Science as religion

May I suggest that before swallowing the work of some favorite new author hook, line and sinker, it’s a good idea to search out and read some critiques of his work, and also to have a closer look at what and how he’s actually arguing. If the quoted paragraph is typical of Gray, then some of the problems with his way of thinking ought to be obvious:

Again, science alone has the power to silence heretics. Today it is the only institution that can claim authority. Like the Church in the past, it has the power to destroy, or marginalise, independent thinkers. (Think how orthodox medicine reacted to Freud, and orthodox Darwinians to Lovelock.) In fact, science does not yield any fixed picture of things, but by censoring thinkers who stray too far from current orthodoxies it p reserves the comforting illusion of a single established worldview.

So, science -- granting for argument’s sake that there is a single agency called “science” -- enforces an orthodoxy that “silences,” “destroys” and “censors” independent thinkers? And examples include Freud and Lovelock? (He of the Gaia hypothesis, I assume.) OK. I guess that’s why we’ve never heard of Freud and Lovelock? I mean, seriously … “censored”? Freud and Lovelock both spent their careers writing books and articles, giving lectures and interviews, and corresponding with their many students, disciples and fans about their ideas, which are very famous and widely discussed. Most writers would be overjoyed to be even half as “silenced, destroyed and censored” as Freud or Lovelock.

Gray is slippery enough, though, to recognize that his own examples refute his claim, so he includes the phrase “or marginalise.” Ah. That’s an entirely different matter, and seems to mean: “Orthodox science doesn’t embrace ‘heretics’ -- i.e. non-orthodox thinkers -- as orthodox.” That’s a more defensible position, but mainly because it’s a tautology.

It should be clear that the guy is talking bollocks (I believe that’s the technical British term), and yet we’re hardly done here. He also says:

Today, only science supports the myth of progress. If people cling to the hope of progress, it is not so much from genuine belief as from fear of what may come if they give it up. The political projects of the twentieth century have failed, or achieved much less than they promised. At the same time, progress in science is a daily experience, confirmed whenever we buy a new electronic gadget, or take a new drug. Science gives us a sense of progress that ethical and political life cannot.

I like the equating of “buy a new electronic gadget” with “take a new drug,” as if lifesaving technologies are of the same importance as an iPod (or, for that matter, as if advanced electronics are just consumer “gadgets” and not, say, the avionics that keep your plane from crashing, the satellite systems that track and provide early warnings of tropical storms, etc.). But leave that aside. The political projects of the twentieth century have failed? Oh wait, there’s another “or”: They’ve just “achieved much less than they promised.” Well, politics being a messy business, often involving two steps forward and one back, those projects undoubtedly achieved less than their most utopian proponents “promised.” But that’s basically another tautology, because virtually all human efforts fall short of their highest goals.

Look, the twentieth century started with the nations of Europe and the far East preparing for the first of two World Wars, with racist tensions on the boil that would lead to several genocidal pogroms. It ended with an EU which, while easy to mock by comparison with what it might be, represents enormous, almost unthinkable progress by comparison with the preceding centuries of unending warfare. Today there’s deep disquiet when a handful of members of an ultranationalist party win seats in the EU parliament. But compared with the actual fascist takeover of several European countries and the threatened takeover of others, not to mention the rise of Soviet communism -- the situation of the early twentieth century? Then, unapologetic racists (like Thomas Dixon in the U.S.) were bestselling authors and had large followings in Europe, America and Japan; today even the ultranationalists feel to constrained to insist that they’re not actually racist. Because what’s actually been “marginalized” are the politically toxic ideas that gave us fascism, Communism, Jim Crow segregation, etc.

Yet the political projects of the century “failed”? Ethical and political life “cannot” inspire hope for progress? Really?

Try turning on your BS detector once in a while. It can be really helpful.

Correction: I meant to say that "today even the ultranationalists feel constrained to insist that they're not actually racist." In other words, among the non-achievements of the twentieth century that inspire no hope for political progress is the fact that racism, once an explicit mainstream idea and program, has lost all respectability.

But I'm intrigued by this latest from RD: "As a Christian, he makes me understand why absent proper religion, we are on much shakier political ground than we think." What is "proper" religion? Are we talking about religion as some kind of instrument of middle-class respectability? Could a religion be untrue (or grossly mistaken) yet still "proper"? Or vice-versa: When Christianity, as it was originally and has sometimes been since, exists not as a respectable mainstream institution but a scraggly counterculture making radical claims, is that not "proper"?

