The integration of science and religion

I respect the labour you have evidently put into this question, Art48, but before I invest 51 miinutes of my life in watching a video, I would like to see a summary in advance of how you have resolved the fundamental logical contradictions between the scientific and religious models of knowledge?

1. In religion, it is the greatest virtue to cling faithfully to your belief, no matter how persuasive, seductive, or conclusive the counter-arguments may seem to be; in science, this is the greatest "sin".

2. In religion, truth is absolute, incontrovertible, and underwritten by the revelation of a supernatural being; in science, there is no "truth"*, only a collection of approximations which seem to be reasonably applicable most of the time, but which may be overturned by fresh observations or insights at any moment.

3. In science, a theory or hypothesis is valued according to two fundamental criteria: does it account for the presently-known data? And, does it form a basis for predicting the future? This is important; thanks to this model, we have doctors, government, and aeroplanes. Religious knowledge cannot account for the known data (unless we admit "That's just the way God made it', which is trivial and non-informative); nor can it predict the future, except insofar as this can be guaranteed by thoughts and prayers, or belief in Divine Retribution, or a Judgement Day, or some such concept, none of which can be demonstrated to have a useful predictive value.

* I am speaking, of course, with regard to theory and hypothesis. Within a closed logical system such as mathematics, for example, it is possible to speak of a propostion as unconditionally true or false.

In India science and religion have long been considered to be strongly related. In the West we tend to consider that only those things that can be objectively tested are considered to be subjects for scientific enquiry. In India they have long distinguished two disparate branches of science: the Inner Science and the Outer Science, one is a subjective enquiry and the other objective.

The philosophy of Vedanta bridges both.

In Vedanta everything is considered to consist of one consciousness--a great ocean of nothing but a single, unique, all encompassing consciousness that somehow can experience itself as individual consciousnesses communicating with each other.

So, if we imagine an ocean, you and I are merely waves on that ocean. This is something Alan Watts spoke about. Rather than our being in any real way separate from each other we are, in fact, not objects that can be regarded as separate but functions, processes of the one consciousness in the way that a wave is in no way (except conceptually) separate from the ocean, it is the ocean doing something.

I am afraid I have not found time to view your video yet but I hope my observations may offer you an alternative lens through which you may consider your proposition.

Love, peace, happiness and grace,
Swami Prajna Pranab

Reply to Art48 I will 100% watch thsi video. My intial response to the proposal is NO and ABSOLUTELY NO!

Let's see if there is anything you state that alters my view :)

Edit: "Video no longer available" :(

Quoting Art48

Comments appreciated

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is [i]religion[/I]. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid.

Reply to Pieter R van Wyk

My apologies to the author of this thread, but my comment is somewhat off-topic.

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share.

Quoting Astorre

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding.

If my little contribution on the concept of system contributed to your understanding, then, surely, my effort is not in vain. And, this gives me hope.

Quoting Astorre

In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share.

In my understanding, there is not such a thing as a precise definition of any word. There is my understanding and there is your understanding. So if we want to have a useful conversation or debate on something (for example the possibility of integrating science and religion[/I]), we first need to agree on some definitions of words (for example an agreement on what is [i]science and what is [i]religion[/I]).

If not, such a conversation or debate would quickly degenerate into a useless play with words.

Hence my request to share definitions.

Reply to Pieter R van Wyk

I get your point and find it constructive.

As for the topic itself, the author posted a short version of his video, which I watched and found too speculative. I informed him about this in the previous topic. My questions did not change as a result of the increased time limit. I did not understand what the author meant by the definitions of the concepts.

To my understanding:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is religion. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid.

Your challenge to define the terms of this thread sparked an idea in my own head.

The etymology of Religion is "to link back to the past", which I take to mean Tradition. And "blind faith" is typically associated with almost all religious traditions. But another interpretation might be Loyalty to a social group. Which may explain why the average member of a faith community*1 has only a vague notion of theological doctrine, but nevertheless feels emotionally bound to their own social group, sharing norms & values, but not necessarily dogma.

The etymology of Science is "to know", which I take to mean Rational Information instead of emotional bondage. But Catholic Theology was an attempt to integrate Greek Science with Jewish Religion. Unfortunately, it was a marriage of convenience --- serving the imperial secular government --- that fell apart repeatedly over the years, as disparate social groups developed different interpretations of the "facts" of their received doctrine. That divergence of Faith led to heresies & excommunication & sectarian conflict & physical punishment, not unity & integration.

