Scantily-dressed Science vs Naked Religion
Monday Map
Scantily-dressed science vs Naked religion
When asked to choose between a fully unclad lady and a scantily dressed one, most males opt for the latter.
When asked to give their reasons, most of them own up to the idea that the latter (scantily-dressed woman) seemed more attractive for the precise reason that they leave something to the imagination and to be desired.
What is it about leaving a thing to be desired that makes it more exciting than being given such a thing bare? I propose that it is the same reason that unwrapping a gift is more exciting than being thrown the gift: the tease is part of the gift. It is precisely this metaphor that describes the tension between religion and scientism.
For clarity, I will use science and scientism interchangeably because although they are not the same, they are tightly knit. And in case it is your first time of hearing the word scientism; scientism according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).” My aim in this essay is to work between religion and scientism and not science per se. As science essentially denotes rigor rather than an overarching method.
Of the two, I describe religion as the naked one because in the case of most or all religions, there is hardly any tease in the package. Everything seems to have been given ahead of time. The edicts, tenets, expectations, and events to come have fully been described. They are explicitly prescriptive even where they are cryptic. And as exciting as they may be, they leave nothing to be imagined and desired as you are easily prescribed what you must desire.
Its counterpart, scientism, which of course is the exaltation of science or the scientific method, on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired. It is scantily dressed in the sense that while it shows off a lot (“of skin” using the human metaphor and “innovations” in the practical sense), it promises to reveal much more. And it doesn’t stop there. It invites you to do part of the undressing.
As people may confirm, the act of undressing one another before foreplay and intercourse is an underrated act in the process. It charges the situation with more tension and energizes the build up. This makes it more worthwhile as it calls for active participation in what will be a euphoric session. Such is the case with scientism.
The allure, I propose, that people may find with science as against religion is the dogmatic method that leads to really interesting findings. With religion, dogma tends to produce more dogma. When these “scienticists” praise science to the heavens and back, it is because they have found what amounts to a co-participatory strip tease where you can join in the peeling off of fabric to reveal the particularly interesting.
Religious systems do not promise you any new discoveries. That it is not what you will find. They already have their rituals and systems that are in a sense closed up not to inquiry but to discovery. And so we understand that we are helplessly drawn to what is attractive, fascinating, and still young and bustling with innovation and discoveries.
When I stick it to some fellas that maybe there are frames of inquiry that science cannot answer, I get the common response that science has answered several questions that we once deemed unable to answer. They furthermore stick it to me that we live in somewhat miraculous days because of science and its innovations. And it is at this point I always smile because people who fall unknowingly into scientism are just victims of the abundant success of science.
Conclusively, one is naked and leaves no room for participation besides obedience. The other is a call to participation in the promise of interesting discoveries. The question I however have for you is this: why can’t we have the best of both worlds?
The Pawns go first
I wrote this story two years ago. In summary, I speak to the notion that when parents in conflict use their kids as weapons or shields to get the upper hand, they are mistaken to think that their spouse and opponent’s loss is their own win. What they don’t see is that the kids are usually the first casualties.
You can read the story here
Going Into Overdrive
Last week was a recovery week. I went on a seven-day publishing fest as a challenge to myself to read, write, and share. I made it for seven days.
Just in case you missed them, here are the links from day one to seven:
Naive Rationalism, Not Monday Map
Multiplication Effect: The Medium is the message
Faults in reasoning: The Persecution Fallacy
Enjoy reading.
Here is your photo of the week:
Have a productive week.