The God of Science
Whom does the modern man worship? Among the most obvious idols of sex, money, power, and self, there is a more subtle ‘god’ emerging today: science.
Science as the sole authority on knowledge claims, science as the ultimate pursuit, science as holding the key to improving (and extending) our lives, science as the standard of evidence, science as provider of enlightenment, science as a great rolling ball gathering momentum and autonomy whose progress must. not. be. stopped.
I almost feel as thought I should capitalise ‘Science’, since it is so personified. I must be careful in what I say, in case I hurt its feelings. I must also be careful not to give any impression that I am ‘against Science’ for today, any criticism is met with cries of ‘infidel’. And Heaven help any field of study or organisation if it even seems to impede the all-important progress of Science!
But is science all this? Sure, no-one will deny its usefulness – both in the search of knowledge and in the quest for technological advances. I personally love science, studying it both at school and uni, reading New Scientist magazines and podcasting science podcasts.
Still, is not science merely a tool to be used by us? Can’t we step back and evaluate it as we would any other field?
This week I read That Hideous Strength, by C. S. Lewis. Though written 60 years ago, this ’semi-sci-fi’ book was almost prophetic in its portrayal of our attitude to science today. It follows the premises of scientific naturalism through to their logical conclusions, and then shows the terrible and inhuman consequences of blind adherence to ‘the advance of science’. In short, it makes eugenics look tame. As a culture, it seems to me that we are on this trajectory and owe ourselves a re-evaluation of the realm of science.
The real impetus behind this post, however, was listening to an interview with secular philosopher of science Professor Stephen Gaukroger, author of The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210-1685, on the ABC Radio National Podcast The Philosopher’s Zone. At one point in the podcast, The Emergence of Science, Gaukroger was particularly keen to clear up some misconceptions of science:
the modern view, the people who think science tells you everything, are almost always people who’ve never done any science. Because I think you can really only seriously propose that if you have a completely theoretical understanding of science. I think anyone who’s had any connection with practical science realises that science is not this kind of inverted pyramid with your basic principles at the bottom and everything following on from there, it’s much more messy than that. You know, the idea that you can explain the simplest microscopic physical object in terms of the behaviour of atoms, is just not something that’s on the cards in serious science, it’s a much, much messier, more complex business, and many scientists and these days, many philosophers of science, are moving much more towards non-reductionist views, that there are many different kinds of activity in science, and the best one can do maybe, is to bridge them, but you certainly can’t reduce them…. it’s a really good antidote to the idea that there is this single thing, science, and it tells you about everything.
I will probably post further on this topic in future, but I will finish this one with something that may come as a surprise to my atheist reader/s:
Interviewer: “Well that’s one message we can take away. Another message that perhaps Richard Dawkins can take away from your book is that the rise of science is not about science dissociating itself from religion.”
Gaukroger: Certainly. I think quite the contrary. I think a lot of the motivation for developments in science in the 17th century, particularly the late 17th century, are driven by developments in natural theology, that’s to say particularly in England for example, and this is a view to which Newton was very sympathetic, the idea is that you have these two sources of knowledge, still unreconciled from the beginning of the 13th century, namely religion and science, and the thing to do is to triangulate them so that you can sort out the wheat from the chaff, and the idea is that there is just a single truth: both these discourses aim at truth, so let’s triangulate them, get them fixed on the same thing so that we can work out what’s true and what’s false in each of them, and in the process, build up something that’s much stronger than either of them taken individually.
Comments
February 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
tought stuff.
good stuff.
smart stuff.
the end.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
haha funny stuff!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Science most definitely cannot tell us everything, nor does real science claim to. Science is all about expansion and more importantly REFINEMENT of knowledge, hence why scientific theories are open to valid criticism, review and change.
One should not worship science as the ultimate answer to everything (yet) but neither should science be dismissed because there are things it can’t explain, or because there are gaps in the current knowledge.
