Can Thomism Save Science?

[buffalo]

[Can Thomism Save Science?

](http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1109-daw)
In our initial article we raised this question: Is the Catholic community retreating from an engagement with science? Answering in the affirmative, we attributed the retreat to an inadequate understanding of the philosophical foundations of science and of knowledge as a whole. The breadth of the problem reveals how widespread and complete is the lack of principled understanding of the proper nature and role of science.

This problem is not new, nor is the identification of its cause. As a former professor visiting his former university in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI identified the crisis of reason as the root problem of the West. Human reason, reduced in modern times to empirical rationality, has forgotten what it means to be human, with tragic consequences. No longer capable of the clear perception of order, goodness, and intelligibility, our culture has reduced morality to relativism, a utilitarian calculus devoid of true reason. Who needs to be reminded of the results?

One symptom of the schism is the growth of scien*tism, which Pope John Paul II recognized as being of particular prominence in the modern world. As the late Holy Father pointed out, scientism has at its root an incomplete understanding of knowledge, of reality, and of humanity, which can only be mended by a return to first principles – in this case, the principles of natural philosophy. In returning to the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, the exemplar of natural philosophy, is it possible to rediscover science proper, and to find thereby a means of returning the world to an integrated view of faith and reason?

more…

 

[hatsoff]

Can Thomism Save Science?

Science is doing just fine. What you really think needs saving is morality—from science. It does not.

No longer capable of the clear perception of order, goodness, and intelligibility, our culture has reduced morality to relativism, a utilitarian calculus devoid of true reason. Who needs to be reminded of the results?

It’s certainly possible that an increased number of people subscribe to moral relativism, although it would be nice to actually have some evidence to support that claim. But let’s go ahead under the assumption that it is true; after all, I suspect that it is. That’s a good thing! Morality is relative, and when people recognize that, then they are better equipped to deal with reality.

One symptom of the schism is the growth of scien*tism, which Pope John Paul II recognized as being of particular prominence in the modern world. As the late Holy Father pointed out, scientism has at its root an incomplete understanding of knowledge, of reality, and of humanity, which can only be mended by a return to first principles – in this case, the principles of natural philosophy.

Unfortunately, there are no “the” principles of natural philosophy. If you had your way, I bet you’d choose to adopt Thomistic philosophy, which is downright nonsensical, on account of its reification of being, potency, act, etc.

In returning to the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, the exemplar of natural philosophy, is it possible to rediscover science proper, and to find thereby a means of returning the world to an integrated view of faith and reason?

Integrating faith and reason would be a step backwards, not forwards.

 

[Ismael]

It’s certainly possible that an increased number of people subscribe to moral relativism, although it would be nice to actually have some evidence to support that claim. But let’s go ahead under the assumption that it is true; after all, I suspect that it is. That’s a good thing! Morality is relative, and when people recognize that, then they are better equipped to deal with reality.

Moral relativism does not help enyone deal with reality, on the contrary it might make things more confusing.

Moral relativism is a philosophy that appears logical on the surface but it is intrinsically irrational.

To say morality is relative is tu say there is no real right and wrong.
Then some things like: racism, slavery, murder, rape, etc… cannot truly be condemned if morals and ethcs are just relative concepts that wildy vary from individual to individual.

Then murdering of women and eating them is not a wrong thing absolutely, so the US government had no real right condemning Ed Gein to prison, since in HIS view what he did was perhaps moral and just.

The same applies for terrorism.

Science in moral relativism also loses part of its purpuse: benefit humanity. Since good an evil are no real things in moral relativism, the concept of ‘benefit’ also disappears.

Unfortunately, there are no “the” principles of natural philosophy. If you had your way, I bet you’d choose to adopt Thomistic philosophy, which is downright nonsensical, on account of its reification of being, potency, act, etc.

The choice of the philosophy might be arbitrary, but thomism is far from non-sensical (any decent philosopher might tell you that even if he does not agree with thomism!)

Integrating faith and reason would be a step backwards, not forwards.

Actually to separate the two is a big step backwards.

This is the main flaw of moral relativism, it actually makes a person lose true contact with the reality of things and lets them float on air.

Science is doing just fine. What you really think needs saving is morality—from science. It does not.

I agree… partially.

Morals need not be saved from science, nort science need to be saved in its intrinsic purpuse.

What truly needs saving is scientific ethics.

If you say ‘no it does not’ then it means that you approve of Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele who performed scientific experiments on human beings, often children.

