Материал: Nigel Rapport, Joanna Overing, Social and Cultural Anthropology - The Key Concepts (2000)

SCIENCE

saints, angels and the Virgin Mary. Salvation from this world remained the religious end, but this was now to be achieved in terms of activities within this world (rather than withdrawal from the world) by way of a pure conscience and direct communion between autonomous, introspective individuals and an ‘awful’, transcendent God. Meanwhile, the vacuum created by the demise of institutional church power had enormous social repercussions; a host of secular institutions, legal, economic, educational, aesthetic and scientific, sprang up to fill the gap in meaning, knowledge and creative expression. Each of these new, humanistic forms of institutional knowing claimed its own distinct area of expertise. As Peter Berger concurs (1969:111–26), Protestantism abolished the diverse Catholic continuities of being between the seen and unseen worlds, between humankind and the divine, so that, as Weber put it, the world became a ‘disenchanted’ one, no longer mediated by mysteries and miracles, sacraments and saints. A natural universe of fallen humanity as distinct from a heavenly realm of transcendent divinity was, of course, posited in Protestant cosmology by way of emphasizing the ‘terrible’ majesty of God, but a sky empty of angels also made room for astronomers and physicists, and an institutional and systematic, scientific exploration.

Berger and Bellah thus agree that Protestantism served as an important historical prelude to the rule of science and also the rise of secularization: to a process whereby the remaining vestige of a hierarchical, supernatural cosmology—the notion of God—becomes implausible too, and large ‘sections of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols’ (Berger 1969:107). In Bellah‘s fifth stage of religious evolution, then, ‘modern’, we find science answering many of the ‘how’ questions of the workings of the world, becoming, for many, the route to the ‘sacred’: to ‘the ultimate conditions of human existence’. Religion is reduced to pondering the ‘why’ and the ‘ought’, although even here there are competing, secular ideologies: humanism, Marxism, cultural relativity, capitalism. Religious institutions find themselves having to mimic the argumentational styles of scientific rationalization or of commodity consumption in order to gain adherents, the latter becoming ‘clients’ who are ‘sold’ a tradition as a meaningful path to personal peace of mind (cf. Heelas 1996). Scientific knowledge via experimentation and validation is the standard for all. Not only does science grow out of religion, then, but religion now functions within the ambit of scientific method and world-view.

For some, such as Gellner (1993), this gives social science a particular, moral role to play. If science grew out of religion, if rationalism is the continuation of monotheism by other means, then it cannot overcome

323

SCIENCE

completely that heritage. That is, science has replaced universalistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al.) which themselves replaced ‘tribal religions’, indexically linked to certain socio-cultural spaces and relationships. Universalistic religions, transmitted by doctrine not ritual, and incarnated in movable scriptures, not local performances, claimed access to transcendental truths valid for all times and places. And this socio-culturally disembodied, religious knowledge then provided the template for autonomous scientific truth. Science has likewise come to represent itself as a form of knowledge which is valid for all: a cognition which reaches beyond any one culture, an understanding of nature giving onto a universalistic technology.

The difference, however, is that in this rationalist Enlightenment, where a sacred salvation has been replaced with a secular one, science provides no social-cum-moral vision. To complement its overcoming of a religious ‘how’, therefore, must be provided—by social science if not by science—the ‘why’ and ‘ought’ of the religious heritage. As Gellner concludes: ‘[o]ur predicament is—to work out the social options of our affluent and disenchanted condition. We have no choice about this’ (1995b:8). Perhaps social science can point the way to the institutionalization of a ‘constitutional’ religiosity—on a similar basis to a constitutional monarchy—which retains the ritual and symbolism of an earlier epoch but lacks any real power or consequence. So that social life and decision-making are actually run along profane, techno-scientific lines but within an idiom of traditional religious legitimations: an amalgamation of scientific cognition, order and knowledge and religious faith, aestheticism and comfort.

Are science and religion contrastive in nature?

Besides the missing moral component in a scientific world-view, how different an engagement with the world is represented by the evolution from religion to science? Are science and religion contrastive in nature?

On this point, anthropologists seem divided, as is nicely represented by a debate between John Beattie (1966) and Robin Horton (1967). For Beattie, religion should be understood as essentially expressive and dramatic behaviour more akin to art than science. Religion concerns symbolic statements, not practical procedures, and a premium is placed upon the elaboration or involution of symbolism as an end, value and beauty in itself. To the extent that religion possesses procedure—as in ritual—the efficacy of the latter resides in its expressiveness, in its being expressed and enacted in particular ways. The procedure is far from being intellectual or explanatory activity, based on experimental

324

SCIENCE

propositions or the testing of rationally formulated hypotheses. Religion is not grounded in a mechanistic universe at all, and to the extent that religious beliefs treat empirical facts, causes and functions (‘among the Nuer, incest causes leprosy’), then these are secondary to their main purpose, and arrived at intuitively or poetically, and without theoretical or experimental mediation. The main purpose of religious ritual and belief is, rather, to influence, by imprecation, sacrifice and prayer, an intentioning universe replete with personalized beings.

In short, religion and science are like two very different, if not opposite, cultures. Religion is a kind of artistic language, a distinctive way of saying something, whose values lie in how well that thing is said. Dramatic assertion is here an end in itself, rather than aiming for any more instrumental effectiveness. Even if religion and science come to be entwined in one socio-cultural setting, then, they remain contrastive ways of imaging and engaging with the world: two types of attitude to experience, two kinds of truth, two forms of practice.

