Scientific humanism
As we look at scientific humanism we encounter a worldview that makes a lot of noise in our society and influences our culture profoundly. There is a lot of confusion here, mostly between what science tells us directly and what people wrongly think science implies.
Science, in itself, explains nothing. Science examines causal links between things we observe. Example: we observe the sun rising followed by the dew on the grass disappearing. Science tells us there is a causal link here. We take a pill; our headache goes away. We reasonably conclude that there is causal connection.
But what all the events science examines mean when taken as a whole, science can never tell us. Nor can it tell us the meaning of life or the ultimate origins of the universe. When we speculate about the ultimate origin and meaning of things we leave science as such. We are in the realm of philosophy.
Science can tell us what to do to live longer—eat right, keep your weight down, exercise a lot, don’t smoke, and so on. But science can never tell us what to do with our life or what to believe about our lives.
Many people are brainwashed by their education to think that we should only pay attention to what science can “prove.” So they make science into a philosophy of life without even realizing it. This is known as scientific humanism. Philosophers call it naturalism.
I say it is a pretty disappointing outlook on life.
For one thing, it affords no hope whatever. You do whatever you do for 60, 80 or 100 years—and what do you have to show for it in the end? Nothing. In a matter of years nobody even knows you existed unless you make the history books. That’s not likely.
Another thing, it provides no basis for how we should treat each other. Why be kind and good and honest? Really, there is no reason not to cheat and use people if that’s what pleases you.
A third thing, it offers no convincing basis for a stable society in which human beings can flourish. It all boils down to the survival of the fittest—those who can dominate others most successfully, even while perhaps using a cloak of altruism. Why should anyone care about the unborn, the poor, the mentally ill, and so on? Why should anyone care about the environment? The whole solar system will melt down some day. The human race will go extinct like every other species. So why get so concerned about it? If it bothers you to think our great-grandchildren may suffer from environmental degradation, then go green if you want. But if you don’t give a damn who’s to say you are wrong? Go with your flow. Whatever floats your boat.
Now most people don’t think that way. My point is that scientific humanism has no way to convince anyone to “get with the program.” It ends up with “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Get yours while you can. If you want to be like Mother Teresa, go for it. If you want to be like Osama Bin Laden, why not?
We need to ask ourselves this question. What is the most reasonable worldview in light of what we know from our own consciences, from history, from philosophy and religion, as well as from science?
My point is, one cannot simply say: “go with what science proves.” Science proves nothing. It shows some useful causal connections but says nothing about the meaning of it all: where everything came from, where it is all going, and what makes for a meaningful and flourishing life.
Science, in itself, explains nothing. Science examines causal links between things we observe. Example: we observe the sun rising followed by the dew on the grass disappearing. Science tells us there is a causal link here. We take a pill; our headache goes away. We reasonably conclude that there is causal connection.
But what all the events science examines mean when taken as a whole, science can never tell us. Nor can it tell us the meaning of life or the ultimate origins of the universe. When we speculate about the ultimate origin and meaning of things we leave science as such. We are in the realm of philosophy.
Science can tell us what to do to live longer—eat right, keep your weight down, exercise a lot, don’t smoke, and so on. But science can never tell us what to do with our life or what to believe about our lives.
Many people are brainwashed by their education to think that we should only pay attention to what science can “prove.” So they make science into a philosophy of life without even realizing it. This is known as scientific humanism. Philosophers call it naturalism.
I say it is a pretty disappointing outlook on life.
For one thing, it affords no hope whatever. You do whatever you do for 60, 80 or 100 years—and what do you have to show for it in the end? Nothing. In a matter of years nobody even knows you existed unless you make the history books. That’s not likely.
Another thing, it provides no basis for how we should treat each other. Why be kind and good and honest? Really, there is no reason not to cheat and use people if that’s what pleases you.
A third thing, it offers no convincing basis for a stable society in which human beings can flourish. It all boils down to the survival of the fittest—those who can dominate others most successfully, even while perhaps using a cloak of altruism. Why should anyone care about the unborn, the poor, the mentally ill, and so on? Why should anyone care about the environment? The whole solar system will melt down some day. The human race will go extinct like every other species. So why get so concerned about it? If it bothers you to think our great-grandchildren may suffer from environmental degradation, then go green if you want. But if you don’t give a damn who’s to say you are wrong? Go with your flow. Whatever floats your boat.
