Read also earlier posts »Intro: About Naturalism »Part 1: A New Faith, Born Of Lockdown »Part 2: The Need For Naturalism »Part 3: The Equivalence Of God And Nature
In Part 3, I explained the equivalence of God and nature in Naturalism. I explained how the two words can express the same idea, and how they can be used interchangeably. Making the terms equivalent is simply a vocabulary choice. Now, I'd like to point out how this choice elevates science to a special status.
When you choose to equate God and nature, then the study of God becomes the study of nature. Because the methodical study of nature is also known as science, then it’s clear that science is a way to study God. Equating nature and God therefore gives science a special place in Naturalism. Science can be seen as a never-ending search for God, a process of discovering God in small parts at a time. Science can be seen as a sacred activity.
Tying science and religion together is completely in keeping with the attitudes that many scientists have had for centuries. The notion that scientific curiosity about nature is really curiosity about God is not new. Scientific pioneers such as Newton and Darwin (and scores more) found spiritual validation in their methodical study of nature. Many early scientists were even religious professionals, such as Joseph Priestly and Gregor Mendel. None of them accepted an easy literal reading of the Bible to explain physical phenomena. These researchers knew that science is a way of knowing God, bit by bit, a little better with each discovery, sometimes with great breakthroughs. Science is a way of uncovering the answers to mysteries, and seeing infinitely more mysteries ahead. There is no end to the mysteries that science can study.
Seen in this way, physical science is simply another way of connecting with God. Many modern scientists have forgotten this.
Until the 19th century, what we now call “science” was known as “natural philosophy”. Philosophical speculation was considered to be of three different types: spiritual, ethical, and natural. Of these three types, spiritual and ethical philosophy remained in theology. But why should speculation regarding natural phenomena be left out and secularized? By equating nature and God, Naturalism unifies all these three aspects of philosophy into religion.
It’s interesting that there is an analogy between the Christian trinity and these three aspects of philosophy. Ethical philosophy is the Father, physical science is the Son (God in the flesh), and the Holy Spirit of course compares with spiritual philosophy. In a way, Naturalism completes this trinity by including science in the sacred.
When science becomes a sacred activity, there are many interesting implications, which I hope to explore here later. However, I should clarify now what I mean by “science”.
When I mention the term “science”, I’m referring to the scientific method in practice, investigation which is carefully and sincerely aimed at knowing better how nature works, and which is always ongoing and never settled. An individual scientific study can be concluded, but other scientists may try to replicate it, and they might find different results. In addition, the conclusion of any study leads to new questions which can later be tested. The process of science is ongoing and infinite.
True science depends on ethical participation. Any study that presents itself as science, but intentionally skews results to favor human interests, is “false science”. There is unfortunately a lot of it in today’s world, perhaps because the ethical framework around science is not strong enough. Nowadays, misrepresentation in science might be recognized as illegal fraud, but in Naturalism, it is furthermore seen as a sin because it is a violation of the sacredness of science.
It’s also important to point out that “science” does not refer to any science-related organizations, such as you find in universities or governmental bureaucracies. Science is not the scientists; it is a method of finding things out. To personify science is to create a priesthood of science. The head of the NIH, Dr. “I-am-the-science” Anthony Fauci would be a prime example of such personification. To use an analogy in traditional religion, personifying science is akin to worshiping idols instead of concentrating on important spiritual principals. It also misguides people, because it creates the illusion that only chosen elites can understand, explain, and do science.
Many science-related organizations—and leaders such as Fauci—adopt a promotional “science is settled” attitude, which is contrary to the scientific method itself. Anyone who pretends that science is ever “settled” is either ignorant or manipulative. That person is denying the ongoing nature of science, possibly for their own benefit. To assert that the findings of science are indisputable is a form of modern false prophecy. It stealthily turns science into a modern false religion. In the news in recent years, there are many exhortations to “follow the science” and never to challenge it. Simply believe, and don’t ask questions. In Naturalism, science is correctly seen not to be a belief system itself, but an imperfect tool for uncovering nature.
A final point to clarify about science is that it is not the same as technology. Technology is the application of acquired scientific knowledge to the production of goods and services. Many people incorrectly think that high-tech items, such as vaccines, are “science”. In fact, they are technology. Certainly their production depends on years of prior science being performed, but so does the production of any new technology. The distinction between science and technology is very important in Naturalism, because although science can be false or genuine, technology can be wrong or right.
In the next part, I’ll explore the Naturalist concept of “right technology”.