Is Science the New Religion?

by Mark Edon

Is science the new religion? Perhaps it should be. – What science means to me and why it is so much more than just a worldview

I grew up with the Voyager probes. My childhood seemed to mirror their grand journey from drawing board to launch pad to touring the solar system. Well, in my head anyway. I had a plastic space shuttle hanging from my bedroom ceiling and at least three separate models of different bits of the Apollo hardware. All poorly made and badly painted, but to me they became symbols of my own view of the world. My own grand tour consisted of getting a job in a local bank branch and starting a family. I wouldn’t change this but one thing has now lead to another and I find that my relationship with science has changed again.

Creationists meddling in my children’s school (a state one, probably yours too, only you don’t know about it) and looking at their loony materials inspired a renewed fascination with science, biology in particular, and I am now half way through an OU Life Sciences Degree which I work on around my full time job and family. I recently surprised myself at how strongly I cared about the science budget being protected from the cuts. I am now active in an anti-creationist group (BCSE), have had lunch with Genie Scott and I attend local Skeptics in the pub meetings.

So I feel that I am part of a growing section of society that reads science news with interest, glories in the latest TV documentary spectaculars and actually feels that some progress is being made in opposition to nonsense and pseudoscience with the fast approaching libel law reforms. Evidence based thinking is becoming more common with the phrases “evidence based medicine” and “evidence based politics” no longer a rare curiosity.

So what does science mean to me? Well, I think that it is all about the journey, or more accurately the method of locomotion. How do we move from one opinion to another better one? If that isn’t very clear then let me tell you what it isn’t and then I might be making more sense.

Science is not really a worldview.

A worldview is an answer. It is a forgone conclusion. E.g. the world is 6,000 years old. It is a dead end, a reason to stop. It is also often a great comfort because the answers claimed by worldviews always seem to coincide with something that the “worldviewer” seems to want anyway , e.g. “eternal bliss”, or perhaps “being part of a small group of heroic people who have the truth and are persecuted by an ignorant majority who will shortly learn the error of their ways on the end of a toasting fork”. It is also true that having a worldview can save you an awful lot of time and effort. You don’t exactly have to look into both sides of an argument do you? You don’t ask genuine questions to try to trip up your own arguments do you? I mean, who wants to make life difficult for themselves like that anyway? Just be nice to yourself, relax and stick to the script.

Why is this an important question? Sagan spoke about the importance of society understanding science when civilisation was built upon it. I agree but also feel that numpties and deniers alike have gotten much better at aping science and they are also much louder.

We now see numpties and deniers producing rhetoric that can sway the non-science educated intelligentsia and non-science educated non-intelligentsia alike. God of the gaps is so yesterday. Today the appeal of the rhetorically beautiful over plainly spoken facts means that this old tactic has evolved. You no longer need a god or even a gap. Creationists proceed sans gap and have developed the god of the shoe horn. Here is one veritable unsinkable rubber duck of an example as recently broadcast by BBC1 bending over backwards to have a balanced debate and so inflating the creationist side of the scales several thousand fold. We were treated toi the desperate cry, “But where does the information come from?” There are huge sections on this topic in the degree I’m doing. But I listen as Andy McIntosh pleads with an obstinately sinful world. I can almost hear him thinking that if he can just sound sincere enough then the atheist conspiracy that reaches worldwide through all branches of science, stretches back decades and crosses national, political and even ideological Borders, will immediately begin to crumble.

As it happens he just sounds desperately deluded. But if you don’t know what he is talking about, lets say you haven’t just spent weeks working through it on an OU course, and lets also say that you don’t have a way of finding out, of weighing the pros and cons of his position, then you can be swayed by him and people like him.

People like Andy no longer bother looking around for rocks that science hasn’t looked under yet. They don’t even bother looking for areas where not enough evidence is in yet and we can’t pluck out a winning theory from competing hypotheses. Nowadays a glib phrase is enough “where does the information come from?”.

“What?”, says the intelligent, eloquent, politically aware and socially mature person who also just happens not to be very scientifically aware, “you mean they don’t even know that?”.

Other folks manage the god of the gaps tactic without a god. Homeopaths certainly don’t dilute their heavy handed hints that there is stuff about water we just don’t know. Through that gap they squeeze into the public’s wallets to sell their magic water.

