The Dangers of Scientism

“Science, like other outmoded systems, is destroying itself. As it gains in power, it proves itself incapable of handling the power. Because things are going very fast now…it will be in everyone’s hands. It will be in kits for backyard gardeners. Experiments for schoolchildren. Cheap labs for terrorists and dictators. And that will force everyone to ask the question - ‘What should I do with my power?’ Which is the very question science says it cannot answer.”

Atheists often accuse religious people of being anti-science. They cite past examples of “superstitious” religions like the Catholic Church persecuting men for great scientific discoveries. For example, they claim Galileo was burned at the stake for stating the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Under this pretense, they believe religion is holding science back from solving the world’s problems and that once the human race abandons all belief in God, it will be propelled into some kind of scientific utopia.

For the record, there’s a lot of historical myth in play here. Copernicus and Galileo, while remembered as atheist heroes, were actually both devout Catholics. The church was largely uninterested in Copernicus’s claims of a heliocentric solar system and there’s no evidence Galileo was burned at the stake for anything other than his open criticisms of the pope.

Let me be clear that I am not opposed to science in the slightest. But I do believe the idea of religion holding science back is completely absurd. I think some philosophical clarification is needed on the Christian perspective of scientific discovery and how it pertains to our faith.

To me, science is like a gun; neither good nor bad but merely a tool. It has no emotions or motives. Scientific discoveries can be wonderful, but can also bring dangerous amounts of power. In the early twentieth century, vaccinations saved millions from diseases that had plagued humanity for millennia. But not long afterwards the atomic bomb became a terrifying reality, and weapons that could end the world in a nuclear holocaust came dangerously close to being used. The scientific method can be used for good or evil purposes, depending on who wields it.

So let me differentiate between science and scientism. There’s a difference between being pro-science and worshiping science as a god. Like most religions that claim their central teaching or figurehead is the only way, scientism teaches that truth can only be discovered via the scientific method. It rejects the concept of any truth outside of what can be explained naturally. It boils all of reality down to two things: physical matter and the laws of nature. Scientism places scientific achievement as the pinnacle of human goodness and throws out any search for meaning, morality, or the belief in a higher power. And it is a dangerous cult.

I’ve seen an atheist given the invitation to accept Jesus as his Savior, only to sarcastically respond “No thanks. I’ll stick with science.” Like most non-believers I‘ve met, he was indoctrinated by scientism’s lie that God and science are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot coexist in any reality.

But before I take down scientism’s failures to produce what it claims, I want to explain why its premise is wrong to begin with. Like most atheist doctrines, scientism is philosophically weak because it doesn’t hold up to its own criteria. Let’s take a closer look at the claim: “science is the only way to discover truth.” The colossal contradiction here is that the scientific process can never arrive at such a conclusion. It’s a self-refuting statement, like saying “none of my mother’s children survived” or “I don’t speak a word of English.”

We can argue back and forth whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. I may write about that another time, but for now, let me say that it really depends on how extensively an individual atheist embraces scientism. Because make no mistake, scientism qualifies as a radical religion. One of its chief characteristics is something you find appearing in atheist circles time and time again. Cults are known for their doomsday predictions. They almost universally believe that the end of the world is upon us but their tiny group alone will be spared.

You wouldn’t think atheists, as self-proclaimed believers in reason, would fall for this “end is nigh” mentality. But they do. A startling number embrace their own apocalyptic dystopian vision. They believe that atheism is on the rise (true in the West but false globally), science is debunking archaic concepts like God, and soon religion will go extinct while humanity rises into a paradise where science has solved all our problems.

Such people have no right to claim they’re not part of any religion. The sub normative reflex comes from the same part of the brain. There’s no difference between atheists who think this and the Jehovah’s Witness who says his church and his church alone will survive Armageddon.

Before I continue, let me point out why the mythic “scientific utopia” will never happen. Radical atheists like to point out the bad parts of religion (the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.) while ignoring the good. See a previous blog of mine, Christianity’s Contributions to Science. Now factor in charitable services churches provide. Nationwide, local churches donate a staggering amount to food banks, clothe drives, etc. Not to mention Christian orphanages, programs that fight poverty, send aide and disaster relief to foreign countries, blood drives, you name it.

We have recent history to see what a world without religion looks like, and it isn’t paradise. Today’s atheist dictators make religious persecution from the Middle Ages look tame by comparison. Stalinist Russia rounded up and killed over 12 million Christians, twice the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust. Chairman Mao exterminated over 100 million people. Not to mention the horrors of labor camps in Cuba, North Korea, and Cambodia. All of these were an attempt to rid the world of religion, and the results were nightmare societies built on heaps of skulls.

When this is pointed out to atheists, they tend to give the most arrogant answer imaginable: better people will run the new religion-less utopia, and they‘ll get it right this time! This is similar to the leftist claim “that wasn’t true Communism!” As if somehow, when they are in charge, they won’t succumb to the same dark forces that overtook Stalin or Pol-Pot.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume atheists are right and there’s no God. The problem with the “scientific utopia” is two-fold: one is that mankind was never meant to live in utopia in the first place. The only real way to create a secular paradise would be to kill a lot of people. But once we’ve reached whatever the goal is, humans will be inherently discontent. Utopia is unsustainable because it’s contrary to how the mind is designed. Eventually, a lot more people will die once people revolt against perfection, destroying all they built up out of sheer boredom.

