2014-02-02
In this essay I try to give my
view on the science vs religion debate. However, it would be more appropriate
to call it the scientism vs religion debate as most scientists are usually too
busy with ‘doing science’ and therefore refrain from the debate. The people
involved in the debate are often (self-proclaimed) defenders of science in the
(perceived) threat of religion, a popular example would Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris or Neil deGrasse Tyson, among others. However, the account I want to
make here touches upon more general points concerning the futility, challenges
and implications of this debate. Already in 1975 Paul Feyerabend wrote in his
book ‘Against method’:
“[S]cience can
stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular
humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and... non-scientific
cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and
should be allowed to do so... Science must be protected from ideologies; and
societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science...
In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions
must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of
state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions,
and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only
road to truth and reality.”
Now many of the things Feyerabend
claimed can, and should be, challenged. But this quote touches upon some points
I want to make here in this essay, e.g. that science represents one form of
knowledge among many. The general
argument in this essay is that scientism, as exemplified in the science vs.
religion, is a problem for society in general. As scientism elevates science to
a level it cannot possibly match, undermining the authority of science.
Let me try to break down this
general argument into three different reasons, why this is so. The first
reasons touches upon the ability of science to “stand on its own feet”, explaining why science and religion are
separate incommensurable spheres. The second reason addresses the “help [of] rationalists, secular humanists [and atheists]”, arguing that the’
help’ they provide is more damaging to science than attacks from religious
groups. And lastly, building on the previous points and reiterating that “science should be taught as one view among
many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality”.
The Ability to Stand Alone
One common assumption that
religious defenders and atheists alike, make in the ‘science’ vs. religion
debate is that these two different belief systems are comparable (and yes,
science is a belief system, and I will return to this point!). Superficially, they
give the impression that they are comparable, because they address the same
subjects, e.g. creation of the earth, human morale, or human nature etc. However,
in religion there is the notion of absolute ‘Truth’ capital T, meanwhile in
science, there might exist such a thing but it certainly is unobtainable by its
human practitioners. In addition to this, they also differ how truth and
knowledge are validated and obtained. Let’s take the aforementioned example of
the creation of the earth, to elaborate this difference in how truth is
accessed and validated.
The
religious argument claims: "The earth is X years old"
The
scientific argument claims: "The earth is Y years old"
Now because X does not equal Y,
the assumption is that one has to be wrong. However, this is only the case if
these two statements are comparable, which they are not. By investigating the
premises that lead to these different conclusions this becomes obvious.
Religious
premise: "This particular
holy text states the earth is X years old."
Scientific
premise: "This particular
scientific theory postulates that the earth is Y years old."
The religious premise is absolute
and allows for revelation of truth trough scripture. On the other hand, the
scientific premise is a ‘best model approach’ and denies revelation through
scripture, while basing conclusion on ‘observable facts’. Without having to go
into the problems that can arise from revelation of scripture (e.g. multiple
interpretations) or ‘observable facts’ (e.g. theory laden bias) it should be
quite clear now that these are NOT comparable approaches, in fact they are
mutually exclusive. However, inside their respective frame of reference they
are true and valid points. As such, only by comparing these two different approaches
do they become ‘false’. Now this deconstruction might appear silly and petty,
however, its implication is from it. Because, as each different belief system
ascribes to different approaches how truth is accessed and validated, using the
other system as a counterargument will obviously fail. This basic difference is
a prime reason why it is futile to explain scientific facts to religious people
as arguments for atheism, as they adhere to different frameworks.
Bruno Latour discusses this point
in his book ‘On Modern Cult of the
Factish Gods’ from a science studies point of view, he deconstructs both
science and religion into human belief system based upon artefacts, rituals and
trust. If you start to claiming that one
is superior to the other (as is done when they are directly compared) you are
contradicting the function and form of both science or religion. To deny the rituals,
materialisties, social conventions in either form of belief system is to treat
it them as a black box, making the error of simplification. The next part deals
with this simplification error.
The Unhelpful Helper
The common ground that resurfaces
in the science vs. religion debate is that each side has a definition of ‘what
science is’. Now these obviously differ from individual to individual, but the
general representation of science from its defenders is that; Science is an empirical based practice that
builds on evidence, creating objective truths. This definition is totally
removed from the actual practice of science.
First of all, the sheer notion
that objectivity is a possible outcome of science is false. In philosophical
terms science builds upon two general methods, induction and falsification.
Both forms cannot produce objective truths, and as such human interpretation is
paramount to their application, i.e. subjective interpretation. In addition to
this grave philosophical error two further mistake are inherent in this definition.
Firstly, it assumes that there is a definition for science at all and secondly,
that there is a clear ‘demarcation criteria’ that separates scientific forms of
knowledge from non-scientific forms of knowledge. The definition of science and
the pursuit to find a ‘demarcation criteria’ has been the holy grail of the philosophy
of science since its inception. However, what they found is that neither exits
and that science is strongly shaped by its practitioners, i.e. there is no
‘science’ only the ‘practice of science’. As a reaction to this the discipline
of the sociology of scientific knowledge and subsequently science and
technology studies was created to study the ‘practice of science’, in order to better
understand what ‘science is’. These inquires uniformly showed that science is a
belief system with its own customs, rituals and artefacts. This claim was initially
perceived as a ‘attack’ upon the authority of science. Similarly today any
claims that science represents a belief system are also rigorously attacked by
advocates of scientism. The first wave of attacking this insight culminated
into the so called ‘Science Wars’ spanning the 1990s. This initial conflict of
sociologist of science and scientists (e.g. Steve Weinberg) has now largely
been resolved; the consensus accepts that science is a human construction
dependent upon its practitioners. An important point to make here is that
claiming science is a human construction is not the same as saying science is
useless. On the contrary science is the best approximation of nature that is
currently available to us. However, it is just that, an approximation,
depending on humans creating this approximation.
