Scientism
My Constitutional theories have never been popular, but I don't see how we can go on treating religion the way we do. Christianity is a religion (several religions, I guess) according to the Constitution. Buddhism, Taoism, and Scientology are all religions, subject to the establishment clause. Especially with those last three, the supernatural elements are either missing or stupid. So why isn't "Scientism", as I will call it, being treated as a religion by the government?
By Scientism, I mean the scientific world-view, complete with "creation story", beliefs about the supernatural (i.e. that it doesn't exist), and inherent negation of other religions. Are there any good reasons not to consider this a religion? You could argue that it doesn't posit a god, but neither do Scientology or Confucianism. Unless I'm mistaken, Scientology explicitly denies the supernatural -- hence the name. Scientologists are obviously wrong, but since when was rightness a criterion for judging religions?
Adherents of Scientism seldom go into religious ecstasies -- there's not much spiritual feeling among the empiricist community -- but then, who does? I'm willing to bet that Presbyterians are no more likely to have a spiritual experience than evolutionists. Besides, using adherents' spirituality as a criterion for judging what is a religion is bigoted. Most Scientologists are just in it for the money, but "true" Scientologists are still real believers in a real religion. Devout Christians don't consider themselves religious either; they believe themselves to have a "relationship" with Christ. Likewise, most Scientists wouldn't consider themselves religious, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that Scientism makes real claims about the fundamental nature of the universe, the purpose of life, and the origin of everything.
Most of those claims are negative. Almost all of them are negative, it being in the nature of Science to disprove more than it proves. But they are claims nevertheless, and implacably opposed to Christianity et al. It's my religion, I guess (I feel stupid saying that) and I naturally think it's the right religion, but that doesn't make it Constitutional for the government to fund scientific projects; especially not cosmological projects like the Hubble Telescope. Knowledge about distant stars has bearing on religion.
The natural response is probably to say "but science gets results. It's not just airy thought about the big questions. It's thanks to the scientific frame of mind that we have supercomputers and ballpoint pens." This misses the point, though. Religions don't get special status, and especially not special consideration from the government, by being true. Christians think Christianity is correct. They write tracts about it, citing the prophets whose prophecies are miraculously coming to life. That's evidence enough for them, and if you think that the peer-review/hypothesis-experiment method is better, well, that's just, like, your opinion. You would think that, as a Scientist, and it is not for the government to rule on disputes between religions.
By Scientism, I mean the scientific world-view, complete with "creation story", beliefs about the supernatural (i.e. that it doesn't exist), and inherent negation of other religions. Are there any good reasons not to consider this a religion? You could argue that it doesn't posit a god, but neither do Scientology or Confucianism. Unless I'm mistaken, Scientology explicitly denies the supernatural -- hence the name. Scientologists are obviously wrong, but since when was rightness a criterion for judging religions?
Adherents of Scientism seldom go into religious ecstasies -- there's not much spiritual feeling among the empiricist community -- but then, who does? I'm willing to bet that Presbyterians are no more likely to have a spiritual experience than evolutionists. Besides, using adherents' spirituality as a criterion for judging what is a religion is bigoted. Most Scientologists are just in it for the money, but "true" Scientologists are still real believers in a real religion. Devout Christians don't consider themselves religious either; they believe themselves to have a "relationship" with Christ. Likewise, most Scientists wouldn't consider themselves religious, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that Scientism makes real claims about the fundamental nature of the universe, the purpose of life, and the origin of everything.
Most of those claims are negative. Almost all of them are negative, it being in the nature of Science to disprove more than it proves. But they are claims nevertheless, and implacably opposed to Christianity et al. It's my religion, I guess (I feel stupid saying that) and I naturally think it's the right religion, but that doesn't make it Constitutional for the government to fund scientific projects; especially not cosmological projects like the Hubble Telescope. Knowledge about distant stars has bearing on religion.
The natural response is probably to say "but science gets results. It's not just airy thought about the big questions. It's thanks to the scientific frame of mind that we have supercomputers and ballpoint pens." This misses the point, though. Religions don't get special status, and especially not special consideration from the government, by being true. Christians think Christianity is correct. They write tracts about it, citing the prophets whose prophecies are miraculously coming to life. That's evidence enough for them, and if you think that the peer-review/hypothesis-experiment method is better, well, that's just, like, your opinion. You would think that, as a Scientist, and it is not for the government to rule on disputes between religions.
posted by apk01004 at 6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home