When men accept as indubitable truths that which is offered to them as such by others, without stopping to examine it by the exercise of their reason, they fall into superstition. Such is our modern superstition of science, namely recognition as indubitable truths of what is passed as truth by professors, academicians and men calling themselves scientists in general…people who in a given period usurp the right of determining what is true science.
Science occupies in this modern age literally the same place which centuries ago was held by sacrificial priesthood. The same recognized sacrificial priests our professors, the same castes of sacrificial priesthood in our science, academies, universities, congresses. The same confidence and absence of criticism on the part of the faithful, the same discords among the faithful yet failing to perturb them. The same unintelligible words, the same self-reliant pride.
False religion and false science always express their dogmas in high-sounding terms which appear mysterious and significant to the uninitiated … A pedantic scientist uses foreign words and made-up terms and transforms the simplest things into something which is hard to understand just as prayers in a foreign language are unintelligible to illiterate parishioners.
— Leo Tolstoy “The Pathway of Life“
Tolstoy misunderstood science completely. I am very disappointed to see this posting. Please read popper’s The Open Society. Then read it again.
Thanks.
Thank you for the book recommendation, Brad. I had on my to-read list Henri Bergson, with whom the idea of “open society” is said to have originated.
Tolstoy was objecting to political and social ideologies masquerading themselves as science, as did his contemporary Dostoevsky. I don’t think they were criticizing science in the sense you and I understand it.
Speaking as someone working in scientific research, I also take their criticism as a reminder to know my limitations.
It seems I owe you an apology. I read your post very late last night after a day of driving and did not appreciate the sense of it. In fact, I seem to have taken the Tolstoy quote very differently than Leo may have intended.
I gather you are in Europe. You may not appreciate the amount of science bashing happening currently in the US. I guess I am over-sensitive to comparisons between religion and science in our current political climate over here.
Popper is the best I have read on what science is and what it is not. Strauss may be best at comparing science and religion though I am still exploring that.
What I want to say is that they do not compete and they cannot refute one another. Science is about the observable. The verifiable. Science must conform to the rules of the empirical and rationale. It is about testing what is falsifiable.
Religion is about revelation, and unknown agency. It is not logical. It is not verifiable. It assumes the irrational and supernatural.
Therefore, having no rules in common, they cannot be cited against one another. They simply play in different fields.
And may I say again, I love following your posts.
Brad
Brad,
No apology necessary. I think I understood what you meant.
As a practitioner in both science and religion, I tend to reflect and write on the relationship between them, and certainly welcome thoughtful feedbacks from people like yourself.
The writings of both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky on science and religion reflect the social and political climate in 19th century Russia, which, in some aspects, seem to me very similar to the US today, and reading them helped me to understand the current situation a little better.
I see some similarities to 19th century Russia. But I fear there are more similarities to the 20th Century, when Europeans lost faith in their govts and embraced extremism in fascism and Bolshevism.
By the way, I am a lawyer who long ago, before law school, was trained briefly in science and philosophy.
Brad,
You’re also a long-suffering Cubs’ fan. Is that right?
The suffering has ended! The Cubs won the World Series in 2016. But yes. I have been a fan since childhood.
Brad,
I wouldn’t be asking, if they didn’t. 🙂 When you look back at your experience as a Cubs’ fan, do you think it is rational or irrational, or a little bit of both?
It is all about emotion, I think. So it is certainly not rational. But somehow it does not feel right to call it irrational either. It is like falling in love. It serves basic needs. And it is beyond my control. The allegiance formed when I was too young to understand it. Thereafter, I have been hopelessly under its spell.