An essay-esque view of science v. religion.

I got to thinking about science and religion. Or, more importantly how science is becoming the new religion of the world. That’s going to cause quite a bit of backlash, but, hear me out. Religion requires faith, that is, a belief in how something works based only upon what they think is true and what they learn from others with a more direct connection with God. And those that have that more direct connection spend years in isolation studying their texts, speaking and learning from those with more knowledge in interpreting the signs of the world. That knowledge is doled out in small doses to the laymen and are given in the form of metaphors because the nature of their truth has no actual language to describe it, only a method of approximation.

Now, science. Science itself requires no faith for it is based on "facts." Facts make something true. But what is truth? The way things are without conjecture? That’s probably the closest to right I can come up with. So, science approximates the truth with models, (metaphors for the way things are) and give their knowledge to the common people in doses that they can handle. However, to truly understand the way it really works one must spend years in relative isolation studying their texts, speaking and learning from those with more knowledge in interpreting the data of natural events. The way that science uses metaphors is such as that the layperson doesn’t have the knowledge of the language used to describe it, which even mathematics is an approximation.

Where does faith come in with science? From the layperson. Does the average person know HOW their car works? Or their microwave? Their TVs, their cell phones? They take it for granted that they work, science makes them work. And even if they know how their car works, can they build their own? And if they did, would they be able to manufacture all the components themselves? If not, they take it on faith that the person who built the components did it right. And, if the car worked, is it working perfectly? To the layperson, they would never know. It would work well enough. And, working well enough is an approximation of working perfectly according to the model.

Newtonian physics states that a ball dropped on Earth will fall. Then, as quantum mechanics came along and proved that that isn’t always true, but there is a difference between a ball and a subatomic particle. But, what is that difference? Scale? Fair enough, but, does it matter? Newtonian physics was good enough to describe the way things work, but we keep looking deeper and finding things that have their own sets of rules that don’t seem to apply to the world at large scale. Much as the more a person looks at the world unaided he may find God in it–with a set of rules that don’t seem to apply to the world at large scale.

The problem with this observation is that people don’t like it, they rebel against things that group them with those that they feel strife with. Much as atheists don’t like to be seen as an informal personal religion, they find disgust at it and will attack the statements with things such as "I don’t see it that way." "I don’t see it that way" implies belief in their mode of thinking, faith that they are right (which they will claim as truth). But, religious people also argue with atheists and will say such things as "I don’t see it that way (which they will claim as truth)." But, back to science, the main argument will be, "Science is based on facts!" Yes, and these facts can be observed and repeated by anyone who wishes to verify them and has the understanding to interpret the data that they gather from these observations. According to the theist their truths are too based on facts which can be observed and repeated by anyone who wishes to verify them and has the understanding to interpret what they gather from these observations. The problem with theism is it is rigid. And most of the followers are rigid. And, instead of taking their texts as is and realizing their nature they attempt to incorporate scientific facts into religious facts, and those truths are of two different natures that as of now cannot be reconciled with each other.

Theists need to realize that their texts are allegorical accounts of things, with powerful messages that are firstly metaphorical and introspective. The nature of the truth is not of an external nature, but rather of a personal and internal nature. They also need to realize that their texts contain much information that is no longer applicable to the world. And the world of science needs to realize that as we approach absolute truth the closer they get to disenfranchising and alienating the bulk of the world. People desire conflict, science conflicts with the battle for truth and religion–religion provides the vehicle for all kinds of conflict; however, though science is not a conflict of violence it is still one of genocide. If science destroys current religion it will wipe out cultures much as the coming of Christianity wiped out cultures.

By destroying ideas and invalidating them it destroys the class of people that hold those ideas. It eradicates them as no longer needed and those that cling to those ideas will be ridiculed and seen as heretics of the new order. Will they be violently attacked? Not by the propagators of science, but, the common ignorant person will see this as a threat to their established mode of truth and will turn their ire on the religious.

As science and technology become more specific and more complex the more the average person gains only a basic grasp of their workings. If science obtains the ultimate truth it will of no doubt be of a complex and theoretical nature. And the truth will be of only a basic grasp to the average person. And they will rely on those with more concrete knowledge to metaphorically interpret the truth to them, much as the religious leaders pass on the nature of truth, and that will be open to misrepresentation for those who are too lazy to gain this knowledge on their own.

And yet, this proposition is one that will get nothing but nay say.  All people are too narrow minded to be open to the possibility of being wrong.  But, more importantly, this applies to myself as well.  It is ignorance to say that I am right and that there is no chance that I am wrong.  What I can say is, let the criticisms come, I shall do research into those claims and shall attempt to modify my theory. 

–RK