Its the Research Universities, we should never have placed science there in the decades after WW2, the Big Research Unis, Big Biz (who has outsourced so much of its science to them on the taxpayers dime all the while greatly shrinking Medium Biz and its science), and BIg Gov exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other and we have a far smaller scientific ecosystem than we had/would have and could have, and on top of that its very homogeneous and hierarchical -- which isnt good for genuine science either -- which along with the deeply interconnected relationships (in many cases its hard to tell where one ends and the other begins) produce most of these problems, plus more but that would take more space...
Great comments and a very clear essay, for which thanks. Whether it is presented as science or as religion, the "truth" of powerful people becomes a mandate: those people have (presume to take) the authority needed force (or try to force) everybody into the paradigm and parameters of that "truth." In a way, for me, both science and religion present a benevolent mask for the love of power. Mere skepticism is hardly enough to counter their frightening effects.
These are great topics; I like the comparison between the microbiological (a topic I have learned a great deal from studying) and the ideological/paradigmatic especially. It is certainly undeniable that the sciences emerge from within the background of the religious, of course. In The Mythology of Evolution, I collect those who would project the 'science vs religion' metaphor under the heading 'positivist' (this is fairer than 'atheist' in my view, although this issue becomes complex rapidly). In general, however, it is the positivists who maintain the view of 'science vs religion', and this is a viewpoint that (as you are well aware) distorts both science and religion.
I have felt for sometime that what is needed is a means to reconfigure this split. Since the sciences are full of religion-like elements, and religions frequently entail science-like elements, trying to create a split here serves no purpose except one: it satiates the psychological desire of the positivists to define themselves as a negative image of what religion means to them (i.e. to collect the negative image of religious practice and pretend that there is an opposite, and that this opposite is embodied in magical science).
The sensible path forward is closed to us. That would be to reopen metaphysics as a legitimate field of study and discourse. As long as metaphysics are excluded from public discussion, we are trapped by our metaphysics. But this is impossible, because precisely the pact the positivists made with themselves - from the Vienna Circle onwards - is that they do not partake in metaphysics (and are therefore even more apt to be mislead by them).
What's required is a new metaphor that remounts 'science versus religion'. I do not know if the best path forward requires a new A vs B (these are easily absorbed in most people's minds) or a transition to an A, B, C (harder to absorb, but helpful for breaking out of the blindness). Charles Taylor mounts an attack of the latter kind. It didn't land despite being widely read (at least in Catholic and philosophical circles). That makes me wonder if a new A vs B is required.
I have spent a great deal of time on this issue, and I'm no closer to a solution. The problem being, of course, the solution has to be capable of incorporation into positivist metaphysics. But positivists do not believe they have metaphysics. And therein lies the problem.
As for 'separation of science and state', aye, I have argued for the same, in various ways. But technocracy remains functionally a kind of atheocracy, and until this can be exposed (the religious-like aspects of positivism) there is little hope of moving on this issue. Still, I persist!
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Chris. Perhaps the new A vs B might have something to do with prescriptive vs descriptive... or models that serve vs models that are served. Metaphysics is difficult I suppose and by eliminating the requirement to grapple with it, science can be automated and jobbed out to technicians who don't have a scientific disposition. Shutting down the metaphysical conversation is a form of locking in a gain and shutting out potential elements that would destroy the paradigm. It's a shame that it goes unrecognised that the elimination of this threat actually corrupts and ultimately destroys science as a reliable methodology. And we're so distracted by the novelties the present paradigm can spin, we fail to appreciate the stagnation that has actually set in.
Thank you, gentlemen, for deep-diving into this conundrum. To be honest, I don't understand how to distinguish between science and religion these days. Establishment science looks to me like a materialist religion while Christianity, say, works as a spiritual religion. Could a useful new metaphor oppose spiritual religions to materialist ones? Insitutional vs. heretical? Secular vs. clerical? Sacred vs. profane? I don't know. I mean, science can be spiritual when it's done right, and materialism has permeated Christianity, for instance, at least since the Renaissance. But today the word 'religion' seems to embody this "will to incorporation" you illustrate, whether that will is expressed by atheists or believers in god. Hence my confusion when trying to understand the words "science" and "religion" under their current dispensations.
