NRMs & Sciences

Framing

Many alive today lived through a time when the extinction of (traditional) Religion, usually at the hand of a triumphant Science, was convincingly portrayed as imminent. This announcement - as contrary to empirical reality as it has proven to be - has certainly exerted some influence on people in many societies, on some sectors of the population more than on others. For the general population, not to mention the governing elites of many societies, science the institution has acquired a kind of "plenary authority" over questions in many moral and political arenas (cf. Toumey 1996). Further, scientifically informed technocracies have risen in influence within many states. It is also true that the stamp of Science's approval, bestowed or implied, graces a bewildering number of commodities and practices people believe or are encouraged to believe they need. Technospirituality as an NRM strategy is thus not as exotic or remarkable as it may first appear.

For More Info
Anthro & NRMs > Religions > Sciences > Government > Media mailCAU
  Main > Anthro & NRMs > Sciences
Science v. Religion? Some of us see no conflict...Some of us need to see one

Discussion

Dynamic societies seem to produce new religions and new religious movements, which sociologist Reender Kranenborg suggests we should keep analytically separate. They emerge equally readily in conditions of societal health (as in the energetic marketplace of religions of the contemporary US) and stress (as with the cargo cults in Melanesia). In fact, it has been noted that such phenomena often constitute the means or contexts for people to deal with changes in their societies--or, as Anthony Wallace has suggested, to try to effect change in their societies. If that is the case, what may differentiate NRMs in the industrial and post-industrial societies of the last century-and-a-half in a qualitative sense from those of other historical and sociological contexts is the extent to which the former have grappled with the influence of scientific discoveries and theories, as well as the prestige and power of scientists.

This brings up the matter of strategies through which religious organizations deal with science as an institution and as a cultural resource, in both cases, a non-religious source of claims to authoritative knowledge.

Though I can do little more than take glancing blows at such weighty matters here, the more restricted topic in which I am most interested - technospirituality in new religions - offers multiple opportunities to approach those matters. As the term suggests, this is a strategy for creating a spiritually fulfilling system that has the appearance and (perhaps) the credibility of high-tech modern science.

Who? Why? Where?

A basic sociological question concerning technospiritualities is: "Who produces such things? What relationship exists between these beliefs and other aspects of their lives--employment, income, political affiliation, consumption patterns?"

A closely related set of questions have to do with purposes and goals. "What do producers of technospiritualities hope to accomplish?" It would appear to be straightforward: to effect a synthesis of disparate and often conflicting elements in their lives. If we assume that people still need meaning in their lives, and science - as a powerful but narrow and shifting source of knowledge - does not provide meaning, yet does create highly influential ways of making sense of the world, then such a strategy follows. But we need to listen to what these people say they are doing, too.

We should also inquire about audiences: "To whom are technospiritual systems directed? How do technospiritualists choose to reach their audiences? What elements of their belief system do they emphasize, or hide?"

What elements or aspects of science are used?

Those NRMs I have termed technospiritualities often start out as secular (and often "scientific") therapeutic organizations. A good case in point is the Church of Scientology, which began as a system of psychotherapy called "Dianetics" formulated by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. In some countries - such as the US - it is advantageous for organizations with a therapeutic or political orientation to seek incorporation as religious organizations, since religious entities have certain legal and financial benefits. Yet the scientific elements rarely get downplayed, and may in fact continue to be emphasized, in this transition in status.

Well, what sorts of scientific elements can survive translation into a religious framework? Usually whatever retains an aura of the authority of science (the institution), whether it be "facts" on which to base faith or simply the label "scientific." Whatever connotes certainty, modernity, power. It has been pointed out that NRMs, like fringe scientists, seize on concepts that are outmoded or are supported by a minority in the heterogeneous scientific community.

Works Cited

Bibliography

We can turn up a lot of material on science and religion, some emphasizing (to paraphrase one of the classics in the field) "the warfare between science and theology," some arguing for the compatibility - or, at the very least, the noninterference - of the two. I have tried to include recent examples of each approach below, as well as some sociological studies of how people draw on science and religion as cultural resources.

Proper Relation of Science to Religion

Interaction of Science and Religion

Links

Centers and Resources

Creation Science and Intelligent Design

(A particularly American kind of scientized spirituality, now much in the news for its proponents' efforts to get it equal time in secondary school curricula.)

cau 3.0 | © 2001-06 ryan j cook, phd | last modified: 2005.12.31