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile:


*1. Faith Community :
". . . to them that have obtained like precious faith"
2 Peter 1:1-8

I agree with SJ Gould, Wittgenstein, Spinoza et al that 'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), or in other words ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/553997

Religion denotes ritually following / reenacting myths based on magical thinking and superstition (i.e. merely subjective avowals).

Science denotes collective pursuit of testable models which best explain possible transformations of aspects of nature based on defeasible thinking and abduction (i.e. more-than-inter/subjective, fallibilistic / approximative truth-claims).

Pavel Florensky, a priest, mathematician, scientist, and electrical engineer (sometimes called the "Russian Da Vinci") approached this in a Christian frame through Sophiology. Come to think of it, I think Bulgakov, probably the biggest figure in Sophiology, started in political economy. Michael Martin's The Submerged Reality: Sophiology and the Turn to a Poetic Metaphysics is a pretty neat book on this (it also looks at Jacob Boheme, German romanticism, and Valentin Tomberg).

I forgot about a good quote I like on this topic:

[I]There if anywhere should a person live his life, beholding that Beauty.[/I]

Plato, Symposium 211d

The Platonic philosophical theology unifies us with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with God, by explaining that a higher reality or God is present in this world and in us inasmuch as it inspires our efforts toward inner freedom, love, beauty, truth, and other ideals. These efforts give us a unity, as “ourselves,” that we can’t have insofar as we’re the slaves of our genes, hormones, opinions, self-importance, and so forth. For in contrast to our genes and so forth, which are implanted in us or are reactions to what surrounds us, efforts toward ideals like inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth are more likely to reflect our own choice. So that if anything reflects “us,” ourselves, and not just our surroundings, they do.

So through ideals like inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth, something that’s “higher,” because it’s free and fully “us,” is in us. Since we often fall short of it and lapse into merely reactive or merely bodily functioning, we can call this higher self-determination, by contrast, “divine.” And there’s nothing that we know better or more directly than we know this inner choice that we make, to be either automatic and reactive or free. and self-determining. So we have every reason to regard the choice as real, and our awareness of it as knowledge. And since “mysticism” is the name for the doctrine that we have direct knowledge of a higher reality or God, and this Platonic train of thought shows how we have such knowledge through awareness of our inner choices, it shows how mysticism in this sense is entirely rational.1 Since we often fall short of inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth, they have the “transcendence” that we expect of religion. They are inspiring as well as rational, “above” us as well as “in” us. But what’s remarkable is that because this transcendence is rational, it’s a feature not only of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate but also of science. In fact, because science is one of the ways in which we choose to pursue truth and thus transcend our genes, hormones, favorite opinions, and self-importance, science is a part or an aspect of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate...

So rather than inherently conflicting with mysticism and religion, science is a part of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate. Religion and science both transcend by seeking inner freedom and truth. It’s just that science, being restricted to what we can know by scientific methods, is narrower. It’s only one aspect of the transcendent freedom, love, beauty, and truth, the higher reality, that religion or religion in the making celebrates. This unusual way of understanding the relation between science and religion can free us from a good deal of mental fog and fruitless disputation.

But the relation of science to religion isn’t the only familiar issue that the Platonic higher reality transforms. It’s probably evident from what I’ve said that the Platonic higher reality reveals an intimate connection between “fact” and “value.” A world in which there was no pursuit of values like love, beauty, and truth, or (as Plato puts it) “the Good,” would not be self-determining or fully “itself.” If being fully “itself” is the most intensive kind of reality, such a world would lack what’s most real. By directing our attention to the role of value in what’s most real, Platonism shows the limits of the “disenchanted” and “value-free” account of reality that we associate with scientific objectivity. Important though it is, the reality that science identifies is not the ultimate reality. The reality apart from itself that science in its normal activities identifies is not, in fact, the ultimate reality of which science itself, as a pursuit of truth and thus of self-determination, is an aspect. When science becomes aware of this ultimate reality to which it contributes, and which depends on values such as truth as well as freedom, love, and beauty, it becomes evident that the ultimate “fact” or reality is not actually independent of “value.”