For Horton, however, this distinction between ‘expressive action’ and ‘technical action’ does not hold up. In science, religion has been replaced by a form of knowledge and construction of meanings which is basically and directly comparable: from Judaeo-Christian Genesis to the Big Bang; from God as single, absolute truth to physical nature as an objective reality; from God as disembodied agency beyond time and space to scientific reasoning and rationality.

Horton‘s argument against the likes of Beattie rests on four main refutations. First, religion is contrasted with science due to the claimed symbolic proliferation of the former compared to the simplicity, consistency and non-capriciousness of the latter. However, this difference is merely superficial. Whatever the elaboration of supernatural forces in religious cosmology, these come down to a relatively few kinds by whose action experience is explained. Each kind of being, moreover, will be appointed certain regular functions concerning the world of observable happenings, which a religious expert will be able to construe. This limitation in the number of kinds of ordering entity and process underlying the disorderly diversity of experience makes of religion a fundamentally explanatory phenomenon. Second, religion is as much an empirical pursuit, interested in natural causes, as is science, only the idiom is different: personalized beings as opposed to impersonal forces. In both, the visible, tangible world of commonsensical effects is superseded by reference to theoretical entities—‘the anger of spirits’, ‘the fusion of hydrogen nuclei’—which transcend a limited, quotidian vision and link events to more distant, antecedent causes.Third, religion, like science, possesses levels of explanation for application in different

325

SCIENCE

kinds of situations.Thus events can be placed in relatively limited causal contexts—one’s community and one’s immediate environment, say—or the widest possible—the origins of the universe or of life—as one refers, contingently, to tutelary spirits or molecules, to the supreme being or the law of gravity. Fourth, the theoretical notions which religion and science employ are in both cases transpositions of familiar analogies from commonsensical worlds. That is, given their different assumptions of where everyday order resides—the personal (religion) and the inanimate (science)—theoretical order is similarly arrived at: gods are like patriarchs or patrons; Brownian motion is like bouncing billiard balls. In both cases, too, only part of the analogy is adopted to fill out the new explanatory setting: gods are like patriarchs but not so in the patriarchs’ mortality; atoms are like billiard balls but not in the balls’ colouration. In each case, theoretical explanations are arrived at by abstracting from what is commonsensically known so as to provide the bedrock for the extraordinary wisdom which is demanded. Religious explanation and scientific explanation, in short, are both metaphorical in inspiration.

Differences of idiom aside, then, Horton’s conclusion is that religion and science share the same explanatory nature and ethos. Any dichotomization—emotional versus intellectual engagements; mystical versus rational, fantastical versus causal, supernatural versus empirical— points up merely superficial contrasts.

How ‘scientific’ is science?

Horton does not suggest that religion and science are the same, however. He does recognize important differences between them, the greatest being what he calls the ‘openness’ of science as opposed to the ‘closure’ of religion: the readiness of the former, but not the latter, to accept alternatives to established doctrine and to change. As Gellner put it (1993:76), not being revelatory, science pretends to no finality in its knowledge and shies away from no scrutiny. (Indeed, its lack of rigidity or stasis is the main reason why it is difficult tying it to moral prescriptions or an underwriting of values.) Horton (1967) then goes on to amplify the seven differences between religious and scientific systems of thought which give onto the scientific systems’ distinct openness.These include the magical attitude towards words in religion, their indexical nature; the non-reflective character of religious thought, so that thoughts are not separated from occasions, and systems of thought as such are not thought about in disinterested fashion; the protective attitude to ways of knowing in religion (as opposed to the sceptical one in science) whereby predictive failure is threatening

326

SCIENCE

rather than challenging, and the passage of time from past to future a source of pollution and decay rather than progress and perfection; and the employment of secondary elaborations and taboos in religion to maintain questionable systems of classification instead of throwing them over.

While open versus closed may apply to science versus religion as ideal-types, Horton does however recognize that for non-specialist, lay persons living within scientific and religious systems may be more similar than dissimilar. Furnished with garbled and watered-down versions of scientific theory, that is, the grounds whereby the ‘secular’ layman accepts the legitimacy of scientific models may not be so different from the deferral to tradition which characterizes the nonsecular religionist.

Since Horton wrote, it is such questions of the ‘scienticity’ of science which have represented perhaps the major avenue of anthropological exploration. Does the deployment of a scientific method and worldview operate according to scientific standards of rationality and objectivity, whether among secular laity or working scientists? Are such standards possible, and anything more than a foundation myth or ideology? Are not notions of scientific rationality, openness, scepticism and critique perhaps better seen as part-and-parcel of a ‘culture of science’ in which individual members, their beliefs and actions, are as constrained as in any ‘traditional’ religion? Heald (1991) even suggests that the specialization of knowledge and expertise in the West makes us more respectful, not less, of accepted traditions as handed to us by (say, medical) authorities ‘in the know’. We cannot assess expert knowledge easily, do not expect it to be commonsensical, and hence take it largely on trust. In traditional, ‘tribal’ milieux, by contrast, systems of knowledge are grounded in common experience and understandings, are more concrete, less institutionalized, and are thus more easily challenged. From so-called credulous primitives to gullible moderns.

The thrust of Heald’s argument—that so-called scepticism and openness are as much culturally conditioned and institutionalized as socalled closure and traditionality—has been famously generalized by the historian of science Thomas Kuhn (1970). Far from ranging openly and freely, scientific enquiry and practice is at any one time constrained by what Kuhn calls the currently dominant ‘paradigm’; only at occasional, wholesale revolutions do paradigms shift and, relative to the immediate past, scientists find themselves under new dispensations. Kuhn defines a paradigm as ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on, shared by the members of a given community’ (1970:175). Learnt at initiation and socially imposed thereafter, paradigms ‘determine large

327