Whethere his experiments had a good scientific purpuse of not it is debatable, but if one would say “science needs no ethics” then he also implies “we can allow science dangerous and painful experiments on human beings”

Another extreme example:
Then the US governement’s scientists may decide to you the town you live with to test a new type of bomb, just to check the effects on humans… Since morals are relative it’s not wrong, not from the US government’s scientists’ point of view.

Moral Relativists usually have the fatal flaw to think logically and rationally about the statements they make.

===================

Recapping I would say:

1- science has the main purpose to benefit mankind in two ways: a) expanding his knowledge of the physical world; b) improve technology that aid man kind

2- There can be no true concept of ‘benefit’ without ethics

3- SCIENTISTS need ethics when they do science, this for two purposes: a) to do things that benefit humans there must be a fixed concept of right and wrong, b) To avoid hurting humans (but not only humans… also animals and the enviroment), hence not benefitting humans and the world, but possibly harm it gravely.

4- Whether the Thomism or anothe philosophycal system is the right choice, it might be quite debatable, but to apply no ethics at all is a quite irrational thing to do.

 

[hatsoff]

Moral relativism does not help enyone deal with reality, on the contrary it might make things more confusing.

Moral relativism is a philosophy that appears logical on the surface but it is intrinsically irrational.

To say morality is relative is tu say there is no real right and wrong.
Then some things like: racism, slavery, murder, rape, etc… cannot truly be condemned if morals and ethcs are just relative concepts that wildy vary from individual to individual.

Then murdering of women and eating them is not a wrong thing absolutely, so the US government had no real right condemning Ed Gein to prison, since in HIS view what he did was perhaps moral and just.

The same applies for terrorism.

Science in moral relativism also loses part of its purpuse: benefit humanity. Since good an evil are no real things in moral relativism, the concept of ‘benefit’ also disappears.

I’m not interested in condemning actions as “absolutely” wrong, whatever that might mean. I am perfectly satisfied to condemn them as plain-Jane wrong, with the full knowledge that morality is a value system, and thus characterized by certain relationships.

The choice of the philosophy might be arbitrary, but thomism is far from non-sensical (any decent philosopher might tell you that even if he does not agree with thomism!)

On the contrary, Thomism has been criticized by multiple philosophers as utterly incoherent. For example, Anthony Kenny, in Aquinas On Being, writes

…the steps that he [Aquinas] takes to distinguish God’s esse from this common predicate esse] appear to make it utterly incomprehensible. In order to prevent God’s esse from being the applicability of a totally uninformative predicate, he turns it into the applicability of a predicate that is no predicate at all… For the only meaning that attaches to a formula such as ‘God is F’ is that if you substitute a genuine predicate for the dummy letter F, you will get a meaningful sentence. If you forbid such a substitution, you must delete the variable letter (which is, as it were, a permission to make a substitution), and you are left simply with ‘God is…’, which is…just an ill-formed formula.

I agree with such criticisms.

Actually to separate the two is a big step backwards.

This is the main flaw of moral relativism, it actually makes a person lose true contact with the reality of things and lets them float on air.

This might be so if faith were some kind of virtue, or a viable means to truth-discovery, but in my judgment it is neither such thing.

I agree… partially.

Morals need not be saved from science, nort science need to be saved in its intrinsic purpuse.

What truly needs saving is scientific ethics.

If you say ‘no it does not’ then it means that you approve of Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele who performed scientific experiments on human beings, often children.

Whethere his experiments had a good scientific purpuse of not it is debatable, but if one would say “science needs no ethics” then he also implies “we can allow science dangerous and painful experiments on human beings”

Another extreme example:
Then the US governement’s scientists may decide to you the town you live with to test a new type of bomb, just to check the effects on humans… Since morals are relative it’s not wrong, not from the US government’s scientists’ point of view.

Moral Relativists usually have the fatal flaw to think logically and rationally about the statements they make.

I have no problem criticizing the ethical violations in science, but I deny that either science or morality is in any kind of crisis state, as is implied by the OP.

Recapping I would say:

1- science has the main purpose to benefit mankind in two ways: a) expanding his knowledge of the physical world; b) improve technology that aid man kind

2- There can be no true concept of ‘benefit’ without ethics

3- SCIENTISTS need ethics when they do science, this for two purposes: a) to do things that benefit humans there must be a fixed concept of right and wrong, b) To avoid hurting humans (but not only humans… also animals and the enviroment), hence not benefitting humans and the world, but possibly harm it gravely.

4- Whether the Thomism or anothe philosophycal system is the right choice, it might be quite debatable, but to apply no ethics at all is a quite irrational thing to do.

I am hesitant to speak of purpose in that way. While many of us share a common vision of the role science ought to play in human history, many others disagree. So it is that I would not care to recognize any single overarching purpose to science. It is a community project, and thus has no unified, driving function.

