Huston Smith's concept of Science and Scientism

Huston Smith died so many years ago. Yet, he still speaking today as many has indebted to his astounding works. A great scholars of religion and write and spoke widely in others related subjects as well such as philosophy and science. His work on Why Religion Matters (2000) shed a very keen argument on why religion is necessary in life. One of the particular idea which he distinguished very often, is the idea of the difference between science and scientism. As we all know, science itself have several different meanings for all people. However, in a very basic level, science is a method and instrument to help human to grapple and discover the trough through the means of scientific inquiry. Whereas scientism is monopolizing the whole course of seeking truth by claiming that science is the [o]nly reliable path for the case of finding truth. Huston himself wrote that, "Science is on balance good, whereas nothing good can be said of scientism. "Smith also show a total rejection of Scientism as he quote the author of Chance and Necessity to say that "scientism saw leading infallibly upward to an empyrean noon for mankind, whereas what we see opening before us today is an "abyss of darkness." There is no sense of purpose and belonging the "Why" and "Ought" factor of living, that scientism can provide. At best, only the advancement of their own technological tools or society outwardly. 

Apparently as we traced back into the history of philosophy, scientism was raised through the strong emphasis of science as the greatest candidate of exploring the world to which religion can be just be thrown out of the window. Tom Sorell argues that the idea of scientism can be traced back up to 17 century conception of mind thinker which conclude that science can has no limit and can claim the true objectivity and science, can gain the most prominent position in culture. People like Bacon, Descartes, Locke show this kind of tendency even though they are religious, in the sense they all believe in God. Nonetheless, through the nuance of their writings to set science as the foundational epistemology breed the spirit of scientism. The thinkers after them has been adopted that scientific-foundational epistemology and brought a tremendous implication out of it to the most extremes form. The foundational epistemology of 17 century was dubbed and exaggerated particularly of the 19th century as they claim science is the [o]nly path to truth not one among many. People like Freud was the clearest example of a person who buy the idea of scientism as he says vividly that illusion, is not coming from the side of science rather the view that "science cannot give us we can get elsewhere." 

In respond to this, Huston mentioned that science need to assume methodological naturalism to explore the nature and reality however, scientism has goes too far as they adopted the philosophical naturalism in examining the world.  The conclusion of the philosophical naturalism is evident. There is no truth outside the scope of science. Normally, Darwinian worldview is adapted here. Scientism claim to understand everything yet in the same time ironically, they do not aware of their own limitation. Smith listed several limitation in which scientism can not even give an answer. These are the following lists, "values in their final and proper sense, existential and global meanings, final causes, invisibles, quality and our superiors." Moreover, science can give us some clues of the possible danger and sustainability in our world yet, science never be [e']nough to give a conclusive value judgment in every possible dilemma in life which involves masses and countless crowd. Every case of forming theory of everything up until today has proven to be a total failure. There is no theory of everything (TOE) that science can offers. Some have argued, String-Theory is the closest still ST not conclusive to be TOE.  

If we would like to examine closely, the the two basic tenets of scientism are science, is the most reliable method of truth. Second, material are the most fundamental things exits. These two pillars seems to make science and religion are in conflict with each other. From the previous history of persecution from religious community and the ban of religious teaching in public arena, the common first respond of people is that both are incompatible. Either religion is right that there is God or either Scientism is right, no such ultimate being exists. Thinker like Stephen Jay Gould would argue not in either-or way but try to embrace both. Science and religion asked a different set of questions, and hence they are both compatible. Science is about the mechanism of the world and facts. whereas religion is about the meaning, and existential relevance of the world and deal with values. Therefore, scientist can be religious and religious persons can be scientists. Science is all about facts and religion is about values, according to Gould. To that case, Huston has a slightly differ stance from Gould. Although he agree that science and religion are compatible (Although he deny evolution as the way the world formed. Through this, some sees Huston as adopting conflicts model between science and religion). 

He strongly argues that both religion and science both are able to interact in the same sort of questions yet, they are just answering it in and through a different set of level. The scientific answer is complete in its own answer, the primary cause of the mechanistic world yet never complete in answering the secondary cause that is beyond  the realm of science. The transcendental realm. Using Plato's allegory, all reality are shadows. Only God is "the real."  Nevertheless, all levels even they are distinct, they are interrelated and integrated. For Smith, there are greater mystical experience in the world that science could not explained and need to be addressed eventually (He himself was influenced by William James through his works, The varieties of religious experiences). Take for instance, the inner problem of man. Soon, as people grow older, Humanity need to face loneliness, hopelessness and despair. The title from George Lundberg's book present the question well, "Can Science Save Us?" If we would like to press the question more, can science (t)ruly save us? For Smith is a big no. The four vision tunnels of modern thinking like academia, scientism, legal system, and media, that are in hostile against the sacred-world, are never be enough to address the inner problem of humanity in general and particular. For Huston Smith, especially scientism. is even the cause of discontent and amplify our angts profoundly. Huston offers the model that is move beyond compatibility model. A dialogues model of science-religion. He sees God or religion as a supplement that will enlarge the scientific worldview and grants us a greater big picture that is beyond what is seen, what is heard and what can be touched, the physical world!