Post by ubaidullah on Jan 26, 2016 23:14:00 GMT
The following is an essay on the question:
"How has scientific progress affected Western Civilization's conception of Man?
Is this an inevitable consequence of Science?"
[By Ubaidullah Bapu]
Is this an inevitable consequence of Science?"
[By Ubaidullah Bapu]
This essay initially discusses modern Western civilisation's conception of man within the Universe. Firstly the roots of these concepts are discussed by exploring the Renaissance and Enlightenment: modern Western civilisation's first significant encounters with the scientific method. This is attempted by elaborating on select figures, namely Copernicus, Galileo, Hobbes and Boyle from these periods, through to the Darwinian revolution and the modern day. Arguments are also presented in order to evaluate whether science as a field of study inevitably results in the perception modern man has of himself. In addition to this, the true purpose and nature of Science is also discussed and whether this can clash with adherence to religion and a belief in God. To garner a greater understanding of the above, the concept of scientism (such as Comte's Positivism) is discussed along with epistemological understandings of consciousness and morality. This is to distinguish between science and scientism, and to establish how scientific enquiry is limited to that which is empirical and material.
In 1543, shortly before his death, Nicolaus Copernicus published a treatise in which he claimed the earth was not at the centre of the universe; rather it was the sun.[1] There were two major reactions to note as a result of Copernicus' findings: the Copernican Revolution and the Enlightenment. These eras had a profound effect on antagonising religion within modern Western civilisation. The earliest example of this is observed in Martin Luther "who had objected to the Copernican model" and vehemently stated the Bible contested this claim.[2] Indeed, the Sola scriptura was integral to Luther's great Protestant revolution.[3] Perhaps what was more significant than this was the burning of Giordano Bruno. The fact Bruno was already a heretic in Catholic tradition went amiss and the reason for his death sentence was proposed to have been due to his support of the Copernican model.[4] The staunch opposition from the Pope and Catholic clergymen certainly accentuated the acceptance of this false notion. In fact, Bruno's acceptance of the Copernican model led to the Catholic Church's hostility to it, due to the former's well established heresy.[5] This conceivably resulted in the initial notions of Science vs. Religion in modern Western civilisation, as both major religious bodies (Catholics and Protestants) opposed the Copernican model.
This opposition was heightened greatly during the early periods of the seventeenth century. Galileo Galilei, an avid supporter of the Copernican model and deeply influenced by Copernicus himself, faced a severe backlash from the Catholic Church, due to affirming in and proving the heliocentric view, which contradicted the widely accepted Ptolemaic view of geocentrism (which placed man at the centre of the Universe).[6] Galileo's profound influence was due to several reasons. Firstly, unlike Copernicus, he lived for many years after his propositions. As a result he had the opportunity to defend his views, which was the case, as an accurately documented letter from 1614 demonstrated his view that "one must not begin with the authority of scriptural passages, but with sensory experience and necessary demonstrations."[7] The Church judged these ideas proposed by Galileo to be heretical and although he compiled the treatise 'Dialogue on the Two World Systems' in defence of his views, he was later forced to revoke.[8] No doubt the fate met by Bruno was still vivid. A major inference from the Galileo saga was the major dichotomy between scientific enquiry and religion, particularly due to the emphasis on 'sensory experience' and the fallibility of scripture. Indeed, this lay the foundation for man's views of himself to shift towards the scientific realm from a religious one.