Robert M. Wallace - Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present

Reply to Prajna

It seems to me that Indian thought avoids a lot of the problems that dominate Western discourse on this issue. As I see it, the West suffers from a sort of self-inflicted metaphysical wound that stems from the Reformation, that results in a truncated world-view and closed off epistemology that has approached solipsism at the limit. Indeed, so much of modern thought has been an attempt to escape this solipsism (or a sort of moral solipsism)—to build a bridge between us and the world—or else to learn to live as self-enclosed, contingent entities. In the midst of such a "crisis" (as it is often called), any bridge beyond the sensible becomes "a bridge too far."

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions.

Science does not require proof of it's findings. It is enough that a systematic process of observation and hypotheses has been followed to be called it science. In fact, if after applying the scientific procedure on a hypothesis, that the expected result did not pan out, then to be scientific is to revisit the observation and maybe conclude that the hypothesis could not be supported.

Religion, on the other hand, strives to have evidence and proof for its claims. But their point is to spread faith, moral teachings, and belief in the almighty being -- none of which forces acceptance, but asks you to see the truth of life.

Quoting 180 Proof

I agree with SJ Gould, Wittgenstein, Spinoza et al that 'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), or in other words ...

I’m a big fan of Stephen Jay Gould, but I always thought his NOMA formulation was baloney. It’s just a way for an atheist to seem respectful towards something he doesn’t really have much respect for. Based on your posting history here that certainly seems true about you.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems to me that Indian thought avoids a lot of the problems that dominate Western discourse on this issue. As I see it, the West suffers from a sort of self-inflicted metaphysical wound that stems from the Reformation, that results in a truncated world-view and closed off epistemology that has approached solipsism at the limit. Indeed, so much of modern thought has been an attempt to escape this solipsism (or a sort of moral solipsism)—to build a bridge between us and the world—or else to learn to live as self-enclosed, contingent entities. In the midst of such a "crisis" (as it is often called), any bridge beyond the sensible becomes "a bridge too far."

Sounds like you have been taking Iain McGilchrist lessons. :razz:

But seriously, this frame seems especially hot again right now and includes both good and questionable practitioners who are saying similar things — John Vervaeke, Jordan Peterson, David Bentley Hart, Terry Eagleton, and a host of rising Thomists, all of whom, in their own ways, seem to be clamouring for a counter-Reformation to the Enlightenment. Or something like that. It's as if CS Lewis has influenced a new generation.

Quoting Gnomon

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile:

The evidence you presented are most compelling. Thank you.

Quoting L'éléphant

Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions.

Thank you for pointing out my lack of understanding so succinctly - please enlighten me some more.

Quoting L'éléphant

to be called it science

Quoting L'éléphant

after applying the scientific procedure

So, my understanding is that science is the application of the scientific procedure. This seem to me a self referencing exercise, Thus not a definition.

Quoting L'éléphant

Religion

Quoting L'éléphant

asks you to see the truth of life.

Please, this 'truth of life' you are speaking of, what, exactly, is this?

Reply to T Clark You claim NOMA is "baloney" but don't even try to make your case.

Reply to L'éléphant Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus Dear Count, thank you for your reply. I very much like the Wallace quote. The Eastern Inner Science is very much value based rather than fact based and is not religious in itself except that we tend to recognise the practices employed in the process as religious practices and the ultimate truth one arrives at as a result of those practices is the same truth that religion purports to represent. Plato's values are also attained in the process though they might be considered side-effects of the ultimate realisation perhaps rather than the goals of the work.

Quoting 180 Proof

You claim NOMA is "baloney" but don't even try to make your case.

Come on 180—you and I have both stated our positions on this matter many times before.

Reply to T Clark Still no argument. – that's telling.

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile: — Gnomon
The evidence you presented are most compelling. Thank you.

I haven't viewed the video, but I get the impression that the OP is actually proposing the integration of metaphysical Mysticism (not Religion) --- i.e. personal, not social --- with physical Science. Although I'm still skeptical, history records a variety of mystical notions that are considered by adherents as a kind of practical science or technology.

The most obvious example is Buddhism, conceived as a science of the Mind*1, and indirectly of Matter, via introspection instead of microscopes & telescopes. Since the results are mostly subjective, I can't argue "show me the evidence"*2, without doing the experiential experiments personally.

