During a recent night out with friends, I ended up getting into a fairly involved discussion with a friend over the likeness of science and religion, particularly in regarding science as a system of belief akin to traditional religions. While my friend and I had very different viewpoints, our difficulty wasn’t in addressing the points of dissimilarity in our opinions, but in continually staying on the same course of discussion.
My friend comes from the school of biological determinism, and generally creates his understanding of the world by informing himself on the historical and contemporary progress of scientific pursuits. In talking about the role of scientific study in the shaping of our world, he spoke of scientific knowledge in very concrete and certain terms. I found myself disagreeing with the idea of the scientific progress being absolutely resolute, particularly finding it difficult to accept the notion that scientific findings alone could create a holistic understanding of reality, even if including all disciplines.
As we found various ways to express our respective opinions, it became apparent how hard it would be to find a bridge between the two perspectives. However, it was also very clear how early we both were in the development of our ideas. In talking from my own perspective, I quickly found the edges of my previous thinking. My basic idea was that holding the scientific process as the most fundamental way of organizing one’s experience of the world was no different than subscribing to any other system of belief, as using the findings of science as a way to guide behavior and make choices was still reliant on probability, since scientific research is conducted in very specific settings. Repeating the same procedures used to cause worldly effects is no different than any other sort of ritualized behavior seen in religion, although the chances of success and control of the settings are of course much greater. I don’t think that my friend and I disagreed on the point of science being a much more effective system of belief in regard to the physical modes of existence, but simply on the point of science as a faith construct.
This discussion didn’t necessarily incite either of us to question any long-held values. Instead, it was an incident that brought to light the state of our current and past re-evaluations and considerations of ideas. While our respective opinions remain different, I believe our respective conclusions were the same. Both my friend and I have found the beginning of our world-views, and are apparently in the same place of sorting out in what contexts our ideas hold water, and which contexts we need to apply our thinking to.
