Scientific Humanism

Scientific Humanism

Scientific humanism is an example of what philosophers term naturalism. This is the conviction that the natural universe of space and time is the only reality.

As we look at scientific humanism we encounter a worldview that makes a lot of noise in our society and influences our culture profoundly. There is a lot of confusion here, mostly between what science tells us directly and what people wrongly think science implies.

Science, in itself, explains nothing.

Science examines causal links between things we observe. Example: we observe the sun rising followed by the dew on the grass disappearing. Science tells us there is a causal link here. We take a pill; our headache goes away. We reasonably conclude that there is causal connection.

But what all the events science examines mean when taken as a whole, science can never tell us. Nor can it tell us the meaning of life or the ultimate origins of the universe. When we speculate about the ultimate origin and meaning of things we leave science as such. We are in the realm of philosophy.

Science can tell us what to do to live longer—eat right, keep your weight down, exercise a lot, don’t smoke, and so on. But science can never tell us what to do with our life or what to believe about our lives.

Many people are brainwashed by the educational system to think that we should only pay attention to what science can “prove.” So they make science into a philosophy of life without even realizing it. This belief is known as scientific humanism. Philosophers call it naturalism.
I say it is a pretty disappointing outlook on life.

For one thing, it affords no hope whatever. You do whatever you do for 60, 80 or 100 years—and what do you have to show for it in the end? Nothing. In a matter of years nobody even knows you existed unless you make the history books. That’s not likely.

Secondly, it provides no basis for how we should treat each other. Why be kind and good and honest? Really, there is no reason not to cheat and use people if that’s what pleases you.

Thirdly, it offers no convincing foundation for a stable society in which human beings can flourish. It all boils down to the survival of the fittest—those who can dominate others most successfully, even while perhaps using a cloak of altruism, will survive.

Why should anyone care about the unborn, the poor, the mentally ill, and so on? Why should anyone care about the environment? The whole solar system will melt down some day. The human race will go extinct like every other species. So why get so concerned about it? If it bothers you to think our great-grandchildren may suffer from environmental degradation, then go green if you want. But if you don’t give a damn who’s to say you are wrong? Go with your flow. Whatever floats your boat.

Now most people don’t think that way. My point is that scientific humanism has no way to convince anyone to “get with the program.” Naturalism ends up with idea that we should “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Get yours while you can. If you want to be like Mother Teresa, go for it. If you want to be like Osama Bin Laden, why not?

We need to ask ourselves this question. What is the most reasonable worldview in light of what we know from our own consciences, from history, from philosophy and religion, as well as from science?

My point is this. One cannot simply say: “go with what science proves.” Science proves nothing. It shows some useful causal connections but says nothing about the meaning of it all: where everything came from, where it is all going, and what makes for a meaningful and flourishing life.