You evidently feel that ethics in science is important. So do I—although this is hardly a key point of agreement, since we dispute which ethical philosophy should be implemented. Luckily for us, you might say, we don’t get to decide. Social forces will overwhelm whatever opinions we have as individuals.

 

[Ismael]

I’m not interested in condemning actions as “absolutely” wrong, whatever that might mean. I am perfectly satisfied to condemn them as plain-Jane wrong, with the full knowledge that morality is a value system, and thus characterized by certain relationships.

For that you need a fixed set of values than, hence moral relativism does not apply.

It might apply in the case of Moral Skepticism, at best.

On the contrary, Thomism has been criticized by multiple philosophers as utterly incoherent. For example, Anthony Kenny, in Aquinas On Being, writes

You have half truths about Kenny, he does not condemn thomism in his entiriety but reis to correct it in the points where he believes it is not completely coherent.

In October 2006, Kenny was awarded the American Catholic Philosophical Association’s Aquinas Medal

As a philosopher of course he might have a critique on Aquinas’ work, the question is if his critique is valid and coherent as well

…the steps that he [Aquinas] takes to distinguish God’s esse from this common predicate esse] appear to make it utterly incomprehensible. In order to prevent God’s esse from being the applicability of a totally uninformative predicate, he turns it into the applicability of a predicate that is no predicate at all… For the only meaning that attaches to a formula such as ‘God is F’ is that if you substitute a genuine predicate for the dummy letter F, you will get a meaningful sentence. If you forbid such a substitution, you must delete the variable letter (which is, as it were, a permission to make a substitution), and you are left simply with ‘God is…’, which is…just an ill-formed formula.

I agree with such criticisms.

Kenny presents certainly quite interesting ideas but those too are quite debatable.

Your agreement to it, however, is more emotional than logical it seems, ie he reflects your feelings, hence you agree with him.

 

[hatsoff]

For that you need a fixed set of values than, hence moral relativism does not apply.

It might apply in the case of Moral Skepticism, at best.

In what way do I require a fixed code? That seems quite superfluous to me.

You have half truths about Kenny, he does not condemn thomism in his entiriety but reis to correct it in the points where he believes it is not completely coherent.

In October 2006, Kenny was awarded the American Catholic Philosophical Association’s Aquinas Medal

Oh, sure—I didn’t mean to suggest Kenny and I are in complete agreement. I only cite his as an example of the same sort of criticisms I am leveling against Aquinas; for we both see incoherence in the philosophy of Aquinas. The main difference, evidently, is that Kenny thinks those problems should be fixed in order to produce a coherent theory, whereas I would just throw out the whole mess.

No doubt someone better acquainted with philosophical literature could produce an example of a philosopher with views closer to mine, but Kenny should suffice for my purpose here.

As a philosopher of course he might have a critique on Aquinas’ work, the question is if his critique is valid and coherent as well

Kenny presents certainly quite interesting ideas but those too are quite debatable.

At the risk of sounding glib, I must point out that philosophers will debate anything.

Your agreement to it, however, is more emotional than logical it seems, ie he reflects your feelings, hence you agree with him.

What feelings? I don’t have an emotional grudge against Thomism. I just can’t make sense of it. You doubtless think that’s my own failing, but I have only my personal judgment to go on.

 

[Ismael]

What feelings? I don’t have an emotional grudge against Thomism. I just can’t make sense of it. You doubtless think that’s my own failing, but I have only my personal judgment to go on.

Well if I came to a wrong conclusion I beg your pardon.

The point is that you should make sense of thomism, and eventually state why it is right or wrong.

If an argument is illogical, you do understand why ie the premesis are in contraddiction with the conclusion, for example.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In returning to the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, the exemplar of natural philosophy, is it possible to rediscover science proper, and to find thereby a means of returning the world to an integrated view of faith and reason?

Almost, but not quite.

 

[NowAgnostic]

In a word: codswallop. Unable to refute unwelcome scientific conclusions, faced with the fact that science has done enormously well and produced amazing life-saving and life-improving things (like the polio vaccine) and warned by history that upfront confrontation with science leads eventually to embarrassing retreat and ridicule, faith and philosophy are trying a new tack: attempting to play the friend of science, alleging “problems” with modern science for which the remedy is, surprise, surprise, a “return” to the “perennial philosophy” of the Angelic Doctor.