Empirical science focuses on external public Reality, while subjective mysticism concentrates on internal private Ideality. Does the video explain how to reconcile those divergent perspectives? :smile:


*1. "Mystical science" can refer to a quest for truth that goes beyond conventional methods, encompassing fields like Buddhism, Tantra, and Sufism. It can also refer to the historical and sometimes pseudoscientific attempt to blend spiritual and mystical understanding with scientific concepts, such as alchemy or modern attempts to link quantum physics and mysticism. While traditional science is based on observation and experiment, mystical science often involves subjective experience, intuition, and beliefs about realities beyond the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mystical+science

*2. Mysticism is the pursuit of direct, personal experience of the divine or ultimate reality, often through practices like meditation, prayer, and contemplation. It can be found across many religious traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and various forms of Western mysticism. Mystics aim to achieve a state of union or deep connection with a transcendent reality, believing this direct experience provides a form of knowledge that transcends reason and sensory perception.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=MYSTICISM

CAN PHILOSOPHY RECONCILE IDEAL and REAL WORLDVIEWS?

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

Empirical Science and Emotional Religion are indeed "incompatible", in the sense that information drawn from one domain (public vs private knowledge) does not directly map onto the facts/beliefs of the other. That's why S.J. Gould took the cooperative attitude that Science & Religion are "non-overlapping" systems of thought, hence not in direct competition.

However, if you look at those doctrinal magisteria as a venn diagram of human wisdom, you may see a small area of overlap, which could be labeled as Philosophy : Rational but not Empirical ; Ideal but not necessarily Real. Plato and Aristotle worked together, but one focused on metaphysical Ideality (abstract & utopian) while the other emphasized physical Reality (practical & pragmatic). Yet their disparate philosophies did overlap in the middle : pursuit of Truth. :smile:

Quoting Gnomon

Mysticism (not Religion) --- i.e. personal, not social

In my understanding, religion is a collection of humans subscribing to a similar form of mysticism. Thus, the one notion implies the other. The human brain can be fooled into some very peculiar things - it will try its utmost to save us from ourselves if it is so required. I had once the experience to walk barefoot over a bed of red hot coals without getting one blister. Mysticism? No! A simple trick to induce self-hypnosis and my [i]mind[/I] telling my body to increase blood flow through my feet to dissipate the heat as much as possible.

Quoting Gnomon

CAN PHILOSOPHY RECONCILE IDEAL and REAL WORLDVIEWS?

Apparently not! But a proper general systems theory can define a "REAL WORLDVIEW". Chapter 6 [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]

I do appreciate your Venn diagram. In summary then:

• Science:= whatever is discovered using the scientific method. An absolutely useless self-referencing [i]definition[/I].
• Religion:= faith. "It was used (perhaps still is) to explain the unexplainable and to give reason to the unreasonable. At the same time, it was used to enforce civil obedience."
• Philosophy:= The quest for truth. A truth that cannot be find. " ... by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true - scientists or politicians?" Perhaps a religious leader or maybe a philosopher?

For the record, I did not provide my definition of science in this thread. Regardless of @L'éléphant's comments.

"Law (of nature):= If the sum of mass, energy, and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]

Science:= The collection of all Laws of Nature.

Quoting Gnomon

However, if you look at those doctrinal magisteria as a venn diagram of human wisdom, you may see a small area of overlap, which could be labeled as Philosophy : Rational but not Empirical ; Ideal but not necessarily Real. Plato and Aristotle worked together, but one focused on metaphysical Ideality (abstract & utopian) while the other emphasized physical Reality (practical & pragmatic). Yet their disparate philosophies did overlap in the middle : pursuit of Truth.

This.
Asking how religion and science can integrate is similar to asking how science and philosophy can integrate. Philosophy covers a lot of things that one day could be a science; that could be objectively testable. But today they are not, and so we apply the tools of philosophy as both an end in itself and also to aid in defining the problem in a way that it becomes scientifically studyable.

And so with religion, I think if someone wants to believe a god made the universe say, there's no problem. I mean, I don't agree with the arguments for that position, but in the context of this thread, it's not harmful to science.
And we see that in the fact that vast numbers of scientists, probably the majority, are theists, and it doesn't affect their ability to do their work.

Where science and religion *do* overlap of course, then they cannot be integrated, and very simply science has always won. We learn about reality by observing it, not through revelation.
So religion either steps aside, or you get the sad reality of places like the US, where ignorance of the scientific method and critical thinking must be maintained, so that grown adults can continue to believe it all began with a talking snake and a magic tree.

Science and religion are both hypotheses, a leap of faith.

There is no objective truth detectable by the subjective (individual or collective) observations.

The only reason God is universally absolute is that He exists outside the universe, beyond observation and measurement.