Re: But racism was not an example of primaeval human wickedness from which progress has delivered us

Racism is indeed ancient, though not necessarily the anti-African racism that so stains America's past. But when Aristotle wrote that Persians were slaves by nature, or the Chinese opined that everyone who was not Chinese was a useless barbarian, those were manisfestations of racism too.

May I suggest that before swallowing the work of some favorite new author hook, line and sinker, it’s a good idea to search out and read some critiques of his work, and also to have a closer look at what and how he’s actually arguing.

Settle down. I do not and cannot accept all of what John Gray teaches -- and indeed I don't *know* the entirety of his teaching. I've simply discovered his work in the past week, and find it important, challenging, riveting, and so forth. I'm happy to bring his work to the notice of my readership, and don't intend him to settle any arguments, only to inform debate and discussion.

And by "proper" religion, I mean religion that's taken seriously as prophetic, binding on our consciences, and meaningfully prescriptive about human behavior -- this, as distinct from therapeutic religion, in the sense that religion is primarily about helping us cope with this world. To be precise, I'm talking about a belief in God as an actual being Who will hold us responsible for our behavior, and judge us accordingly. Interestingly, I'm sitting at the moment in a seminar in which a psychologist is discussing his findings that pro-social self-control is correlated with religious belief.

Charles Foster Kane,

Take a deep breath and count to a hundred.

Or go play with Rosebud until you calm down.

One or the other.

; )

I'm talking about a belief in God as an actual being Who will hold us responsible for our behavior, and judge us accordingly.

Should we be anticipating your conversion to Islam any time soon, Rod?

I do have a problem with anyone who reifies science, it's only a process, but I have noticed that the people least likely to make this error are scientists themselves and it appears that social critics are the ones who are are most likely to construct their own straw organism that they call science to attack. No one asks science to be treated unsceptically, but they do expect critics to actually familiarize themselves with the material they attack before making their anti-science claims. Critics like Gray apparently think that they are exempt from the expectation that they understand what they dismiss.

Blah blah blah MYTH OF PROGRESS blah blah blah. The MYTH OF PROGRESS is just a meaningless slogan conservatives throw out when they have nothing to contribute to an actual discussion of complex ideas. See also: PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN. Apparently you're not allowed to fly to the moon, because it has to do with the MYTH OF PROGRESS. And I guess there's some doubt about the principles of nuclear power, because it allegedly presupposes the PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN. It really doesn't matter what the topic is--those empty, Scarlet Letter-style rejoinders can be hurled willy-nilly at any attempted ideologically impure thought. Next time I trip and start to fall down, I must remember to shout "MYTH OF PROGRESS!" as I'm falling in order to keep me from actually hitting the ground, because apparently just a derisive slogan can stand in the way of empirically well-demonstrated scientific principles, don't you know!

I ask once more for all of Rod's favorite arrogant bubble-dwelling philosophers--Gray, in this case--to please be so kind as to philosophize their way into curing polio. The scientific method cured polio, but see, that doesn't count, because that's something they can call THE MYTH OF PROGRESS and THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN. Progress can't be progress, because it's called a "myth," y'see? It's right there in the slogan!

I was just last night reading Life Is a Miracle by Wendell Berry. It deals with the exact same topic as this post, comes to many very similar, if not the same, conclusions, and I am amazed at how similar the verbage is.

Interesting convergence of viewpoints from a Christian and a secularist regarding the state and role of science in our society.

Just food for thought.

quote: "The miracles of science are repeatable and bless everyone."

The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would likely differ with the idea that the miracles of science bless everyone. Sorry, but science isn't a positive good in and of itself. It can be used for both good and evil. And unlike religion, science has no means for telling us what constitutes "good" and "evil" in the first place.

rr

Sorry, but science isn't a positive good in and of itself. It can be used for both good and evil. And unlike religion, science has no means for telling us what constitutes "good" and "evil" in the first place.

It is true that knowledge of any sort, including science, does not provide moral direction by itself, but the more knowledgable you are, the better positioned you are to develop better morality. Religion, being unwilling to learn more, does nothing to tell us what constitutes good and evil. It merely borrows from cultural experience and then makes claims.

Larry challenged: "I would also like to see him "philosophize" his way to creating weaponized anthrax, fusion bombs and Xyklon-B."

As I recall, religious people were involved in all of them. Could you tell me how religion helped?

quote: "It is true that knowledge of any sort, including science, does not provide moral direction by itself, but the more knowledgable you are, the better positioned you are to develop better morality. Religion, being unwilling to learn more, does nothing to tell us what constitutes good and evil."

