Table of contents for Dangers of Scientism
by Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M.
But common-sense knowledge has its limitations, as the man of common sense very well knows. By mere common sense, no airplane can be constructed, and no medical operation can be performed. When the man of common sense needs to build a bridge, he does not go to another man of common sense; instead, he uses his common sense and goes to an engineer. It must be evident, therefore, that if we would have many of the things we consider desirable, common-sense knowledge would no longer be sufficient, and scientific knowledge becomes necessary. But the discipline that is required for the acquisition of scientific knowledge makes that wholeness, that completeness of common-sense knowledge, impossible on the scientific plane. No man can possess technical scientific knowledge about everything; and therefore, every one must specialize in that part of knowledge needed for his profession, or for his function in society. Further, in contrast with the spontaneity of common sense and the directness with which it envisages its objectives, we find that science requires intricate and roundabout processes for its attainment. This makes it quite possible for man to lose every perspective of relevance, and to proceed along blind alleys of knowledge and research that lead nowhere. And yet all this is unavoidable and follows from the very nature of science.
It would be absurd to ask a medical student to justify in terms of ultimate human purposes every single action or assignment required in his general training for his profession. Hence we have another danger of specialized training; namely, when man is trained to know a part of reality, and to deal even with this part in a manner that is systematically artifical, this man develops more as a function than as a person . Hence, it is that science and technology carry the danger of depersonalizing social relations. But man insists on being a person and on being treated as such; and as a person, he insists on his right of somehow knowing all reality and being concerned about his destiny as a complete man. Therefore, once his common-sense perspective gets to be distorted by the artificial mold which frames his mind in a special field, he tends to raise his special and partial science up to the dignity of a universal science.
“All reality is made up of material atoms or quantums of energy,” says the physicist. “Reality is a mysterious life force, elan vital ,” retorts the biologist, who would see all things from the window of biology. All history is made by economic forces (Marx), or by sexual energy (Freud). These and similar monisms, represent some of the grave dangers of scientism.
And then we have what is perhaps the greatest danger of scientism, namely, the philosophy of positivism. The primary interest of the special sciences is not the contemplative understanding and appreciation of reality, but the control of the visible world for practical purposes. In order to harness the powers of nature, all the knowledge needed is knowledge of certain accidential aspects of material things. Such an accident as the quantity of the thing, is all that remains of reality when the real thing is replaced by a measure and is introduced into a mathematical formula.
Of course any child could tell you that the quantity of a thing is not its complete reality, but the scientific expert tends to identify the quantity with the whole thing. Hence we get those quantitative ghosts called by such names as, energy, mass, atomic number, wave length, intelligence quotient, etc., floating around the scientific graveyards where the objects of common sense are deeply buried, and parading in the garbs of the real and substantial entities. When this tendency of the sciences is built up into a complete philosophy, a world view, which denies the substance of things, denies the reality of causes, and admits only those surface accidents or appearances of material things which can be measured and made subject to the scientific method, when this thing happens, we get that most negative of all philosophies, namely, ironically enough, the philosophy of “positivism.” Now neither God nor the spiritual soul of man can be made subject to measurement or to test-tube analysis. Therefore, the positivist rejects on principle, all metaphysics and all religion.
To be continued . . .
Comments 4
Mind and brain are two distinct things. Brain is anatomical entity whereas mind is functional entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system (ANS). It is claimed that mind can be brought under conscious control through the practice of meditation. But how? ANS is largely under hypothalamic control which is situated very close to optic chiasma (sixth chakra or ajna chakra). Protracted practice of concentration to meditate at this region brings functions of ANS say mind under one’s conscious control.
ANS is further divided into parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS). On the basis of these facts I have discovered a mathematical relationship for spiritual quotient (S.Q.). Spiritual Quotient can be expressed mathematically as the ratio of Parasympathetic dominance (P.D.) to Sympathetic dominance (S.D.). PSNS dominates during meditative calm and SNS dominates during stress. In this formula we assign numerical values to the physiological parameters activated or suppressed during autonomic mobilization and put in the formula to describe the state of mind of an individual and also infer his/her level of consciousness.
Protracted practice of meditation under qualified guidance will help to manage all sort of psychological problems.
I.Q.= Mental Age/Chronological Age x 100 (Wilhelm Stern)
E.Q. = I.Q. x Wisdom (Anirudh Kumar Satsangi)
S.Q. = P.D./S.D.
