Jacques Ellul, by far the most significant author in the serious discussions on the interface between religion and technology, is apparently not known to the science‐and‐religion field. The reason is the imprecise use of the terminology. In scientific formulation the relationship can be summarized as technology /religion:: science/theology. The first pair are robust three‐dimensional templates of most human experience; the second pair are linear, abstract concerns of a minority of citizens. In the parallel community—now well developed throughout academia—of science, technology, (...) and society, where the technology/religion matters have been discussed more than the science/religion pair, John Caiazza's point that “techno‐secularism is the real problem” has been front and center for some decades. Among the theologians most aware of this, Raimundo Panikkar, Langdon Gilkey, and Huston Smith, Smith is the one who has taken the case much further than Caiazza, recognizing the danger of the real theological challenge from the religion of scientism and actively working against it. I write from a unique background among those involved in this debate—that of being deeply embedded simultaneously both in the modern science and technology establishment and in the reform of the religious enterprise for fifty years. I make the case that matters are worse than even Smith posits. He shows that scientism as a fundamentalist modern secularism serves the exact function of the theology behind the practiced religion of America and the West, that is, technology. An unexpected ray of hope has appeared in the sudden emergence of whole‐person healing (also known as complementary and alternative medicine), which is used regularly by well over half the population. This reintroduction of the spiritual dimension into this key technology of health will certainly be a major turning point. (shrink)

Science and religion are incommensurable: one cannot use centimeters to measure volume. Science's proper cognate is theology. Science and theology are human activities that are basically conceptual (partly fallible) frameworks for explaining experience. Religion and technology, by contrast, involve and control or limit human practice and experience: they involve “sensate” reality—people and things. The study of the interaction of these four terms (or any two) must use the terms more precisely.Science as practiced today has become scientism, another theology. Technology is, (...) without any doubt, the world's most powerful and fastest growing religion.Minor squabbles among theologies, including science, must continue, but it is the tensions between technology and the established religions that will define this century. Battles on three fronts are already clear: the environment, globalization, and economic gaps. But whole–person healing, the replacement for high–tech reductionist modern medicine, is the most significant, because it will undermine science, which has hitched its wagon to this falling star.The end of fundamental science is upon us, because it has been so successful. Science will be increasingly applications–driven, and it will be judged by results. Here, it has met its nemesis in wholeperson healing that incorporates integrative medicine. Scientists must now reconsider their role in society. It will not be easy to accept a humbler position. Moreover, the vague allusions to spirituality by scientists need a more authentic commitment to praxis in lifestyle. (shrink)

A silent revolution has occurred in the most highly industrialized countries. This is the utilization and acceptance of various healing practices (which for convenience has often been labeled as “alternative medicine,” a.k.a. “whole person healing”) by an enormous fraction of the population. Moreover, this population cohort is much wealthier and better educated than the average citizen. It is no longer possible for this generation in the Western world to ignore or denigrate the medicine and healing practices used by hundreds of (...) millions in other cultures. What is obviously needed is a retreat from the innate skeptical reaction of much of the stance of western medicine, the development of a mutual respect for other cultures and their achievements, and a genuinely open, scientific and wholistic approach to the issues, especially in this context, to other practices of whole person healing. (shrink)

Fundamental science is rapidly approaching its asymptote because it has been so successful. We already have a “theory of everything, that matters to the human race.” The laws of chemistry and physics cannot be replaced. Although most scientists react to this as though it were religious blasphemy, the proof is in our record. Since the discovery of quantum mechanics, no fundamental science of any significance to other sciences has appeared—in 70 years and with, perhaps, expenditures of$ 0.5 trillion. In contrast, (...) engineering and applied sciences have taken over the fundamental role, insofar as it is their advances from electric lights to cars, to planes, to computers that affect all science and all citizens. The reductionist model of approaching reality has been discredited. The most visible arena for the victory of the new integrationist approaches is in the reemergence of integrative medicine, which includes high-tech medicine in the larger body-mind-spirit, or whole person approach. (shrink)

We describe herein an introductory STS course, designed for large numbers of students, which uses a large number of faculty instructors. Its content and style has evolved continuously for 20 years in a major research university and been adapted for use in small two-year and four-year campuses.

The questions of scientific choice which were left unresolved when the rapid expansion of academic science in the United States began in the early 1960s have come back to trouble the scientific community. There is now widespread dissatisfaction with the process of review by peers as one of the major systems for the allocation of public funds for research. While earlier criticisms had been brushed off by the assertion—unsupported by facts—that no other systems existed, the present situation cannot be so (...) easily dismissed.A serious examination of other national and international arrangements shows that a wide variety of procedures are in use and there is no research which shows that one system is either more productive scientifically, or more cost-effective in bringing about valuable scientific research. New systems which may be considered should avoid the major defects of the system of peer review as now practised: the enormous waste of scientists' time, the great potential for conflicts of interest, and the inherent bias against innovation.The principal system which I have proposed here combines the best elements of peer review with the simplicity and efficiency of the use of a formula. Moreover, this formula based on peer review of performance incorporates all the elements for which the academic scientific establishment should be accountable to its patron, which is the public treasury. A final virtue of the proposed system is that it provides simple and convenient procedures through the use of numerical weighting factors for the policy-maker to guide the support of scientific research as a whole. (shrink)