During the Middle-Ages the Catholic Church maintained a monopoly over determining what was and was not acceptable to believe. When the upstart Florentine Galileo Galilei came to them with a challenge, arguing that the Earth goes round the Sun, and not the other way around, he was dismissed as a rogue and an heretic.
Now, it seems the tables have turned and science, or rather conventional science, has replaced the Church as the guardian of orthodoxy. An example of this is the contention that, unless something can be measured and quantified, it does not exist. Extra sensory perception provides us with a good example. A phenomenon for which there is strong anecdotal evidence is dismissed as charlatanism, simply because it does not lend itself to being readily simulated under laboratory conditions. By extension, anything that is not measurable is treated as non-existent.
In our world there is very little that is truly measurable. For instance how does one measure kindness, graciousness, dignity, or love? Only the most diehard of the scientific realists would subject all their emotional attachments to their family and friends to the same ruthless scrutiny.
Consider now the way in which the rich and the powerful justify their methods by means of constant recourse to a litany of so-called facts. These need not be objectively true; they need not even be provable. What matters is that they are presented as irreproachable, and that they therefore come to be accepted by the speaker's audience as undeniable and fundamental. Note also how every society on earth has its own individual set of "fundamental" facts.
Like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, today's scientific establishment rejects all attempt to argue with its orthodoxy. The Inquisition used to use a test to determine whether a suspect was guilty in the case of a blasphemy. The subject would be bound and held underwater. If they survived they were held to be innocent. If they died, their guilt was maintained. Either way the Inquisitors could not lose - if the subject was allowed to live it was an instance of God's miraculous mercy; if he died he was a victim of God's just judgement.
The bias towards the tangible - that which can be proven by use of the scientific method - may be found in the way we treat the supernatural. Although the term refers specifically to those phenomena which are without natural explanation, the term is increasingly used to refer to anything and everything not rationalised by our contemporary science. This we cannot justify on grounds of logic. If a higher order exists it must control all things which we experience - both natural and supernatural. To suggest that one is validated by the laws of science while the other goes unexplained, existing outside their remit does not answer so many questions as it poses. All this merely goes to show how limiting our reliance on science really is.
What motivates us to adopt a scientific stance is nothing other than our own fear of the dark. It diminishes us in our own eyes. It erodes our sense of supremacy to think there are things in this world which are unknown, possibly unknowable. Why is it so difficult for us to simply say that we do not know?
Now, it seems the tables have turned and science, or rather conventional science, has replaced the Church as the guardian of orthodoxy. An example of this is the contention that, unless something can be measured and quantified, it does not exist. Extra sensory perception provides us with a good example. A phenomenon for which there is strong anecdotal evidence is dismissed as charlatanism, simply because it does not lend itself to being readily simulated under laboratory conditions. By extension, anything that is not measurable is treated as non-existent.
In our world there is very little that is truly measurable. For instance how does one measure kindness, graciousness, dignity, or love? Only the most diehard of the scientific realists would subject all their emotional attachments to their family and friends to the same ruthless scrutiny.
Consider now the way in which the rich and the powerful justify their methods by means of constant recourse to a litany of so-called facts. These need not be objectively true; they need not even be provable. What matters is that they are presented as irreproachable, and that they therefore come to be accepted by the speaker's audience as undeniable and fundamental. Note also how every society on earth has its own individual set of "fundamental" facts.
Like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, today's scientific establishment rejects all attempt to argue with its orthodoxy. The Inquisition used to use a test to determine whether a suspect was guilty in the case of a blasphemy. The subject would be bound and held underwater. If they survived they were held to be innocent. If they died, their guilt was maintained. Either way the Inquisitors could not lose - if the subject was allowed to live it was an instance of God's miraculous mercy; if he died he was a victim of God's just judgement.
The bias towards the tangible - that which can be proven by use of the scientific method - may be found in the way we treat the supernatural. Although the term refers specifically to those phenomena which are without natural explanation, the term is increasingly used to refer to anything and everything not rationalised by our contemporary science. This we cannot justify on grounds of logic. If a higher order exists it must control all things which we experience - both natural and supernatural. To suggest that one is validated by the laws of science while the other goes unexplained, existing outside their remit does not answer so many questions as it poses. All this merely goes to show how limiting our reliance on science really is.
What motivates us to adopt a scientific stance is nothing other than our own fear of the dark. It diminishes us in our own eyes. It erodes our sense of supremacy to think there are things in this world which are unknown, possibly unknowable. Why is it so difficult for us to simply say that we do not know?
About the Author:
John Berling Hardy exposes the scam which brought us to where we are todayFor more of his writings please visit www.playingtheplayers.com
No comments:
Post a Comment