The Renaissance (in particular Copernican thought) brought about radical change to modern Western civilisation, now known as the Enlightenment. Two crucial figures, Locke (a prominent philosopher) and Boyle (regarded as the father of modern Chemistry) further transformed the views on the scientific method through a single methodology: corpuscularianism, which espoused a materialistic view on the Universe, where all matter was composed of minute particles.[9] In addition to this, both figures were pioneers in Empiricism. Despite this neither Locke nor Boyle rejected the existence of a human soul or God. In fact, both believed man to be God's creation. Moreover, Boyle surmised an incorporeal and immaterial image of human consciousness and the soul.[10] Locke also expanded upon Galileo's view of 'sensory experience' to establish the self-identity of a conscious individual, along with the material composition of man.[11] However, his views on religion were in stark contrast to the norms prior to the 16th century. Locke believed in the unification of religions for a more tolerant society.[12] Undoubtedly, the bloody aftermath of the Thirty Years' War[13] was still fresh in Locke's mind and such claims would have been unheard of a few centuries before his time. Thus the Enlightenment had shaken the very foundations of papacy and organised religion in the minds of influential figures such as Locke, but the mystery of human sense perception still allowed a belief in a spiritual reality and man as God's creation. However, this was before the revelations of 'The Origin of Species'.
Contrary to popular belief, Charles Darwin was not the first figure to propose the theory of evolution in Western civilisation. Lyell had previously suggested it, along with Lamarck (with his defunct explanation of Lamarckian inheritance). However it was Darwin's explanation of natural selection which proposed a coherent and "natural mechanism" for evolution.[14] The concept of evolution from a common ancestor totally conflicted with the Biblical idea of man being created in the image of God. It also contradicted the Genesis story and ideas of 'original sin'. In the 1880s, a quotidian moment showed the monumental effect Darwinism had, where a young boy was told 'Darwin had disproved the Bible'.[15] But the most striking aspect of this revolution was observed in the case of Wallace, Darwin's co-author and contemporary, who had "tainted his scientific reputation" due to an inclination towards spiritualism and belief in man as God's special creation.[16] Certainly, the amalgamation of man's existence as a miniscule speck in a vast Universe and sharing common descent with all species, as proposed by the Darwinian Revolution, culminated in 'unscientific' views being perceived as false and absurd. But whether such views should be considered absurd depends on the purpose of scientific enquiry.
Whilst the theory of evolution by natural selection is proposed to explain the origin of species, in no way does it explain the purpose or reasoning behind such a mechanism or its subjects. Erroneously, Dawkins argues that human existence "is a mystery no longer because it is solved" by Darwin and Wallace,[17] yet evolution does not explain why humans exist. Furthermore, "natural selection and intelligent design[18] are not incompatible with each other in the way that natural selection is incompatible with the Genesis story,"[19] since scientific enquiry in its essence is not concerned with metaphysical and theological questions.
For more on the Theory of Evolution see: The Theory of Biological Evolution and Islām - by Muftī Zameelur Rahman | Ahlus Sunnah Forum
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/301/theory-biological-evolution-islam
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/301/theory-biological-evolution-islam
Although scientific enquiry has led to theories about relativity, the unravelling of the human genome and immense understanding of neuroscience, to only consider man as simply matter consequentially formed from blind evolution in a far corner of the Universe ex nihilo evokes a materialist fallacy of scientism, not science. Rather, science is concerned with verifiable truths that are ordered and objective,[20] whilst passing through the lens of human understanding. The term 'falsification' popularised by Karl Popper, demonstrates the epistemological approach of modern science yet "Popper admits that it is often necessary to retain theories in spite of apparent falsifications," because scientific predications are based on induction of current knowledge.[21]
Furthermore, because "science cannot prove itself through experimental means but only through concerted social action,"[22] scientism is moot since it cannot prove itself. However, this does not undermine the epistemological value of science since scientific understanding explains the processes of the physical world. Nonetheless, man should not be seen as only matter, despite the materialist assumptions of Neo-Darwinists. A classic example is that of human consciousness. David Chalmers states that even if all cognitive and neuro-chemical functions associated with consciousness were discovered, it would never explain why they are accompanied by a subjective conscious experience.[23] Indeed, "our only evidence that humans are conscious is that each of us, if he looks within himself, sees consciousness there"[24] and yet our basis for perception is consciousness.[25] Arguing against consciousness from a materialist perspective would be argumentum ad ignorantiam, thus we would not (and should not) reject consciousness based on a scientific method.[26] Similarly, concepts of the soul, spirituality and man as the creation of God should not be rejected on the basis of scientific enquiry, since it is beyond its subject of interest.
