“Cosmology matters, it has a decisive impact upon our spiritual condition.
Even what we think about the purely physical
world turns out to be crucial;
for indeed, “unless a man’s concept of the
physical universe accords with reality,
his spiritual life will be crippled at its
roots. . . .”
Wolfgang Smith
This article is not meant to be anti-
any legitimate science or scientific endeavour.
It is against pseudo-science,
certainly, but also the mis-use of science. Damien F. Mackey.
The scientific Weltanschaaung has entered into, and has greatly affected, even how
we in the ‘West’ interpret the sacred Scriptures. And this not withstanding the
fact that the Old and New Testaments were written by (i) ancient scribes; (ii) who
thus were not of the modern ‘West’; and (iii) who wrote in ancient languages.
Regarding this unhappy state of affairs,
‘the modern tendency to reduce everything to science’, I had cause to quote Tim
Martin in e.g. my article:
Was
the Flood literally global?
We live in a world dominated
by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to
“science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to
understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They
are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age. In
fact, dispensational futurism, at least, is impossible apart from it.
Christians aid this scientistic syncretism through Creation Science methods of
reading Scripture. They do it by reducing even the language of the Bible to the
“scientific.” ….
Viewed in this light it is
not difficult to see that Creation Science ideology is a right-wing form of
modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way:
Even if evolution is only a
scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the creationists
argue, creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing
as biblical fact. To add to the problem, it is a religious theory of biblical
interpretation which is heavily influenced by modern scientific, historical,
and technological concerns. It is, therefore, essentially modernistic
even though claiming to be truly conservative. ….
[End of quotes]
Wolfgang Smith, mathematician, physicist,
philosopher of science
...
I
will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it
relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied
by science. I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing
de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for
centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This
has of course been said many times before (but not nearly often enough!).
Theodore Roszak, for instance, has put it exceptionally well: “Science is our
religion,” he observed, “because we cannot, most of us, with any living
conviction see around it.” …. And one might add that perhaps only those who
already have at least a touch of authentic religion do in fact stand a chance
of “seeing around it with any living conviction.”
So
too the name of Oskar Milosz (1877-1939) comes to mind, a European writer who
had this to say: “Unless a man’s concept of the physical universe accords with
reality, his spiritual life will be crippled at its roots, with devastating
consequences for every other aspect of his life.” …. It could not have been
better said! As regards the implications of the scientistic world-view for the
life of the Church, let me quote from a recent book by the French philosopher
Jean Borella: “The truth is that the Catholic Church has been confronted by the
most formidable problem a religion can encounter: the scientistic disappearance
(disparition scientifique) of the
universe of symbolic forms which enable it to express and manifest itself, that
is to say, which permit it to exist.” And he goes on to say: “That destruction
has been effected by Galilean physics, not, as one generally claims, because it
has deprived man of his central position—which, for St. Thomas Aquinas is
cosmologically the least noble and the lowest—but because it reduces bodies,
material substance, to the purely geometric, thus making it at one stroke
scientifically impossible (or devoid of meaning) that the world can serve as a
medium for the manifestation of God. The theophanic capacity of the world is
denied.” …. Let us be clear about it: Borella is pointing the finger squarely
at what I have termed physical reductionism: “le problème le plus redoubtable
qu’une religion puisse rencontrer,” he calls it. What he terms a “reduction to
the purely geometric” corresponds precisely to what I call the reduction of the
corporeal to the physical: it is this scientistic contention that would
obliterate “the theophanic capacity of the world.”
It
is of course to be understood that the “symbolic forms” to which Borella refers
are not, as some might think, subjective images or ideas which in days gone by
men had projected upon the external universe, until, that is, science came to
apprise us of the truth. The very opposite is in fact the case: The “forms” in
question are objectively real and indeed essential to the universe. We may
conceive of them as “forms” in the Aristotelian and Scholastic sense, or
Platonically, as eternal archetypes reflected on the plane of corporeal
existence. In either case they constitute the very essence of corporeal being.
Remove these “symbolic forms,” and the universe ceases to exist; for it is
these “forms,” precisely, that anchor the cosmos to God.
