Science as a Stealth Religion

David Sloan Wilson talks about 'Stealth religions', these being organised systems of thought and practice which, whilst they may not have any of the trappings of a formal religion nevertheless codify and arrange the behaviour of their adherents. He cites some versions of atheism as an example of this and elsewhere I have come across Alcoholics Anonymous and Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' being similarly named. According to Sloane Wilson, these systems form and persist because they represent what he calls 'practical reality' for those who are subject to them; a reality which is based on social interactions and group identification ultimately grounded in evolutionary processes. This is in contrast with what he calls 'factual reality' which is the empirically-derived world of (notionally) disembodied and value-free facts, laws and theories.

I'm just wondering to what extent it makes sense to talk about science (or possible scientism) as occasionally operating as a stealth religion. Obviously it does not make the same counter-factual truth claims that real religions do but it could be said to set the terms of what is considered valid topics of discussion or of appropriate languages in which discussion might take place.

Angieantitheist video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFqL0d51SBk

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• religion
• Richard
• Dawkins
• David
• Sloan
• Wilson
• stealth
• space
• metaphor
• Donna
• Haraway
• Julia
• Kristeva
• feminism
• feminist
• epistemology
• Thomas
• Nagel
• Darwin's
• Cathedral
• practical
• reality
• factual
• chaos
• magic
• Michael
• Moorcock

[1140Cecile]

Nice video conferencereport. I often like to use the following image concerning my own changing perspectives. I picture myself as a point starting in the center of a ball from which I can mind-travel in any direction towards the surface of the ball, thus forming an historical line of travel. The environs around my line are, for the most part, supportive of my beliefs. But, had I started off in the opposite direction, my beliefs would have been different, but also supported by those environs.

[conferencereport]

Good image, thanks for that.

[spareaxe]

This guy is fucking weird...he needs a cold brew and a girlfriend instead of talking bullshit on a video.

[1RadicalOne]

A point on AA:

They are very obviously a thinly veiled religious group. Have you read their "12 Steps"?

[LordMcmontegue]

And so, the suppression of one choice for another is likely to have evolutionary repercussions. Religion is unique since it makes supernatural claims, but all ideologies obey the behaviors you describe in this video. Science does not make ideological claims. When Francis Crick makes suggestions based on his racial prejudice, he has departed science for a local ideology that relies on a skewed set of facts for justification. I'd be very interested on your thoughts concerning this.

[LordMcmontegue]

I think you should edit the title of this video, since science has not been considered a stealth religion by David Sloan Wilson or anyone else I've read from, save you. The claim is rather that all ideologies access information to validate their perspective and methods. They however can manipulate, or only partially reveal the results of studies to bring you to their conclusion, leaving out or combating with all information that could challenge their claim.

[flowerbower]

Which rather proves my point. I shall let you know when my forthcoming book on the subject is published. It should cause quite a stir.

[Barklord]

I'm sorry. I don't know what you're talking about.

[flowerbower]

I find it a waste of time to argue with conspiracy theorists; especially when they are always looking in the wrong direction. There is indeed something wrong with decision-making at all levels, but it is not a conspiracy. The true reason is openly discussed in academic journals and has a huge associated literature, but is never mentioned by media pundits, journalists, etc. and so the public do not know about it. Strange, eh?

[Barklord]

"You can imagine what you like but, in order to convince other people, you would need to provide incontrovertible proof."

If that were true the economy would fall apart.

I'm not going to clutter up conferencereport's comment section with an argument. If you want to make a video to me you are free to do that. Otherwise send a private message. Or, better yet, read 'dhalgren' or 'the master and margarita'.

[flowerbower]

That sounds like philosophical twaddle: what we experience is simply the stuff that we interpret correctly. The mystical 'other' that you are implying is just the result of poor observation. You can imagine what you like but, in order to convince other people, you would need to provide incontrovertible proof. And that means scientific proof. Many scientists do indeed have severe psychological defects, which may lead them towards religion, etc.

[Barklord]

did i say that scientists are unaware of this? no

the point i was trying to make is that studying what we experience is all science can do. there are possibilities and alternatives outside that which can add to the scientific perspective. there is more to life than science and many scientist hopefully do know this.