Science is a credible, valuable contribution to society, until it becomes a religion.
How can you tell when science has become religion?
- If you think science has all the answers
- If you use your belief in science to ridicule or judge another’s beliefs
- If you demand that others believe in science the way you do, or demand that all society be based on science
- If you resort to name-calling in defense of your belief in your science
If any of these describes your view towards science, then you have a religion.
Some who want to see the resource-based economy become a reality believe that science should reign supreme as the decision-making process. In Copiosis, science plays a part, but it is not front and center. Nor will it ever be.
If that raises your hackles, your science has become a religion.
A hallmark of Copiosis is total freedom for everyone. That includes the freedom to think how you want to think. In order for “freedom for everyone” to be real, others must enjoy the freedom to think too. If there are people out there who believe in a religion, they are free to do so. If there are people out there who believe in homeopathy and you believe homeopathic methods should not be rewarded in Copiosis or even allowed in a resource-based economy, then you support restricting the freedom of others. For homeopathy and religion provide millions of people all kinds of benefit.
It is none of your business what others think, or what they do, for that matter. So long as they aren’t harming anyone, they are free to do what they wish. If making the RBE a reality requires trying to compel everyone in the world to think the way you do, or the way you think is best, then attempts to bring the resource-based economy are no different than early empires forcing Christianity upon those who didn’t believe. That approach will never create the resource-based economy. It is also antithetical to Copiosis. Diversity is powerful, including diversity in how to make decisions.
That source had to be superior to science, for it led to the rise of science.
“But science produces better decisions.” That’s not always true. The scientific method and its instruments may never accurately clarify everything that is. There are other sources of knowledge that science has yet to verify, let alone clarify. Just because science cannot verify or clarify such knowledge sources, doesn’t mean those sources are false, pseudoscience, or invalid. I’m confident enough about all this to write the following: Scientists (and humanity) benefit far more from information they receive from outside science than information they receive from science itself.
Think a thought for example. Right now I’m in Starbucks, looking at a wall design. My thought is “that is really well done.” Now when I look into my “head” and consider that thought, I can still “think” it. I can even “see” it in there, yet I have no eyes in my head. I can see the words “inside” me. Do the same with your thought. I’m sure you can confirm this.
But are the words the thought? Of course not, they are the things we use to communicate our thoughts to others and to ourselves. Where is the thought behind the words? Where does it exist? Where does it originate? Where does it go after you’re done thinking it? It definitely comes from somewhere or else we couldn’t think. Where does it go?
Now consider science and the scientific method. Certainly, they weren’t sitting out there in nature, like a tree branch or stone, where humankind stumbled upon them. No, they originated from within humankind. Set aside steps leading to development of what we know today as science and its method. Where did the inspiration, the inquisitiveness, the desire and creative sparks; where did the impulses which drove humankind to explore and organize in ways which lead to a collection of actions and bodies of knowledge known today as “the sciences” and the scientific method come from?
They certainly didn’t come from science. It wasn’t invented yet. So if science wasn’t invented before it was invented, humankind must have been relying on a source of information other than science to create science. That source had to be superior to science, for it lead to the rise of science.
Humankind must have access to that source because they had it to create science. I assert that source is from where everything emerges. Including humankind itself. If humankind still has access to that source of truly incredible knowledge and inspiration, and we do, don’t you think it should be included as part of our decision making?
I think The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement and other organizations like it (yes, including atheists) have done themselves and humanity a great disservice, focusing people on science and away from spirituality. In doing so, they have made science a religion for some, and blinded others to the enormous pool of knowledge humankind inherently possesses.
I believe in science for what it is. But it is not my religion. Is it yours?