The Illusion of Believing

                   Peter Berger, in his work, The Sacred Canopy, describes the need we humans have for protecting ourselves from the great unknown.  It is a survival adaptation I think, that focuses our intellect on those things that are pertinent to our survival, our place in the community and our own comfort; hence the need for religion.  Science and religion seek the same final answers I think.  This is a conflict that plays out nicely in the story of Galileo, his discoveries and inevitable clash with the church.  The Church, being the traditional source of understanding the biggest question of all, was being rivaled by a thought process (common sense logic) which it used in part to describe the universe; but was normally left to the use of the individual in the realm of the physical day-to-day world. Deductive logic, after two thousand years was beginning to accumulate repeatable evidence that conflicted with accepted norms.  It was becoming intuitively obvious that the moon for example was reflecting light from the sun. Galileo knew this; the Church couldn’t afford to go down that road.  Recently, the Catholic Church has decided that science is also the work of God and eliminated this major conflict.
         Scientific pursuit, in spite of the Scientific method that makes it stand out as an isolated function, is a cultural pursuit.  I hold this to be true because the application of science is to benefit mankind.  I’m sure that the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake is noble and serves the philosophy of the scientific method, but true science is also born from the needs of mankind and the mother of invention.  Science looks beyond the veil of believing.  “Believing” is a subscription to a system of thinking allowing a person to avoid the speculations of science and the rigors of proof.  This “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” or circular style of reasoning suits most mythology quite well.  Religious leadership depends heavily on the assumptions ingrained into the thinking of the following.  This force of acceptance by the Catholic Church gave them great power over society.  This power is not lost on the politics of any era.  The conflict of science versus religion is a threat to the safety of society and a threat to the individual’s perception of reality. 
                   Why doesn’t the rigorous discipline of scientific thought simply bury the hazy false logic of religion?  Why indeed?  Is it because the general public is too ignorant to appreciate the finer points of logic and the rules of evidence?  Is it because they simply do not want to believe?  Is it because the iron clad scientific law of one day falls to the new iron clad law of the next?  Is science too hard to understand?  Is it too difficult to verify?  Is it all these things?  I propose that science, true science does not compete for the hearts and minds of the masses, if science turned its jaundiced gaze toward that issue, it would be consumed by the volume of data.  I contend that science has a problem quantifying the human parameters.  Mythology for example may be a function of DNA and have little to do with speculation.  Mythologist Joseph Campbell observed similarities in every myth he recorded.  My impression is that a series of complex forces put Galileo’s head on the chopping block for his failure to observe the dangers of this particular fear and the other motivations that science needs to serve.  Technology is the slave and master of science because real world wealth solves real world problems and science is a tool for that process.  When science seeks the meaning of God or the mind of God, this triggers a process in a locked box of ideas, a place in the mind where ideas are prepared in defense against change.  In seeking to improve knowledge, science treads on an area of perception, a place where the story is more important than the facts.  Galileo never had a chance in his lifetime, but his work was essential for change to come.