In our secular, post-religious society, the figure of the cassock-clad priest has been replaced by that of the white-coated scientist. Dispensing wisdom from the laboratory — the secular sanctuary — his every word is awaited breathlessly by a world thirsting for knowledge.
The author also suggests that perhaps science should not expect to be able to shape policy, esp. when it has financial funding to gain – can you say "conflict of interest?" How can it claim any moral stance on, for instance, cloning, when thousands of govt research dollars are the prize if they convince us that their work is not ethically questionable?
Although I distance myself wholly from his anti-rationalism and methodological anarchy, I share the late philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend’s demand for a separation of science and state, or at the very least a radical curtailment of public financial sponsorship of scientific research.
What is missing in this article is that, while science has done so much to help us, the author does not clearly mention that secularists have steadily used science to not only push superstition out of science (good thing), but any ethics that stand in the way of "unhindered research." Also, science has been wielded in a way that tries to command uncontested moral authority in social policy, ethics, and origins – topics that it really should only be a SME, but not a leader in.
Science is still dependent on man’s intellect, and we should not rely on it entirely – we ought to consult moral revelation and wisdom across the ages to determine what is right, to make sure that we are not involved in self-deception or justification of evil.
Science has truly become our new arbiter of religious truth as well as material truth. But the priests of science are failing us, and we should take back some of the power we’ve given them by not giving them blind trust (i.e. faith), nor the final say in matters of morality or ethics. Here’s the author’s nice closing analogy:
Were a bishop to be caught doctoring the Gospels, I doubt any scientists would be rushing to approve the Church’s latest request for help to build a new cathedral. Why it should be any different for the secular bishops of science is difficult to discern.
In that last statement, do you really think that bishops have supported science? Do you really? Amongst the liberal and some Catholic denominations, maybe…but the orthodox Catholic church has been opposed to birth control and abortion for some time now.
Odersburg, who has some nice articles on the Kalam cosmological argument, seems to imply that scientists are giving drink to the "knolwedge-thirsty" masses.
What world is he living in? I'm living here.
One could only wish that rationalism triumphed. Unfortunately, rationalists are still a minority…and I'm not sure if we're shrinking or growing.
Daniel, I'm wondering about the juxtaposition here:
Do you really think that bishops have supported science?
and
. . . but the orthodox Catholic church has been opposed to birth control and abortion for some time now.
How did opposition of birth control and abortion get translated into opposition of science? And did you even read what Seeker wrote about making a distinction between scientific and ethical decisions?
Well, I am curently reading Stark's For the Glory of God (not a Christian book) which discusses this very thing. It argues well that "not only was the Christian faith not antithetical to science, it was essential to science's rise in the west." While some outlier church leaders may have opposed science, the author argues well (with good references) that our charicature of religion, esp. Catholocism's "opposition to science" is more fabrication than fact, based on the strong anti-catholic sentiments of Enlightenment historians, whose bias, unfortunately, has been grandfathered in to our modern histories. So yes, I do think that xianity has as a general rule, not only helped science, but been essential to it's flourishing in the west.
Tom, you are right, moral opposition to birth control and abortion is not anti-science. Some might argue that being against embryonic research may hinder "progress" in that area, but is human experimentation (if that's what it is) worth the "progress"?
It occurred to me since I left that comment, that the church's opposition to abortion and birth control could be considered anti-science–in just the same way that opposition to atmospheric nuclear testing is anti-science; only less so, because there's still an awful lot of physics, chemistry, medicine, ecology, and meteorology left to learn that we could find out through atmospheric nuclear tests.
Christianity or any organized religion is not anti-science… it is anti-everything that will contradict, debunk or otherwise lessen their system of beliefs. Science just happens to be in the crosshairs because it contradicts the Judeo-Christian Creation.
"Science" in general is not so much being attacked by the Christian establishment as the Evolutionary theory. It is just that most folks don't understand the difference. Darwin is being (posthumously) punished in the same way Copernicus and Galileo were harried by the Catholic Church for proving that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
And Seeker, they also proved that Ann Coulter is not the center of the universe either :)
Please, please keep science and faith separate… it is like toothpaste and orange juice to most of us.
Keeping science, world view assumptions, and ethics separate is not really possible. The real question is, which world view assumptions, ethics and morals will you choose for your science?
Science is not really under attack at all, except by those who want open inquiry rather than unwarranted orthodoxy (read "evolutionary orthodoxy" primarily) to crush all opposition. Science is at risk from evolutionary assumptions, as well as the lack of an ethical compass, and funding of politically popular science or science that has "immediate payback." There's a lot of good science out there, but the prevalance of fraud like the recent Korean cloning debacle should be a wake-up call that our holy halls of science have "sinners in the seats of power" ;)
Your claims about Coperinicus and Galileo being harrassed by the Catholic church are not quite accurate. It's more like this:
It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
For the record, I said "science" and "faith" should be kept seperate. Ethics is itself independent, and exists outside of the context of Christianity or any other religion.
With regard to the Korean scientist… he is an abberation and was outed because science is TESTABLE. Plus, there is good and bad in every organization… just ask any of a number of altar boys about that.
As far as Galileo and the struggle between sciences:
"And again, what Galileo was made, by express order of Pope Urban, and by the action of the Inquisition under threat of torture, to abjure in 1633, was "_the error and heresy of the movement of the earth_."
Best I recall… Steven Hawking was never threatened with torture when he said Einstein was wrong.
Sorry… forgot to link my source of the quote
Evil Lonnie, you have a single sentence quote. Seeker has context. Did you read it?
EL, I agree that the church made the mistake of persecuting Galieleo – but not because of xian doctrine or religion, but because it, like the scientific establishment of that day, had adopted the Aritsotelian view – Galileo was opposing the scientific establishment too.
If you read the history of this controversy at wikipedia, you'll find that many church officials, including Cardinal Barberini, (later Pope Urban VIII), opposed the condemnation of Galileo.
No doubt, the church opposed galileo. But this is not really good enough evidence to say that religion, or the xian church, is or has been antithetical to science. As Stark's book For the Glory of God ably points out, history shows that the opposite is true – that xianity has been essential in the rise of science in the west.