One of the biggest differences between real science and religion is the way information is organized. With science, you take a lot of information and come up with a theory that both explains the information and allows you to make predictions. For example, Albert Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity of 1915, predicted that gravity would bend light. On May 29, 1919, this prediction was proven true thanks to a total solar eclipse. It allowed scientists to see that the positions of stars appeared shifted from their actual positions. Testing theories is one of the basic techniques science. If a theory does not explain the results, a scientist must either alter a theory or abandon it and come up with another.

On the other hand, religion begins with a theory based on a book or books, or a philosophy/theology. Everything must fit into that theory. Nothing must threaten or change the theory. Now here is an important difference between religion and science: for religionists, if the observations don’t fit a theory, it is the observations that must be changed or reinterpreted. For example, fossils in geological strata that is millions of years old, to some religionists, is rationalized as either being misinterpretations of the observations, placed their by God in order to test our belief, or placed their by Satan to confuse us!

To recap:

• Science: Change theory to fit all data
• Religion: Ignore/change/reinterpret data to fit predetermined theory

Chief of Science or Scientism?

I am what I consider to be a “true skeptic.” I believe that people who follow a magickal path should all be true skeptics. By that I mean having an attitude that questions accepted opinions and want proof for claims. Unfortunately, there are people who have taken the name of “skeptic” but who are actually debunkers. They follow the religion of scientism. Their religion is a narrow materialism and their debunking—which they falsely call “skepticism”—denies and will do anything to disprove or denounce any challenge to their religion.

The false skeptic and priests of scientism have no actual central control or papacy, but they do have a few leaders. One is known as Randi with his questionable Million Dollar Challenge. The other is a gentleman named Michael Shermer.

According to his website, “Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, [and] the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society…” I would say there is no doubt that he is one of the leading and most visible of the so-called skeptics in the world.

The thing about pseudo-skeptics is that they believe themselves to be defenders of science. But are they? Some certainly are. In some circumstances the pseudo-skeptics reveal some of the most egregious attacks upon real science.

Of course, even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. [Unless it's a digital clock that shows whether a time is AM or PM.] Regrettably, the pseudo-skeptics’ defense of science is often done only as part of their defense of scientism. Thus, in some situations they may support real science only for the purpose of defending their religion of scientism.

Do I have evidence for this claim of pseudo-skeptics defending scientism and not science? Yes I do. I take it directly from this quote of Mr. Shermer:

In all fields of science there is a residue of anomalies unexplained by the dominant theory. That does not mean the prevailing theory is wrong or that alternative theories are right. It just means that more work needs to be done to bring those anomalies into the accepted paradigm.

Do you see what he’s saying here? Don’t question the theory or paradigm. Instead, make sure that the uncomfortable data that doesn’t fit the theory (what he calls “anomalies”) is reinterpreted to fit the theory.

Now look above. Does reinterpreting data to fit an accepted theory (paradigm) represent science or religion? Is Mr. Shermer defending science or religion (scientism)? I would contend that it is the latter.*

Where Does Magick Fit Into This?

As I have stated before, magick is an experimental science. In fact, one form of magick, traditional alchemy, is the source of what has been called the scientific method. What you find in books on magick, such as my Modern Magick, are theories that, according to the authors, best explain observations (rituals and their results) and allow you to make predictions (designing rituals). If your experimentation (magickal work) provides observations that do not fit the theory, then the theory must be modified to fit the observations. In other words, books on magick are a great place to start magickal practice, but it’s up to each individual to create his or her own magickal system in order to achieve greatest success. That system may be the same as in a book, a slight modification, or a radical change.

However, magick is not a “hard science” like chemistry where a set of given conditions will always produce the same result. This is because one of the “variables” in the experimental science of magick is you, the experimenter/magickian. As a result, what works for you may not work for everyone. This, however, doesn’t mean that magick isn’t a science. It just means that magick is a science that people with a simplistic, religion-based attitude (where the religion is scientism) may have difficulty understanding or accepting.

*I will not be surprised if fans of Mr. Shermer make comments defending him and his statement. Religionists often come to the defense of their leaders, even if a leader does something contrary to the religion or fact. See the book When Prophecy Fails for a study of this phenomenon.

The point of the article is that there are several reasons for scientific illiteracy. For one thing, we need to improve science education in order to help adults have a better understanding of science. With that I fully agree. Unfortunately, many commentators who claim to be supporting science really don’t understand science. How can they lead students into the 21st century when they’re lost in the 19th?