Now, when science gets thrown
into the ‘science vs. religion debate’ it is often done from a Scientism view
of science. Scientism according to ‘The
New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought’ sees science as “characteristic
inductive methods of the natural sciences [that] are
the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they
alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.” The first part of
this belief simplifies the scientific process, removing the multiplicity of
interpretation, conflicts and contradictions involved in the construction, i.e.
creating a black box. However, the personal interests of its practitioners,
conflicting data in its measurements or the politics of society, that often are
presented as ‘impurities’, are a central part of science. As such, arguing for a more 'logical' 'rational' or less 'biased' science that
would be able to transcend these aspects is actually non-nonsensical, as these aspects
are not only inherent to the practice of science; they are central parts
of it. Now when genuine controversies arise within science, e.g. the finer details
of anthropomorphic global climate (see Paul N. Edward’s ‘A vast Machine’) these are perceived as ‘failures of science’
instead of being a natural part of it. The oversimplified presentation of
science creates the illusion that science can achieve objective truths, transcending
these influences, something that is simply not true. This Scientism version of science does not help defend scientific
authority; to the contrary it undermines it. Because, it elevates science to a
standard it cannot possibly meet and thereby setting it up for certain
failure. This presentation of science is
naive at best and dis-ingeniousness at worst
The
following section deals with second part of the definition of Scientism “that [science] alone can yield true knowledge about man and society”.
Multiplicity of ‘Truth’
If
science really would be the only achievable way to obtain “true knowledge”, than we first have to agree upon what ‘truth’
actually is. So let’s for a second set aside the science vs religion debate,
and turn our focus upon 'truth'. Well what is truth? Here are short (by no
means extensive) lists of different versions that have been suggested by
different sources.
A. Truth is an abstract quality of
the universe that is 'true' regardless of human opinion that occupies a
separate realm (e.g. Platonism)
B. Truth is combination of material
factors (although unreachable to human experience) that combine with conceptual
functions and social convention to form a reinforcing network that is regarded
as true (e.g. actor-network theory)
C.
There
no such thing as Truth and we are all deceiving ourselves and living in our own
fantasy (e.g. extreme forms of nihilism)
Well
depending on your version of truth, the answer for the science religion debate
is going to differ. Because for A, neither science nor religion can claim this,
B is true for science, but also for religion and in C the whole concept of
truth is suspended. Now I am not saying that these versions of truth (A, B or C)
are the definite ones, these are only a few examples. However, my point being,
if you make a statement such as ‘science alone can yield true knowledge’, which
form of truth are you referring to?
Let
us further deconstruct the notion of ‘true knowledge’ as produced by science. Well
first of all that point isn't entirely true. There have been plenty of cases
where implementations of science have caused more harm than good, as it turned
out the science was ‘wrong’. Implementations of science are often mobilised by
people adhering to Scientism when defending science (e.g. computers, non-stick
frying pans or solar power). However, when criticised on this ground the
counterargument that is raised builds upon the aforementioned simplistic view
of science and usually sound something like this:
"But it’s the
implementation, that are wrong not science! Science is pure, for example it is
political influences that complicate pure scientific implementation“
Answering
this point has to be done in two parts. First of all yes, there have been
plenty of cases where political interference complicated the implementation of
science. But, secondly and more important for the here presented account, there
also have been cases where science implementations have been simply wrong (e.g.
racial discrimination, persecution of homosexuality and sterilisation of people
with mental disorder etc.). Yes, there has been change and progress in the
scientific view concerning these subjects, but that’s just the point: it
changes! At the time of their implementation these practices were supported by
‘scientific evidence’ of the time. If the advocate of Scientism is still not
convinced, one last counterargument is put forth, that builds on the same
simplified view of science, usually it sound something like this
“But this is the
implementation of science, not science itself”
This
is true on a trivial level, but in the practice of science these are interconnected,
as implementations of science secures funding and leads to more science. This
is one reason why scientists try to be ‘socially relevant’. Furthermore, if you
do not measure science success by its implementation, than what do you measure is
it by? If you do not acknowledge the 'bad' implementations and only count the
good ones, this is very … unscientific?
If
‘science’ really is the only way to achieve true knowledge, than not only is
religion discounted as form of knowledge but also; feminism, philosophy or
literature to only mention a few, as these are not 'sciences'. The English word
science as the peculiar trait that it’s meaning is only reserved for the
'natural sciences' ("Naturwissenschafften"
in German or “naturvetenskap” in
Swedish). Yet, other forms of knowledge are certainly sources of insightful and
usable knowledge, even if they have different mechanism of achieving ‘true
knowledge’.
And
lastly, with everything we have learned so far, the definition of science from
the Scientism point of view is a very arrogant claim. Science is done by
people; it is a human project. People are not perfect, hence science is not
perfect. This point alone should suffice to show the futility in the scientism
position. I want to conclude with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Our scientific
power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and miss-guided
men.”
