If God is dead, someone is going to have to take His place. This was the sentiment that ultimately led to the initially reluctant ascension of Science into the “vacant” seat of God. The skeptics of Climate Change have wondered at the veracity of the claims made. Despite the myriad of dupes who truly want to help save the planet, the perpetrators unmasked in recent emails seem to have an entirely different agenda. Think of it in terms of Morpheus’ famous explanation of the Matrix “What is Global Warming? Control. Global warming in the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to turn a human being…into this.” And holds up a squirming rodent. A lemming.
The believers think that humankind has betrayed their natural heritage. Intoxicated by their unique position in nature, they took the Biblical injunction and proceeded to “dominate the earth,” to bring it under their control, to serve their own ends, no matter what damage was inflicted. For the purposes of this essay, we will assume that the emails represent the truth, that the scientific community conspired to cook the books, skew the research to support their preconceived notions and political agendas, and silence any who oppose them. And by doing so, to destroy Science as it has become to be known, as it originally was intended to be.
First, however, we shall chart the gradual usurpation of God by science as the supreme authority and function-maker of reality, truth, and behavior. The changing of the guard began gradually as scientists began questioning and then rejecting the religious interpretation and explanation of the universe. “No thanks,” said they, “you fundamentalists keep your archaic traditions and backward ignorance, and go worship a grey-bearded old killjoy who scours the earth and rains fire and brimstone on anyone who looks to be enjoying themselves. We’ll take a more objective view of reality, thank you very much.” So God as the standard for Truth, the explanation of The Way Things Are exited stage left, and naturally the tendency was to look for a replacement to that which dethroned him. Science was on the rise, complete with a new lawgiver (Darwin) and a slew of prophets (Marx, Freud, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, to name a few).
Now, a delightful (though hardly unanticipated) byproduct of the elimination of that pesky nuisance God was the discovery that with God went all those injunctions against certain behaviors. Man was free to do whatever he pleased and hang the consequences (assuming there were any). This mentality reached its crescendo during the Sexual Revolution, and has begun another rise in recent years as more and more the values and prohibitions of any semblance of a Judeo-Christian set of morality are abandoned by the wayside.
Unfortunately, Nature, as we all know, abhors a vacuum, and just as Science had replaced God as the fount of knowledge and making sense of reality, the absence of God’s moral laws also left a vacuum of a different kind. Morality exists to tell humans how to behave toward other nouns. It is curious that humans need a moral code of any kind; other animals don’t seem to have one and get along quite fine just by following their instincts. If a human followed every one of his instincts with the purity of an animal, however, he would be generally considered the most monstrous and egomaniacal being ever to draw breath. At least, by every human he came into contact with. He would quickly learn that to adhere to his instincts with absolute obedience created intolerable conflict with other beings he came into contact with, and would reasonably expect a short, if self-gratifying, life. Consider the evil a man can do by following his instincts; the primary reason for this is that his instincts, unlike the animal world, are not geared merely for survival, but rather self-gratification.
Regardless, with the rejection of absolute truth (except the absolute truth of rejecting absolute truth) man was in a bind: how to behave? How then should he live? Again, science was tapped to fill the void, which it did (initially), with an appropriate sense of reluctance. After all, science is the pursuit of truth, of fact, to discover how the universe functions and why, which it accomplishes by observation and measurement. But how to measure a life? How to measure behavior? How to measure interactions with other people? How to measure what a man should and shouldn’t do? The scientist can’t measure the love of a mother for her child or the obligation to give alms the same way he can measure the light passing through a prism or the gravitational constant of 9.8 meters/second squared. This is one problem that science has yet to solve, though the disciplines of the social sciences attempt to redress the situation, with psychology, anthropology, and political science.
An aside: in no other example is this principle more evident that in the fraud known as Climate Change or Global Warming. Once scientists had reached a consensus that this phenomena was happening and that man was somehow responsible (which is utterly contrary to the very nature of Science; either something is a verifiable fact or it isn’t; simply agreeing with others that reality is a particular way has no bearing on whether or not reality really is that way! Science is not up for a vote; if it’s a consensus, it’s still a hypothesis, not a fact), then the science naturally suggested courses of action that must be undertaken. Among the first major culprits were major plants and corporations for disposing of waste materials in haphazard and irresponsible ways, as well as the military industrial complex for similar reasons, along with the pernicious practice of testing weapons (Goodbye Bikini Island!). Next came indictments on labor-saving devices like incandescent light bulbs, air conditioners, household appliances, with the latest crackdown involving means of transportation such as SUVs, trucks, airplanes, etc. This reached a ridiculous zenith when one popular musician exhorted a restriction on the use of toilet paper, a proposal met with general incredulity and skepticism and a rare victory of common sense and reality in the Climate Change deception. A corollary involved the very food we eat, as the carbon footprint needed to produce certain foods was calculated and condemned as extravagant and wasteful. This also allowed advocates greater measures of control over what people eat, what kinds of items they bought, what kinds of cars were manufactured, what people chose to do with their lives and where they chose to go, and so forth. All this was justified as helping to save the planet by reducing greenhouse gases that were causing Global Warming.
