How can we see that modern science and religion are actually just one and the same thing, expressed differently?
I decided to write this article to clarify my understanding that modern science and classical religion are the same in principle. Last night I tried to explain to my brother that both are merely vehicles for transforming social faith into social power. No matter the lucidity and reasonableness of the arguments I put forth he would not consider what I had to say, believing, incorrectly, that I was belittling so-called "science" and in turn affronting him. This attitude is typical of most people who see the religion-science dichotomy in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of the function they play in an organized society.
Faith is the belief in something that cannot be directly shown or observed. Religion is an exercise in faith because its central tenet - God - is "objectively" unqualifiable. Many people believe that this undermines the entire religious perspective in an age of so-called "objective science". What they don't realize is that, in essence, the scientific and religious perspectives serve the same social function and are more similar than they are different.
People of the rational, scientific persuasion are often diametrically opposed to religious knowledge because it is admittedly derived from faith. What they don't usually understand is that the scientific perspective is also based on faith. For example, one must have faith that numbers do in fact exist because they are nowhere to be found. One won't discover numbers running around in the woods like wild animals. One cannot feel them on one's skin; touch, smell, taste or otherwise sense them. They do not rise every morning or fall every evening. Faith is the belief in something that we cannot perceive with our senses. Numbers, like "God", must be explained to us by people who already understand them. Numbers, the foundation of measurement, the building block of empiricism and the heart of modern science, are an exercise in faith.
Imagine a time before the advent of modern science. Much like today there would have been a man who knew things most others did not. Perhaps he knew that a certain constellation would appear every year during harvest time, or that a particular type of person was disposed to a certain ailment. He acquired much of his knowledge from his ancestors, passed down to him in books or legend, and some he learned from observation. But perhaps most important of all, was not what he knew but what he didn't know but could convince people he did. He knew that by tying together all of the disparate facts and observations he knew into a story he could sell that story and purchase authority with the proceeds.
Imagine if you spent your entire day farming. Doubtless, you wouldn't have time to contemplate the rotation of the stars. If someone approached you with compelling explanations for their rotation, as well as how that affected you personally, you might just believe him. Especially if he could demonstrate his knowledge of things you didn't know, such as the appearance of the constellation Centaurus in May. It is conceivable then that this person who knew things you did not, who dazzled you with what he knew, would discover that a certain authority came with the possession of esoteric knowledge. It is entirely likely that he would seek to further solidify that power by manufacturing more knowledge and use it to manifest his will over others.
Modern scientists do nothing more than assemble compelling stories around pieces of knowledge and sell them to the public. The public purchases these stories with faith, which translates into social esteem and authority. People will argue that science and religion exist to answer questions. Yes, both science and religion serve to answer questions, but equally important is that they offer positions of social prominence and authority to their practitioners. Seen this way, both science and religion are empires built on the production of esoteric knowledge, mortared by the faith of their adherents.
Participants in the science-religion dichotomy suggest that one of the chief differences between science and religion is that science is democratic and allows anyone to contribute. At one time this might have been true, but now it is hardly the case. To participate in science one has to first accept the scientific method, a process which is learned at an establishment. Participation in both is open only to those who are indoctrinated in universities or churches. Those without proper education in either the scientific or religious methods are not permitted a voice. Non-scientists (those without degrees) stand as much a chance of being heard by the scientific establishment as non-clergy. Both science and religion effectively ensure the continuation of their respective institutions by excluding those who fundamentally disagree with their premise. Neither establisments are democratic, for true democracy is inclusive to all who wish to participate.
To the indoctrinated, both the scientific and religious establishments, for all intents and purposes, are the same. A scientist, in studying nature, will posit his new interpretation in the same way that a member of the clergy would; by sharing with friends, allies and supporters. If the veracity of the claim were all that were considered in its implementation then all truthful facts would immediately replace the false. But we know this is not the case, as many of the interpretations we now accept as truth were for many years ignored or even violently suppressed. Once again, this is because institutional interpretations, whether scientific or religious, are integral to inveterate power structures. Interpretations will change when power structures change, and they only change after political upheaval.
Yes, science does evolve and does admit new facts and insights. But so too does the religious establishment; just look at how Christianity has evolved since its inception. But this process is neither democratic nor determined by truth. Like in religion, there are reigning interpretations, supported by deeply-entrenched interest groups that do not sway easily by the findings of outsiders however truthful, fact-based, or "objective" they may be. They certainly can and do change - in both science and religion - but only after a process that is more violent than democratic. The fact is, both institutions contain within them the means to evolve, but the process by which that evolution occurs is ultimately political in nature because both institutions are themselves vehicles of power.
Modern science is also modern religion and classical religion is also classical science. They are both elitist institutions which derive power from the manufacture and dissemination of knowledge, willingly purchased by the public with faith. In terms of one another, the rise of modern science represents a schism in the empire of those who manufacture knowledge to gain power.
This article might lead some to consider alternative organizational forms which permit true omnidynamic knowledge creation without the erection of empires of knowledge. I will explore this topic in subsequent posts.
>> "Knowledge is power." - Sir Francis Bacon
>> “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Bible, Hebrews 11:1
>> "There is no knowledge that is not power." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>> "Science investigates. Religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power. Religion gives man wisdom, which is control." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
>> " The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall." - Francis Bacon, Sr.
>> "Religion without science is superstition and science without religion is materialism." - Abdu'l-Bahá
