{"id":5047,"date":"2020-09-12T19:43:52","date_gmt":"2020-09-12T23:43:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/?p=5047"},"modified":"2020-09-12T19:43:52","modified_gmt":"2020-09-12T23:43:52","slug":"how-the-scientific-revolution-created-the-contemporary-god-complex","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/2020\/09\/12\/how-the-scientific-revolution-created-the-contemporary-god-complex\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Scientific Revolution created the contemporary “God Complex”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Steven Shapin\u2019s book,<\/span> The Scientific Revolution<\/span><\/i>, focuses on the historical context of the Scientific revolution by breaking it down into four spheres of how to interpret knowledge and the processes of what we do once we have knowledge. The third chapter of <\/span>The Scientific Revolution<\/span><\/i> is examining questions like What is knowledge for? and How do we apply our knowledge to live a balanced, moral, social and political life? All of these lingering questions of the Scientific Revolution were directed toward the natural philosophers of the time.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Scientific Revolution of the 16th to 18th century made way for scientists to assume the position of societal knowledge, by disputing Church teachings through natural exploration and experimentation. Once the Catholic Church was abandoned as the voice of reason, philosophers of nature took on the Church’s former role of knowledge, cementing the contemporary perception of scientists and those in the field to be all knowing, like God.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Shapin discusses the evolving status of priests at the time of the Scientific Revolution and mentions the rise of Scientist dependency. This was expressed by Shapin, who believed,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cJust as priests were traditionally defined by their authority to interpret scripture, so many religiously inclined natural philosophers considered themselves to be, in Boyle’s terms, \u201cpriests of nature\u201d possessing expert ability to interpret the book of nature and to make it available for religious use. They were charged with producing \u201csuccessful arguments to convince men there is a God\u201d possessing the attributes of wisdom and power.\u201d (Shapin, 153)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Scientific Revolution in no way criticized the existence of religion, it did however call in to question the practices and legitimacies of the Catholic Church\u2019s teachings and explanations of the Earth. Therefore when 16th to 18th century scientists joined their experimental findings with their religious views, lines were blurred and fostered a combined perspective of scientists as \u201creligious\u201d figures.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This was true for Robert Boyle, a 17th century, Irish natural philosopher, who held religion very close to his scientific explorations. Boyle\u2019s perception of the Scientific Revolution was very elitist in thought, reflecting his close religious views as he believed that \u201cspecifically endowed individuals through whom the pure and powerful ancient wisdom had been handed down,\u201d were the only ones suited for making and projecting their discoveries of the time (Shapin, 74). This mindset only recycled the Churches dominant power by redirecting it toward another small entity of individuals, this time Scientists. The scientific revolution opened up the world to new thought, but enabled an elitist mentality to emerge surrounding philosophers of nature, who would then be known as the \u201cscientific priests\u201d of the world that were looked upon by all of society to preach their doctrine of experimental reason.<\/span><\/p>\n

In contemporary day, the responsibility of explanation is on the shoulders of scientists, which we can see through the great emphasis our society places on scientists, doctors, mathematicians, and engineers, etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the most famous cases of this responsibility being taken to the extreme is the idea of a \u201cGod Complex.\u201d In Maureen Dowd\u2019s New York Times article, \u201cDecoding the God Complex,\u201d she defines a God-Complex to be an omniscient doctor who believes that they are like God as they have the power to save and heal lives, making them above the typical human. The creation of a God-Complex can be linked to the Scientific Revolution as scientists at that time were held to such a great standard. Scientists were the common people\u2019s answers to their great questions of the time. They were looked upon for medical help, concepts of gravity, math, the universe.<\/span><\/p>\n

Shapin\u2019s book mentioned this mentality by discussing Boyle\u2019s opinions regarding the role which scientists were to play during the Scientific Revolution. Looking to today, scientists are often held to a higher standard because of their contributions to society. Although science has been integral to our society, individual scientists are not responsible for progress. Shapin was trying to get at this by focusing rather on the greater shifts of the time than individual accomplishments. Collaboration according to Shapin is what made the Scientific Revolution possible, not the invention of Torricelli’s Barometer or Boyle\u2019s air pump. Instead, Shapin prefers to look at the Scientific Revolution as a movement in a time full of change that is due to an intellectual shift rather than just the intellectuals of the time.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Shapin, Steven. <\/span>The Scientific Revolution<\/span><\/i>. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/09\/28\/opinion\/dowd-decoding-the-god-complex.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Robert-Boyle<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Steven Shapin\u2019s book, The Scientific Revolution, focuses on the historical context of the Scientific revolution by breaking it down into four spheres of how to … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10439,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[527151],"tags":[533421,444565,444566],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5047"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10439"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5047"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5048,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5047\/revisions\/5048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/st112a-fall20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}