The dirty little secret is, however, that the agenda came before the science. For decades politicians and demagogues have been angling for ways to exert greater control over people’s lives, to expand government intervention into every aspect of daily life. Global Warming represents merely the latest attempt, and should it fail it will not be the last. But the foundation of science was need to cow and coerce acquiescence among the populace, and a cause that appeals simultaneously to human shame and human pride, undergirded by the authority of science, accomplished this nicely.
Inevitably, there arrived a point in the general encroachment of science upon society where some people took a step back and wondered at the tendency of sterilization that comes from an over-exaggerated scientific worldview. If people are reduced to ciphers, numbers on a page, different only from termites in complexity, then an unlimited potential for abuse arises, as evidenced in one man’s attempt to eradicate a people group from the earth much the same way as a homeowner seeks to rid his house of the aforementioned pests: with ruthless efficiency, determination, and complete disregard for objections to his intentions. Hence recent trends toward mysticism, spiritualism, and the glorification and anthropomorphism of Nature that have arisen, rebelling against the scientific disregard of the “soulishness” of things. Why do some choke up as a newborn enters the world, or the sun shimmers on the horizon, or a pale stream dances like a ribbon of sparkles as it bounds down a mountainside? Why do some rebuff innumerable advances for years from one person, but marry another within six months of meeting them? Karma, destiny, fate, and so forth; New Ageism had arrived.
Of course, imperative was keeping God out of the picture, allowing humans to keep doing as they please, so the mysticism and spiritualism sought involves impersonal and hazy connotations of transcendental meditation, yoga, and a variety of Eastern philosophies that provide some guidance and a thin candy coat of connection to something greater than themselves, without having to actually change any fundamental behavior or attitude. Madonna ties a string around her wrist, memorizes a few phrases and keywords, and suddenly embodies Kabbalah. Has she changed her behavior, or who she is in the slightest? Not a whit! But she feels better about herself and remains free to continue her life’s trajectory exactly as it was a year ago, or two or ten or twenty, and demonstrates a veneer of depth and philosophical enlightenment that others hasten to emulate.
Now, this is not to say that these spiritualists entirely reject science. Science provides a nice safety net beneath them, cushioning any philosophical tumbles that a theist might cause. Science still reigns as undefeated champion, providing an explanation of reality and allowing humans to pursue their own appetites and opinions. Science is in his laboratory, all is right with the world. (Though I suppose Science could be a she. After all, God’s a he and Science replaced God as supreme, so Science must certainly be considered a she. Perhaps as an amalgamation of Mother Gaia-Nature.)
It is vital to trace the progression of Science as an explanation of reality and source of truth and behavior, for the following reason. If God is dead and Science took over for Him, what happens if Science dies?
Well, you reply, no problem there. I see no indication that science is anything other than healthy and hale. But now we come back to Climate Change and the ensuing scandal that threatens to undermine the entire worldview that has been fostered by it. For Science has been built upon a foundation of absolute truth.
We’ve already talked about the rejection of the Absolute (usually conceived of as God) as the requirement for the elimination of God and the rise of secularism and scientific supremacy. Science’s main claim to authority was based on the objectivity and verifiability of its finding. If you prove paper burns at 451 Fahrenheit, or that water freezes at 0 Celsius, then anyone who cares to try to verify your findings should find that however they repeat or modify the experiment, the findings remain constant. Water always freezes at 0 Celsius; paper always burns at 451 Fahrenheit. To dispute those findings is to dispute reality; reality wins that dispute every time. And when reality finds itself at odds with religion, then logic and reason dictate that religion must be wrong. Because we can see reality right here; it’s indisputable. It’s not up for debate. And if religion clashes with it, then religion must be wrong. Correct?