We even have people that use the god of the gaps rhetoric with neither a god nor a gap. Step forward the intelligent design brigade. Denying their origins. And ignoring a lack of gaps they just spout empty rhetoric. They have hit upon the fact that if you make your claims totally scientifically ridiculous you will avoid the attention of the big beasts of the science jungle and perhaps even the media too who dismiss you as not worthy of their attention. Leaving you free to use your rhetorical powers on those who may well be intelligent and fair minded but lack the basic science education to realise that they are being lied too.

What leads people to perpetrate such nonsense Apart from the fact that it works?

It’s that worldview thing again. It is a final destination for most. It is the end of a quest for an easy life. It is an end to all that hard work involved in making your mind up about something and it is the very antithesis of science. It doesn’t involve thinking, just reacting. When you get into it it takes hardly any effort at all.

I can’t think of a better contrasting example that makes my point for me than James Dellingpole describing the moment when he couldn’t answer a question put to him about his views on Global Warming, by the gently smiling science bruiser Paul Nurse, as “intellectual rape”. Being asked a pertinent question that you have no answer to is about as far from rape as I can imagine. In fact it’s just the kind of thing that science loves. It might just, after all, be a precursor to learning something and perhaps even (brace yourself James) changing your mind.

Changing your mind about something is one of the objectives of scientific thinking. Well kind of. I mean to say that changing your mind in the light of logical argument backed up by evidence is one of the objectives of science. Nobel prizes are given for this kind of thing. Far from being intellectual rape this is pretty close to an intellectual orgasm.

So OK, yes, take science as your world view. But remember that it is a world view that actually frees you from all worldviews while censoring you from none. Welcome to intellectual freedom. Welcome to taking pleasure in changing your mind. Welcome to a rewarding , stimulating and (this will surprise those of other world views) comforting and purposeful way of living your life.

Anyway must get back to exploring this wonderful reality with help of a madly grinning Mancunian, that scottish geologist bloke and the folks on Bang Goes the Theory.

Mark Edon sits on the committee for the British Centre for Science Education. The views and opinions expressed here are his own.

This entry was posted in Featured, opinion, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Is Science the New Religion?

  1. Both McIntosh and Dellingpole are driven by the same kind of snivelling wishful thinking; “A implies B, but I don’t like B, therefore I have decided to believe that A is false.” Dellingpole, by his own account, is not scientifically qualified, but he doesn’t like the idea of government interference with industry, therefore he believes that climate science is false. McIntosh does not like having to question Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s interpretation of St Paul’s interpretation of Original Sin, therefore evolution science is false. Everything else is transparent rationalisation.

    What is remarkable about all this, is how they get away with it. McIntosh gets invited by the BBC; Dellingpole gets his column in the Telegraph. Why?

  2. Jeuan David Jones says:

    The BBC creationist project was very annoying and I had to stop watching it. Blood pressure.

    But it was more exasperating that the BBC seemed to be accommodating these idiotic views without any apparent challenges. Or did I miss something?

  3. Lesmond says:

    The construction of Delingpole’s (specious) arguments wouldn’t look out of place coming from a middling high school debating team, yet he clearly suffers the delusion that he is possessed of a scathing, penetrating intellect. It’s the Dunning-Kruger effect in beautiful motion.

  4. Stephen says:

    One strategy to win a debate is to set it up so that you have researched some aspect of a topic, then spring a question on your opponent. Then launch your slick presentation with cool looking videos and slick graphics that brings the judges (or audience) over to your point of view. Science however, doesn’t work this way. Science does not care about the real time debate. Science self corrects over the long term. So answering ID “is not” arguments with “is so”, isn’t very productive. Even if you happen to be up on the question, there may not be an “is so” answer handy. It’s better to take a previous attack and show how the attack was clearly false. Do a good job of it. Then go one step further. Say that this result, just shown is correct after all, was deemed false by [fill in the blank organization]. They clearly lied . If [said organization] is willing to lie to you about this, what else is it willing to lie about? Clearly, [said organization] is untrustworthy.

    Of course, in Science, it’s the ideas that are important, not the people who deliver them. There are no authorities. If a guy unearths Barbie dolls in his back yard and claims it means that there were miniature people in our ancient past, it’s unlikely to make it into the list of items in the scientific consensus.

    As recently as the 1800’s, a wealthy individual could afford to have a copy of essentially all the important books ever written, and could read them all. While the Library of Congress may have a copy of all the important books, no one could possibly read them all. The trouble with real Science these days is that while it’s pretty easy to make a smoking volcano for your science fair, it’s not so easy to show that Type Ia Supernovae always detonate with the same luminance. It takes more resources than most people have. We may be stuck with Science Canon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s