It
is needless to point out that science has not in reality destroyed these forms,
or caused their disappearance; however, the scientistic negation of corporeal
being entails a denial of the substantial forms or essences which constitute
that order of being, and of the sensible qualities by which these forms or
essences manifest themselves to man. The scientistically prepared mind,
therefore, has become increasingly insensitive to what Borella terms “the
universe of symbolic forms,” to the point where that universe has become for it
all but invisible. It is in that sense that the “theophanic capacity of the
world” has been diminished to an unprecedented degree.
The
consequences, however, of that diminution cannot but be tragic in the extreme.
In his denial of essences, scientistic man has destroyed the very basis of the
spiritual life. As Borella points out, he has obliterated the domain “that
enables the Church to express and manifest itself,” and hence “permits it to
exist.” The refutation of scientistic belief, therefore, is not an optional
matter for the Church, something from which she can afford to abstain; it is rather
a matter of urgent necessity, a question ultimately of survival.
It
may be well, finally, to reflect anew upon what St. Paul has to say concerning
“the theophanic capacity of the world” in his letter to the Romans. “For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,” he
declares, “being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead.” To which he adds: “So they are without excuse:
Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:20-22).
I
need hardly point out the striking relevance of these words to all that we have
discussed. The “things that are made” are doubtless corporeal natures, the
objects that man can perceive; and what about “the invisible things of him”:
are these not precisely eternal essences, ideas or archetypes? So long as man’s
heart has not been “darkened,” the sensory perception of “things that are made”
will awaken in him an intellectual perception—a “recollection,” as Plato
says—of the eternal things which the former reflect or embody. St. Paul alludes
to a time or a state when man “knew God,” a reference, first of all, to the
condition of Adam before the fall, when human nature was as yet undefiled by
original sin. One needs to realize, however, that the fall of Adam has been
repeated on a lesser scale down through the ages, in an unending series of
“betrayals,” large and small. Even today, at this late stage of history, we
are, each of us, endowed with a certain “knowledge of God” to which we can
freely respond in various ways. And that is precisely why we, too, are “without
excuse,” and why, to some degree at least, we are responsible for the opinions
we hold concerning the cosmos. Everyone perceives the universe in accordance
with his spiritual state: the “pure in heart” perceive it without fail as a
theophany; and for the rest of us, whose “foolish hearts are darkened,” the
theophanic capacity of the universe is reduced in proportion to this darkening.
I
would like however to emphasize that this correspondence between our spiritual
state and our Weltanschauung applies in both directions, which is to say that
not only does our spiritual state affect the way we view the external world,
but conversely, our views concerning the universe react invariably upon that
state. This is in fact my central point: Cosmology matters, it has a decisive
impact upon our spiritual condition. Even what we think about the purely
physical world turns out to be crucial; for indeed, “unless a man’s concept of
the physical universe accords with reality, his spiritual life will be crippled
at its roots. . . .”
This
brings us at last to the pastoral question: what can be done pastorally to
counteract the scientistic influence? The major problem, clearly, is to inform
the pastors themselves: to alert them, first of all, to the fact that there is
a crucial distinction to be made between science and scientism, and then to the
fact that scientistic belief is antagonistic to our spiritual well-being. This
however will not be easy to get across, for it offends against the prevailing
trend, both in civil society and within the Church. It is only by an act of
grace, I surmise, that any of us are able to muster the discernment, and indeed
the sheer boldness, to cast off the scientistic Weltanschauung and recover a
Christian world-view. And this task, this imperative, I say, is at bottom spiritual.
It is to be accomplished, thus, not simply by reading books, or through a
process of reasoning, but above all through faith and prayer. The dictum credo ut intelligam applies to us still,
and perhaps even more urgently than in the comparatively innocent days of
Augustine or Anselm. It is needful that we be touched and enlivened by the Holy
Ghost, the Spirit of truth, who “will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
In our struggle to transcend the scientistic outlook, we are dealing, moreover,
not simply with a belief system of human contrivance, but with something more
formidable by far; for here too, in the final count, “we wrestle not against
flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”
(Eph. 6:12). How could it be otherwise when it is “the theophanic capacity of
the world” that stands at issue: the very thing “which enables the Church to
express and manifest itself, that is to say, which permits it to exist.” ….
No comments:
Post a Comment