Thanks, Harry. A lot to ponder here. Perhaps part of the issue is that the language and methods of science have limitations. Science for instance is bad at ethics and therefore at government and even at managing its own institutions. Science is also bad at psychology and anything having to do with the inner world. Meanwhile religion is bad at the things science is good at, even if at its best it nurtures the sciences in its attempt to understand creation and the mind of God. They both fail to be their best when they indulge the will to incorporation, and insist on taking command of those things they're bad at. The solution seems to be spirituality (as you indicate), because spirituality is what is lost to both when they wind up behaving badly. I don't often use the term "spiritual" because too many feel the term refers to something supernatural. Instead, I use the terms "inner world," "psychological," "conceptual," even "heart life" to denote an interest in the not-material, the philosophical, humanist dimension that informs our perceptions. When human affairs get shifted to autopilot and folks walk around zombie-like, simply conforming to conventions without asking the questions that make life worth living... that's the problem. When you're just doing your job without addressing why you're doing it, we're all in trouble. It's like doctors in Canada nowadays who never look at the whole person before them, but instead treat patients on an issue by issue basis. That's not health. That's not what a doctor is meant to be. And the doctor who behaves this way and follows this system isn't really a physician in any meaningful way. Even their motivations must be called into question. I'm not sure if that clarifies anything, but it should point to the solution as having everything to do with one attending to his interiority certainly as much as to exteriority.
Thanks, Asa. What you're saying does help clarify the distinction between science and religion in that I can see how science being an outgrowth of religion, both should acknowledge one another's eminence in the total field of human knowledge, because ultimately their best chance of success in advocating for humanism is to restore something of the holy union they shared in the pre-enlightenment days of natural philosophy.
Its the Research Universities, we should never have placed science there in the decades after WW2, the Big Research Unis, Big Biz (who has outsourced so much of its science to them on the taxpayers dime all the while greatly shrinking Medium Biz and its science), and BIg Gov exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other and we have a far smaller scientific ecosystem than we had/would have and could have, and on top of that its very homogeneous and hierarchical -- which isnt good for genuine science either -- which along with the deeply interconnected relationships (in many cases its hard to tell where one ends and the other begins) produce most of these problems, plus more but that would take more space...
Great comments and a very clear essay, for which thanks. Whether it is presented as science or as religion, the "truth" of powerful people becomes a mandate: those people have (presume to take) the authority needed force (or try to force) everybody into the paradigm and parameters of that "truth." In a way, for me, both science and religion present a benevolent mask for the love of power. Mere skepticism is hardly enough to counter their frightening effects.
These are great topics; I like the comparison between the microbiological (a topic I have learned a great deal from studying) and the ideological/paradigmatic especially. It is certainly undeniable that the sciences emerge from within the background of the religious, of course. In The Mythology of Evolution, I collect those who would project the 'science vs religion' metaphor under the heading 'positivist' (this is fairer than 'atheist' in my view, although this issue becomes complex rapidly). In general, however, it is the positivists who maintain the view of 'science vs religion', and this is a viewpoint that (as you are well aware) distorts both science and religion.
I have felt for sometime that what is needed is a means to reconfigure this split. Since the sciences are full of religion-like elements, and religions frequently entail science-like elements, trying to create a split here serves no purpose except one: it satiates the psychological desire of the positivists to define themselves as a negative image of what religion means to them (i.e. to collect the negative image of religious practice and pretend that there is an opposite, and that this opposite is embodied in magical science).
The sensible path forward is closed to us. That would be to reopen metaphysics as a legitimate field of study and discourse. As long as metaphysics are excluded from public discussion, we are trapped by our metaphysics. But this is impossible, because precisely the pact the positivists made with themselves - from the Vienna Circle onwards - is that they do not partake in metaphysics (and are therefore even more apt to be mislead by them).
