What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Website

Search

Recent Posts

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Authors

Blog Roll

Conservative Bloggers

Conservative Thought Journals

General Information/News

Religion/Philosophy/Apologetics

Archives

Recovering Sight after Scientism

by Edward Feser

burtt.jpg

Seeing that scientism is unsustainable, we must embrace a return to philosophy. Here is the second article in a two-part series on scientism I wrote for Public Discourse.

Posted by Edward Feser on March 12, 2010 12:42 PM | Del.icio.us |

Comments (7)

Even if it is conceded that there is more to the world than science tells us, mightn’t we nevertheless be justified in throwing up our hands and concluding that whatever this “more” might be, it is simply unknowable—that scientism is a reasonable attitude to take in practice, even if problematic in theory?

I would say it is unreasonable to assume scientific methodology is false. It may be an incomplete way to know reality, but that doesn't by itself disprove the proven results of science. For starters, the objective quantitative approach is based upon mathematics, which is a transcendent metaphysical truth. Secondly, the quantitative ability is a natural function of the human brain and is therefore manifest, albeit it is hardwired in a logarithmic form instead of a linear one. Third, there isn't anything wrong with admitting some questions don't have answers, and some don't have any honest answers that provide consolation.

Posted by Step2 | March 12, 2010 9:00 PM

Berkeley, referring to the reliance of mathematics in assessing nature thought it "beneath the dignity of the mind to affect an exactness in each particular phenomenon to general rules", instead talked of "nobler visions", of the "beauty, order, extent, and variety of natural things", "the grandeur, wisdom, and beneficence of the Creator".

Science may huff and puff around for a thousand years or a billion dollars before getting something straight, and still come up short. But people require a moral order, an aesthetic sense, and a separation from process, analysis, & mechanics.
Natural laws are for the most part compilations of statistical similarities, one will not find the salve of the soul within their caverns.

But the species of today is unencumbered by any hints of modesty or reticence. The world is much more than our oyster, it is both our laboratory and plaything and there is nothing we can't do with it. Or so the story goes.

Posted by johnt | March 14, 2010 12:26 PM

Moral order is fairly flexible, as any reading of history shows. Some naturalists are addressing the aesthetic sense:
http://vintagebooks.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/candid-and-uncensored-with-david-eagleman-and-rebecca-goldstein/

Posted by Step2 | March 14, 2010 6:47 PM

Insofar as naturalists truly allow for real moral senses (as in people actually sensing what is a real moral order) not to mention actual objective moral laws and values, they cease to be naturalist, not to mention secularists. Unless the term 'naturalism' or 'secularism' is so watered down, it conceivably covers thomists.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/ does a good job of highlighting some of this.

Posted by Joseph A. | March 14, 2010 11:13 PM

Joseph A, good link. There is another fallacy in the purely naturalist order, the exclusion & denial of the person as having an intrinsic moral stature, a being with both moral needs and the necessary subset of requisite, inherent human structure that demands this.
The person is excluded from the natural order, is thus manipulable, changeable, and controllable. He becomes separated from nature, even an enemy of it, and lacking a foundational essence, offers himself to a hierarchy of technocracy.

Posted by johnt | March 15, 2010 10:52 AM

Insofar as naturalists truly allow for real moral senses (as in people actually sensing what is a real moral order) not to mention actual objective moral laws and values, they cease to be naturalist, not to mention secularists.

I think your definition of naturalism is rather narrow if you believe that to be true, you would have to say Daniel Dennett isn't a naturalist. You may be closer to the mark with secularism, but that is the problem with realizing that somewhere between hunter-gather societies and modern civilization, the laws and values changed.

Posted by Step2 | March 15, 2010 8:49 PM

"I think your definition of naturalism is rather narrow if you believe that to be true, you would have to say Daniel Dennett isn't a naturalist. You may be closer to the mark with secularism, but that is the problem with realizing that somewhere between hunter-gather societies and modern civilization, the laws and values changed."

I have zero problems calling out Daniel Dennett and numerous others for being inconsistent with regards to their proclaimed naturalism. If the preferred measure is "Do they call themselves naturalists?", then screw it - I'm a naturalist too.

Posted by Joseph A. | March 15, 2010 9:35 PM

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.