{"id":3847,"date":"2015-10-06T17:16:46","date_gmt":"2015-10-07T00:16:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3847"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:10:56","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:10:56","slug":"the-normative-structures-of-science-and-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2015\/10\/the-normative-structures-of-science-and-religion\/3847\/","title":{"rendered":"The Normative Structures of Science (and Religion)"},"content":{"rendered":"

“The scientific investigator does not preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that\u00a0which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed.”<\/p>\n

-Robert Merton<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Institutions shape and form who we are as individuals. The more habituated we become to working and living within an institutional structure, the more we will internalize its rules and the less we will consciously make decisions with regards to our obedience to those rules. \u00a0With this in mind, it is important to our individual freedom and responsibility that we make explicit – in other words externalize – the rules of science and the ways in which they clash with those that regulate church activity. \u00a0Both of these institutions have rules that regulate behavior within them and to the extent that these rules contradict each other we\u00a0who are institutionalized within both will be compelled to navigate our\u00a0ways through various forms of cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, strategic equivocation, etc.<\/p>\n

I will rely upon Robert Merton’s classic “The Normative Structure of Science<\/a>” in order to articulate the values of science. \u00a0While I think Merton’s account is more than a little dated with respect to how science is actually practiced today, I think it is a very fair description, first, of how the public is taught to conceptualize and understand science and, secondly, of the scientific values that\u00a0we are taught within our educational system – especially at the college undergraduate level. \u00a0In other words, I am largely assuming that our educational system in general strives to, and to some degree succeeds in modeling itself upon and instilling the values of a 1940’s understanding of science which is itself, according to Merton, closely wedded to the democratic values of the Enlightenment.<\/p>\n

It should also be noted that Merton rejects the idea that these rules are merely “technical” such\u00a0that they are merely useful guidelines to be followed by scientists. \u00a0Instead, these values are taught as moral obligations that are binding upon all would-be scientists and critical thinkers. \u00a0The values that structure institutionalized science, then, are as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Universalism<\/li>\n
  2. Communism (again, this was before the Cold War)<\/li>\n
  3. Disinterestedness<\/li>\n
  4. Organized Skepticism<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Universalism\u00a0<\/strong>– Similar to Alvin Gouldner’s description of the Culture of Critical Discourse<\/a>\u00a0and Jurgen Habermas’s Ideal Speech Situation<\/a>,\u00a0science measures all claims and truths against impersonal standards of observation and previously “certified”\u00a0knowledge (note the institutional language). \u00a0 At no point are personal attributes or the social status of the speaker relevant to the matter at hand. \u00a0As Merton puts it, “objectivity precludes particularism.”<\/p>\n

    This is completely counter to an institution where a person’s ordination and stewardship limit the scope of what is said. \u00a0Personal revelation over one’s stewardship is the very definition of the particularism that science rejects. \u00a0The fact that one person was a Levite rather than a member of some other tribe of very important to the Israelites. \u00a0While church certainly has universalistic ambitions, the entire point of many ordinances is to separation those who are “under covenant” from those who are not.<\/p>\n

    Communism<\/strong> – This rule is probably the most dated, both in its name as well as in its content. \u00a0It claim that there is, or at least shouldn’t be any intellectual property within science. \u00a0Since science is a communal effort in which even the most brilliant minds stand upon the shoulders of other giants, the findings and data collected by such people are openly and freely shared such that all scientists should have access to and be able to cite all other scientists. \u00a0According to Merton, the only individual rights that a scientists can properly lay claim to within science is an increase in reputational esteem.<\/p>\n

    While Merton notes that this is in tension with the capitalistic privatization of science, it is also in tension with the rules which govern the distribution of knowledge within the church. \u00a0Certain findings, revelation and ordinances are very much intended to be kept from the uninitiated, the unworthy, etc. \u00a0While we might be tempted to claim this policy of “milk before meat” is no different from a scientist’s having to familiarize themselves with the requisite\u00a0mathematics, for example, in order to fully understand the relevant work it seems obvious to me that whatever overlap there is between these cases\u00a0is not only limited in scope but probably ideologically motivated as well. \u00a0The limitations placed upon substantial amounts of knowledge within the church have nothing to do with intellectual qualifications necessary for a proper understanding of it. \u00a0Contrary to science, some gospel experiences and knowledge belong to us and nobody else. \u00a0We might prefer\u00a0it if others shared their revelation more often than they do, but we have no moral claim to such knowledge.<\/p>\n

    Disinterestedness<\/strong> – By this, Merton is explicitly not claiming that scientists are more noble or altruistic than others. \u00a0Rather he is remarking on\u00a0the specific means by which science sanctions and redirects self-aggrandizement and cheating within the scientific community:\u00a0peer review. \u00a0The regulation of fraud, cheating and other forms of self-interestedness\u00a0is done (ideally<\/a>) through mutual scrutiny and competition among peers. \u00a0Indeed, it is precisely because scientists are speaking to peers rather than uninformed “clients” that fraud and other forms of cheating are kept in check.<\/p>\n

    Mutual scrutiny and competition among peers is expressly and forcefully rejected within the church. \u00a0The entire point of forbidding arguments and disputations through the hierarchical stratification of stewardships is to undermine the idea that church leaders\u00a0are peers to be\u00a0reviewed such that different policies and teaching come into competition or conflict.\u00a0\u00a0(Laman and Lemuel really struggled with this.) \u00a0Yes, there are mechanisms by which such leaders are constrained (raising hands, reporting unrighteousness, etc.) but none of these have anything to do there being an equal and open scrutiny among peers with competing arguments.<\/p>\n

    Organized Skepticism<\/strong> – This is the scientific rule\u00a0described in the quote above which says that the scientist is not to take 1) any assumption for granted or 2) anybody’s word for it. \u00a0Everything and everyone is open to investigation\/analysis and nobody is able to hide behind their social status or some sacred taboo. \u00a0In other words, no person, thing or idea is sacred.<\/p>\n

    When spelled out as Merton does, this rule is quite obviously incompatible with a gospel in which only certain lineages\u00a0are allowed within certain areas during certain times of the year wherein they see and hear things that they are never to discuss outside of this context. \u00a0Some things in the church are simply not meant to be discussed or analyzed, criticized or doubted. \u00a0Moreover, there is an undeniably anti-skeptical element to the idea that faith is a moral virtue and that we will be condemned for not believing certain things. \u00a0If, however, somebody resists this reading of faith by saying that we are all equally able to confirm whatever doubts we have through personal prayer, this still falls very short of an organized<\/em> skepticism that actively encourages its members to doubt, criticize or otherwise “review” all persons, claims, etc.\u00a0 At no point in gospel teachings are doubt and criticism praised as institutional<\/em> virtues as such. \u00a0On the contrary, when we are tempted by Descartes’s method of universal doubt we are encouraged to begin by first doubting that very method and its supposed virtues.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion – While the reader may not completely agree with my understanding of science or religion I don’t think it’s possible to re-describe these institutions such that all of these tensions disappear into thin air. \u00a0I should also point out that these tensions have nothing whatsoever to do with any particular finding or theory defended by science. \u00a0Instead, I have simply juxtaposed\u00a0the rules by which each institutions regulates and thus shapes its members. \u00a0No doubt, each person will have internalized these rules and negotiated their tensions differently. \u00a0My point in this post has not been to pass judgement on how we ought to go about this process. \u00a0Rather, my goal has been to raise this process to a conscious level such that each person can gain control of the ways in which both institutions continue to shape their lives.