So, I read Rosenberg’s Why I Am a Naturalist for a class today and found myself thinking..
There is a quote that constantly permeates my mind whenever this topic of metaphysics, naturalism, scientism, or however you’d like to call it, comes up. Essentially this topic is a conflict of naturalism (by which I refer to a purely scientific theory of being) and spiritualism (of any degree). It is difficult for me to see any other significant conflict here. Anyway, in my mind, this conflict is resolved beautifully by one of the most brilliant thinkers:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
What does Albert Einstein mean here? As someone who has been involved with science for quite some time, I believe I know what he is saying. Without the truth of his words I would long have become a nihilist, questioning the worth of my own existence day by day. Without the truth of his words, I would get scared every time I open my eyes. Because when I open my eyes, what I would see would be not people and buildings, but amino acids and metallic bonds. With the “weird” thing called quantum mechanics, I would see not amino acids and chemical bonds, but the entanglement of photons, electrons, and even smaller particles in a vacuum. Oh my! As you can imagine, I would get pretty scared by this point. Even writing the description through the lens of a hardcore naturalist makes me a bit scared. After all, although I am fascinated by all the amazing things scientific discoveries brought to humanity, I would like to remain human. For what is science, but one of the MILLIONS of perspectives out there? True, we can view the sunset as a bunch of electromagnetic wavelengths that our eyes can perceive. BUT…isn’t it much more pleasant to look at the same sunset, but think of how simply breathtaking it is? And then, isn’t it much more pleasant to look back, and think that the reason you can appreciate this beauty is that you…human?
That is what Rosenberg was getting at with his satiric piece. Science and mathematics are systems of our creation. (Though, while science is truly an invented system, the status of mathematics is highly debatable. If we had never created the system, would a mathematical order still exist? Or is everything part of our imagination? This question is quite open.) The point is, since these systems have been created, or at least precipitated, by us, they are impersonal. We must not let our scientific perspective destroy our inherent human perspective – our morals and our values. Thus, I deeply agree with the opinion that science “should not diminish the sanctity of morality and existence”.
However, I do not agree that humanity should be “pushed toward the arts” because all the current global problems in medicine, poverty, economics, and even climate can be solved by the scientific progress. Without science, we would not even be able to properly preserve the art which humans are so good at creating! We would not have this art available to us online, we would not be able to create digital art…we would not be able to communicate, we would not be able to gain knowledge, we would not be able to combat the deadliest of diseases, we would not even be able to build magnificent structures and buildings which we call art. Science can be art, too. I would not place one above the other. It is sad, though, that there is no modern Michelangelo to paint domes for us…because everything can be done with technology. That the role of artistic achievement in our world has indeed been diminished. There is none of that truly magnificent human talent manifested quite in the way it was centuries ago. However, we cannot revert back the clock. But I think it is wonderful that way. Although a DeviantArt subscription may have replaced wealthy Renaissance patrons, we have so much more wonderful things in both art and science, because one thing truly improved in human conditions; tolerance. And that, thankfully, is a sign that humanity and morals are being preserved quite well!