This is completely untrue. Science is about discovering how the natural world works. Morality is entirely outside the field of science. Science simply can't tell you want is right and wrong any more than accounting can tell you how to do open heart surgery. So it really doesn't matter how much scientific knowledge one accumulates since said knowledge is completely irrelevant to morality. Also, if a particular religion is actually true and is from God, it has no need to "learn" anything in the sense that it needs to change. I know this discuss has already taken place on this blog, but I would argue that religion alone provides us with a basis for any meaningful system of morality. If there is no God, morality, like God, is just a social construct.

rr

This has been an interesting discussion. I particularly enjoyed the comments by Citizen Kane and TTT. Just one brief comment to add - if humanism is also "religion-like" to use Rod's phrase, that doesn't necessarily make it a worse religion than traditional religion. The point I take from the passage from John Gray that Rod quoted is that we ought to be skeptical of all of our favored belief systems.

Which reminds me of a point made by the philosopher Paul Feyeraband in "Against Method": In an argument, the best way to strengthen the argument is to concentrate on making the weaker case as strong as possible, then use it to critique the stronger argument. This is the reverse of what most people do.

As a student of human behavior (focused on groups and interpersonal dynamics) I always find these topics both fascinating and entertainingly ironic.

I observe that people look at things through a filter. This is a neutral state, as shown by the observation that two people can arrive at opposing conclusions from the same set of data and using the same logic skills. The difference is in neither the data nor the skills. The difference is in each person's subjectivity.

Science at its core starts with that difference, and asks the question: what must be done to eliminate (resulting in mitigation much of the time) the subjective?

The scientific method is the answer to that question. Note that both logically and semantically there is no value judgment implied or applied. The neutrality is what's important to science. Value judgments are the return of subjectivity after the strictures of scientific methodology has been fulfilled.

The human experience of spirit is wholly and distinctly subjective. Religion is the attempt to objectify that experience using rational constructs.

I leave it to the reader to follow the logic trail, and find me at the following destination: science and religion are not and can never be equated, analogized or categorized as the same. The closest one can come is to label the spiritual experience as scientifically approached, but the very moment that the approach fails to comply with scientific methodology, it stops qualifying for the descriptive "scientific." I submit that atheism is inadequately measured by its literal definition, and should be described as "rejection of religion".

rr:

If there is no God, morality, like God, is just a social construct.

My POV, my friend, is to state your assertion in reverse: Morality is a social construct, and one of the ways to create, maintain and enforce it is with religion (or, if you prefer, the authority of [a] God).

I ask once more for all of Rod's favorite arrogant bubble-dwelling philosophers--Gray, in this case--to please be so kind as to philosophize their way into curing polio.

And yet many people have "philosophized" their way into establishing hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other charitable institutions and programs.

David J. White wrote: "And yet many people have "philosophized" their way into establishing hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other charitable institutions and programs."

Proving that there is a difference between learning, through science and other methods, and cultural behaviors and institutions.

Don't forget that hospitals and schools have changed a lot in response to what has been discovered through science. How much has religion changed them?

That was me at 12:43.

David, my means/end logic applies equally well to your assertion, and needs significant cleaning up to be clear.

Good ends do not justify evil means. Evil ends do not invalidate good means.

I apologize for letting that rather egregious mistake get posted. ;-)

"How much has religion changed them?"

The fact of their existence depends upon religion. There is no history of non-religious forces establishing schools, hospitals, and orphanages in societies where religion had not already given those institutions cultural credibility.

Franklin Evans -

I'm not trying to argue that means or ends don't matter here, only that science is a tool that can be used with a goal in mind and that it is up to us to find applications for the discoveries, just as we do when we try to find applications to our understanding of human behavior.

Pentamom -

Since religion and culture have traditionally been part and parcel of each other, the argument works either way. The fact that Europe, for example, allowed the Church to do certain things was as much a result of the political system and the inability or unwillingness of the king to pay for those services as anything admirable about the Church. I'm not sure that you are representing Chinese history accurately though.

[also 1:47 pm]

Yes, modernity brought us challenges, but which of us are willing not to exist because a premodern world isn't likely to be able to reliably support more than about one billion people at a time.

We seem capable of muddling through, but there never seems to be a time that we aren't scrambling to protect ourselves from our past.

I know how to verify the work a scientist has done. How do I verify which religion's scriptures are accurate? How do I verify which doctrines are true?

