The science that our organization is presently focused is that of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research. Our goal is to facilitate educating people about these specific fields of science. But, stepping back a little, should we not ask, “What is science?” This is a very reasonable question, but unfortunately it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer because there is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written in an effort to explain it all - and still people disagree.
The definition of science poses problems for people. Everyone seems to have an idea of what science is, but actually articulating it proves difficult. Doing so, however, is necessary to understand what science really is and what science is not. Understanding science is, in turn, necessary because of its power and influence in modern society. Ignorance about science simply isn't a viable option.
Apologists for unscientific beliefs declare sooner or later that ‘Science does not have all the answers.’ Since nobody in the history of modern science has ever said it does, we could dismiss this objection for the irrelevancy that it is and move on to more pertinent issues. However, we may suppose that the apologist is actually objecting, not to an imagined claim by scientists that they have all the answers, but to an inferred claim by the skeptic that no other answers are worth considering.
Science is effectively defined by the method which actual scientists use in order to make discoveries and generally produce knowledge about the universe around us. It is this method which distinguishes the scientific process from other, generally less successful, attempts to produce knowledge about the world.
Once you understand how the scientific method works, the next step in appreciating science is to understand the nature of scientific theories. If scientific observations are the fuel which power scientific discoveries, then scientific theories are the engine. Theories are what allow scientists to organize and understand earlier observations, then predict and create future observations.
If science does not claim to arrive at absolute, definitive truth, then what are scientific laws? Doesn't the existence of a law imply the existence of a truth, not to mention a lawgiver? And if science does not provide us with truth, does that mean that science does not deal with facts?
The confusion over the use of the terms hypothesis and theory can be difficult to sort out. We have popular usage, popular impression of how scientists use the terms, and how the terms actually get used in science. All three perspectives share some things in common, but none of them match completely.
Common thinking among secularists and nonbelievers of various sorts tends to be that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. This incompatibility is also imagined to extend to the relationship between religion and technology, since technology is so often a product of science and science cannot proceed without technology, especially today.
Common thinking among secularists and nonbelievers of various sorts tends to be that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. This incompatibility is also imagined to extend to the relationship between religion and technology, since technology is so often a product of science and science cannot proceed without technology, especially today.
And thus atheists marvel in disbelief how many engineers are also creationists, how many people in high-tech industries display high-energy religious motivations. At the beginning of the new millennium, we witness widespread enchantment with technology and at the same time a world-wide resurgence of religious fundamentalism.
These facts about the people we observe should give us pause to reconsider our previous conclusions - we shouldn't assume without question that the rise of both is simply coincidence. Instead of presuming that the education and training behind science and technology should always result in more religious skepticism and even a bit more atheism, we should wonder if perhaps empirical observations are actually disconfirming our ideas. We are often ready to criticize theists for failing to deal with evidence that doesn't meet expectations, so let's not fall into that same trap.
Perhaps religious impulses actually underlie the drive of technology which has characterized modernity. In this way, unnoticed premises will prevent technology and religion from being incompatible. Perhaps technology itself is becoming religious on its own, thus also eliminating incompatibilities. Both possibilities should be explored - and I think that I will be able to show that both are occurring to varying degrees.
Indeed, both have been happening for hundreds of years, but the clear religious foundations for technological advancement are either ignored or hidden away like embarrassing relatives. The enthusiasm so many people have had with technology is often rooted - sometimes unknowingly - in religious myths and ancient dreams.
This is unfortunate because technology has proven itself capable of causing terrible problems for humanity, and one of the reasons for this may be the religious impulses people are ignoring. Technology, like science, is a defining mark of modernity and if the future is to improve, certain elemental premises will have to be identified, acknowledged, and hopefully eliminated.
The key to it all is transcendence. The promise of transcending nature, our bodies, our human natures, our lives, our deaths, our history, etc. is a fundamental part of religion which is often not explicitly recognized. This goes well beyond the common fear of death and desire to overcome it and results in a negation of all we are in an effort to become something else entirely.
For a thousand years in Western culture, the advancement of the mechanical arts - technology - has been inspired by deep religious desires of transcendence and redemption. Although currently obscured by secular language and ideology, the contemporary resurgence of religion, even fundamentalism, alongside and hand-in-hand with technology is thus not an aberration but simply the reassertion of a forgotten tradition.
The project of technological advancement is not a recent development but instead has its roots in the Middle Ages - and it is here also that the link between technology and religion develops. Technology came to be identified specifically with Christian transcendence of a sinful word and Christian redemption from a fallen human nature.
England and the Enlightenment played important roles in the development of technology as material means to spiritual ends. Soteriology (study of salvation) and eschatology (study of end-times) were common preoccupations in learned circles. Most educated men took very seriously the prophecy of Daniel that "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased" as a sign that The End was close. (Daniel 12:4)
Today, the religious impulses underlying technological advancement takes two general forms. The first is the use of explicit religious doctrines, particularly Christianity, to explain why technology should be pursued. The second is to use religious imagery of transcendence and redemption removed from traditional religious doctrines but without having lost any motivating power.
For many, the development of new technologies has been about transcending mortal and material concerns completely. When an ideology, a religion, or a technology is pursued for the purpose of escaping the human condition where problems and disappointments are a fact of life, then it shouldn't be at all surprising when those human problems are not really solved, when human needs are not entirely met and new problems are produced.
Most discussions about the ethics of researching and using technology tend to focus relatively narrowly on issues of bioethics - medicine, biological research, and so on. That does not, however, exhaust all of the ethical dilemmas which involve modern technology. There are in fact even more fundamental questions about the nature of technology, our relationship to it, and the role it should play in our society.
|