That’s a mistake theists commonly make when they don’t know much about science – that because a particular theory has knowledge gaps it should be thrown out and replaced with God. Science has done far more for humanity than religion has – unless you’re of the belief that God made all the science. A rational person living in the modern world can and should admit they’re probably alive for the simple reason of science. Clean water, agriculture, all science.
The claim your person up there makes that theology has been a driving force behind all or most science… That might have been the case in the 17th century but things are a little different today. To continue to claim that theology remains the main force pushing science today is to continue to not really know anything about modern science.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“One should not worship science as the ultimate answer to everything (yet) but neither should science be dismissed because there are things it can’t explain, or because there are gaps in the current knowledge.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“Science has done far more for humanity than religion has”
Wrong. And I get this from the Professor above (listen to the interview, its really interesting). We must distinguish science from technology. Science, he says (and he is a Professor of the History of Science), did not have any real benefits until the 1930s.
“Those claims have always been made for science. The things that we associate with science, like plumbing, like sewerage, like machines, are really from the third decade of the 19th century onwards. Modern science produces very, very few benefits between the scientific revolution and the early 19th century. ”
You’ll have to listen to understand why (Part 1)
“The claim your person up there makes that theology has been a driving force behind all or most science… That might have been the case in the 17th century ”
Which is all he claimed.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I didn’t say “modern science has done more” I said “science has done more”
See the difference there?
Technology requires science of some form. Those plumbing and sewerage, they required mathematics and application of architectural knowledge to function. Without the science that led to bricks and mortar, the walls would not have held. Without maths the tunnels would not join properly, would not flow in a consistent direction, would not WORK. Maths and physics are components or architecture and of proper design – maths and physics, design and architecture all use science or scientific principles to function.
Like I pointed out though, I said science not just modern science. Maybe our definitions of what constitutes science are different though.
But seriously: clean water, antibiotics, agriculture, transport, communication, medicine… All science. There’s a good youtube video that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ
February 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Oh and that woman at the start of that video? Janet Folger? She’s a PERFECT example of the problem I have with some theists regarding science.
“The bible has always been years ahead of scientists, and is one of the most scientific books around” Utter crap.
Religion and science CAN co-exist, but not completely and not entirely peacefully. Especially not with people like Janet Folger around – I made a good post on my blog entitled (I think) “Fat stupid whore” along with “A name for insanity”
February 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“Technology requires science of some form.”
No it doesn’t. The scientific method, nor any scientific theories, were not required for the wheel, agriculture, the well, clothing, or machinery.
“Without the science that led to bricks and mortar, the walls would not have held.”
Really? What were people living in before the scientific revolution?
I encourage you to read/listen to Parts 1 and 2 of that interview. Really, it explains what I mean much better than I can.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
But but… I don’t WANT to!
I concede technology has progressed in the past without knowledge of scientific process or principle but still… The sewer systems is a bad example. For a functioning sewer system that is more than just a few troughs in the side of the road you NEED science. You can’t simply dig some tunnels and hope they point the right way – you need mathematics and related principles in order to ensure the system works, the system won’t overflow, the system drains in the right direction to the right location. You can’t make a sewer system by randomly digging some tunnels – it might work but it won’t work very well, it will be messy and complex and will most likely pollute the water supply and / or back up. Your use of the wheel is a good example, machinery is not. Machines require metal, which in the absence of deposits of steel lying around requires extraction from ores, which requires geology and chemistry. You don’t need to know exactly what geology and chemistry are to pull the ore from the ground and the metal from the ore, but it is still the science of chemistry and geology – without the application (you assume) of the scientific principle.
Machinery before metal you say used wood. Well yes you don’t require science to fell a tree – you require science to choose the right wood, measure shape and construct it correctly and to fit it all together. You require a knowledge of basic physics principles and of mechanics for the machine to do something. You don’t need to know the laws of physics to apply the science related to those laws – it’s still the science of manufacturing, or of mechanics, or of chemistry.