You don't know how to verify the work a scientist has done. Nobody can, at most you can prove it wrong, you can never prove it right. There are only two kinds of scientific theories, those that have been proven wrong and those that will be proven wrong. Science is not in the business of truth.

You prove religious doctrines correct the same way that you prove that science, as science, is correct. Tell me how do you prove that the scientific method is correct?

the more knowledgable you are, the better positioned you are to develop better morality

Care to elaborate? Use Teller, Oppenheimer and Meitner as examples.

Get real. The fact that you are able to use a computer to say such things is verification of the fact that science works and that you are wrong.

Computers are a product of technology, not science, I wish all the science-heads in the world would learn to tell the difference. Technology existed long before science, and would exist if there never was such a thing as science. Computers are a particular dumb example of science, since the inventor of the digital circuit, Claude Shannon, was an engineer, not a scientist.

No one said science was about truth,

Then what good is it? And why do you insist on holding religion to a test that your idol cannot meet?

So, what works in religion?

If you insist on reducing truth to pragmatism, "what works", then religion, Christianity in particular, is responsible for creating hospitals, universities, the idea of human rights (including the rights of labor and women), nearly all of our charities, the ending of infanticide, ending slavery, the creation of science, immense amounts of great art and architecture (ever see any great secular or atheist art?), and similar quantities of great literature.

freelunch: but the more knowledgable you are, the better positioned you are to develop better morality.

Many of the Nazis were very knowledgeable, and we know how much better their morality was.

It reminds me of the Tim Burton movie Mars Attacks!, where the Pierce Brosnan character keeps going on about how since the Martians are so technologically advance, they must of course be peaceful and well-meaning--right before they proceed to start vaporizing everyone in sight.

Statements of this sort would be laughable if they weren't so appalling.

Knowledge is good....The risk that some will use it for evil is not sufficient for us to abandon the pursuit of more knowledge.

It would be more accurate to say that knowledge is neutral, and may have good or evil applications. As to the risks, Roger Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge has an interesting take on this. He's not against increasing knowledge as such, but argues that it's a trickier situation requiring a lot more care and circumspection than we generally care to admit.

Modern technology relies on scientific discoveries. Without physicists, none of the applied science or technology that allowed the development of computers could ever have existed.

Nonsense, that's like saying without (classical) physics the wheel would never have existed. In fact, the technology often precedes the science, many of the laws of thermodynamics were discovered in distilleries, for instance.

What good is science if it doesn't claim to have the truth? It has facts. It develops knowledge.

So, I guess, the knowledge that science develops is not true? Again, I ask, what good is it?

I may agree that some Christians are responsible for some of the advances that Western civilization has managed to find, but it can hardly be credited to Christianity as a whole.

When things like hospitals and universities were created, funded and operated by the church, your claim falls apart. Would you also say "I may agree that some scientists are responsible for some of the advances that Western civilization has managed to find, but it can hardly be credited to science as a whole"? I suppose that its an accident that it is only within what used to be Christendom that many of these things have taken place? For instance it is only in those cultures that have a Christian heritage that you will find women being granted equal, or even near-equal, status with men. It is only within Christendom that slavery, which had been a universal human institution, was ended.

Since religions claim to have the truth, but cannot demonstrate that their claim is valid, what use is the claim?

Actually, they have no problem demonstrating the claim, but they cannot make someone see who refuses to see.

Still, the claim of religion is that it knows about gods and the afterlife. These benefits that you allege are unrelated to the fundamental claims of religions ...

You are again demonstrating your gross ignorance of religion, there is far, far more to religion than concern about an afterlife. That is only a very minor part of most religions, including Christianity, which are far more interested in the here and now. In fact, the idea of an afterlife emerged fairly late in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it doesn't really show up until the latest books in the Old Testament (which also contradicts your earlier assertion that religion never changes).

and the fundamental claims are completely unsupported and in conflict with those of other religions.

As the fundamental claims of Einstein's relativity contradict the fundamental claims of quantum mechanics, so obviously both are wrong!

Science delivers the freedom from thought? Not at all; try ignorance and laziness. The Vatican, the US military, and the Royal Society (UK) are philosophically quite different from each other, yet all fully embrace Science as the authority of Truth in the natural realm.

Rod: "Man's nature does not change"

With selective breeding, we could distort Man's nature in different directions, just like we do with dogs. In a science fiction world, we would first breed a race of Great Slow Kings, who would then have the patience to breed various breeds of Man.