The Cult of Science – Dialectic Two Step

Estimated reading time: 9 minute(s)

Comment: “It’s only been in recent years that scientists are realizing how screwed up their cult has become. Much of what scientists believe is based upon unprovable hypotheses.

There is a great deal of arrogance in the cult of science”

Response: I hear your frustration when it comes to arrogance and attitude.  These are familiar human traits and people on both sides of the science-religion argument bring them to the table.  It’s going to be tit for tat on this dimension as long as there are homo sapiens.

But you made an observation that I think is flawed:

“It’s only been in recent years that scientists are realizing how screwed up their cult has become. Much of what scientists believe is based upon unprovable hypotheses.”

I’ll use my objection to this statement to contrast the veracity of the institutions of science and religion.  My objection is that you only give credit to science for recently realizing how screwed up it is.  But the fact is, science recognizing its faults is its hallmark and has been for hundreds of years. Or to use your language – Science knows it’s screwed up, and it does something about it.

Science vs. Religion: Science knows it’s screwed up, and it does something about it.
Click To Tweet

This is why we don’t talk about Lamarckian heredity, bodily humors, or a flat earth.  Here’s a link to a great list of superseded scientific theories. These theories were rejected because the hypothesis that science is based on – the scientific method – has proven, time and again to be effective in sorting out the truth.

Now consider the institutions of religion.  Western traditions all contain the doctrine of apostasy or heresy, mechanisms to prevent correction and change.  It is also true that religious institutions have either stubbornly denied what science has demonstrated, or slowly capitulated to the facts.  While I acknowledge that on both sides, people have exhibited arrogance, pettiness, and cruelty towards each other, stating that “what scientists believe is based upon unprovable hypotheses” seems pretty untenable. We live in a society that has used this hypothesis to accelerate its understanding of nature to the benefit of millions. Medicine, engineering, and other sciences have taken crooked and often dead end roads, but they have self-corrected based on data and reproducibility.

For those on the science side of the debate, there is a deep frustration with the rejection of science by people who directly benefit from it.  For those on the religion side of the debate, there feels like something is missing. Oddly the two sides could be a match made in heaven.  Joining the power and accuracy of science to spiritual seeking is actually logical.  For such a pairing to work, there requires a brutal honesty combined with relentless questioning. Science can offer the former, spiritual seekers, the latter.

But to be an honest spiritual seeker, there must be casualties.  Bad hypothesis must cede to better ones.  Theories or religious tenets that don’t lend themselves to verification and predictability must be set aside, while theoretical inadequacies and doubts can be the basis of new hypotheses and potential progress.

While history shows that science marches forth over generations, the process is slow and difficult for individuals.  The exponential change that has accompanied science is a new condition for homo sapiens. But, I’m confident, we will adapt.

Dialectic Two-Step  is an ongoing series of my thoughts on questions that come my way.

Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two. - Octavio

Get Each Week's Dialectic Two Step In Your Email Box

If you enjoyed this post,  please like and share.

The post The Cult of Science – Dialectic Two Step written by Andrew Furst appeared on Andrew Furst.