Another perennial question beyond the scope of science is that of morality. The existence of objective moral values cannot be answered by scientific enquiry; nonetheless its existence is known (for example, the act of murder is wrong). Furthermore, scientific enquiry and progression neither ask nor answer "profound existential and moral questions about the system that produces such ills."[27] Philippa Foot further argues moral values "cannot depend simply on human choice."[28] Yet, these values simultaneously exist in man and transcend human subjectivity, which further highlights man cannot purely be represented through materialist models. In addition to this, science does not provide an answer to the purpose of human life. An example of an attempt in doing so is observed in the reductionist ideology of Positivism proposed by Comte, where all phenomena is diminished to free will, physical and sensory experience, which leads man to progression. Although sensory and observational experience gives meaning to otherwise "disorderly and meaningless items" of science,[29] Cottingham argues that a Positivist approach results in the scientific method becoming "so stringent that it will exclude the generalizations and theoretical statements of science," a predicament which is self-defeating.[30] Philosopher John Gray concurs by stating the notion of progress is not intrinsically scientific but "superstition."[31] He further states that concepts such as free will are not derived from scientific means, but religion instead.[32]
Accordingly, this demonstrates that religion and science are concerned with distinct phenomena. The apparent dichotomy between science and religion has been misconstrued in modern Western civilisation, based on the "dark ignorance and superstitions" of the Middle Ages. Hence, this culminates in opposition or "conformity with scientific knowledge;"[33] whereas this is not observed in either Greek or Islamic history; traditions which acknowledged the importance of physical sciences.[34] In fact, Copernicus had utilised the works of al-Battani and Averroes (which were several centuries old) on astronomy.[35] Furthermore, in the Islamic tradition, medieval scholars attempted to understand the world "through rational and empirical realities" as well as scripture, however in contrast, modern Western civilisation experienced "the hegemony of globalizing Western sensibilities" in lieu of "archaic religious tradition."[36] Not only is a dichotomy formed but other perceptions of man are dismissed, which in no part is an inevitable consequence of science, but a consequence of scientism; the dogmatic, materialist attitudes which "bring rationalism into disrepute."[37] Indeed, man is studied as a discursive entity within scientific world views as "there are as many scientific images of man as there are sciences" about man.[38] Hence, man's conscious/spiritual and moral entity need not conflict with a theoretical, biochemical or social conceptions of man, just as the latter methods do not contradict each other, despite presenting distinct images of man.[39]
In conclusion we can state that modern Western civilisation's conceptions of man is not inherently an inevitable consequence of science, but rather a consequence of dogmatic approaches to science. This is demonstrated through the self-defeating premises of scientism, and how scientific enquiry is a study of ordered and objective physical phenomena. Ultimately, "one of the most important lessons learned in the centuries since Copernicus is that a scientific model doesn't have to explain everything to be a good model,"[40] because scientific enquiry is inevitably a human understanding of the manifest world.
[1] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 9.
[2] Ibid., page 13.
[3] Sola scriptura is a formal principle in Protestant doctrine which states the Old and New Testaments are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine. For further readings, see John M. Court, Biblical Interpretation: The Meanings of Scripture: Past and Present, T&T Clark International, London, 2003, pages 90-92.
[4] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 17.
[5] Ibid.
[6] James Hannam, The Genesis Of Science, Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2011, page 330.
[7] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 92.
[8] Ibid., page 99-100.
[9] J.J. MacIntosh & Peter Anstey, "Robert Boyle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014 ed., Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Unlike Boyle, Locke opposed the Cartesian model of simple logical propositions for human identity and souls, and opted for ancient theories of reincarnation and transmigration amalgamated with Christian doctrine. For further readings refer to Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pages 668-670.
[12] Alister McGrath, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1998, pages 214-215.
[13] The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) took place in Europe (primarily Germany), between Catholic and Protestant reformist states during the decline of the Holy Roman Empire and concluded with the Treaty of Westphalia. For further readings refer to Peter H. Wilson, Europe’s Tragedy: A New History of the Thirty Years War, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2010, page 10-11.
