Trey Smith
In replacing religion as the final source of knowledge in popular estimation, science begins to look a bit like a religion itself.I find this quote interesting for two reasons. First, I've never consider religion as a source of knowledge. From my vantage point, religion provides perspective and, in many cases, this perspective flies in the face of what we call fact.
~ from Ethics for the New Millennium by the Dalai Lama ~
[I should stipulate that my background and knowledge of religion mainly pertains to Christianity and Judaism because these two are prevalent in the US and there is an organic relationship between them. Maybe it is or is not less true for eastern faiths like Buddhism and Hinduism.]
A lot of people read the Old Testament and consider it a true reckoning of what took place during a given period of time. Such individuals believe that Adam and Eve were real people, Jonah lived inside of a whale and God turned one unfortunate woman into a pillar of salt.
In my book, that doesn't represent knowledge; those are fairy tales! If a person believes that these things are facts, then they should just as easily believe that unicorns and leprechauns are real too.
The other part of the Dalai Lama's statement that makes my head spin is this idea that science is something akin to religion. The latter is based on ancient suppositions that remain unchanged over many millennia. While religions do update a few of their precepts from time to time, it tends to occur because reality has left them behind and they don't want to lose too many of their members. It certainly does not happen because they have rigorously studied the issue and decided that, maybe, their god had it all a bit wrong.
Science is an ever-evolving discipline. What was once accepted as truth is later discarded as untruth. This is done by rigorous examination, experiments and complex computations. If you think you have discovered or uncovered a new fact, you ask others either to try to replicate your results OR to poke holes in your formulation. What religion does that?!
If we put this in religious terminology, it would be like destroying and reformulating god every few years, decades or centuries. The god of ancient times would have been killed several times over, only to be replaced by new ones who were then dismantled and replaced again.
Can you imagine the Christian Church holding up the story of Jesus to such rigorous scrutiny?
The religions of the book can't hold their teachings up to examination, they're backed firmly into a corner on that.
ReplyDeleteI've come across this attitude to Science before as well. The simple and unthinking acceptance (or faith, if you'd prefer) that everything Science says is right. But they don't see that Science is self correcting, so the findings might get some later revision. In my opinion, this isn't Science's fault but is the fault of poor public Science education.
While there are many points of discussion I would like to engage in about this post, my initial thought, about the Dalai Lama's statement, brought to mind an article I just read in The New Yorker, about E.O. Wilson, the great entymologist who knows more about ants than anyone, who was questioning a largely accepted formula used by some scientists (like Dawkins) in proposing a Darwinian/genetic explanation of altruism. Wilson was debunking the formula in a paper, and was roundly criticized in a letter signed by 100 scientists, basically calling him a heretic. In that regard, science, as it is practiced, in the way theories are propounded and tested and accepted, is somewhat like religion.
ReplyDeleteThe article, from March 5, is very interesting reading:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer
On another point, Biblical archeologists do undertake the work of looking for or disproving evidence of Biblical stories. And some of them are Christians and Jews. Just which "Christian Church" are you referring to?
And finally, literal interpretations of the Bible will certainly fall flat; they were meant to be historical tales, myth, and other discussions of certain values of certain people. You don't have to read rhe Bible literally to find spiritual guidance in it.
In the example of Wilson, if others are able to replicate his theory, then in time it will be accepted as truth. I don't see how this method is applied to religion.
ReplyDeleteAs to your second point, it all depends if you are referring to archeologists who might happen to be Christians or Jews versus Christian or Jewish archeologists. The first group are scientists -- in the truest sense of the word -- who are not swayed by their religious leanings. This cannot be said predominantly of the second group!
The second group believes what they believe and go looking for cherry picked science to back up their beliefs. If they find evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they discard it BASED on their beliefs and not the scientific method.
As to your last point, a good deal of Christendom would disagree with your assertion that the Bible is not to be read literally. What you define as tales and myths, they define as an historical accounting dictated by God. Who is to say that the way you see it is correct? Who is to say that the way they see it is correct?
Me? I'll let the two side duke it out amongst yourselves!
I was talking about the behavior of scientists, who sometimes behave like high priests.
ReplyDeleteI think basically it depends on the attitude of the individual as to whether science is like a religion to them or not. Just as we can turn anything into an idol (old Christian teaching), we can turn any system of thought or knowledge into something resembling a religious ideology.
ReplyDelete...except that religion is based on faith or beliefs and science is based on theories or facts that can be proven or disproven.
DeleteYes. It's not to say that science is a religion, just that some people treat it like one. The philosophy of Taoism isn't a religion either, yet many see it that way. And even amongst philosophical Taoists one can detect the occasional glimmer of left over religiosity.
DeleteThat's a good point!
DeleteVery little is "PROVEN" in science: it's all about theories and probablities. In this sense, it is like faith. And this science should not be confused with "applied science and technology."
Delete"Philosophical Taoism" is a western concept.