Scientism vs. Science

Many of these “experts” follow what I refer to as “scientism” rather than science. By scientism I mean:

A set of beliefs, focused around a narrow interpretation of materialism, that purports either to be a true defense of “real” science or science per se, but is closer to a type of religion.

So what, then, do I mean by “science?” Although I’m not a big fan of Wikipedia, I do agree with their definition of science: “an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.”

One of the World’s Oldest Sciences

For thousands of years, people have used one of the best forms of scientific research, direct observation, to look at the stars and planets. They have built systems that organize the knowledge thus gained and how it relates to life and events in this world. The students of this science—especially in India where this science is known as jyotish—are able to make accurate predictions. In the West, a practitioner of this science, Evangeline Adams, proved before a court in New York that the science she practiced, indeed, was not a fraud. This science is astrology.

Yes, astrology fits all of the definitions of what is required to be a science. Those who practice scientism, however, decry it because the science of astrology doesn’t fit into their religion of scientism.

In the “Post-Gazette” article, the experts, followers of scientism, claim that because 41% of the adults interviewed disagree with the statement that “astrology is not at all scientific,” it is a sign of adult scientific illiteracy. I disagree. It is a sign that they don’t follow the religion of scientism. [Note: you may have to click on the link to the chart in order to see it.]

Believing that astrology is at least partially scientific is not necessarily a sign of scientific literacy, but it doesn’t indicate scientific illiteracy, either.

So yes, we do need better science education. That means not teaching religion in science classes, even if that religion is scientism.

So I went online to find out what is really happening. NASA is not actually bombing the moon; first they crash landed a “rocket stage,” and then, four minutes later, they crash landed a separate spacecraft that had been carried by the rocket but detached before the impact. The whole point was to first send up a large plume of debris from the larger rocket crash, which would then be analyzed for water content by the array of instruments on the second, smaller craft to follow it.

Both of these missions were accomplished this morning, and you can see a graphic representation and some NASA video about in on the BBC website.

Well, I have to admit – when I first heard they were deliberately crashing things on the moon, I got worried. I love the moon! It is a huge part of my life as a Pagan, and life on Earth is indebted to it for its help in regulating our tides and stabilizing the Earth’s rotation on its axis. But the NASA website about the LCROSS program (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) reassured me that no lasting or major damage was done to the moon, which is actually hit all the time by the same kind of debris that hits the Earth’s atmosphere and causes “shooting stars” – only the moon has no atmosphere to slow down such projectiles, and thus we have its familiar pockmarked and cratered appearance.

Yet there are points in their FAQ page that make me uneasy. For example, the whole point of the mission is to look for water (in the form of ice, ice-coated dust grains, or vapor) in the deep craters of the moon where the sun never shines. They argue that a source of water on the moon would be a great help for space missions in the distant future taking off from the moon – with their own source, they wouldn’t need to transport as much water up there. So far, so good.

However, then they go on to say that while the moon has plenty of oxygen tied up in its surface, “hydrogen is the other key element that could make rocket fuel production practical on the moon.” Rocket fuel production on the moon. Think about that for a minute. They want to make rocket fuel on the moon? (Now I’m imagining all kinds of buildings, infrastructure, guys in hard hats, and so on.)

Also I found out that this is not the first time a spacecraft has crashed on the moon – there have been at least 20 impacts of terrestrial spacecraft into the moon. To me, that means 20 pieces of terrestrial junk that no one will ever remove or dispose of. For some of these impacts, they haven’t even been able to locate the impact crater, so they reason these kinds of spacecraft wrecks up there will be “very hard to notice.” And, since the moon is already inhospitable to begin with, “bathed in cosmic rays and solar particle radiation,” it shouldn’t matter if we make it even less livable, so to speak. So I guess that is their case for polluting the moon.

I’m sorry, but as a Pagan I see the moon as something beautiful and sacred, and it pains me to think that after trashing our own planet, we have developed the resources to go up and trash the moon. Does this make me an anti-science, anti-progress religious fanatic, just like the ones I have so little respect for? Maybe in my own way, but I can’t help it.

What do you think? Is it OK to leave debris and possibly set the stage for rocket fuel production on the moon in the name of science? Do you think that this is a Pagan issue at all? Is it even an environmental issue, since it’s not our environment nor one any of us can possibly conceive of living in?