[14] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 347.
[15] Owen Chadwick, The Secularization Of The European Mind In The Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975, page 164.
[16] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 357.
[17] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1986, page xiii.
[18] Although intelligent design has been used as a euphemism for Biblical fundamentalism, such as Young Earth Creationism, the two should not be misconstrued since intelligent design simply claims the Universe to have a designer, unlike Young Earth Creationism which alleges the Earth to be only several thousand years old where life does not adapt, but rather exists as it is. For further readings refer to Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pages 984-986.
[19] Ibid., page 985
[20] Gyorgy Markus, Culture, Science, Society, Brill, Leiden, 2011, page 186.
[21] Alan F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?, Open University Press, Maidenhead, 1999, page 103.
[22] Derek Gregory, Ideology, Science and Human Geography, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1979, page 65.
[23] David J. Chalmers, The Puzzle of Conscious Experience, Scientific American, 1995, pages 80-86,
philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/chalmersphil1.pdf
[24] Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, page 918.
[25] Robert Lanza & Bob Berman, Biocentrism, BenBella Books, Inc., Dallas, 2009, pages 15-16.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Wael B. Hallaq, The Impossible State: Islam, Politics and Modernity's Moral Predicament, Columbia University Press, New York, 2013, page 15.
[28] Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, page 941.
[29] Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, Faber Finds, London, 2008, page 24.
[30] John Cottingham, Rationalism, Paladin Publishers, 1984, pages 109-110.
[31] John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Human and Other Animals, Granta Publications, London, 2003, page xi.
[32] Ibid., page xii.
[33] Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Islam and Modernism, Adam Publishers, New Delhi, 2008, pages 29-30.
[34] Ibid.
[35] John Freely, Light from the East: How the Science of Medieval Islam Helped to Shape the Western World, I.B. Tauris, London, 2015, p. 179.
[36] Jonathon A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, Oneworld Publications, London, 2014, pages 71-72
[37] Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London, 2012, page 257.
[38] Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1963, page 20.
[39] Ibid.
[40] John Gribbin, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003, page 12.
Bibliography
Brown, Jonathon A.C., Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, Oneworld Publications, London, 2014,
Chadwick, Owen, The Secularization Of The European Mind In The Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.
Chalmers, Alan F., What is this thing called Science?, Open University Press, Maidenhead, 1999.
Chalmers, David J., The Puzzle of Conscious Experience, Scientific American, 1995.
philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/chalmersphil1.pdf
Cottingham, John, Rationalism, Paladin Publishers, 1984.
Court, John M., Biblical Interpretation: The Meanings of Scripture: Past and Present, T&T Clark International, London, 2003.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1986.
Freely, John, Light from the East: How the Science of Medieval Islam Helped to Shape the Western World, I.B. Tauris, London, 2015.
Gray, John, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Human and Other Animals, Granta Publications, London, 2003.
Gregory, Derek, Ideology, Science and Human Geography, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1979.
Gribbin, John, Science: A History 1543-2001, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2003.
Hallaq, Wael B., The Impossible State: Islam, Politics and Modernity's Moral Predicament, Columbia University Press, New York, 2013.
Hannam, James, The Genesis Of Science, Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2011.
Kenny, Anthony, A New History of Western Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
Lanza, Robert & Berman, Bob, Biocentrism, BenBella Books, Inc., Dallas, 2009
MacIntosh, J.J., & Anstey, Peter, "Robert Boyle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014 ed., Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Markus, Gyorgy, Culture, Science, Society, Brill, Leiden, 2011.
McGrath, Alister, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1998.
Sellars, Wilfrid, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1963.
Sheldrake, Rupert, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London, 2012.
Usmani, Muhammad Taqi, Islam and Modernism, Adam Publishers, New Delhi, 2008.
Wilson, Peter H., Europe’s Tragedy: A New History of the Thirty Years War, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 2010.
