion:
Can a religion be built on nature and science, rather than God and sacred texts? And, if it could, would it be better than the old-fashioned religions it is replacing? If our present religions, like milk in our refrigerators, have all expired, we need a replacement to meet our mythopoeic needs. Can science do this for everyone, and not just the residents of ivory towers?For starters, getting people to worship the new scientific creation story will be no easy task. A few dynamic speakers, like Brian Greene and, until recently, Stephen Hawking, can fill auditoriums with gee-whiz scientific stories of hidden dimensions and many universes. But most people prefer to watch sports and, perhaps not surprisingly, even more attend conventional religious services. Darwinism and big-bang cosmology have never been near and dear to human hearts, especially those filled with old-time religion. Sure, there are true believers who find these scientific ideas awesome in the most literal sense of that word. I am happy to place myself in this group. I can be moved to tears by the transcendent beauty of a math equation.
For science to become a true object of worship, it must elbow aside the reassuring and seductively simple belief that "God loves you." This deeply personal faith statement would have to be replaced with one that says something like: "The cosmos worked really long and hard to create you and you should be really appreciative."
But let's assume for the moment that this is possible -- that science can be canonized, moralized, transcendentalized and politicized into a replacement religion, with followers, codes of conduct, celebrated texts and sacred blogs, houses of worship, "saints" of some sort and inquisitors of another sort. And let's suppose that it's possible for this new religion to move out of the ivory towers of academia, where it lives now, to take its place alongside the other "world" religions, attracting hundreds of millions of adherents drawn from the main streets of the world and all walks of life. What would this new religion be like once it became institutionalized? After all, if religion fills a genuine human need, something has to fill the hole created by its passing -- something that appeals to billions of people.
Could we be sure, for example, that this new scientific religion would not give rise to the extremism and aberrant behavior that plague conventional religions?
Of course it would do precisely that. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, the line between good and evil does not run between science and religion, but rather through the human heart.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
UFO belief is disproportionately male. It is the only paranormal belief, that I know of, to be disproportionately male.
Although UFOs don't have much to do with mainstream science fiction, I think the connection to it could explain the "maleness" of it. This would even more explain Singularitarians as they're more acceptable in SF circles. A great many women do read science fiction, but the genre is still 60-70% male.
One SF writer, named James Tiptree Jr, stated that in bad writing men were more drawn to "lunacy" while women were drawn to "idiocy." (Tiptree was the pseudonym of a bisexual woman who felt a bit uncomfortable with both genders) What she meant by that was drawn on the original meanings of those words. An "idiot" was originally a "private person" and she felt women were drawn toward the minutiae of their private lives. "Lunacy" for her referred more toward being drawn to grand, and somewhat crackpot, ideas.
I don't necessarily think she's right, but there's a kernel of truth in this. Nazism, and to a much lesser extent Communism, both were these grand ideologies that were mostly bought into by men. UFOs might satisfy male, cultural or biological, desires for big things and power. The Raelians even state their leader was given sexbots on a UFO and I think he used to be a race-car driver. (Although there is an entire brigade of female Raelians and they have a female bishop) The Singularity certainly offers a grand chance to "become like Gods" either directly or by technology. Things like ghosts or astrology, which are more believed in by women, can imply less control or be more linked to the intimate.
It shouldn't be overstated though, the differences in percentages are not that great. A great many men believe in ghosts but not UFOs while a great many women believe in UFOs but not ghosts. Radical Feminism certainly has grand and crackpottish elements which mostly attract women. Various "men's movements" were about men looking into their "inner world" for healing or redemption or justification or whatever. Going by England post-Christianity leads to a lot of this. I think young British people believe in astrology and the paranormal more than American youths.
Singulitarianism is closely related to transhumanism. Basically, I think it's nonsense. I think that God or the Cosmos present pretty strong barriers to exponential technological progress. The big one is the energy shortage. However, even if an almost unlimited source of energy were found, I guess there to be pretty strong barriers in other ways:
1. We are never going to have faster-than-light travel, which means humans will never go anywhere other than earth, Mars and perhaps some of the satellites of the gas giants. The space programme was not the beginning of Star Trek, but the tail end of a sequence of technological advance starting with the steam engine.
2. It doesn't look like genuine artificial intelligence is ever going to be achieved. Since the 1950s we've been told that it's just round the corner, but the results have been pitiful. Even linguistic translation software has run aground.
Given human inability to be morally godlike, our inability to be godlike in power is surely good news!
Thomas R: I think the distinction between belief in ghosts, etc., and belief in UFOs, etc., is more social than gender-based. At least in the UK, belief in ghosts is more socially respectable, whereas if you hear about someone who believes in UFOs you tend to think of a 19-year-old who doesn't wash, and can't get a girlfried.
"I think young British people believe in astrology and the paranormal more than American youths."
You may be right about this, but I'm not sure about the connection to Christianity. Germans are about as secular as English people, but they are astonished when they meet English people who believe in ghosts.
Another point is that one man's paranormal is another man's religion. Belief in fairies, etc., is a traditional folk belief, but is also part of some Neopagan belief, which often has a worked-out, fairly consistent doctrine.
"Germans are about as secular as English people, but they are astonished when they meet English people who believe in ghosts." rombald
TR: You might be right. I don't know as much about German polling data.
rombald, I agree that it is likely humans will never go outside our solar system. However, automated probes to other stars seem possible for the extremely patient. Although building a machine that works for 1,000-10,000 years is a technical challenge beyond us right now.
"Given human inability to be morally godlike, our inability to be godlike in power is surely good news!"
Good point. I'm going to have to remember that one for some future point in time.
I understand a pessimistic view regarding peoples morals and "Human Heart" however it is also true that we are very much a product of our environment. It is sufficient to understand this and concisely decide to improve our environment beginning from our self and thous around us.
I think if more time were spent thinking of solutions based on the root cause and less criticizing and pointing out problems perhaps we may have a say in the outcome of our story.
Take a look at that link ;)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.