Why have science and print culture secularized us?

Some thoughts about comments Neil Postman makes in “Amusing Ourselves to Death” about the influence of print culture on religious belief, as well as a news report I saw today on TV.

I really enjoyed reading Neil Postman’s book “Technopoly” several years ago, and I am now working on his earlier book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (1985.) In the second chapter, “Media as Epistemology,” Postman observes “Typography [print culture] made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into mere superstition.” (p. 30) This coincides with thinking I have done for some time about how strange it is that the advance of science (and more generally, our perceived “modern” culture) has been correlated with reduced religious belief for many people.

I saw a TV news spot today about the extremely low numbers of Christian believers in Europe, especially compared to the United States. An interviewed person commented that Europeans are generally confused about the prevalence of religious belief among United States citizens– many European leaders are atheists, few ever mention “may God bless you” in public addresses, church attendance is very low, etc.

It is probably a Western tendency to view issues dualistically– and so it seems to be the case often with science and religion. Evolution versus Creation: the debate is stated in terms of a simple dichotomy, where observers of or participants in a debate seem obligated to make a single choice. The vocabulary used in discussions about religion and science can speak volumes. The same TV news spot I saw today gave a percentage of Europeans who say they “believe in evolution.” How stupid is that?! Evolution is a theory… not a belief system. Why have we in popular culture come to a place where people say they “believe in evolution?” Is it a credible theory? Probably. Is it something to believe in? Certainly not. I have just read excerpts of Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” but from what I recall he would contend it is quite natural for society to become entrenched in its belief systems and to have difficulty accepting alternatives.

The more I learn about science and the intracies of the natural world, the more awed I am of it. The more clear God’s hand in the creation seems to become. Have you seen the thought provoking animation “Powers of 10?” The amazing diversity and complexity of life at both the galactic and subatomic levels is staggering. How arrogant of us, as human beings, to think that we will ever be able to completely understand the mysteries of the universe! Yet that seems to be the dynamic at work, as science advances and the domain of religion seems to recede. The more we can “name” and theorize about, the less we seem to “need God.”

Postman’s observation is interesting, because he is contending that print culture itself has led to a devaluing of oral traditions and truth, and further advanced this dynamic where science advances and expands in both scope and acceptance, while religious belief seems to shrink into obscurity.

I think we should keep an open mind about many things. I know of God’s existence and his active role in my own life because of my own experience, as well as the authority which I accept from my family, church leaders, and the Bible itself. When it comes to scientific theories, however, we need to remember that we are talking about human theories conceived of by the inherently limited human mind. Even if we are talking about Einstein, we are still talking about a human mind, which may strive to perceive the infinite but definitionally can never fully comprehend and understand it. (Unless you want to discuss the viability of Eastern traditions and koans… but I am not going to go there right now.)

Why should a simple, dualistic view be superior to a much more complex theory? We seem to seek after simple understandings and explanations in many areas, even in education. As one of my professors has observed, when we look for “scientific” methods in the classroom we are usually referring to 19th or 18th Century Science, not 21st Century science filled with differential equations, feedback loops, chaos theory, dynamical processes, etc. In the realm of public policy discussions, many still seem to think Newton had the last word when it comes to the “laws” of physics. These politicians evidently either never studied, understood, or forgot about things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics . I won’t attempt to masquerade as an expert on physics myself, but my cursory studies into the subject have certainly driven home the concept that the world is far more complex and difficult to comprehend/define/understand than our small human minds would like to think– and have thought at times.

No answers here, just musings. Ah, behold the joy of the webblog! 🙂

If you enjoyed this post and found it useful, subscribe to Wes’ free newsletter. Check out Wes’ video tutorial library, “Playing with Media.” Information about more ways to learn with Dr. Wesley Fryer are available on wesfryer.com/after.

On this day..