PERVERTED SCIENCE IS EQUAL TO PERVERTED RELIGION

When the battle between science and religion is pitted against each other, I see two very different aspect of the two systems that come to blows. On the side of science, it is often the theoretical idea of what science is "supposed" to be: science as rational inquiry, dropping all preconceived standards and ideas in search of "truth", that theories are tested, retested, modified and replaced when better theories come out. I've already criticized some of sciences underlying problems, but, for me, those problems only exist if you take it solely from its theoretical face and if you base it as your only form of knowledge. However, on the side of religion, we're forced to compare it to the literal, what religion "is" in modern-day terms: commonly, an institution bent solely on its own self-preservation that achieves that objective by instilling a common set of beliefs in its followers, and attempts to quash any possibility of self-criticism to help maintain order in the ranks. It has developed a hierarchy of people to help do that, from as high up as the Pope, down to small-town churches with their preachers.

My criticism of this ongoing battle is twofold: first, it is not pitting the same systems against each other, and second, it is assuming that the two systems are incompatible.

To begin, I just want to explain what I mean by "literal" vs. "theoretical" science and religion. Literal science and religion are how these two systems of knowledge are actually implemented in our society and our world. Theoretical science and religion are the ideas that both of these systems are based upon. Everyone knows what I mean by theoretical science, but theoretical religion seems like a contradiction. I suppose by theoretical religion, I mean something more what people commonly consider spirituality: the idea that you can have you own personal set of beliefs about what is right and wrong without turning it into a structured hierarchy. Not through any particular research (so I'm admitting right now I'm NOT an expert), but through my travels, I have noticed that the main religions tend to all basically be talking about the same thing. They're all giving their own path on how to be one with God, or achieve Enlightenment. These two are the exact same things, and the basic principle of both Eastern and Western religions is a method of how to be a better person, on a very basic level. Scott Adams described it best in one of his blog posts: Religion is like two different people taking two different routes to the top of a mountain. Each person goes up, plots the route, and comes back and says "I have found the route to the top of the mountain." Followers who follow their route would come back and warn everybody that it would be dangerous to follow another route, as would the followers of the other routes. As time goes on, people find more routes, some easier, some harder, some that don't make it. But ultimately, ALL ARE GOING TO THE SAME PLACE. That's my view on "theoretical" religion. That's what it's supposed to be: not a hierarchy, not an institution, but a personal path you can follow to help re-evaluate yourself and make yourself a better person on a daily basis. I tend to prefer the methods of Buddhism, as a meditator, but as long as it helps you look at who you are, whatever method you choose is fine.

Now, to get back to what this means about science vs. religion, I feel current, institutional, "literal" science is often perverted for the aims of the corporations or governments that sponsor the science. As a follower of arguments over the drug war, it is amazing how often scientific studies are twisted to support their point of view, or how often simple things in the scientific method, like too small a sample size, are ignored when looking at evidence. Medicine is another example of this; companies fund studies to prove that their drugs work so they can sell them more. In fact, follow any issue long enough, and you will find numerous examples of evidence being completely misconstrued by either those reinterpreting it, or even sometimes the scientists themselves. Sometimes evidence conflicting with a prevailing view is thrown out with the prevailing view is so well entrenched. Social scientists call this a "cascade." It's much like groupthink. This is not what science is supposed to be.

This is not a problem with the underlying philosophy of science. Some of this debate is called for in order to discover scientific truths; I understand that. However, the level it reaches in today's society has come to the point of the absurd. In my mind, the same is true of religion: what started as a series of ideas on how to best to life and grow and progress to spiritually whole person has turned into a doctrine, a hierarchy, and a method of wielding and maintaining power that causes it's followers to end all rational thought. I don't believe it was meant to be that way, and I think even those who stage these battles, the New Atheists (Dawkins, et al), would be inclined to agree with me. It's not spirituality they're arguing against, but organized religion (I know I read this somewhere; if someone finds it, let me know). One of them even wrote an article exalting Buddhism. It's all about not getting caught up in the rules and finding your own path.

I believe you have to keep the differences distinct; there is just as much of a problem with institutionalized science as there is with institutionalized religion. If you want to pit an argument between theoretical science vs. theoretical spirituality, go ahead (although even that would be difficult, given differing opinions on what it means to be spiritual). But the argument that they seem to presenting isn't being fair to both sides.

THE BASIS FOR SOCIAL SUPPORTS

I've been thinking a lot recently about social supports (health care, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, etc.) and how one would justify them given the underlying philosophy of a free-market system. To begin, I have to assume our Western culture. People don't intrinsically feel the connection between individuals as part of a greater whole, and I do believe our society would be organized very differently and the culture that causes it would not necessitate many of things that I currently feel is necessary. Fundamentally, the idea of money and a free-market would be unnecessary and silly if we all instead chose to work as part of a group or community. However, assuming our culture and our current legal system, I have come around to question how would I support the idea that social supports are necessary, given that the free-market system is philosophically based on the idea that everyone should succeed as far as their motivation and skills allow. My desire would be to build social supports that maintain this idea, that doesn't thwart an individuals motivation and ability while making it easier for those who aren't born into a positive situation to succeed regardless.

Those born into poerty exist in a situation where a large amount of social and cultural forces weigh upon them. Amongst those, there are, of course, a few who possess extraordinary ability and drive to exit their situation. However, this is generally not the norm. If someone of rather average ability is born into a middle-class family, he or she would fare far better than that same person born into a lower-class or poverty stricken family. It is my belief, then, that the role of government in a free-market system is to make it as close as possible that people of equal ability and motivation achieve equal standing. Of course, this HIGHLY idealized, but that should be the goal. It is due to this that I ultimately believe in the concept of "free-market socialism."

From this philosophical basis, you can build supports for unemployment benefits, job training, welfare benefits, monopoly breakup, and health care, as all of these help the poor amongst us rise to the level of their ability. If a person is too poor to be able to afford college, then, if he has the ability to succeed in college, he should be able to go to college. Sickness and disease can occur to anyone, poor or rich, so why should becoming ill impact the poor more?

Obviously, I'm aware in reality that not all cultural forces can be overcome, and when practically implementing things of this nature, a balance must be struck between limiting those who already succeed compared to how much you want to help those who haven't. I am aware of these things, but before you implement any policy of this sort, you have to begin by understanding what you're trying to accomplish. Assuming our culture and legal system, that is what I would like to see accomplished by our government.