I think the two of you are arguing at cross purposes and don’t really seem to disagree about much.
Everyone realizes the primacy of science. One single discovery has the potential to completely alter society in ways we can’t even imagine much less plan for. We don’t think about it, or are overwhelmed by it, or are scared or fascinated. Most of us have these feelings all at once or at least in serial.
If it was all just about curiosity and exploration – that’s exciting! I felt that excitement back in 2015 when we got the first images from the satellite sent to Pluto. I feel sad for anyone who didn’t feel that excitement. They just don’t understand. We were the first members of the human race to see this new world. A new world that turned out to be much different than what we expected.
But there’s more to it than exploration. Many of its “revelations” are troubling.
The worse thing we can do is try to turn science into a substitute religion. Even if we could pull that off its divinity would be a bottomless void. There’s no comfort here. No justification. No meaning. All the qualities we expect in a good religion. All the qualities that religion can no longer provide as it turns out.
Alexander Pushkin is quoted as saying:
Better the lies that exalt us than ten thousand truths.
I first read that quote in another writer’s book. It figures that artists might think like that. But maybe everyone will come to think that way. For all its signs and wonders science can’t provide the thing we really want.
In a recent Q&A session William Lane Craig stated that that Christian salvation coming somehow through the resurrected Jesus is so wonderful that he would believe it if there were only a 1 in 1 million chance it was true, unless presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary. Apparently he would also prefer the exalting lie.
Another problem with the idea of “science,” of course, is that the term gets applied to many things that are hardly science in any meaningful sense, such as ‘Social Sciences.” Even the study of economics has been commonly called “the dismal science,” although it is by no means scientific no matter what claims might be made for it. (It becomes like the use of “Engineer” tacked onto the title of anyone who did anything with a vaguely technical aspect.) The idea that “science” is just a formalized study of something greatly diminishes the term.
Now, with the strong emphasis on STEM, all of the humanities are trying to get in on the game by somewhat attaching themselves to some kind of scientific or technical element. In literary studies, there was a great stir about “Digital Humanities,” even though (and perhaps in part because) no one could really define what that was in concrete terms beyond creating e-texts, word clouds and frequency tables.
Now, with the strong emphasis on STEM, all of the humanities are trying to get in on the game by somewhat attaching themselves to some kind of scientific or technical element. In literary studies, there was a great stir about “Digital Humanities,” even though (and perhaps in part because) no one could really define what that was in concrete terms beyond creating e-texts, word clouds and frequency tables.
And so the Pearl of Great Price is tossed out and replaced by a cracked marble. At the risk of seeming like a complete reactionary the source of all this confusion was the moment criticism divorced itself from the text. Not content to be the handmaiden of the gods criticism “builds a Hell in Heavens despite”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)