[b]To interpret nature’s complexity as chaos is the oldest arrogance of our species. We call what exceeds our comprehension “weird,” “nonlocal,” or “probabilistic,” as though nature had changed its dialect merely to mock our intellect. But perhaps the only mockery is our presumption that comprehension is the criterion of truth.

Science, when humble, is noble; but when it imagines itself infallible, it becomes theology under a different name — worshiping equations as scripture, and declaring miracles wherever they no longer work.[/b]

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259

Reply to Copernicus Sure they are both the same with respect to an impossible standard to meet.

However a difference of course is that science is empirically testable and therefore gives us both a pragmatic and a logical reason for belief.

The pragmatic reason is that science is useful. Just the observation that swallowing foodstuffs sates my hunger is a kind of science. This is very useful information regardless of what the true nature of reality is.
Meanwhile religion might make us feel good but in ways that are easy to explain without the need to assert supernatural involvement. Other than that religion simply makes false claims and false predictions.

And the logical reason is that there can be true facts about this reality regardless of whether it's a simulation or whatever. Induction is useful and we have as much grounds for trust in it as we would in a hypothetical universe that we somehow knew was objectively real.

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

In my understanding, religion is a collection of humans subscribing to a similar form of mysticism

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible. It was an extreme form of Protestantism, which eliminated most of the mystical and political features of Catholicism. Which left only the social bonding of those who held the "like precious faith" in a leather-bound idol : a byblos.

I call it (bible-thumping) Baptist Lite : a religion stripped-down to the bare bones. No Pope, no saints, no Marian apparitions, no Trinity, no Mysticism (direct communication with God), no candles, no incense, no magic wafers of flesh & wheat, etc. It was a "back to the Bible" religion, with very little ceremonial tradition.

Ironically, as I later discovered, the "Word of God", was literally the word, not of God, but of Judaized & Platonized Romans, who eventually, in response to nagging heresies, began to call their Church "Catholic" (universal) or "Orthodox" (true doctrine).

The "bare bones" of my local (uncentralized) religion was human reason. Our preachers argued philosophically, based on Bible facts, against the mystical aspects of other protestants, especially the Charismatics & Holy Rollers. So, the only remaining mysticism was Faith in written revelation (Bible). And most of the evidence for that Faith was trust in the eyewitness testimony of Jesus' disciples.

And yet, Saul/Paul --- who wrote half the New Testament, and influenced most of the gospels --- never saw Jesus in the flesh. So his visionary testimony founded a new Gentile religion that had little overlap with the teachings of the presumptive Jewish Messiah.

Consequently, in the Venn diagram, I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap. :halo:

Quoting Mijin

However a difference of course is that science is empirically testable

What gives observation more credibility than speculation?

I wouldn't put it that way, since speculation is also part of the scientific method.

But the key difference between the two is prediction and testing, which we can then use in building technology and making decisions.

Quoting Mijin

testing

Absolute certainty of infallibility?

No. That's an odd question. Are you unfamiliar with the scientific method or was it a rhetorical question?

Reply to Tom Storm

I'm only vaguely familiar with a few of those names. Wouldn't this diagnoses be more broad though? People have seen "building a bridge back to the world," and "securing other minds" as a chief problem for philosophy since Descartes (rationalism). Grounding morality given an epistemology that starts from an enclosed agent equipped with a wholly discursive reason is a problem in Hume (empiricism) as well (e.g., ethics' collapse into sentimentalist anti-realism). The two flavors become fused in Kant. For Kant, other minds—of God or our fellow man—cannot be objects of speculative reason (knowledge) but are merely "postulates or practical reason," i.e., an assumption needed for the individual good will to will itself in a wholly formal, law-like manner, in accordance with what Kant says is the discursive, rule-following nature of reason. This is probably still the most important ethics in politics (through Rawls) and it is one that feels it must justify proper behavior despite our being cut off from the world and knowledge of goodness (hence, Rawls elevation of procedural/formal justice over goodness).

This is certainly the problem Kant's main successors so as central to modern thought (e.g., Fichte, Schelling, Hegel). It shows up as a driving concern in a pretty diverse group of thinkers, from Kierkegaard, to Husserl, to Wittgenstein. It's just that the solutions are very diverse, from something of a step back towards participation in the Logos (Absolute) in later German idealism, to attempts to argue that language presupposed community, to the phenomenological project, to dissolving the subject entirely, to the anti-metaphysical solution of calling such concerns "meaningless" (in both its more dogmatic empiricist and pragmatist forms, from the Vienna circle to Rorty or Dewey).