As usual, when one has an ideology to defend in the face of contrary evidence, intellectual honesty is the first casualty. Indeed one of the first tactics used always, in any article of the above sort, is to assert that science can also produce very deadly things, like the atomic bomb. And of course, this series is no exception - in the first article in the series we read:

It is popularly believed that there should be no relationship between scientific research and the imperatives of the faith. Yet who can deny the enormous and often deadly impact of modern science?

And there’s one word to summarize that: LIE. To make modern science itself responsible for the fact that politicians decided to fight wars and utilized science to find the most deadly weaponry possible is a bold-faced LIE. Or any of the other “deadly” misuses of science.

I’m sure the author would react the same way if someone claimed the Crusades or Inquisition as examples of the “deadly” impact of religion. Which I don’t. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, pal.

In our initial article we raised this question: Is the Catholic community retreating from an engagement with science? Answering in the affirmative, we attributed the retreat to an inadequate understanding of the philosophical foundations of science and of knowledge as a whole.

Evidently it must be the Catholic community itself that has that inadequate understanding, then. Why not clean up your own house before bemoaning everything allegedly “wrong” with the modern world. But, no, of course, next are cited such problems in the “West”…

This problem is not new, nor is the identification of its cause. As a former professor visiting his former university in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI identified the crisis of reason as the root problem of the West. Human reason, reduced in modern times to empirical rationality…

Where’s the evidence for that? That Pope Benedict XVI said so is just an argument to authority.

One symptom of the schism is the growth of scien*tism, which Pope John Paul II recognized as being of particular prominence in the modern world…

And where’s the evidence of that? The Pope John Paul II said so is just an argument to authority.

Now indeed the world pays more attention to scientists than philosophers these days - perhaps the reason is that science has produced more of value. What disease did philosophy ever cure? Philosophy had it that disease was the result of “bad humors”.

As the late Holy Father pointed out, scientism has at its root an incomplete understanding of knowledge, of reality, and of humanity…

In a word, no. “Scientism” claims that all contingent facts about the world can be only known through observation and induction (at least probabilistically speaking), there still being a role for philosophy and its derivates for the knowledge of necessary facts.

…Where knowledge was once viewed as valuable when integrated and absorbed, scientism encourages fragmentation and specialization. …

And “scientism” is the reason for this! BWAHAHAHA!! It’s because science has done so well, that there is so much knowledge, that it is simply impossible for one to become expert in everything.

We have lost the sense that science should ennoble mankind by improving our understanding of ourselves and the world, and we have hence come increasingly to define science by its utility.

BWAHAHAHA!! The author is a physicist, so I can say that this also is a LIE. He well knows that “atom smashers” are built at huge cost to improve our understanding of the world, not because there is any immediate utility.

…If our science rejects any notion of unity, order, and intelligibility in the natural world…

BWAHAHAHA!! Science does not reject any notion of unity, order, and intelligibility.

Virtually all scientists today are unfamiliar with the basic principles of natural philosophy.

How does he know? Did he take a poll?

In my experience as a physics teacher, a very difficult principle of natural philosophy for well-trained students to understand is the simple one of substance. …

Another student offered that his education in science had properly destroyed his naïve view of reality. “For example,” he said quite happily, “I no longer know what a chair is.” When pressed, he qualified this with, “I no longer know what a chair is perfectly.” He demurred when I asked him what his mother might make of his new insights.

This is really funny too. A chair does not have a substantial unity in Thomism, just an accidental one; it is just an artifact. Just like an automobile, or a pile of rocks. And that’s of course the problem; we don’t know from our observations what has substantial unity and what doesn’t.

 

[edwest2]

Here is further evidence that those who believe in relativism want things to stay as they are. Science, in its current condition, is tied entirely to the military-industrial complex. And since no science can be done without human beings, all one needs to do to get around ethics, or ‘those religious types,’ is to go to a country where such things don’t matter. And to find scientists to whom ethics do not matter.

The polio vaccine came about as a calculated risk by its inventor.

Scientists put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else and they need to eat. So, just give them money and prestige and some will agree to almost anything.

Forget philosophy. Read up on the Nuremburg trials. Find out what science can do when there are no rules. Contact the Atomic Veterans of America. Go ahead. Ask them how much the scientists told them about radiation and fallout. And when you’re done talking to them, contact their counterparts in England and Australia.

Science is done by men. And the only way those men can do science is with expensive equipment. There are only two ways to get it: the government or private investors. Both expect results, and if you don’t come through, you’re out of a job.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and its workings. Yes, Thomism can help. Science without guideposts will continue to make discoveries but fail to put them into a meaningful context. It will also chase false illusions.

One has to ask the question - does science exist just to obtain understanding and knowledge for its own sake? Does it have a higher calling?