Understanding the Revolution

I would argue that the world-wide practice of the scientific method, in and of itself, will tend to restart this continual revolutionary situation (I agree that it exists) whenever someone manages to stop it.

First, because because its method inherently sets aside metaphysics, and because of its success and prestige, science marginalizes and dethrones metaphysics, which therefore dethrones tradition.

This causes fury among conservatives and fundamentalists, which gets out of control and turns them into idolators. That is to say, they worship a fury-frozen image of God instead of God.

Second, because even if a scientist, engineer, businessman, or politician hangs onto tradition with every shred of his or her being, the practical advantages accruing from the advance of science-based technology continually overthrow tradition anyway, by changing the economic basis of society and the distribution of military power (to that extent, and that only, I am a Marxist).

I am not sure whether the continual revolution is a good thing, or not.

I am however interested in seeing if metaphysics can ever regain traction — I would like that, as long as it was not antithetical to science.

Regards,
Mike

This is an eloquent and insightful analysis of the Molner passage. I only wish the author of the comment had better defined the extension of his terms. Does he mean to say that ALL, MOST, or SOME fundamentalists and conservatives are idoloters? And does he wrongly include Catholics in this unfortunate group? I say wrongly in reference to the doctrine of the True Presence. That doctrine being true, a Catholic before the blessed sacrement, though his character may be deformed by the influence of continual revolution in a technology-driven society, still is free to worship the true God.

Responding to Mr. F…

Thanks for your response.

First, I am not a Catholic, indeed I am no longer a Christian. I am, rather, a philosophical theist. This because I find belief in miracles such as the Resurrection untenable.

Consequently, I am not a “traditionalist” in any sense of the word.

How then am I a theist? First because of personal religious experience, second because theism seems the most satisfactory basis for metaphysics.

I also remember that science in its modern form was created by Christians and other theists, and that although science prescinds from metaphysics and teleology in its theories, the scientific method itself, which is more fundamental, depends utterly on definite metaphysical presuppositions: that there is a real world out there like it or not or notice it or not, that truth exists, that human reason can progressively grasp this truth, that all human beings have a faculty of reason that will agree regarding demonstrable truths, and so on. All of this is completely consistent with theism in the sense of the world as called into being according to a fixed and intelligible design. Note: I am a Darwinian through and through, this has nothing to do with “intelligent design.”

Regarding Catholicism and idolatry, I can only speak from the outside.

To the extent that a person believes in a revealed scripture without feeling any need to resolve rival, competing, or conflicting revelations (from the Upanishads to Heidegger), yes, I might consider that person an idolator.

He or she is exerting his or her will to uphold an image of God that he or she has simply WILLED to be true, in spite of knowing of these conflicts, by choosing not to investigate them. This creates a certain double-mindedness quite familiar to Isaiah.

Of course, most people are not theologians or philosophers, and so these normal people do not actually have any DUTY to resolve these tensions.

Other persons have indeed made more or less formal efforts to resolve these tensions. Some such persons I might agree with, others I might disagree with, but I would consider no person who has made or making a good-faith effort to actually deal with rather than avoid these questions an idolator.

Regards,
Mike