The traditionalist response has actually built quite a bit on the post-modern deconstructions of the framing that leads towards solipsism. Charles Taylor uses Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty to deconstruct the modern "closed world system" for instance:

“From within itself, the epistemological picture seems unproblematic. It comes across as an obvious discovery we make when we reflect on our perception and acquisition of knowledge. All the great foundational figures – Descartes, Locke, Hume – claimed to be just saying what was obvious once one examined experience itself reflectively. Seen from the deconstruction, this is a most massive self-blindness. Rather what happened is that experience was carved into shape by a powerful theory which posited the primacy of the individual, the neutral, the intra-mental as the locus of certainty. What was driving this theory? Certain ‘values’, virtues, excellences: those of the independent, disengaged subject, reflexively controlling his own thought processes, ‘self-responsibly’ in Husserl’s phrase. There is an ethic here, of independence, self-control, self-responsibility, of a disengagement which brings control; a stance which requires courage, the refusal of the easy comforts of conformity to authority, of the consolations of an enchanted world, of the surrender to the promptings of the senses. The entire picture, shot through with ‘values’, which is meant to emerge out of the careful, objective, presuppositionless scrutiny, is now presented as having been there from the beginning, driving the whole process of ‘discovery’.”

A Secular Age

I think what tends to unite traditionalists is the insight, borrowed from 20th century thought, that this paradigm is itself historically contingent, and that these problems did not plague earlier systems (and not because they failed to be "critical" in their use of transcendental arguments and scrutiny of reason).

Yet, since their attention is turned backwards (many key figures are historians) they have been able to take genealogical critiques of modernity much further (Michael Allen Gillespie's "The Theological Origins of Modernity," Amos Funkenstein's "Theology and the Scientific Imagination," Brad Gregory's "The Unintended Reformation," Peter Harrison's "Some New World," as well as MacIntyre, Milbank, Taylor, and Schindler's larger project). Having always liked early modern history, and having engaged with plenty of sources outside this sort of genealogy, these seem extremely plausible to me, and some like Funkenstein and Milbank are intricately researched.

Most of this work is fairly recent (from the 90s or later, although a few are earlier), but I'm still surprised that it hasn't spread as much outside this set. Perhaps it is because it is often quite technical, focused on a period most people don't pay much attention to, or maybe because it exacerbates the tension in a lot of continental/post-modern though that what is said about the historical contingency of Enlightenment thought applies just as much to contemporary "post-modern" thought (and in ways that are more direct and explicit than a general acknowledgement of this allows), undercutting in ways.

Quoting Tom Storm

seem to be clamouring for a counter-Reformation to the Enlightenment.

Yes, but there are actually three sets in the traditionalist camp here.

There are the largely Catholic "TradCaths" who look mostly as far back as Trent and to neoscholastic readings of Aquinas, and tend to want to move towards a pre-Vatican II early-modern philosophy. They think the nature versus supernatural distinction is essential for explaining grace as gratuitous. They are ambivalent towards Plato.

Against these there is a camp that looks back to ancient and early medieval, and Eastern Christianity more, with their own more "neoplatonic" reading of Aquinas. They also like Saint Maximus quite a bit. And here is where David Bentley Hart, de Lubac, Milbank, etc. would fit (and really Wallace, outside the Christian context). They reject the nature / supernature division entirely. They have been more successful in the Vatican and in theology and philosophy, although they don't have the same sort of popular cult following online. They love Plato.

And then there is a sort of Neopagan and often Nietzschean traditionalism (e.g. Bronze Age Pervert). But, strangely perhaps, this crowd is quite close with a libertarian yet "Christian Nationalist" traditionalist camp (more Protestant), so I put them together. And these folks tend to hate Plato (except for the Guenon, etc. ones into Hindu traditionalism; but they like the Laws more than the Republic)

Reply to Mijin rhetorical.

What makes you trust science? You say observations (testing, diagnosing, matching). Why trust observations?


(P.S. don't forget to ping me)

@copernicus "observations" is just one part of science, we make models and then we test those models. The usefulness of this method is easy to demonstrate by eg the device that you are using to read this.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but there are actually three sets in the traditionalist camp here.

