SCIENCE RELIGION, A HISTORICAL VIEW

----------------------------------------------------------------

S y n o p s i s (maybe it is all of it?)

=========================

In comparing the "religions" in the course of mankind's history, we may draw similarities, in spite of all the differences. All originated in the sensory experiences from nature, entering the mind of the more imaginative individuals with awe. Explanations were sought at the level of the time's actual cognitive, social, and environmental complexity level. The speculative process inadvertently bounced into unexplainable - paradoxical - momenta, which triggered some

features of explanatory powers, at ancient times mostly observed effects, later on supernatural imagined factors. These supernatural factors, of course, shaped with superhuman capabilities, even forms, gave rise to a world 'above' the conditions of the weak, terrified, and miserable humans. These factors controlled our life, our happiness, or the catastrophes - which were otherwise not explainable in reasonably balanced thinking. There were units of this kind

for all diverse role, starting with the extra-capable animals, through their personified format, shaping int personified capabilities as superhuman creatures, maybe as transition of animal-like, (even stylized "not-like") imaginary beings.

Those, with more livid imagination, stronger brain-power and communicative skills constructed a world of such belief and spread it to the more simple minds in formulating a complete image of the 'supernatural' - controlling us.

Diverse societies in diverse times had diverse supernatural 'teachings'. The representatives gained political/economic power or the political/economic power took used the representatives, the life of societies became adjusted to the story of the appropriate supernatural 'teaching', call them cultic, shamanic, religious, when the exploitation of the

crowd had its way through such faith, both by terrorizing with afterworld threats and with crude violence using the impressibility of the faithful crowd.

Societal development favored a strongman to take hold of power above the others. In parallel, the 'supernatural society' (now more and more turning into a super-anthropomorph image) developed levels of power of the gods, to end up with one chief in most cases. Since the strongman didn't tolerate competition - mostly killed them off, or chased them away - the supernatural society of gods also concentrated the power into the image of one 'chief' god, degrading the others into subservient roles. Since there were "adept" representatives of each god in the human societies, the most powerful adept concentrated the supernatural power to his own god and as this one became the 'chief', the corresponding shaman or priest eliminated the shamans or priests of the 'lesser' gods already degraded to lower roles.

A monotheistic supernatural world was on its way, especially in the western world. Other large populations, the more tolerant and philosophical thinkers, kept the cooperative society of gods in their faith still to this day. The religious systems evolved over millennia and were lasting for millennia. Many learned (religious) thinkers pondered the mystical in their logical mind and adjusted their system to the best philosophical balance of human thinking. Their (religious) 'edfice' of the world gave answers to all paradoxes, equilibrated the inequities, appeared as impeccable and complete in the terms of the appropriate religious thinking of the faithful. Some excelled in philosophical thought (e.g. Buddhism), some in the smoothness of living together in a diversified society (e.g. Hinduism), some in a strong societal bind and order, (e.g. Islam and Christianity), or in the strength of tradition for survival (e.g. Judaism) etc. etc. The faithful find explanations to phenomena observed in nature and the concerning emergent supernatural questions from the mind. The systems are complete, the edifice of the world is well build and not attackable - from within. There is a live and intimate relationship with the favored God - mostly in anthropomorphic belief - we are speaking now about the past two millennia.

The God speaks in human language(s), cares for individual people, has emotions, logic, mental disposition according and responding to the level and disposition of the appropriate faithful person.

The mental development, however, of homo sapiens opened up another way of mental interest around two millennia ago. Speculation on one's own way of the mind, rather than how spiritual leaders said. Individual thinking and looking for explanations, in terms of one's own observations in nature - rather than listening to mystics. A quantitative logic spread especially in the part of humanity we call western and associated nations, (add to the wider region of the Mediterranean also the early Americas). A new view of the world entered the philosophy of these nations, a view based on the quantitative and sensory observations and on the logical comparisons, called: the 'scientific' view.

The edifice of the world was built in the minds parallel to the growth of the epistemic cognitive inventory of the natural observations - and was fitted into the already accepted image of the "fact-based" (scientific) speculation. This became considerably different from the "teachings-based" speculations, within the former religious systems. It gave a feeling for the individual of being able to personally reproduce and prove the "facts" as "objective truth" vs. the mystical teaching entirely from others in the religions. Indeed science is also based on teaching by others, the student personally reproduced very little of the material learned (unconditionally) from the 'reputable' teachers, who obtained most of their knowledge similarly from "their" most reputable teachers. It is the power of mathematical equations which gave such flair, the acceptance of the farther origins which usually got lost in the prior art all the way down to unproven axioms.

Let us repeat a sentence from above about the religious and apply it to the scientific, with a minor change: omitting the "super" and inserting the word "forces" (both marked with an *):

>"Those, with more livid imagination, stronger brain-power and communicative skills constructed such belief and spread it to the more simple minds in formulating a complete image of the *natural *'forces', - controlling us."< - Referring to the 'chosen' adepts.

