Facebook, Science & Religion
I can only shake my head in amazement at much of what I read on Facebook. Facebook, that great Id of a living consciousness is a window into the soul of America. Maybe, even the world. Every debate rages. And every opinion is shared by a like mind, no matter how dark and insane. And there is an abundance of insanity, just about everywhere you look.
Recently, I saw a post by Sir David Attenborough, the English voice of nature lovers around the world, myself included. In the post, Attenborough gently raged against humanity as a pestilence, never quite saying that outright, but strongly suggesting it, nonetheless. According to Attenborough, wherever humans went, they brought death and destruction.
For Attenborough, no religion of devils and angels could say it with more reprobation. And, as one might expect, his acolytes followed suit, offering their disgust with humanity, whom they viewed as a plague. Unlike Attenborough, they never hesitated to say so.
Some suggested that the science of Eugenics was wrongly ascribed to Hitler and the Nazis. It wasn’t science that was at fault, they said, but bad science that led directly and indirectly to the deaths of nearly 100 million people. Some by bombs, others in death camps, still other by agreement of Hitler’s allies and their collective actions. Yes, according to them, it was bad science. Not true science.
Remarkably, they never saw their views as religious or faith based. Because religion was to be disdained. Their disgust for religion ran deep. Far more deeply than their understanding of either religion or history. In fact, what they knew about religion could fit on the back of a postage stamp. Even that much attention to religion, for them, could be dismissed as a waste of time.
Of course, when I say they are religious, what I mean, is that they have faith. Faith in Attenborough, even though he isn’t an actual scientist. Faith in various other scientists like Paul Erlich whose book “The Population Bomb” sold in the millions in the 1970’s and produced many disciples, including Al Gore. Erlich turned out to be wrong about virtually everything, but no matter. If his dates were wrong, his prophecy was still true, said his disciples, with as much religious fervor and loyalty as any member of a church or synagogue.
Here’s the thing, science isn’t true. It’s a method, a tool, like a screwdriver. A fine tool, no doubt. A tool that can enable humans to learn extraordinary things, but it can just as easily lead to hideously wrong conclusions, and the history of eugenics, makes that clear.
It is arrogance coupled with limited knowledge, absent the necessary facts which makes science, possibly, the most dangerous religion of all. If the 20th century is a testament to anything, it testifies to that fact. And long before the scientific method was even a gleam in the eye of truth seekers, religion, and philosophy, politics and reason existed. To say otherwise is ignorant and decidedly unscientific.
Those who are ignorant of history in all its forms—or those who need to redefine history to match their ideology, are the real danger. They aren’t alone, mind you. But neither are they the sole arbiters of truth. And that much should be obvious, even to a scientist
Mark Magula
Recently, I saw a post by Sir David Attenborough, the English voice of nature lovers around the world, myself included. In the post, Attenborough gently raged against humanity as a pestilence, never quite saying that outright, but strongly suggesting it, nonetheless. According to Attenborough, wherever humans went, they brought death and destruction.
For Attenborough, no religion of devils and angels could say it with more reprobation. And, as one might expect, his acolytes followed suit, offering their disgust with humanity, whom they viewed as a plague. Unlike Attenborough, they never hesitated to say so.
Some suggested that the science of Eugenics was wrongly ascribed to Hitler and the Nazis. It wasn’t science that was at fault, they said, but bad science that led directly and indirectly to the deaths of nearly 100 million people. Some by bombs, others in death camps, still other by agreement of Hitler’s allies and their collective actions. Yes, according to them, it was bad science. Not true science.
Remarkably, they never saw their views as religious or faith based. Because religion was to be disdained. Their disgust for religion ran deep. Far more deeply than their understanding of either religion or history. In fact, what they knew about religion could fit on the back of a postage stamp. Even that much attention to religion, for them, could be dismissed as a waste of time.
Of course, when I say they are religious, what I mean, is that they have faith. Faith in Attenborough, even though he isn’t an actual scientist. Faith in various other scientists like Paul Erlich whose book “The Population Bomb” sold in the millions in the 1970’s and produced many disciples, including Al Gore. Erlich turned out to be wrong about virtually everything, but no matter. If his dates were wrong, his prophecy was still true, said his disciples, with as much religious fervor and loyalty as any member of a church or synagogue.
Here’s the thing, science isn’t true. It’s a method, a tool, like a screwdriver. A fine tool, no doubt. A tool that can enable humans to learn extraordinary things, but it can just as easily lead to hideously wrong conclusions, and the history of eugenics, makes that clear.
It is arrogance coupled with limited knowledge, absent the necessary facts which makes science, possibly, the most dangerous religion of all. If the 20th century is a testament to anything, it testifies to that fact. And long before the scientific method was even a gleam in the eye of truth seekers, religion, and philosophy, politics and reason existed. To say otherwise is ignorant and decidedly unscientific.
Those who are ignorant of history in all its forms—or those who need to redefine history to match their ideology, are the real danger. They aren’t alone, mind you. But neither are they the sole arbiters of truth. And that much should be obvious, even to a scientist
Mark Magula