Science vs. religion?

Science and religion are often pitted against each other. However, both are searches for wisdom via a narrow channel. The poorly informed and ‘lazy’ religious bigot is the same as the poorly informed and lazy science bigot. The religious zealot is the same as the atheist.

Science and religion I would argue, are teleological – they pursue a goal, an aim, a fulfilment – a telos. The "supreme end of man's endeavour" as Cicero put it. As such, they attract followers that see a cause with which to align. They appeal to tribalism. In most cases, this alignment is an accident of genealogical and geographical rituals, culture, and tradition. Science when it excludes all other possibilities for explaining anything, and religion, are the same.

The Enlightenment should have come with a “keep out of reach of children” warning.

We have an individual and local problem when lazy telos, unthinking, and laissez-faire being, is ignorantly or violently applied to a society. We have an extinction-level problem when science, technology, and mechanical mass production are added to this situation.

There is no ‘used for good’ of science when it is at the disposal of a species which is virtually unchanged since the advent of farming. Each tribe wants the good to apply to them, and not or less so to others unless they can gain an advantage from sharing a bit of the soon-to-be or actually obsolete knowledge. They want to maintain a superior position.

The wealthy societies farm others. They get them to do things for them. This is called ‘the free market’. ‘Freedom’ is promised to all if they just work harder. As they work harder, they can afford to consume more of the things they make, by buying them from the society that farmed them. This is how humans have been carrying on for thousands of years, and all that time we have had the mystical branch of philosophy called region. During this time humans have come to better understand the natural world and so have developed the experiential branch of philosophy called science.

Philosophy, literally meaning “the love of wisdom” (Philos – love or loving, and Sophos – wise), is the great tree on which these branches live, and it is in the pursuit of wisdom, rather than knowledge to which we should return.

The problem we have with this is democracy, or rather the word ‘democracy’ and what is meant by it, by the most economically successful system humanity has known – Capitalism. Not just any Capitalism, however. American Capitalism, which demands, requires, and entirely relies upon consumerism.

Democracy as currently delivered by the result of the religiously all-powerful ‘founding fathers’, has proved itself to be as deeply flawed as both Plato and said founding fathers thought it would be. It relies on definable and distinguishable ‘enough’ blocks of ‘the people’ being manipulated into fervently believing that an adversarial two-party system is ‘fair’, by an oligarchy of families and individuals. It was originally intended in the case of Plato and the founding fathers, that the most suitably qualified and able people would run things for the benefit of all.

We are a species being farmed by an oligarchy. Or rather, an oil-igarcy.

It is well known that I lean toward egalitarianism, but not in its extreme anarchistic expression. I am all for all being able to flourish according to their interests and abilities. Fund the arts, fund the health services, fund science, and use economic prosperity to bring about the golden age of enlightened philosophical advancement that IT gives us. Take the money from the oligarchs. I know it’s sloganistic, but isn’t this an ideal we should be aiming at since now, since we can?

What stops us and sticks us to our fate as a species, is that we are fooled by the promise of ridiculous ‘meme-think’, what used to be called ‘sound-bytes’. Promises that we can all be what we want to be, we can all be $millionaires, we can all be wealthy, and we can all aspire to the oligarchy. We can’t. I can’t be Jaco Pastorious. I also can’t be Picasso. No matter how hard I work. I can work really hard and buy more stuff. Or I can do what’s really necessary to attain in American Capitalism:

I can be as Machiavellian as humanly possible for me, and gain influence and power. Influence, influencers, that’s what we have now, this is how we’re using technology, to get more $dollars, and get more stuff, so we can show off.

Religion, as a teleological branch of philosophy, as the leading mystical home of philosophical advancement, where has that gone? It’s circled in on itself and as a philosophical pursuit has become weaponised by a tribal society that has not really advanced that much in thousands of years. Science, as the leading branch of experiential, empirical philosophical advancement, how’s that getting on in the hands of a tribal agricultural system? Science must be “in the service of mankind” – read, must make more $dollars – even when it’s making medicines, even when it’s exploring, there has to be a $dollar return.

As philosophical discussion should be, when it is of value, this edition of ‘Enough” is not a rallying call. It doesn’t prove anything; it doesn’t lead to a conclusion to throw out to the masses to see if they agree with it or not. It is part of a great discussion and the only thing I hope to achieve by acting on the compulsion I have to write these is to nudge people a little off track, engage thought, and encourage discussion and dialogue.

Oh, happy Gregorian New Year… and all that.