Probably more. The point isn’t their proposed solutions (which generally are of little interest to me), but rather their diagnosis of a problem and their tendency toward nostalgia projects. Whether it’s some guy on YouTube commenting on a classic movie or a social conservative writing about identity politics, the trope is generally, “Things used to be better, we took the wrong fork in the road, and now we’re cooked unless we can regain ourselves.” Or something like that. Some see that fork in the road as starting with the Enlightenment, while others think it began with Disney studios.... :wink: To me, this venerable lost golden age tale seems to have reemerged as a defining narrative of our times. Personally, I’m content to be living in my own era, with all its cultural prejudices and schisms. I find it mostly amenable.

Quoting Mijin

usefulness

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality.

Quoting Gnomon

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible.

Really? The 'Holy Ghost' is non-mystical, how peculiar.

Quoting Gnomon

Consequently, in the Venn diagram, I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap. :halo:

You can put your religion anywhere you want. If you name it religion then it should be that, not so?

Quoting Copernicus

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality.

The two go hand in hand. When we are using a scientific model to make accurate predictions, it can be seen as both an attempt to find useful, practical implications and a validation of a claim about reality.

Our understanding of quantum mechanics for example is being tested with every transitor operation in the device that you are using to read this. Billions of tests per second and our accurate predictions are correct every time. That doesn't give you confidence that that model represents at the least partially how this reality works?

Quoting Mijin

partially

Quoting Copernicus

sure

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible. — Gnomon
Really? The 'Holy Ghost' is non-mystical, how peculiar.

I didn't say "not mystical but "As non mystical as possible" for a viable religion. My religious upbringing didn't emphasize the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit, but did focus on rational beliefs to support emotional faith. However, my own reasoning concluded that their faith in a 2000 year old book was misplaced. Hence, I now have no religious beliefs, and no religious community. I'm alone in philosophical limbo, except for a few argumentative skeptics on an internet forum. :wink:

Quoting Pieter R van Wyk

You can put your religion anywhere you want. If you name it religion then it should be that, not so?

As I said, "I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap." So it remains in the Religion category, not the Science class. Is that reasonable for you? :smile:

Quoting 180 Proof

'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)

E.g. religions indoctrinate "we don't know this or that g/G (woo) must have created / caused this or commands us to obey that" contrary to sciences which demonstrate "we don't know this or that yet until we learn (i.e. critically self-correct) more and more about the what and the how of this or that" – the latter requires and the former discourages defeasible thinking. :mask:

Reply to Copernicus "Sure" what? Do you now acknowledge the solid grounds for having confidence in science, both as a practical tool and as a means to learn about reality?

Reply to Mijin Practical tool, yes. Means to learn about reality? No. Not the TRUE reality.

Like I said, I'm a theoretical person with little concern for practicality.

Quoting Copernicus

Not the TRUE reality.

In contrast to the FALSE reality? :roll:

Quoting 180 Proof

In contrast to the FALSE reality? :roll:

To be fair, I don't think one can ever refer to any person (even ignoring the first 18 years of life, or whatever your society or legal government considers a "legal adult") who's never been mistaken. One might even go further and remind one that many people live and die believing falsehoods of a wide variety. Perhaps an adopted child, perhaps a man or woman who believed their disloyal spouse was in fact the opposite, or perhaps a soon to be disproved yet otherwise brilliant mind such as Newton who thought light was made of simple particles.

As you can see there are in fact "true" and "false" "realities", or at the very least more true and less true, many of which the majority of men and women will go through life happily without ever discovering.

I take his statement as suggesting there is something fundamentally incorrect about the topic at hand, or perhaps, to be charitable, at the very least, there is more to know, perhaps much more to know to the effect it has fundamental and everlasting difference. Phrased in that way and fashion, perhaps the young lad is not quite so unreasonable. :smile:

Reply to 180 Proof ?

Quoting Copernicus

Practical tool, yes. Means to learn about reality? No. Not the TRUE reality.

Like I said, I'm a theoretical person with little concern for practicality.

Yes you said that already.

I responded that the same methodology that delivers us practical tools and inferences also helps us to understand reality, demonstrably so.

You then simply said "sure", so I asked you to clarify whether you are accepting the argument.
Just repeating your original position doesn't give us that clarity.

Please now clarify: do you accept the argument? Do you believe you have found a flaw in it?

Quoting Mijin

Please now clarify

Yes, it has practical benefits.

But no, I don't care.

Stating that you have not changed your position does not clarify your understanding, of the points being put to you and whether you have any counter-arguments.

Quoting Mijin

whether you have any counter-arguments

Quoting Copernicus

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality.