Science as a quasi-religion
Recently, I picked up a new course at the university, which is more focused on the ethical and philosophical side of technology than the others. As a preliminary assignment, I was asked for a comment on a podcast called “Zukunft Denken”, lead by the lecturer. My episode of choice was 106 - Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit Manfred Glauninger (“Science as a replacement religion? A talk with Manfred Glauninger”). The following article is my comment on the topic and I hope you enjoy reading it. Since this course is ongoing, there will be a series of such short articles. So, without further ado and with God’s grace, let’s get into it.
Some decades ago, Fr. Seraphim Rose, an Orthodox monk, made the following remark in his book “Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age”:
It may be doubted, indeed, if there exists such a thing as “atheism,” for no one denies the true God except to devote himself to the service of a false god.
The podcast episode deals with the treatment of science as a new quasi-religion. I agree that this is the case. When one reflects on Fr. Seraphim’s statement in the context of the podcast, we can do a short comparison between religion, for example Orthodox Christianity, and science. For a religion to be a religion we can agree that it needs the following:
- faith;
- object of worship;
- worshippers;
- hierarchy;
- sacraments/mysticism.
Faith is the core of all religions. As Christians believe in God, so a person can believe in science. Numerous times in the last few years have we heard the sentence “I believe in science” or “I trust science”. Science is so complex that nobody can simply grasp it all. Here comes the element of belief. For example, The Big Bang Theory is still just a theory, but it has been taken as an axiom. Otherwise, we go in the realm of metaphysics and most scientists do not want to deal with it (the podcast mentions that scientists should also be philosophers and vice versa, I also agree with this).
Object of worship - in Christianity this is God, represented by the Holy Trinity, whereas in science this is not so clearly defined. One may say that there are different cults - Darwin (e.g., Thomas Huxley), mathematics and algorithms (e.g. “Calculemus!” by Leibnitz), ecology, technology and biology (e.g. Aldous Huxley) etc. The point is that one believes in something that will change the world for the best or is the answer to all things.
Science has worshippers (e.g. “popular science”, the science “believers” from before), which is natural as all people (Christians inclusive) aim for worship. We were just created this way. When God as an object of worship has been taken away from us, we replace Him in our hearts and fill the empty space with an idol - a favourite politician, an imaginary universe, a pop star, science and even ourselves. Even nihilists, being the ultimate non-believers, worship something - nihilism. This is what blessed memory Fr. Seraphim Rose meant in the quote above. And I think that each one of us should at least think which are the idols that we hold dear.
Next point is hierarchy. Hierarchy is present by institutionalizing science (mentioned in the podcast), whereas in Christianity - God is above all on the “ladder”.
Sacraments (rituals) in Christianity are the Liturgy, Eucharist, Marriage, Baptism etc. Mysticism comes, for example, from the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ. In science, we can view different symposiums and ceremonies as rituals. For example, the ritual of a graduation ceremony also has mysticism included - one is closing a book in one’s life, opening another. Even the clothing is ritualistic - caps and gowns, and can be compared to the clothing of priests and deacons.
In my view, science is a tool in one’s hands and should not be an object of worship or go into autopoetism. It has been given to us to explore and marvel at the beauties that God has created for us, thus increasing our worship to Him. The Creator, not the creation. As mentioned in the podcast, science will not make you happy and it is not all-reachable. Physics end where metaphysics begin. It should be used, viewed critically (whenever possible, we all know bias is a thing) and developed further not for the sake of itself, but for the sake of the better good of all of us and for the sake of worshipping Him. Finally, it should not aim to give sense to our lives. There are other things that do this much better.
Note: I would also like to wish all of you a blessed Lent, full of grace.