And even if the great utopia is somehow sustainable, if we’ve accepted atheism as true then it won’t really amount to much anyway. This is the contradiction of secular humanism that always baffled me. What’s the point of human progress, when according to science, the sun will eventually explode into a red giant and devour the earth? And even if humans are lucky enough to escape, the universe itself is expanding at such a rate that it will eventually rip itself apart into oblivion. What was the point of the scientific progress once all reality ceases to exist? Under the premise of scientism, who cares about ending suffering when all that awaits us in the end is annihilation anyway?

But the main reason scientism doesn’t work goes back to my point at the beginning. It fatally mistakes scientific progress for inherent goodness. It assumes discovery is by definition virtuous.

Great literature has been trying to remind us this for centuries. In Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton warned us of the dangers of genetic engineering, using the fictional concept of resurrecting dinosaurs to illustrate the point. Like Ian Malcolm says in the movie version, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think of whether or not they should. ” He compares the power John Hammond’s geneticists tapped into to a kid who’s found his father’s gun.

But I’ve always thought that Jurassic Park drew heavy inspiration from another science fiction classic, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. It too is a tale of a scientist who discovers a power with consequences he isn’t ready to deal with. In his quest to conquer death, Victor Frankenstein literally creates a monster who turns on his creator and destroys everything the scientist holds dear. Frankenstein bears the subtitle “a modern Prometheus.” In Greek mythology, Prometheus was a Titan credited with giving mankind the gift of fire, unleashing a power reserved only for the gods and beginning civilization. Angered at Prometheus’s transgression, Zeus sentences him to be chained to a rock and suffer torment for all eternity.

Scientific discovery itself can improve the quality of our lives, but it has to be guided by morals first. Science isn’t itself noble. Naturalists who use it to justify their hatred of religion remind me of Dr. Henry Wu, the geneticist from Jurassic Park who was responsible for cloning dinosaurs and was arrogant enough to boast of his creation even while it was killing people. He was so certain that science contained all the answers that he failed to recognize how dangerous the power he wielded was. And he paid a terrible price for it.

Lest we forget that the Nazis were very scientifically literate. One can’t argue that Dr. Joseph Mengele used the scientific process of deductive reasoning and experimentation with technical proficiency as he performed grizzly medical experiments on his victims. The Germans had some of the best rocket scientists in the world and had ambitious plans for technological innovation once the Third Reich had taken over.

And this is the true danger of scientism. Science “not held back by” religion or morals will unleash horrors on the human race.

They just think religious people like Christians are no smarter than the indigenous pipples.

(A lot of them are startingly silent about Islam, too. Not all, but a lot).

It’s Greek for “feast of fifty.” In Hebrew, the celebration is called Shavu’ot. Commemorating God giving Moses the Ten Commandments (and the rest of the Mosaic Law) on Mount Sinai, which according to tradition was 50 days after the Passover.

The feast of Pentecost was a perfect moment for the Christian church to be born, because Jewish worshipers were gathered to Jerusalem from all over the ancient world. When the disciples started speaking in tongues from the Upper Room, people were shocked to hear mysteries in their native languages, and the power of God was poured out freely on the streets, effectively starting Christianity. Even more importantly, thousands started believing in Jesus and took that belief back with them to their home countries once the feast was over, and spreading the new movement across the Roman empire like a wildfire...

Thanks for the links and interesting reads. Is that your blog?

I wanted to include more about how scientism has become a dogmatic religion devoted to anti-humanism and cult-like environmentalism...but had to cut it short (already at 1700 words). So you covered ground in your writings I didn’t get to. :)

Ah, so that’s the origin of the word. Thanks for the info. Even though I fancy myself a teacher, often commenters educate ME on things I didn’t know. Which is why I love discussion so much!

It does indeed mean ‘count fifty’... of course from Passover. Now, what was the instruction Peter gave at that Pentecost gathering... Peter made the prophet Joel one and the same as the ‘Gospel’... What did Joel pen? Oh, at that Pentecost in Acts ... people understood the tongues spoken, there was no need of an interpreter. This ‘reenactment’ is not on the schedule until the ‘elect’ are delivered up to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them .... no premeditation as what to say is allowed.

It is my blog, thought I rarely write anymore and have never promoted it at all. I was just astonished how similar our views are in this area so thought I’d share my previous work with you.

If you’ve never read that Hayek book you should. It’s not long and it’s well written. I’ve often recommended it to people who like to debate epistemology and the theory of knowledge and such- which sounds boringly intellectual but it really isn’t. Most people argue this stuff all the time, they just don’t use the $5 words for it.

The Road to Serfdom has been on my must-read list for a long time. Maybe I should say it’s on my bucket list? ;-)

But seriously, I will take a look at his other book you mentioned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.