And while Science maintained its pure veneer of objectivity and truth, it could dictate or prohibit anything as long as it could prove the harmful or disadvantageous results of said truth it was proving or disproving. If using DDT to kill malaria led to birth defects and premature death, if the results proved it every time the experiments were tried, then the pros and cons could be weighed objectively and a course of action decided upon a firm foundation of Science. Science was the ultimate ivory tower: untainted by human bias or religious hokum, unfettered by political agendas or practical traditions.
Until now. Because human scientists, after all, are humans first and scientists second. Because sometimes the data an experiment produces doesn’t fit into the agenda a human might posses, an agenda the research was designated to support. Because sometimes scientists want to bask in public adoration and prestige, to be trendsetters and policy makers, to make a difference with their findings instead of letting others interpret and implement based on their findings, whether they rejoice in the direction the data heads or not. Science is not, after all, immune to being manipulated to serve an end greater than simply determining the truth about something, to measuring data and making conclusions that can only be reached by using logic and reason based on the findings. If the world temperature trends for the last thousand years show Climate Change rising as the number of SUVs flooded the market, then so be it. If the research shows no average temperature increase for the last 20 years, so be it. Scientists aren’t responsible for having opinions about their findings, only for reaching those findings in repeatable, measurable ways.
Throughout the ages, religious procedures have involved three components: the people, the deity, and the priesthood. The people are those that give power to the religion through their devotion, obedience, and offerings, as mandated by the precepts and dictates of the deity. The deity could be a typical figure like the Judeo-Christian God, or the alternate versions from Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. But the deity is ultimately the part of the religion that justifies the demands made on the people from the priesthood. The priesthood is the true power of the religion, traditionally. They decide what the deity demands and communicates this to the people. The priests at Delphi would sit in a room next to where the Oracle would speak under divine inspiration, interpret the words being spoken that they heard through the opening in the wall, and then relate these to the people. Whether or not they were legitimate is the element of faith. Catholics trust the Pope and bishops; Muslims trust the Ayatollah and imams; Christians trust pastors and evangelists; Mormons trust prophets and Joseph Smith; and Jews trust rabbis, Moses, and the high priests. This is a fundamental element of religion, the concept of the intermediary.
(Side note: Herein lies the unique position of Christianity in the pantheon of religious systems. For, in a true understanding of the Gospel, earthly intermediaries do not exist. There is one intermediary between Christians and God: Jesus Christ, who happens to also be God. Thus God is the intermediary between God and man.)
I say all this because the role of intermediary is dependent upon the people’s respect and faith in several things. First is the veracity of the deity the intermediary represents; if no one believed in God, priests, imams, and the Pope would be out of work. Second, and as important, is the trustworthiness of the intermediary himself. If the intermediary proves false or inaccurate, the people will either abandon their belief in the deity itself, or simply ignore or distrust whatever the intermediary says, no matter how accurate or supported his statements are. The trust is gone and with it the authority of the priesthood to legislate reality and behavior.
And this is the danger for Science. Because the threat of Climate Change has been embraced and advocated vociferously by the majority of scientists, though again not all, which should have given the populace pause. Science as a whole has staked its reputation on this issue, and should it be proven to be a hoax, science will lose its vaunted place of prestige and authority in the realms of declaring truth, behavior and reality. Like a prophet whose prognostications fail to transpire, science will lose the ear of its audience, no matter what future predictions or pronouncement it makes with accuracy and precision.
Whether or not Science should be given a second chance remains to be seen. Science as a field of study is a worthy and useful discipline, provided its limitations are understood. Like a gun, science fulfills a particular function, the description of reality, observable physical phenomena in the universe. But like a gun, science cannot dictate behavior, and like a gun it is only as benevolent as those who use it. A gun can be used for good, when understood and handled with discipline and discernment. The potential for abuse is regrettably present and springs from the very nature of the gun. With science, the potential for abuse is correspondingly greater, as science attempts universal explanation and understanding. Understanding the theory of splitting the atom can lead to atomic energy, a clean and nearly perpetual source. It can also lead to weapons of incredible power, which in the wrong hands can be used to hold a planet hostage, or at the very least decimate countless human lives in a moment.
But Science is still only a tool, a window into the natural world. When it is used or abused to serve political, ideological, or religious ends, it ceases to be science. If scientists understand this and resolve to merely investigate and describe reality instead of trying to change it, then Science will be restored to its true nature. Of course, this leaves the question of morality, the legislation of behavior unresolved, but that is beyond the purview of science.
