"Throughout history," writes today's reviewer, Ciprian Acatrinei, of the Department of Physics at the University of Crete in Greece, "the human mind has made numerous extrapolations. Sometimes, those have led to genuine discovery; sometimes, they have led us astray. Now, a crucial aspect of scientific endeavor is the desire to prove oneself wrong (if one is, in fact, wrong) as quickly as possible. A benefit of doubt, then, is that it often prevents damage from unfortunate analogies."

Yes, the miscarriage of metaphor and the abuse of analogy while creating an apparent likeness or similarity between the objects concerned often obscures their real natures and relations. And, as Acatrinei observes in his review of Mikael Stenmark's book "Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion" (Aldershort: Ashgate, 2001):

"Ironically though, science itself has generated, through some of its proponents, unscientific currents of thought. Scientism is such an example. In its various forms, it extrapolates concepts and conclusions from one scientific discipline to another, or even into a nonscientific domain, like morality or religion. Given the impact of science today, scientism has almost come into its own. Thus, lucid and readable critical accounts of scientism are timely."

Yes, it is. So please read on to explore Acatrinei's analysis of Stenmark's text.

Mikael Stenmark, the author of the book under review, is an associate professor in the philosophy of religion, Department of Theology, Uppsala University, Sweden. He is the author of "Rationality in Science, Religion and Everyday Life" (Notre Dame, Ind: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), for which he was awarded The John Templeton Foundation Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology and the Natural Sciences in 1996.

--Stacey E. Ake

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Subject: A Review of Mikael Stenmark's Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion From: Ciprian Acatrinei Email: <acatrine@aristoteles.physics.uoc.gr>

Throughout history, the human mind has made numerous extrapolations. Sometimes, those have led to genuine discovery; sometimes, they have led us astray. Now, a crucial aspect of scientific endeavor is the desire to prove oneself wrong (if one is, in fact, wrong) as quickly as possible. A benefit of doubt, then, is that it often prevents damage from unfortunate analogies.

Ironically though, science itself has generated, through some of its proponents, unscientific currents of thought. Scientism is such an example. In its various forms, it extrapolates concepts and conclusions from one scientific discipline to another, or even into a nonscientific domain, like morality or religion. Given the impact of science today, scientism has almost come into its own. Thus, lucid and readable critical accounts of scientism are timely.

The book by Mikael Stenmark, "Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion", is precisely such a critical account. It begins with a clear definition of Scientism, and a neat distinction among its various forms. The author chooses then to focus on four key types of scientistic claims.

The first two are:

(1) Scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we can get.

(2) Only things accessible to science do really exist.

Of course, a refutation of (1) discards (2) as well. The author thus first provides counterexamples to (1). This allows for an interesting digression into nonscientific forms of knowledge, sufficient to refute (1). Although a few of the assertions may leave room for debate, this would not save (1). Second, Stenmark demonstrates in an impeccable way the unscientific character of the two above claims. The task is not particularly difficult, but the well-chosen and highly focused arguments used (here as in the whole book) provide valuable reading. The overall conclusion is that there is no truly scientific basis for the claims (1) and (2). They lie in the realm of philosophy or ideology, not of science.

A third key scientistic claim is then addressed, namely

(3) Only science can answer our moral questions, and explain or replace ethics.

For some, this claim is justified by the continuous breakthroughs made by science in the study of life itself, from Darwin to the discovery of DNA. However, claim (3) is another matter (for those successes were not exhaustive). Stenmark refutes claim number (3) on the grounds of its lack of self-consistency as well as through the use of counterexamples. The important role of human reason and culture in forming moral habits also undermines the purely "Darwinian" (fitness-maximizing) view of morality. Overall, scientistic claims are shown to be either self-refuting or the products of conceptual confusion. In unraveling such confusions, the author makes an interesting distinction between biological and moral altruism.

The book reaches its climax with Stenmark's discussion of claim four:

(4) Science alone can answer our existential questions and explain or replace traditional religion.

The rational for this claim is the scientistic view that religion just maximizes fitness for the individual/group concerned. As the author notes, this applies at most to tribal religions but not to the big world religions, which have mainly an existential, not a material function. Consequently, counterexamples to a fitness-maximizing attitude frequently appear in religious behavior. Also, (4) fails to make the distinction between science and religion. For science is concerned with the external world, and religion deals with the inner one. Thus, religion is not a hypothesis meant to explain the physical universe, but it is capable of transforming people's lives as a response to an encounter with a divine reality. If science deals with indirect, impersonal knowledge, then religion involves direct and personal experiences, which should not be judged upon scientific criteria.

Entering a more philosophical territory, Stenmark also dispenses with the claim that Darwin's evolutionary theory contradicts Creation. God could have created us in many ways, and the initial conditions of our universe particularly favored our appearance, even if through evolution. Moreover, natural selection is about survival, not about increasing biological complexity, hence our appearance might just as well bear a divine imprint and yet not be the result of blind genetic evolution.

The author also discusses the existence of evil, which existence seems to be evidence in favor of a godless universe. Since only moral agents can uncover an evil state, this is a value-based argument, and not a purely scientific one. The Christian view also opposes it: God's reasons for allowing evil are not necessarily be known to us nor should the necessarily be. Moreover, the possibility of harm gives moral significance to our actions and helps develop our moral and spiritual virtues. This, in fact, could be one of God's aims. In conclusion, (4) is either based on a misunderstanding of religion and/or science, or it requires extra-scientific assumptions.

All in all Stenmark's book is well articulated, clear, and readable. It provides a good, concise introduction to the subject, on which it expresses a natural, moderate, but very well supported and thoughtful, point of view. A large category of reasonably educated people, including both scientists and philosophers, will enjoy it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2002.10.07