The Ascent of Scientism
It is commonplace to equate the term ‘progress’ with improvement. An enlightened person would be deemed to be someone who held ‘progressive views’ that are closely associated with liberal political views, which in turn emphasise the autonomy of the individual. ‘My life, my body, my choice’ is a mantra which can be applied to nearly all contemporary moral issues, ranging from abortion to assisted suicide. Rational human beings, according to a contemporary mindset, are capable of making decisions without reference to institutions such as the government, universities or the Church which, according to contemporary notions, are bastions of patriarchy, racism, and privilege. One reading of western social history since the end of the Second World War is the inexorable march, driven by the masses, from obscurantist oppression to liberation. This reached its apogee with the social revolution of the 1960s and was embraced even by the Catholic Church, which ditched the centuries-old Latin Mass, preferring a more ‘intelligible’, culturally diverse form of worship, centred around the community.
What are the roots of these ideas? I think they are to be found in the thinking of 18th Century philosophers, such as David Hume, who rejected a supernatural understanding of the world in favour of scientific rigour. Unless ‘facts’ could be proved empirically, almost literally through weights and measures, then they were not to be believed. It was on this basis that Hume rejected the existence of miracles, which are rare and contradict most human experience. There are arguments that refute Hume, of course, not least that he conflates the improbable with the impossible. Hume did not believe the laws of nature could be transgressed – they were fixed and immutable – and behind this thinking lies a rejection of a creator God who, by his very nature, is capable of suspending natural law in his capacity as the author and sustainer of them.
The development of the industrial, scientific and medical revolutions since the mid-18th Century has reinforced people’s faith in the material over the immaterial world. The mantra enunciated by those who proposed the 2020 lockdown was to ‘follow the science’, which incorrectly assumed all scientists were of one mind about the causes of the virus and how to restrain its spread. In what way is this important or relevant to the boys at St Anthony’s? I would say first-and-foremost that they should understand that the divide between science and religion is artificial: both disciplines depend on an enquiring mind, operating in good faith, which combines evidence and good judgment. By way of example, just because (medical) science allows us to do something doesn’t mean we should. Nor is science superior to disciplines such as history or theology: the purpose of all academic study is the search for truth. Albert Einstein, a non-Catholic, maintained a particular interest in the doctrine of transubstantiation possibly because of its relationship to matter, form and substance. If true, Einstein exclaimed, ‘then this means that Christ is infinite and timeless’. Just because something is hard to understand or seemingly beyond rational understanding does not make it unworthy of intellectual enquiry.
A final thought for the boys: assumptions about ‘progress’ relate to a human or teleological conception of time. Liberating our minds from the purely experiential and experimental might just allow for the possibility of exploring a world that is beyond time and space
Categories: Uncategorised
