My argument was simple, or so I thought.
Long ago, a group of people (it does not matter which group) had a particular set of ideas or knowledge or wisdom which they wanted to transmit to their descendants. Often this would take the form of a story or a metaphor. The reason for this was to convey a larger image using symbols and ideas which would encapsulate more information than the story itself. The metaphor then grew and became something more than just a story, it became a truth. It became a pataphor. That was my argument concerning religion.
My other argument was that science is religion. Maybe this statement clouded the vision for some readers. Maybe I should have softened it somewhat by saying that science has become a religion. Maybe. When I suggest that science is (becoming) a religion I do not mean it as an attack on either science or religion.
Maybe those stuck on hard definitions need to soften their definitions somewhat. Or, rather, they need to realize that definitions do not capture complex ideas properly. Distilling a complex idea, such as religion, into a single word or definition is not easy. To broaden it too much is to consider everything as religion. To narrow it will exclude things known to be religions. No single definition of “religion,” or “game,” or “nation” will capture the ideas of these things which, when we see them, we know what they are. But we may not be as inclusive as we possibly should be. Or maybe we are too inclusive? Think about nation for a while – Israel, Palestine, Metis, Canada, Athens, Greece, or Frisia. Just a thought.
* * * * *
Orange juice is the juice from oranges. Except some orange juice is from concentrate. Other orange juice is better described as an orange beverage because it is not really the juice from oranges. But whatever we call it, it tastes like oranges. But what about Orange Kool-Aid? It does not really taste like oranges. And Tang, what is Tang anyway? Tang is a failed idea which was given life by astronauts who wanted to cover up the bad taste of the polluted water on their spacecraft. They did not drink it for the nutritional value nor for its orange flavour, but for its ability to make something taste less awful. But drinking Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice. It is drinking Tang. But you can call it orange juice if you want to.
There was this guy who insists everyone call him Bob. His real name is Carl Greenblatt but he wanted to be known as Bob. Bob works in a bank, as the security guard. His name tag says “Karl” but he tells everyone to call him Bob because they misspelled his name. And everyone does. Except for Patricia. She calls him Ted because she likes it better. Patricia and Carl dated several years ago but Carl broke it off. Now whenever Patricia sees Carl and calls him Ted, Carl cringes because the name reminds him of his biggest mistake ever. And now he will never get his high-school ring back again. Patricia pawned it for a pair of leg-warmers.
* * * * *
Religion is concerned with more than just dictating morality. If this were the case then it would be necessary to know who is dictating, because it is those people or that person who has the power over the religious adherents. Morality stems from a particular view of the world. What is right and what is wrong is not determined by an elite group of people. Even if this were the case, which it is not, this group would necessarily have to be able to tie in the moral issue with the worldview of the people or else it would not be acceptable.
This is where I would suggest that science does mingle with moral issues. Science affects the worldview of people. This is obvious. A change in worldview must have some implication on attitudes and actions or else it is meaningless. Science does get tangled with moral issues, especially concerning those concerned with life – abortion, cloning, stem-cells, even animal treatment. Environmentalist also use science to back up their definition of right and wrong as it relates to the earth.
I understand that this is not science dictating morality. But this is science used to backup a worldview and that worldview states what is right and what is wrong. Or, what is not wrong (which would, I guess, make it right).
Scientific ideas are complex and, often, hard to understand, and it is impossible to know all of them. What happens is that the ideas become encapsulated inside a word or phrase. The theory of relativity conjures up an image. Shrodinger’s Cat evokes another. Evolution and the Big Bang are others. One does not need to know what the particulars are to understand the general idea.
The reason I say science is (becoming) a religion is because science is involved in defining morality, providing pathways within philosophical dialogue, and developing a mythology (another word both the religious and scientific despise). Another reason is that there are those who would want people turned off of religion in favour of science. Evangelists for science.
Maybe the keyword is “becoming.” Maybe. But for me the evidence points towards my conclusion.
* * * * *
Orange juice is the juice from oranges.
* * * * *
[flashvideo filename=http://www.archive.org/download/FolgersCoffe_2/FolgersCoffe_2.flv /]
Maybe it is true. Maybe I taste like fresh percolated. Because I am.