Your use of agriculture as an example is also a little weak. Agriculture is itself a science – regardless of whether or not you apply scientific procedures or principles to the practise of it. It’s still a science.
I think what you’re doing is misreading me : to me it seems you’re confusing science with scientific principles. to you it must seem I’m confusing science with stuff that happened before the scientific revolution or confusing science with application of technology. In your definition of what equates to science yes science didn’t exist before modern times. My definition of science is broader though and includes things like ancient architecture and sewerage systems or ancient agriculture.
At the end of it all though… In what way has religion benefited the human race more than science has?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’ll listen to it later probably, if you watch the videos I linked to on my blog
By the way did you vote on my poll on my blog?
And do you admit that the definition of science is misinterpreted by certain Christian groups, that “certain Christian groups” are trying to erode science and scientific principle until it includes the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation? Do you admit that the push by DiscoveryInstitute and others to allow “God dun did it” as a rational scientific explanation for phenomena is anti-science? Just thought I’d get the fun questions out of the way.
Sorry that we seem to be having this disagreement on at what point technology becomes science… I’ll research more and get back to you
February 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
haha yes, I’ve always hated definition debates.
I don’t want to be heard saying that science hasn’t helped. Of course it has. The question of which has helped more is not really an important one, but for interest’s sake lets pursue it. If true, Christianity is undeniably more benificial – agreed?
So the question really comes down to this: which has resulted in more good independent of the truth of religion’s claims?
Do you recognise the absurdity of this question? Separating religion from its truth claims is to strip them bare. But, nevertheless, we will continue.
(Actually, I’ve run out of time. I might continue later. I’ll leave with 2 questions:)
)
1. Science has allowed us to live longer and more productively. Yet from a purely naturalistic standpoint, who would want to live longer? I’m thinking particularly from utilitarian and nihilistic viewpoints.
2. That we have ‘religion’ at all means, according to evolution, it must confer some benefits. No? (added to make this a question
February 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I’ll answer those two questions after this.
I really should have clarified my statement, but I was not considering anything other than the naturalistic point of view regarding benefit to society. From the theistic point of view of the Born Again Christian, religion has benefited humanity the most because it has allowed for people to be saved by Jesus… But from a naturalistic scientific point of view such a claim is pointless as it can never be verified while we’re alive.
So ignore the claims of religion regarding saving people through Jesus and answer the question instead based on a naturalistic view… Regardless of what happens or doesn’t happen in any particular afterlife, which has benefited humanity more?
Furthermore, explain to me please the sentence in your response where you said
“I don’t want to be heard saying that science hasn’t helped. Of course it has. The question of which has helped more is not really an important one, but for interest’s sake lets pursue it. If true, Christianity is undeniably more benificial – agreed?”
not entirely sure if that sentence makes sense… If what is true then Christianity is undeniably more beneficial? What am I supposed to agree to?
Now to answer your questions:
1. From a nihilistic standpoint, as in “nothing matters at all there’s no point” there would be no reason to live longer, or even live at all. From a utilitarian point of view, meaning “which decision gives the greatest increase in utility” [loosely equated to happiness] then one would want to live longer only if it benefited the greatest number of people by the largest amount. That’s what utilitarian means – make the choices that give the greatest increase in utility. So if you ascribed to a utilitarian code of ethics/morality (whichever it is) you would decide whether or not to live depending on whether or not your death would bring more net happiness than your continued life.
2. Quite possibly. There is a study in progress (or soon to be) looking at what if any naturalistic explanation there is as to why people believe in God and what evolutionary benefit such a mindset allowed for. We’ll just have to wait and see.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
(I came across your blog searching for other Christian, Australian bloggers, and was very impressed by the quality of the discussion and the type of topics grappled with here…great stuff. Will definitely be adding The Crazy Australian to my blogroll! )
March 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Still kinda waiting a response to those arguments I made Hayes, I thought they were quite good.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Thanks kat, sorry there has been a bit of a lull.
HH, I’m busy right now but I’ll get back to you!