Posted 28 Nov 2008 at 1:26 am ¶Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
B.Sc., M.A. (Psychology), B.Ed., Adv. Dip. in Mgt.
P.A. To Director
Dayalbagh Educational Institute
(Deemed University)
Dayalbagh, Agra-282005
We would agree with Anirudh’s first two sentences, but the third sentence reduces a spiritual function (the mind = the intellect, which is a power of the spiritual soul) to one that is material. This is a perfect example of what Brother Francis is criticizing as “scientism”: that science must be able to explain everything.
If the mind is a function of the autonomic nervous system, what are you using in meditation to “control it?” This is circular reasoning.
And regarding the formula for “E.Q.” (what does the “E” mean?): How do you quantify wisdom?
Wisdom is “the most perfect knowledge of the most important truths in the right order of emphasis, accompanied by a total permanent disposition to live accordingly.”
Posted 01 Dec 2008 at 5:25 pm ¶Respected Sister Maria’s objections/queries are quite genuine. Soul provides vitality not only to mind and intellect but to our body also. Mind and intellect are less spiritual to soul and body is least spiritual of all.
Meditation is the art of looking within and science of doing nothing. We don’t use anything in meditation. We just try to concentrate to meditate at some point in human anatomy known as ‘chakra’ in Indian System of Yoga. The current of mind is flowing outward through the senses and unconsciously. The mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation. Then comes self realization.
E.Q. stands for Emotional Quotient. An intelligent person may not be wise. But a wise man will always be intelligent. An intelligent person having certain level of positive emotions can be said as wise. An intelligent person lacking wisdom will turn autocrat. A wise man will always be a democrat who respects others existence.
If Mental Age of I.Q. can be quantified then Wisdom can also be quantified, of course, comparatively with more efforts.
Thank you, for showing interest in my post and your querries.
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 2:03 am ¶Thank you, Anirudh, for your interest and observations. As our discussion progresses, however, we need to define some terms. Hinduism, even a secular humanistic Hinduism, does not share the same premises as Philosophia Perennis.
For example, our definitions include the following:
*God is the supreme, uncreated, eternal Being.
*Man (each human person) is a complete substance composed of a material body and a spiritual soul (created by God at the moment of conception).
*The soul is “the principle of life in a material being.” In plants, this principle has three powers: Growth, Reproduction, and Nutrition (or Assimilation). In animals, sixteen powers are added to these first three: Locomotion, the five outer senses (Taste, Touch, Hearing, Sight, Smell), the four inner senses (Memory, Imagination, Instinct, Common Sense–a central communication system for all the senses), the Concupisible Passions (Love, Hate, Desire, Aversion, Pleasure, Pain,), and the Irascible Passions (Hope, Despair, Fear, Daring, Anger). Man has twenty one powers: the three we share with plants and animals, the sixteen we share with just animals, and two more: Intellect and Will (which we share with the angels . . .”made in the image and likeness of God”).
*Meditation is the mental activity, where we consider things in light of eternal truths, combined with prayer, which is communication with God. And when we are communicating with God, we are reaching outside of ourselves to another Being, not to some sort of cosmic consciousness within.
*Wisdom is the science of salvation, not just being smart and considerate. Holy Scripture (the Bible) is God’s revelation to man: the textbook of wisdom.
From the comments that have been posted, I will list what some of Anirudh’s assumptions seem to be. After each one, I will add a short note that shows how they differ from the ideas we hold to be true.
*Without the soul there is still a human person (we maintain that there no person: just a dead body).
*That the intellect or mind is something separate from the soul (as you can see from our definitions, we say that it isn’t: intellect is one of the powers of the spiritual soul).
*That emotions are equivalent to ideas (we hold that emotions are powers of feeling that we share with the animals, but ideas are unique to beings with spiritual powers: men, angels, God).
*That wisdom can be quantified. (We hold that wisdom is a spiritual entity and, as such, cannot be measured by the “accident” of quantity. We refer you to Aristotle’s Ten Categories.).
*That the divine can be found by looking within (as you can see from our comments, we hold that God is found outside of ourselves).
*That spiritual power is channeled through specific areas of the body (we maintain that, while bodily posture is important for showing reverence, there is no particular part of the body that receives Divine power.)
We thank Anirudh for his comments but believe that it is very important for our readers to understand how the ideas he expressed differ from those we hold as Catholics in the long tradition of Philosophia Perennis. We maintain that ideas have consequences and that clear thinking can help everyone to discover the path that leads to the Truth.
Posted 20 Dec 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶Post a Comment