The science-system - just as was the explanatory religious phase - is restricted to select "adepts" and is seeking satisfactory explanations to observations in nature. After centuries of prosecution by the religious powers, lately it provides a new power of wealth in cooperation of the 'thinkers' and the 'appliers'. During the course of the development, science can work only with the restricted amount of experience of the preceding times, - as a result the development proceeds through errors, (neatly tucked into the edifice), which made it hard to correct the errors in the course of the later evolved newer findings. It was a long struggle to replace the flat Earth image, or even to introduce the zero.

Mathematical proof is a strong stifling power (the completeness of the quantitative Newtonian formalism was an obstacle in the further evolution of the new physical world views) and it even made some paradoxes acceptable. The adepts, shamans and priests of the new science religion are in concert with the societal/economic power and eliminate the competition. Language serves conservatism: the words are connected to meanings of the past, the

new ideas are hard to express with them and new words are not so easy to construct, not to mention: to get them generally accepted. The 'heretics', stepping out from the words of the Bible of Science, i.e. the past formalism, are burnt on the stake of isolation, denial and ridicule: the means of developmental funding and publication are controlled by the powers of the formalistic faithful; the inevitable mistakes and incompleteness in breaking new ways for new ideas are singled out as fatal flaws and used as cause for rejection - the excommunication from the Valhalla of science.

A "scientific revolution" is like a reform-movement in religion. The (Protestant?) quantum scientists, as were the Darwinists, Copernicans, Freudians as well, are still within the religion - with a change. The basis is the old faith, only some features are renewed. A really new view, as in a new world view, with ideas different from a 'modified' (physicalistic?) creationism is still unacceptable and heretic. Yet: our epistemic evolution, philosophical ideas about nature and her life, the system in a total completeness requires a major break from those restrictions which were the result of the timely insufficiency of information (knowledge?) and were all formulated as quantized results based upon the earlier speculation within those incomplete circumstances.

The anthropocentric thinking in terms of a past mindset is part of the science-religion. We are still tempted to consider ourselves as the exceptional children of God, out- and above- nature, not just another ape with more developed complexity than what most animals have.

Priests of the Science-Religion: think about it.

================================

(Closing note: one reader of the above essay retorted: I will not condone calling Real Science a "superstition"! Well, superstition it is not, it is a state of the human mind - and we are not yet at the epistemic level to identify Real Science. One side serves the peace of the mind, the other the material well being of people "here on Earth". One brought the Inquisition and the religious (cult) wars, the other the atomic bomb and environmental deterioration. Both sides have quite a limited number of adepts who can claim to understand(?) the principles they represent for the faithful flock.)

Reference: Kitty Ferguson: The Fire in the Equations, 1994 (Wm B Eerdmans Publ.Co)

--------------------------------

Addendum:

A reply on the <complex-community@necsi.org> list to a post of Zard Sarty (<zsarty@v-wave.com), May 24, 2000, - who wrote (Re: Science Religion):

>John Mikes:

> For sometime now, I have formulated a question for which I have difficulty to find an university plausible answer. I wonder if any of you, accomplished individuals wish to help find any answer to this question?

>HOW DO WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT PEAKS OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE & THE CONTRADICTION INHERENT WITHIN IT?

> We know that, purposeful intervention is most effective with young humans. A local politician, where I live, has proposed to publicly finance, all religious schools. How can he be told that he may have been mislead by his parents and should not mislead his children?

> Zard

Dear Zard, I think you formulated the question with no answer. At least I have none at this time. The way I started this thread on this list was the position that "mindset" is not arguable, because it controls the argument. I have not expressed this in so many words, but I think the essence was readable: from a religious mindset you cannot judge the rightfulness of the scientific mindset just as well as from a scientific mindset you cannot judge the rightfulness of a religious mindset. Both are based on "teachings" and both argue the truthfulness of their own position.

I am on the scientific side, yet accept that an overwhelming majority of the 6 billion humans are religiously set. As societal survival goes, I believe we cannot establish a cultured, civilized, stable and SAFE society at the present level of our development without the restrictions of religions - for all the layers of the human population (I am sorry to say). Science is not (yet?) capable of restraining many kinds of "bad emotions". Fear maybe a break, but I believe religion is less destructive than e.g. a 'fascist' dictatorship - which could do that by brutality.

There are no jumps in natural evolution. It may well be that those religious schools your politician wants to support implant a mindset which we would deem superstitious, unscientific, disturbing, but IMO it causes less harm in TODAY's siciety than the free violent nihilism of teenagers (dropouts, maybe) coming from public schools into the inner city gangs. I am not labeling graduates from religious schools as generally better than public-school graduates, but it seems that less of them get lost in the abysses of the diversity of societal demise.

(I must confess to guesswork: there are defects at both sides and I have no truthful evaluation on the ratio of failures from either side).

I wish the societal evolution would accelerate! Please, do not generalize the thin layer of more educated and more scientifically thinking people of today into the entirety of the human society. Pessimistic? maybe so, but realistic. JM