|
|
|
((I’m losing the computer, so I decided to put all of the lists and writings that I didn’t want to delete in my journal.))
Eddie Hurley
1201-01
Rough Draft, Comparison and Contrast
10/24/10
Essay Prompt #1, pg. 146
The Religion of Science
Many people, often including myself, see religion and science as near-total opposites. Admittedly, on the surface of it, that is pretty much accurate. However, what I think not many people realize is that the two are much closer than one might think. Though this idea may dismay scientists and religious people alike, it is one that would probably help the world (namely, humanity) to be a more mature place, by making the members of those two schools of thought get over themselves and work together. That is, if they came to understand and accept such an idea.
Clarification may be needed in reference to my saying that both scientists and religious people would be dismayed to hear that they are ultimately the same. As far as I can tell, both groups have severe superiority complexes. The scientific community sees itself as the only logical and enlightened (ironically, a term with strong religious associations) group of people, because their way of understanding things exists where they can see it (sort of). To say that they are no different from theists is like telling them that they are irrational, silly, and unthinking individuals, incapable of ever attaining true knowledge. A similar concern would prompt negative responses from theists, if they were told that their views and ideas were no different from those of scientists. While the religious community has no particularly strong self-image of being logical, they do believe themselves to be enlightened, and ultimately better than those who are not among them. They often acknowledge that their beliefs are not based off of “evidence” or “experience”, and therefore cannot be proven, but they consider themselves to be special, simply because they continue to believe in those things despite their unprovable nature; their famous “faith”. If you told them that they were no different from the scientists, you would be taking away that sense of personal pride and, for lack of a better word, specialness. So, with both groups of people, telling them that they are ultimately the same can often be taken as a severe insult, or at least as a very cruel thing to say.
While it is true that science and religion are different in that science frequently changes/evolves, while religion is fairly static, in many ways the two are actually quite similar. What is one of the biggest purposes of both of them? One answer would be “explanation”. Religion tries to explain the universe as well as it can. It does so by having stories that describe how things came to be, why certain things are, what things are, and how all of this information is connected, as well as relevant to us as human beings. When a person applies the “knowledge” supplied by religion to real life, it is supposed to help them get through it, either by directly advising them on how to act in any given kind of situation, or by helping them to mentally/emotionally deal with things in better (which can have many different meanings) ways. Science is much the same. Science uses certain methodologies to test ideas in today’s world, using the results to form conclusions about how the world works, and what it really is, exactly. Of course, much of the motivation behind such experimentation and research is of a practical nature, with the “knowledge” gained from those activities being used to advise people on how to better manage the act of living, as well as improve the quality and efficiency of the day-to-day aspects of life. So, ultimately, a few of the big purposes of both science and religion are explanation, direction, and improvement.
Purpose is not the only thing that these two sentimental opposites have in common, however. They are also quite similar in the structural sense. Quite a few religions have multiple gods, who are usually ruled by the highest gods. Really, the same could be said of science. The “laws” of science parallel the minor gods, while science itself (or possibly logic) would be the equivalent of the god that rules over all the rest. There are even more significant structural similarities between science and religion, though. Many religions just come out and say “This is what life means, and how it works; believe it.”, but when you get right down to it, science does exactly the same thing, albeit in a more roundabout way. Science tends to shroud its own “shameful” fundamental basis with all of its tests and technical jargon, but in truth, it is just as faith-based as religion. All the laws and theories that science has developed still have to be taken on faith, if you bother to keep asking “Why?” and “How?” enough. After all, the idea of explanation itself has a fundamental flaw: both finite and infinite chains of it don’t really make sense. If you keep asking those two questions, and eventually come to a point where there is no answer, that point is an unknown. It is something that simply cannot be explained. That is the point where you would have to simply take existence on faith. On the other hand, if you keep asking those two questions on and on for all eternity and there are always more answers, then can it really be said that things are being explained? Does something that has no definitive, end-all truth that holds it together really seem like something that could be called “explainable”? I say that it doesn’t.
“But why does any of this matter?”, you may ask. Even though I said that the world would probably become a better place if both groups came to accept their common foundations, how would that change come about, exactly? Well, just think about all the conflict that comes about because of religious differences, which, by my previous logic, would now include differences between science and any religion. People have been persecuted and mocked because of their beliefs and practices for as long as those beliefs and practices have existed, but what if that stopped? What if the scientific community and the religious community put aside their petty battles and worked together for the betterment of mankind? Science could then continue its ongoing quest for physical understanding that would improve the quality of life for people, without the interference of the religious community (on the grounds of certain inventions and practices being “unholy”, or something like that). At the same time, religion could continue bringing emotional warmth and comfort to the masses through its messages of hope and meaning, without the scientific community calling them irrational or weak-willed/minded. By simply not obstructing each other, and possibly even working together, the entire spectrum of the human experience, from the physical to the emotional, could be improved.
Looking back on this essay, it seems like I ended up basically describing how science is the same as religion, rather than how they resemble each other. I suppose that that is to be expected, though. After all, the fact that these two things are based on faith could be said of anything and everything else in the world. That’s just one of the basic tenets of philosophy, in my mind. That is a topic that deserves its own essay, though, so I will have to leave it at that.
 magic_doglover · Mon Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:04am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
