Often we find new age philosophers and anti-atheists comparing science to a religion. Scientists and researchers are said to be the modern versions of Aztec priests (Aztec priests mind you, not Christian ones, nor Islamic mullahs, nor Hindu gurus – No, scientists are Aztec and Incan priests – preachers of old antiquated religions which are accepted as myths at best and hogwash at worst by most of the world’s populace). Recently I came across a statement, the view of a very religious (and probably as a result, a very good and pious) man – It’s harder to have faith in a belief such as evolution than it is to have faith in creationism.
You also find pseudo-scientists, whom I like to call pseudo-science buffs, who criticize modern science for its failings, and, in the same breath, use the same to justify pseudo-scientific claims. To me the claims and statements made by these people sound something like this (in terms of logical infallibility of the statements made) – “OK guys, not giving equal opportunities to the wheel-chair bound is really unfair, hence it should be obvious to anybody with an ounce of common sense that making provisions such as elevators and ramps for them is a very wrong thing to do, and that people promoting such measures are really evil people with very deep plans for world domination.” In short such statements are sometimes so absurd, that they’re not hilarious any more, they’re disgusting.
Let me make a brief comparison of Science, religion and “pseudo-science” -
Science promotes questioning, curiosity and re-evaluation. In science all hypotheses and new discoveries/explanations have to go through an extremely rigorous (any PhD student would say too rigorous) set of tests before being accepted as facts and “scientific knowledge” by the scientific community at large. Also science does not hide itself behind allusions of its proofs and results and methods being beyond the understanding of any individual. If you wish to understand any aspect of science, any claim that science makes – you can easily find resources and people willing to help you understand the same. It might take you a long time to gain the knowledge required to understand the same – but at every step of the way you will be presented with firm proofs based initially on axioms (“assumptions” like 1 + 1 =2) and later on – on repeatable observations and things you have proved earlier.
Pseudo-science lacks the rigorous cross-examination of its claims, it promotes its claims amongst people who (by its own admission) cannot understand or cross-examine the details regarding the evidence supporting its claim – nor the derivations resulting in its final result. If you disagree with or question pseudo-science – the people promoting the same would state that you simply lack the intellectual ability or the knowledge to understand the same. Either that or they would label you as being part of the “Grand Conspiracy”.
Religion usually hides behind dogma and the fear of committing heresy by questioning dogma – the divine truths are always unquestionable – you are not allowed to doubt the same. Also religious truths are not based on proofs beyond the writings of men (I don’t know of anybody being in possession of the original holy book of any religion), and on the enlightenment or divine truths that God shares with some select individuals only.
I do not claim that science explains everything – one day science may evolve to understand and explain mysticism and miracles. One day science may find hard evidence and proof that God truly exists. Till then, I think religion, or at least theism, is an unshakable belief, held by a large part of the world’s population, including myself… A belief without scientific proof, and sometimes a belief which is refuted by science – but an unshakable belief nonetheless.
Science has its failings because human beings have failings. Hence on one hand you sometimes hear of new “discoveries” and claims which turn out to be mistakes made by researchers and on the other you hear of great researchers whose remarkable contributions receive only posthumous laurels and awards for their work. Science does not claim monopoly on the truth. But it does not accept faulty logic, and it does not accept theories contradicting experimental or natural evidence
So let us not compare science to pseudo-science and religion. The still evolving institution and method that is science is more valuable, and great, and worthy of respect, and if I may use the words – holy and sacred – then anything else that has ever come out of Man’s intellect or industry…
“The point is ladies and gentlemen – Science, for the lack of a better word, is sacred.
Science is right, science works.
Science clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of human logic, intellect, and industry.
The scientific method in all its forms and applications – be it in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology or such “unscientific” fields like finance and sociology – has been responsible for the upward surge of mankind.
And science, you mark my words – will not only save children studying in the US, but that other lost and innocent group of people called humanity…”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1. The “children studying in the US” is a reference to the controversy involving teaching of creationism in Science classes in the US.
2. I’m no Gordan Gecko – but I simply could not resist the temptation of comparing “science is sacred” to the “greed is good” speech…
3. I’m not an atheist – My religious views are best described as being those of a somewhat agnostic theist. I am a very religious person and believe that religion has the potential for great good. However I do not believe in burdening God with unnecessary jobs like creating man artificially – I think He had enough on his hands to deal with at he beginning of time anyway.
Recent Comments