Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?

[Hatshepsut]

With the increase of an objective world view-- specifically, of a scientific process for arriving at truths-- I'm curious what you guys think about the role of the ego in understanding the world we observe....Or should I use science as a kind of razor, using it to identify and destroy those parts of my sense of self which are delusional....

I doubt our world view is any more objective than the world views of Hatshepsut's court at Waset back in 1478 BCE. The scientific method itself is certainly better than personal opinion if you want objectivity, but that hardly means such impassion will transfer over to the worldviews of those who feel that science is the only or best way of answering all questions. In fact that last clause (underlined) represents a most subjective opinion if you ask me.

Who says science is best? I should know; the nice folks at the hospital just treated me for a leg abscess of the sort that killed King Henry VIII. But to say that scientific medicine is more effective at saving lives is not to say that its advocacy is objective. We simply can't get our ego and our preferences out of the way of our understanding. For ego is a component of understanding: Argumentation, scientific or political, is never episcopal but always proceeds from a point of view. Lowering of death rates through medicine has contributed to modern global overpopulation. And science has brought us thermonuclear weapons that never horrified the English of Henry's day. So, I see science as a mixed bag of good and bad.

The Occam's Razor you're thinking of shaving with this morning requires a bit of cream if you want a smooth shave. Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle and therefore somewhat subjective even if useful. Psychologists use the term "delusional" to refer to people who aren't oriented with respect to everyday reality. From your writing, I doubt you have any serious problems with delusion, like the fellows who hear God commanding them might. In other words, don't worry.  

I think evolution has done such a marvelous job at creating the illusions we live...

I find it odd that Father Darwin saw a need to create illusions in the first place. Why should the brain, as a computer, require that it think it is doing one thing when it is really doing another?

Let's say, by an interest in science and disciplined objectivity, I discover that I am not what I've always defined myself to be.  What if studies of the brain lead me to see free will, for example, as an illusion?

I suspect you're thinking of psychology lab studies that show a decision to press a button precedes conscious awareness of making the decision. In that sense it makes sense to call free will an illusion. Yet as long as the decision is made by your own brain instead of some external thing or person, how is it that your will is not free?