What's required is a new metaphor that remounts 'science versus religion'. I do not know if the best path forward requires a new A vs B (these are easily absorbed in most people's minds) or a transition to an A, B, C (harder to absorb, but helpful for breaking out of the blindness). Charles Taylor mounts an attack of the latter kind. It didn't land despite being widely read (at least in Catholic and philosophical circles). That makes me wonder if a new A vs B is required.
I have spent a great deal of time on this issue, and I'm no closer to a solution. The problem being, of course, the solution has to be capable of incorporation into positivist metaphysics. But positivists do not believe they have metaphysics. And therein lies the problem.
As for 'separation of science and state', aye, I have argued for the same, in various ways. But technocracy remains functionally a kind of atheocracy, and until this can be exposed (the religious-like aspects of positivism) there is little hope of moving on this issue. Still, I persist!
Many thanks for a stimulating discussion!
Chris.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Chris. Perhaps the new A vs B might have something to do with prescriptive vs descriptive... or models that serve vs models that are served. Metaphysics is difficult I suppose and by eliminating the requirement to grapple with it, science can be automated and jobbed out to technicians who don't have a scientific disposition. Shutting down the metaphysical conversation is a form of locking in a gain and shutting out potential elements that would destroy the paradigm. It's a shame that it goes unrecognised that the elimination of this threat actually corrupts and ultimately destroys science as a reliable methodology. And we're so distracted by the novelties the present paradigm can spin, we fail to appreciate the stagnation that has actually set in.
Thank you, gentlemen, for deep-diving into this conundrum. To be honest, I don't understand how to distinguish between science and religion these days. Establishment science looks to me like a materialist religion while Christianity, say, works as a spiritual religion. Could a useful new metaphor oppose spiritual religions to materialist ones? Insitutional vs. heretical? Secular vs. clerical? Sacred vs. profane? I don't know. I mean, science can be spiritual when it's done right, and materialism has permeated Christianity, for instance, at least since the Renaissance. But today the word 'religion' seems to embody this "will to incorporation" you illustrate, whether that will is expressed by atheists or believers in god. Hence my confusion when trying to understand the words "science" and "religion" under their current dispensations.
Thanks, Harry. A lot to ponder here. Perhaps part of the issue is that the language and methods of science have limitations. Science for instance is bad at ethics and therefore at government and even at managing its own institutions. Science is also bad at psychology and anything having to do with the inner world. Meanwhile religion is bad at the things science is good at, even if at its best it nurtures the sciences in its attempt to understand creation and the mind of God. They both fail to be their best when they indulge the will to incorporation, and insist on taking command of those things they're bad at. The solution seems to be spirituality (as you indicate), because spirituality is what is lost to both when they wind up behaving badly. I don't often use the term "spiritual" because too many feel the term refers to something supernatural. Instead, I use the terms "inner world," "psychological," "conceptual," even "heart life" to denote an interest in the not-material, the philosophical, humanist dimension that informs our perceptions. When human affairs get shifted to autopilot and folks walk around zombie-like, simply conforming to conventions without asking the questions that make life worth living... that's the problem. When you're just doing your job without addressing why you're doing it, we're all in trouble. It's like doctors in Canada nowadays who never look at the whole person before them, but instead treat patients on an issue by issue basis. That's not health. That's not what a doctor is meant to be. And the doctor who behaves this way and follows this system isn't really a physician in any meaningful way. Even their motivations must be called into question. I'm not sure if that clarifies anything, but it should point to the solution as having everything to do with one attending to his interiority certainly as much as to exteriority.
Thanks, Asa. What you're saying does help clarify the distinction between science and religion in that I can see how science being an outgrowth of religion, both should acknowledge one another's eminence in the total field of human knowledge, because ultimately their best chance of success in advocating for humanism is to restore something of the holy union they shared in the pre-enlightenment days of natural philosophy.