Now most people don’t think that way. My point is that scientific humanism has no way to convince anyone to “get with the program.” It ends up with “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Get yours while you can. If you want to be like Mother Teresa, go for it. If you want to be like Osama Bin Laden, why not?
We need to ask ourselves this question. What is the most reasonable worldview in light of what we know from our own consciences, from history, from philosophy and religion, as well as from science?
My point is, one cannot simply say: “go with what science proves.” Science proves nothing. It shows some useful causal connections but says nothing about the meaning of it all: where everything came from, where it is all going, and what makes for a meaningful and flourishing life.
posted by Jim Gustafson | 4:38 PM
8 Comments:
Coming from a scientific background and with a philosophic streak, I think it's interesting how many people try to turn science into a religion. They believe whatever science tells them without questioning but think that those of us who believe in the supernatural are crazy because we can't "prove" it with science. Also, like Dr. Gus said, these people have a hard time explaining what their life is all about if somebody actually asks. All the meaning, the richness in life disappears if you try to make everything logical and fit it into neat little boxes, or if you just dismiss it all as temporary and of little value. Rationality changes since there's no source for a legitimate system of rules and regulations, so theoretically, anything is allowed and people could just do whatever they want. If there's no meaning behind life, why respect it? Why do anything you don't want to do? While this may seem appealing, you have to remember that other people would then have the same "rules" and wouldn't have any qualms about bumping you off to get a better place or more stuff or whatever. Any sense of order would rapidly break down and everything would be chaos. While this is taking it to the extreme, sometimes it's useul to think about exactly what a certain viewpoint actually means.
Science does have merits though, and we shouldn't just give up on it because of all I just said. It's useful for finding out about the world we live in and verifying aspects of what we believe. I've read a lot of books on Christianity (scientific and otherwise) and I'd have to say that it's the most reasonable worldview that I've come across. It's logical, it's historically verifiable, there have been enough people that followed it that it can't have been an elaborate hoax started much later. I've seen convincing answers to all the questions and problems that have been raised, and I have a hard time seeing how some people can refuse to believe even when everything has been laid out on the table and all their objections have been dealt with. It's pretty hard to argue against if you ask me!
I believe that some people criticize the philosophy of scientific humanism because it offers neither eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine. We cannot simply measure a human spirituality and soul by a scientific method but we can simply not eliminate science from religion. Science is ultimately based on observation of nature, on the other hand, Religion is largely based on faith. Science tells us how the world works by studying the physical and detectable.
Science is in a position to prove or disprove the fact through a scientific method. In order to prove the truth, the scientist must make a hypotheses, observation, and experiment. If God through his special revelation (through Jesus and the Bible) shows himself as Creator of the universe, he also gives us through scientific study an opportunity to find out all that we can about the working of the universe. I believe modern science developed in a religious context. Physicists in the early part of the 20th century discovered new physical laws governing light, mass, gravity, and magnetism. These discoveries were largely driven by the desire to explain the movement of the planets and stars. Einstein believed all movement of objects was governed by field theories. He could not bring himself to believe magnetic waves could be described simply in terms of probabilities, but ultimately must be defined by some other physical law. Why? Because he said “God does not roll the dice.”. Einstein, who was the greatest physicist of them all was motivated by a religious belief that everything was governed by simple physical laws created by God.
My problem with the statement of this paper is the idea that religion is “necessary” to define humanism. Is it not possible to be kind, truthful, altruistic, or happy without believing in something other than the human mind. The human body, and the brain in particular, is composed of chemicals and electrical signals. The questions are: Is there something else involved? Must our emotions and thoughts be controlled by this external power? Are good and evil things that can be defined by this God? Is the “meaning”, the “source”, or the “end” of humanism something that requires this powerful something else. Science cannot tell us the answers to these questions, nor can the churches.
Soonmyung makes some good points - worth discussing further.
1. Einstein mentioned god but probably not as more than figure of speech. There is little to support the idea the he believed in the supernatural theistic God.
