Monday, November 09, 2009

MORE ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Over the weekend, I felt that perhaps my previous post "On the Limitations of Science and Religion" needed some qualification. I was also reminded of one of my favourite essayists, the great English polymath Francis Bacon. In addition, Haye's boxing victory over "Beast from the East" Valuev is a reminder that the Davids of this world can still beat the Goliaths.

So to begin with the subject of science, on a day when the Government has announced a major expansion of nuclear capacity, with a Goliath-like fist shake to those Davids of the environmental movement who still oppose nuclear power, that it now has the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in its grasp ie this is going to be a fight, as things stand, with no independent referee ! Although the Conservatives have promised they will do something about this.

Unfortunately, nuclear power has always struck me a being a sort of technocratic religion, and it comes as no surprise that this relatively new religion has a growing number of environmentalist converts. I've previously noted in my other blog - http://janetmackinnon.wordpress.com/ in a post entitled From Forum for the Future to Fight the Future Forum - that I regard many so-called scientific environmentalists as repressed technocrats with a strong preference for top town centralised planning. Such Soviet-style planning has, incidentally, quite alot in common with most of the world's major religions where controlling edicts are passed down from on high to ordinary folk who aren't allowed to question them.

It has occurred to me, therefore, that in another life (whether previous, parallel reality, or future) that the entertainment impresario Simon Cowell may follow some kind of religious calling, or perhaps even convert to one in the later years of his present incarnation and establish a cult. Mr Cowell, it will be remembered, first came to fame with the show Pop Idol. However, following a dispute with the apparent "True Creator" of Pop Idol, he moved on to the X Factor.

The subject of idolatry brings me back to Francis Bacon and his own "Four Idols". Bacon is regarded by many as the first genuine philosopher of science, notwithstanding that he took a bribe whilst holding public office and died directly as a result of his scientific experimentation. However, whilst Bacon would have heartily approved of evidence-based policy making and, had he been alive today, might well have been a celebrity scientist like Professor Lord Winston, Bacon was too astute an observer of human nature to regard science as value free.

Thus he warns us against the following seductions or "idols", which I have adapted to present day culture and semantics and therefore advise readers to consult the original Bacon text. These "idols", which ever threaten to distort the facts, are as follows :

Idols of the Tribe - Scientific thinking is always circumscribed by the wider culture of individual and collective, including political and religious belief systems.

Idols of the Den - Science is subject to personal prejudice as evidenced by the cases of so-called "Expert Witnesses" whose evidence has turned out to be just plain wrong.

Idols of the Market Place - Society and economics ascribe more value to certain types of science than others, which may mean important research is not funded or funded properly.

Idols of the Media Circus - This does not just refer to the silliness which surrounds the likes of the X-Factor, but to the subjectiveness of the media in general on science and other subjects.

Moving on to the subject of religion, it may seem to some that my previous post expressed anti-religious or irreligious sentiments which I would have done well to suppress. In fact, I am, in general, a supporter of religions in their more spiritual forms, but not in the excessive materialism which most seem to support, and, indeed, encourage in their established forms. By materialism I do not mean only an excessive emphasis on the making of money whether through Western-style or state capitalism, but materialism in the Marxist sense which has no place for genuine spirituality. This said, I do not subscribe to the so- called "Doctrine of the Other Cheek" either, which some proponents of Buddhism, for instance, seem to favour, as an "Opt Out Clause" from tackling political and other worldly problems.

No comments: