The much maligned collusion between Church and State is well documented.
Rules had to be put in place to institutionalize the separation and limit the cooperation which kept millions, groveling and submitting to entities they could not control.
The process has been slow and laborious. One can argue that the separation, in most countries, is superficial and that the often shared interest of both institutionalized religion and institutionalized authority force a covert cooperation and collusion.
But what about the separation between, the new modern-day western religion, Science and the State?
Is there a warping collusion here?
In what manner is science restricted and diverted and affected by its dependence on the institution of state?
For that matter, in what way is even philosophy affected by its institutionalization?
I would suggest that there is always coercion involved in any collusion. It really makes no difference the title of the various power centers, only that the is some form of advantage to both or the several parties. Ultimately, it depends on the top power position coercing those ranked down the sliding power scale.
Does this affect separation? What separation? Government affects religious status, religion affects political positions. Government funds scientific R&D, Actual science application affects government policy and capability.
Even philosophy is controlled in part by the necessity of most of those who pursue philosophy as a way of making a living to “shade” their philosophy toward what can be successfully published. Anything, ideas or hard goods bend toward mainstream. Counter-culture is … well, counter culture and isn’t going to be supported by government or any social institution at large. Even the so-called counter culture ideas and movements are co-opted by the power blocs. Ever seen the oil company ads showing how “green” they are?
The fix is in. The bus to Mars leaves in about 15 min…
I feel Tentative is on the right track with this. Science, religion, and state are fluid concepts in actuality and this can be easily demonstrated by the war over temporal power which erupted between Pope and Holy Roman Emperor. I suppose another question of the situation would be “In what way is science employed in furthering the power of the state (or society)?” Psychology, for instance, has achieved an unquestionable status of authority: eccentric and transgressive behaviors are pigeonholed into traits or disorders of which the individual is disavowed of all personal responsibility over his own life.
How frightful to consider how dependant science has become and how some scientific inquiries, which possess a moral angle, can be affected by this dependence.
Science is often used to support a moral conclusion. The authority of science, is no different than the authority religion has in some areas and in times past.
Ok, so this is my first post on this very intellectual board with lots of smart and critical people so it’s kind of scary. But here goes.
One particularly dubious use of scientific authority has been the ‘scientific’ justifications of race and racism. (think Morton’s hopelessly flawed skull measurement data). So what sorts of social agendas influence science today? I forget who said this (perhaps one of the better philosophy buffs can help me out on this one) but someone said that philosophers mainly know where they want to end up when they start coming up with a philosophical system. They know where they want to go, and so they find a way to get there that makes sense. Science is the same way. If I think that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination (because of my strong belief in the Bible that also translates into Republican political leanings), I will probably be more likely to design a study that finds no biological bases for it.
Who funds scientific studies? Those with political and economic power. It can be seen from these facts that science can definitely be used to justify existing inequalities in society. As with religious claims, there is great danger in just accepting scientific claims as undeniable truth. It is important to understand that even something as ‘objective’ as science does not take place in a vacuum. There is context. And if you read between the lines of many a scientific finding there are social implications.
As for science’s impact on philosophy I think that the logical positivists provide a great example. It is so interesting how different ways of thinking become popular in accordance with other beliefs held in different fields (like art and politics and economics… they all flow together).
Can anyone think of any specific examples of how these (science, state, religion, philosophy) are all linked together today? What does it mean?
I agree and racism is a good example. Where in the past science was used to back absurd racist theories it can now be used to even more subtle and sinister ends: the recent idea that race doesn’t exist, or that race lacks definition, pointing to the fact that there is no race gene, is a common ploy utilized by modern thinkers. This leaves several social and political options: 1. Race doesn’t exist, therefore race should not be a consideration 2. Race is a social construct and this social “reality” can be invoked to favor minority interests when suitable. 3. Minorities catering to left wing agendas should be unquestionably accepted in all branches of business and society because they have been unfairly treated in the past due to the false perception of race. Its a form of disjointed doublethink.
Us - Them is still the predominant impetus behind all social organization. We like to say that Us is always supported by God, Science, opinion polls, etc. The centers of power use or create credence in whatever is available to maintain control. That the reality and the conventional “wisdom” rarely match up is ignored by the vast majority of folks. We like being controlled as long as we’re on the winners side. Race and gender are easily accepted as long as I’m a white male. After all, I have to be superior in some way…
Not only did Foucault point out this observation but Spengler hints at it in Decline of the West when he states that ideas have no power over history. He illustrates this by quoting Christ at his most ironic moment; “My kingdom is not of this world.” In other worlds, Christ had power over nothing, he stood helpless against the reality of Rome, much in the same way that common moral imperatives, logic, reason, science, and religion are overshadowed by all too human behavior. This is of course, off topic.
The problem with science is that philosophers try to have it both ways.
There are people who claim that homosexuality is genetic, but gender is a social construct.
There are people that say global warming isn’t occuring because the scientific mainstay rejects it, so anyone who challenges it will lose funding – yet, the Bush administration is the one funding American science right now!
I’m with the Dalai Lama on this one, that we have to conform our religious (philosophical) beliefs to science – but I do recognize that we also have to be aware of politics of science. The CEO of Amgen insisits that nine out of ten science papers are outright fabrications. I think he is extreme in this assesment, but there definately is some falsehood/unrepeatable experiments going on that are being ran with.
With homosexuality, I’ve seen articles about it having to do with the mother’s hormones during development.
But then I wonder if it could be a cultural phenomenon like in Greece.
Right now people are wanting to find a biological basis so they can shove it in the face of the religious who believe it’s a choice. Then they might also beable to get anti-homosexualism in the same status of as racism.
Then when I think about it, the religious also consider biological sexual instincts immoral, so in a way it does not matter what the nature of homosexuality is.
I’ve seen many contradictory studies on many scientific issues and notice that most find something wrong with a study if it does not confirm their beliefs and accept if it does.
I used to think scientific truth was a lot clearer, but it turns out it can be highly fuzzy and is caught up with ideology and the climate of the particular scientific institutions.
With global warming, we now have people equated with holocaust deniers. One must accept big statist solutions ignoring whether or not they will achieve the desired outcome.
In many ways science has gone over into its opposite. It has become everything it was not supposed to be.
There are stages to all areas of life that have to do with one group not having power trying to overcome another that does.
All call for at least some type of equality and free reign. Then when the balance is temporarily reached, one goes for the kill and puts your group to the top and tries to maintain it for an eternity. The repressing of the losers begins.
I understand not wanting to give into the uprising power because it entails future oppression. The motives of the uprising are hypocritical and one-sided. I can’t believe in anybody who says they just want equality.
I think the homosexuality debate involves a lot of bad faith on both sides.
I think the argument sorta separates out into several categories:
There is the assertion that homosexuality is immoral. The support for this is first the Bible, but since that source isn’t recognized as authoritative by certain groups of people, and more importantly, isn’t authoritative when it comes to drafting laws . . . there needs to be a separate non-Biblical argument for homosexuality’s immorality.
which brings us to:
Homosexuality is immoral because it isn’t natural. That is why there is the whole choice/genetic debate going on. Now, for those that accept the Bible, this isn’t really a concern, it doesn’t matter either way (if it is a choice, so what? It isn’t ‘bad’ in that worldview. If it is ‘genetic’, well religion spends most of its time trying to overcome genetic urges). It also doesn’t really matter either way for those who reject the Bible and the other religious sources that decry homosexuality.
So it really is sort of a non-debate with both sides just yelling at each other and not getting anywhere.
