From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 12:45:45 BST
Hi Sam,
If this were 1959, I would agree with you. But there does seem to be a
scientific backlash, granted, by a minority, but a significant one, and the
minority is not just in one group, but it is a cross section of the
population. Let me list a few
organic gardeners
alternative medicine users
midwives, and their patients
neo-luddites
whole foods folks
the hospice movement
green development
exercise versus diet pill practitioners
The pervasiveness of science is being questioned everyday, by everyday
people. I think the science-will- save-us genie is being put back in his
box. As a mythology, we've restricted its powers to explanation, as in,
"Science tell us what is the property that makes this herb affective against
this disease," rather than "Science use your magic to save me from this
disease."
Phyllis
> "Science, like painting. has a higher aesthetic. Science can be poetry.
Science can be spiritual,
> even religious in a non-supernatural sense of the word." (Richard
Dawkins).
>
> When I say that science is built upon a particular mythology, what I mean
is that science as a
> culturally flourishing phenomenon is propagated by the telling of
particular stories; that those
> stories embody particular values and goals; and those values and goals are
ones that are inherently
> religious, they are values and goals that were previously articulated by
religion in general, and
> Christianity in particular. Thus, the key clash between Christianity and
science is not that between
> a lower and a higher order of intellectual evolution, but between rival
mythologies.
>
> One of my principal sources for this belief is a book by the philosopher
Mary Midgley, "Science as
> Salvation: a modern myth and its meaning" (Routledge, 1992), which is
excellent and warmly
> recommended. She writes (p13) "We understand today that it is a bad idea
to exterminate the natural
> fauna of the human gut. But trying to exterminate the natural fauna and
flora of the human
> imagination is perhaps no more sensible. We have a choice of what myths,
what visions we will use to
> help us understand the physical world. We do not have a choice of
understanding it without using any
> myths or visions at all. Again, we have a real choice between becoming
aware of these myths and
> ignoring them. If we ignore them, we travel blindly inside myths and
visions which are largely
> provided by other people. This makes it much harder to know where we are
going."
>
> So what I would like to do here is try and articulate what I see as the
'foundation myth' (or
> meta-narrative) of science. I see this foundation as something which
provides both the motivation
> force for particular scientists (especially the cultural apologists like
Dawkins) and also as
> responsible for the more general acceptance of science within Modern
culture.
>
> ~~~
>
> Once upon a time our ancestors lived in the darkness of ignorance and
superstition. Their lives were
> afflicted by all sorts of horrors - disease was rampant, borne on the
backs of dirt and dust, and
> life was nasty, brutish and short. The Church oppressed free thinking, and
forced people - at the
> point of torture - to accept the rulings of priests and popes, whose
authority was arbitrary and
> archaic, and whose superstitions led to countless wars. Slowly, a few
brave men resisted this
> oppression; they thought for themselves, they demanded evidence and clear
reasons. The Church acted
> against them - they oppressed them with censure, they silenced them and
imprisoned them, in some
> cases they even burned them alive. Yet the truth could not be hidden for
ever. After a long period
> of particularly bloody warfare, when Protestants and Catholics slaughtered
each other for decades,
> leaving nearly a third of the population of Germany dead behind them, our
ancestors set up a new way
> of life. This new way of life was born in England at the end of the
seventeenth century, in a
> Glorious Revolution. The authority of religious figures was reduced, and
free thought was
> encouraged. Two men in particular allowed a new world to come into being.
John Locke showed how we
> could be governed by Reason, both in the political realm without, and our
own moral life within. No
> opinion should be held that could not be demonstrated without sufficient
Reason, and in all things
> Reason should be our guide. Isaac Newton solved the major problems of
astronomy and physics, and
> demonstrated how the world operated according to clear mathematical rules.
This Glorious Revolution
> allowed humanity to progress out from under the cruel yoke of religious
tyranny and bigotry. Since
> that time, we have become Enlightened and, although not all our problems
have been solved, we have
> made tremendous Progress. The methods of Reason, of Empirical
Investigation and Science, have been
> demonstrated to have tremendous power, and we can have confidence that all
the difficulties that we
> face can be met by their continued diligent application. We have made
tremendous strides in
> medicine, so that diseases and pestilence are kept in check. We have
improved the fertility of the
> land so that now there is plenty to eat. We have voyaged from the face of
the earth and stood upon
> the moon, looking down upon the planet of our birth. We have made such
Progress, but the struggle
> with the old ways continues. Around the globe we still see the effect of
the old superstitious ways
> of thinking. In Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, in the Middle East, we still
see people who are
> dominated by religious understandings. It is only through Enlightenment
that there is hope for
> peace. For it is not only in the practical and physical realms that the
methods of Science can aid
> us. As Science progresses, we need to rely less and less upon the
traditions of the past, for we can
> rely upon a sure foundation for knowledge, and have confidence in its
prodigality for our future.
> Most importantly, now that we have Science, we no longer have to resort to
superstition when faced
> with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What
is man? Science can
> provide us with the answers, and only Science can offer us the prospect of
a better life.
>
> ~~~
>
> What I would want to emphasise in this story is the 'drama of salvation',
ie that 'once we were in
> darkness, but now we have seen a great light', and that 'the light shines
in the world and the
> darkness does not overcome it'. In other words, although the setting of
the story is different, the
> power of the story is deeply dependent upon a religious (Christian)
sensibility, ie we needed to be
> saved, and it is Science that has saved us, and it is by holding fast to
Science that we can retain
> salvation. The distinctive difference between this narrative and the prior
Christian narrative is
> primarily in the virtues that allow for participation in salvation.
Instead of corporate (social)
> values like loyalty, obedience, self-sacrifice etc, now the virtues that
are emphasised are
> independence, autonomy and moral courage.
>
> My point is not to say that there is no truth in this scientific mythology
(somewhat the contrary),
> only to point out that it exists, and that it needs to be evaluated and
assessed. I think that it is
> largely unconscious (the extent to which it is unconscious can be gauged
by how far you think the
> story is "the truth"), and, for better or worse, I think it needs to be
brought out into the open.
>
> There's much more that I could say, but doubtless it will all emerge in
discussion. That'll do for
> now.
>
> Sam
> "People nowadays think that scientists exist to instruct them, poets,
musicians, etc. to give them
> pleasure. The idea that these have something to teach them - that does not
occur to them."
> (Wittgenstein, 1939)
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 12:40:42 BST