IS SCIENCE STILL ANTHROPOCENTRIC?

16th Century Italy and the example of Heliocentrism and Geo-centrism debate. A Galileo begging for mercy in front of the church, he might have been frustrated inside. That's why, he apologized but inside he said, "Eppur si Muove" or "But still it moves". 

But is it done? Like, Is the debate done? I always wondered Galileo was the person who knew about relativity of motion. At least, Galilean Transformation if not Lorentzian transformation. So, he knew, why the church is backing the Geo-centric model of the universe. Of course, someone sitting with his reference frame on Earth will see the sun revolving around it. To have your reference frame on Earth is like seeing the world revolve round you. It was probably known to Galileo. Why did Galileo oppose the church? Why was it so necessary to assert that the sun is not moving, rather the earth is? 

The answer to this is, It was necessary because the intent because of which Church, the medieval hegemonic entity asserted on Geo-centrism was not at all healthy. It was human narcissism. It was the view of humans that the whole world has been created around them. They are the center of attraction of the universe. The whole journey of science has been to be more conscious of the fact that "Oh! Humans! you are not the center of the universe! You are not special. You may be first among equals. Primus Inter pares, but not more than that."

God has not created you in his image. First of all, there is no God, then, there is no creation. And then, there is no image, since there is no object, but an objectivity without objects exists. 

Why it becomes necessary to oppose religious thought through scientific rationality and develop a scientifically refined spirituality over and over again, is because Religion is, obviously narcissism institutionalized and Intellectualized. 

A religious man is a narcissistic person who really thinks the creator, if any, of a wide, ever expanding universe cares for him. It becomes necessary from time to time to come up with refutations of this unhealthy daydreaming of religions. 

So, Religion is anthropocentric. This is what Feuerbach also had to say. That the central idea of religion is that God made humans, but Humans stress it to obscure the fact that Humans made Gods. 

But, then What about science? Is science out of the grasps of Anthropocentrism? Is Science, the forth-runner of corrective thought, already out of the garb of anthropocentrism? 

Current ideology of religions has already lost their claims on Ontological and metaphysical genesis. Science better explains how the reality was created. Not religions. 

Now, the religions and religious leaders are trying to bring Science down to the level of religions. You will see arguments like, "Oh! If religion is creation of men, then science also is created by men only! Not divine!" 

The message of such arguments is, "There is equality in religion and science". But of course, that was not the central thesis of scientific thought. 

Of course there is no divine intervention in scientific thought, rather interestingly reversing the idea, it claims, that there can be no divine intervention possible in any discipline, no holy book is possible since there is nothing holy present in the universe. No divinity means two things, 

1. No special status to anything, anyone or any event. 

2. No mysticism. There might be more to know. There might be inaccuracies in our understanding. But there is nothing which we will never know and it will keep influencing our lives. Anything that can have an effect on the physical world will have to be explained by physical laws. No extra-physical, no meta-physical entity can influence physical things or events. 

So, when we talk about say, Gravity, of course, there are anthropocentric interventions in it. To describe Gravity as a force was a human idea. It was decided by Newton to develop a mathematical-mechanical-dynamical structure and to place in that theory, or say story, Gravity as a force. 

Subsequently in the light of new observations with heavier objects and faster speeds, we found that it is in fact an interaction of spacetime and matter. Curvature of space time. And more so, we found in subsequent times, that it is in fact exchange of some particles called, Graviton. 

In all of this, there is no mysticism involved. Mysticism is perhaps the perverted version of curiosity. Curiosity is the progressive term for trying to know while mysticism is the epistemically ambiguous term, which propagates a view that never everything can be known, which is nothing, but a sort of dogma religions believes in. 

The new attacks on sciences as to reduce it to just anthropocentric imaginations is bizarre. Of course, a theory, a scientific theory is man made, and it is like a story only, but to reduce it to say that A religious story and a scientific story are on the same level is discarding the evidence and the experiments that conclusively proved the accuracy of the scientific theory. 

Religions have no relations with a scientific experiment. They are hell bent on an assertion that Experiments too are man-made, and men will observe what they intend to. That is not true at all. The whole basis of scientific experiment is to probe the physical world through a problem and some tools to probe the characteristics of the system created within the world and to get information useful for constructing a theory. It is not always that a theory is created and then experiments are done to prove it. Sometimes we just proceed with a problem statement and devise an experiment to get an answer and in turn we get a whole story which connects multiple phenomena together to form a concrete sense of reality. 

Now, this story, which has been constructed by humans only, have less contributions of human imagination, and more contribution of the evidence we get along our way. 

So, to say that 

Science= Man made Story, And 

Religion= man-made story 

so, Science ~ Religion is utterly bullshit. 

Science is not just a story. It is a story based on true events. Religion is a story fabricated, a lie, to explain the origins without trying to collect evidence of truth, with a claim that nothing can be known certainly (Mysticism). So, if nothing can be known certainly, how did you know this? That nothing can be known certainly? What was the basis of this dogma? Nothing but pre-judice, right? 

Science is anthropocentric. But it does not end at that center. That human center is not just a dot in case of science but with closely observing through a microscope, it is a small circle encircling the truth of nature and natural physical world. 

To come back to Our Galilean example, of course to say Heliocentrism and geocentrism are equivalent stories when you consider principles of relativity that There can be no absolute reference frame possible. 

But Humans believed in Geo-centrism for centuries and would have never known about the relativity of frames in the first place. It is only through Heliocentrism, which was the vanishing mediator thought, a necessary anti-thesis, which made us progress to the principles of relativity. 

If we cannot agree that It is better to view Sun still and planets revolving it, rather than Earth still, and sun revolving it, how will be able to explain Goldilocks' zones of other solar systems, Possible lives on other planets, and so on. 

The reason this much progress was possible is because someone in Italy thought to change the intent of knowing itself. The intent of knowing in science is not to escape curiosity but to live it daily. To spend lives in search of truth. That is the core of spirituality even. Attention to truth. Not some dogma. But truth, And if truth is an ever long search, Then attention would be curiously searching. 

Science is anthropocentric still. But it is science only, through which we can have the hopes that one day, we will be free from this bias. No religion wishes to free man from his biases. That is the difference precisely.