Part of what “renewing your mind” means is learning to question the assumptions of worldly culture and resisting the temptation to flow with “preconscious” acceptance of habitual ways of seeing and thinking. Take science, for example, and the frequent appeals made by its advocates that modern science should be regarded as a voice of authority about what is real… Just a moment of reflection, however, will indicate that the scientific enterprise is a faith system that inescapably believes many metaphysical axioms, including assumptions about time (i.e., that the future will “resemble” the past), about motion (i.e., that natural processes are “uniform”), about space (that there is an external world that is knowable to the human mind); about the capability of the mind to define and represent things (e.g., that measurement “makes traction” with this external world and can be used to predict outcomes); about values (i.e., that it is “better” to know rather than not to know; or that the scientific method is an “good way” to develop inductive inferences, or that a given theory is “elegant,” etc.). Note that these various axioms are not based on scientific inquiry itself (which is based on evidence and repeatable empirical measurement), but they are brought to science as assumptions used to frame or organize a particular “paradigm.” In other words, science is a system of faith about what constitutes “reality,” and like any other faith system, it needs to undergo testing to see if its inferences and claims provide the best explanation for what is real. For instance, does the naturalistic view of reality espoused by evolutionary cosmologists best explain the meaning of life? Does it account, for instance, for the electromagnetic pulse of the individual human heart? For the aesthetic wonder of the beauty? For poetry, or the longing of heart for love? for friendship? truth? for eternal life?
There are limits of scientific knowledge and its apprehension of reality (as explained by Immanuel Kant). Do phenomenal cause and effect inferences have anything to say to us today? Of course *good* science is a humble endeavor because it realizes its conclusions are tentative and subject to falsification. Good science that is based on verifiable research that has undergone the rigors of peer-reviewed testing is an avenue of knowledge about things, though of course it is not infallible. Moreover, not all that is claimed to be “good science” deserves the title. For example consider that the theory of macro evolution that claims (without any empirical evidence) the universe simply exploded into being out of absolutely nothing for no logical reason whatsoever… It should be obvious that if we define science as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena,” macro evolutionary theory is not science, since it is not based on the direct observation of how the universe originated, etc., though the observation of expected results if it were true can be admitted, so long as it is understood that such evidence is inductive and therefore not demonstrable by logic (that is, if p then q, q, therefore p is not a valid form of reasoning). And as for the “noumenal” realm of reality, silence of course is silent….
Many people ascribe to “science” power it simply does not have, just as are many people are unaware that science is grounded in philosophical assumptions that transcend the realm of scientific knowledge altogether. It is wise, therefore, when presented with a scientific claim that something is true, to respectfully ask for the logical reasons and the warrant (i.e., datasets, methodologies, etc.) for believing the claim is justified. Remember that relying on self-professed testimonial is not sufficient warrant since such testimony may be biased, as for example when pharmaceutical companies claim the efficacy of a particular medication or vaccine. As a matter of fact, genuine scientific consensus is rare, and we should remember that scientific knowledge is an ongoing process that ever-approximates what is true. For example, it was not long ago that science thought the earth was flat, that leeches and bloodletting were prescribed to cure illnesses; that phrenology and lobotomies were used to “cure” mental illness, and so on. Be wise and test truth claims, chaverim. If there are peer-reviewed studies that independently confirm the probable truth of a given hypothesis, then that is to be respected and taken into consideration, but unthinking acceptance of statements made by unqualified authorities (such as politicians, mass media broadcasters, or a former Microsoft CEO) about the efficacy or interpretation of scientific data is not.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. (C.S. Lewis: God in the Dock)