Why does Metaphysics get a bad rap?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, you aren’t wrong. You are very right: both science and theology use metaphysics and require it.

I have some theories about one possible reason some proponents of science are hostile to metaphysics and religion in general.

VC
 
You’re not wrong. Metaphysics gets a bad rap largely because people don’t understand it. Many people think that “metaphysics” essentially means a rejection of mechanistic materialism. But in fact, of course, mechanistic materialism is itself another metaphysical view.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
No, you aren’t wrong. You are very right: both science and theology use metaphysics and require it.

I have some theories about one possible reason some proponents of science are hostile to metaphysics and religion in general.

VC
Click to expand...
VC …👍

Gives us the goods !!
 
Metaphysics embraces many types of knowledge. Even mathematics is considered metaphysical, since it deals with concepts rather than physical entities such as occupy the physicist. Without the metaphysical tool of mathematics physics would be hopelessly primitive as a scientific discipline.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
No, you aren’t wrong. You are very right: both science and theology use metaphysics and require it.

I have some theories about one possible reason some proponents of science are hostile to metaphysics and religion in general.

VC
Click to expand...
I understand that but can I just say that the religious seem just as hostile to epistemology as scientists do to metaphysics?

I mean the methodology of faith is… what exactly? It’s true because I believe it? Because X person said so?
 
Veritas

**I mean the methodology of faith is… what exactly? It’s true because I believe it? Because X person said so? **

Because Jesus said it? Yes! 👍
 
brb3 said:
Both science & religion need it. Am I wrong ?
Click to expand...
Well, you need to explore a bit further why science and religion “need” metaphysics. And this would lead us to another question: what is metaphysics as an academic discipline, what does it “study” as opposed to physics or economics or mathematics or even theology?

Metaphysics concerns itself with a very peculiar question - what does it mean “to be”? It would seem that the primary meaning of “to be” is “to be here, right now” or “to be present in the world”. But doesn’t this restrict “being” to a “spatial” and “temporal” context? Or does it? Ah, that’s the question.

And why do we even care about the meaning of “to be”? Heidegger has argued that we are “concerned” about “being” because we know that, at some point in the future, we are going to die - we are no longer going to “be”, at least in the sense of “being here, now, in this world”.

Thus, metaphysics is entangled with our mortality. We only know about “being” because we simultaneously know about “non-being” in a very personal way.
 
brb3 said:
Both science & religion need it. Am I wrong ?
Click to expand...
I think there are lots of reasons why metaphysics is treated with general disdain by scientists and many philosophers in the West, such as:
  • During the Middle Ages, it became intimately connected with religion and there developed a great deal of unfounded metaphysical speculation, which, with the onset of modernity and the rejection of revelation as a means of knowing true things, often meant that metaphysics was the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
  • A number of speculative metaphysicians developed such elaborate metaphysical theories, sometimes on very little evidence, that early modern and Enlightenment philosophers wanted to get back to basics by either using epistemological doubt (Descartes), verifiable sense experience (Locke), or other means to get away from these kind of systems.
  • Kant, who did more to harm traditional metaphysics than anyone (though he did rely on it and set up a kind of metaphysics of his own), wanted to establish metaphysics on grounds that would allow it to progress as science had done. For Kant, metaphysics had been around for thousands of years but had gone precisely nowhere and there were too many antimonies in metaphysics that were unprovable by reason alone or with evidence. I think his philosophical outcomes have had the most affect on how Western philosophers on the whole perceive metaphysics, although the tide has recently been turning.
Having said all that, you are absolutely right that so much human knowledge has implicit metaphysical foundations. I think that’s why metaphysics is slowly coming back into vogue as (i) people are beginning to realise for all Kant’s genius, he wasn’t always right and (ii) philosophers are beginning to trust human reason again. Well, at least, I hope so!
 
I love metaphysics. Its probably my favorite branch of Philosophy. Deep, but it brings me to a greater awareness in the Faith.
 
If materialist acknowledge metaphysics then they are acknowledging that things exist outside the material world. Most of them will tell you that all truth is relative and even Richard Dawkins in his book says, “Their is only indifference”…

They have absolutely no Truth and they avoid it like the plague…
For obvious reasons.
 
j**onathan

Having said all that, you are absolutely right that so much human knowledge has implicit metaphysical foundations. I think that’s why metaphysics is slowly coming back into vogue as (i) people are beginning to realise for all Kant’s genius, he wasn’t always right and (ii) philosophers are beginning to trust human reason again. Well, at least, I hope so! **

You are right about Kant. Jacques Maritain, the great Catholic philosopher, in his book Three Reformers deplored the influence of Kant on modern philosophy. He saw Kant as having subverted moral philosophy by emphasizing the love of morals rather than the love of God, who is the foundation of all morals. From that point on, according to Maritain, the door was opened for modern philosophy to dismiss metaphysics and religion together as largely irrelevant to moral issues and this ushered in the subsequent rise of moral relativism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top