2. Theists do not believe God controls our emotions and thoughts. The key here is this: on what do we base the belief that our thoughts can give us true insight into anything? If we have faith (as scientists do) that our thinking gives us insight into what is really there outside our brains, what is that faith based on? Science of the brain shows that our thoughts are the product of brain chemicals. But if that is the case, then do we choose our thoughts? Or do the chemicals push them into our conscious stream of ideas? If it is the checmicals that are in charge of producing our thoughts, then how can we believe that my chemicals are to be preferred over yours because mine are closer to the truth? Humanists do not have a good answer here, because they take it by faith that material facts are all there is and that the soul or God have no existence in reality. And they also take it by faith that human thinking can provide insight as to what is a fact or not a fact, what is truth and what is not. The blog tries to point out that on a humanist basis there is no REASON to believe that kindness is preferable to cruelty, and so on. Sure, most people prefer kindness and peace, etc., but the only thing we can say to murderous dictators is that we do not like their lifestyle. To which they reply, "Well, I like it, so buzz off!"
Dr. Gus
As Dr. Gus has said science is based on facts whereas Religion is based on faith and the teachings of a divine person or a supernatural world. Science of course would not believe in such things as it can not be proven. There is no reason to believe in something that we can not prove exists. There is room in this world for both to coexist together I believe. As I am getting into the medical field of course science is relevant to all beings and nature, but certainly I also want to believe in God and a life here after. I have faith in God and am ok with him not being proven by experiments and observations. That is why we call it faith and not science.
I think it's important to have a mix of both religion and science in our lives. People who are entirely devoted to religion, and who refuse to believe scientific fact, are left in the dust as humans continue to expand our vast knowledge. The Vatican has said that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5)(catholic.com).
Views such as these lead me to believe that Catholicism is a religion that will be crippled as science advances and their religious stubbornness disallows them to keep up with the times.
Strictly following only science, however, leaves one with a feeling of emptiness, a sense that we will never know how everything was created. Religion fills in cracks such as these. It gives us answers to questions that science may never answer.
We are a curious species that craves knowledge; If science could provide us with limitless knowledge, religion would not exist.
I also believe its important to have a push when needed. Science in its exploration or maybe its competition with religion could cure cancer or reveal some other things. I don't believe all doctrine should be taken so literally. Almost like you should be able to make amendments to it like the constituition. If societ and modern time need to elaborate or make an amendment to than so be it. After all they can't amend the beginning because they can't disprove it. Same with the end, they can't prove or disprove that either. They can however evolve together. We can't stop great minds because what there exploring is opposite of a belief.
I believe it is important to accept both worldviews. A lot of people have a hard time with religion because it depends on faith. Trusting something is there without having "concrete" (scientific) proof. You can't touch it, observe it, measure it. But, without it, what is life? As Paul said above, people respect life when there is meaning behind it. We are obviously more than just electrical impulses and chemical reactions. There have to be reactions to the actions we take in life, not just immediate (which of course, are important,too), but eternal. I prefer not to think that "all we are is what we are" (a Nirvana song, I think.)(While I've been taking this course, I've noticed all sorts of connections on the radio, in the papers, etc! Gets you thinking) It's important to foster scientific explanations to make our lives better as we live here on earth, but we need to take care of our spiritual lives as well. I've always kind of explained scientific advances to myself as being attained through God's help. That's why I can't understand how some religions reject medical help, thinking that prayer will save them. I tend to believe that God has had a hand in giving doctors the wisdom and the means to do so. This gets slippery when looking at some "advances" (cloning, abortion, etc), but that will have to be saved for another day.
In discussing science versus religion we often say religion is based on faith and science is not. But this is misleading. Look up the philosophy of science and you will see at once that science is based on ASSUMPTIONS that are an article of faith - that's what an assumption is. It is not a fact. These assumptions include these: our senses are basically reliable; processes of logic used to come to scientific conclusions are valid processes; nature is uniform in its basic features; and so on. None of these are facts of science. They are all assumptions the scientist has to take "on faith" in order to get science off the ground.
So why do we accept these assumptions regarding science? For one thing, it enables us to explain a lot of things that seem to make life meaningful and provide a way to improve our lot.
In the same way, other assumptions can be valid for the same reasons - including assumptions that validate religious exploration.
Questions of the existence of God, the meaning of life, the principles of morality are just as valid as questions about the tool of science. But most people today do not realize that science is based on certain "faith" foundations. They mistakenly think we get facts directly, when that is not the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home