As a brief detour, since I am on the subject of science, let me touch for a moment on the nature of science, since it is important to a complementary notion of the rational secular state. I won't repeat the whole of thomas Kuhn's argument here, but will simply suggest that the history of science is a history of beautifully concocted schemes each of which failed to fully comprehend the whole of reality. Ptolemaic astronomy fell to Copernican astronomy. Newtonian physics fell to Einstein's relativity, which in turn fell to Bohr's quantum mechanics, and he list goes on. The history of science, no less than other human endeavors, is a history of beautifully concocted schemes, none of which succeeded in fully comprehending the whole of reality, each of which was supplemented or supplanted by a new scheme, each of which will in turn be supplemented or supplanted by even newer schemes. The history of science, more so than other human endeavors, is marked by "progress." Copernican astronomy represents an "advance" on Ptolemaic astronomy. Einstein's relativity represents an "advance" on Newtonian physics, and quantum mechanics an "advance" on relativity. Each advance is marked by contingency and its truth ultimately proves to be transient -- that is to say, each theoretical advance, each beautifully concocted scheme, is marked by its potential future failure -- it is precisely this contingent transience, this possibility of failure that allows for "advance." The differences between the schemes of science and the schemes of religion are too numerous to list, but central to the differences is the foreclosure on this notion of "progress." While it is dangerous in some circles to suggest that religion is no less a human endeavor, its history no less a history of beautifully concocted schemes, each of which has been supplemented or supplanted by new schemes, the evidence is clear enough. The gods of Rome were supplanted by the one true god, and the church that celebrated that one true god has been supplemented with any number of protestant variations on a scheme. None, however, really represents an "advance," but rather the assertion of an end to advancement -- the truth once and for all. If the religious mind misunderstands the scientific mind, it is precisely on this point of falsification. The truths of science are always open to their eventual falsification. Darwinian evolution is not a truth once and for all, but a truth that has been confirmed over and over again by the preponderance of evidence, while the mechanisms that support it have been subject to continuous revision. Climate science has presented us with a body of evidence. The best theoretical explanation of that evidence is open to some dispute, and consequently the optimal policy decisions too are open to some dispute, but what is not in question is the body of evidence -- the earth is getting warmer, and human actions are, to one degree or another, causing or contributing to that warming. We understand climate change better today than yesterday, and no doubt will understand it better tomorrow than today, and presumably our policy decisions should be informed by those "advances."
I am suggesting, of course, that the policy orientations of what I have called the rational secular state are open to falsification in ways that the faith-based theocracy is not. The beautifully concocted schemes of science are sustained or fail on the basis of confirming or falsifying evidence. On what basis is the truth or falsity of the biblical accounts drawn into question? Likewise, if ideological purity is the predicating good, on what basis is the truth or falsity of free market accounts drawn into question? From the conservative mind-set, if the account fails to fully comprehend our human reality -- if it fails to address our contingent needs -- the difficulty lies, not in the account, but in each individual's faith in the account. One is more or less faithful to the given truth, and dialectic, as such, is directed, not at a closer and closer approximation to truth, but at the discovery of apostasy from an already given truth. The "social issues" could be the "core problem in the polarization of the American politics." The New York Times quotes Christine Whitman, the former republican governor of New Jersey and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, as suggesting that "anger over the state of politics increases apathy." Consequently, "'only the most rabid partisans vote,' so political strategists steer campaigns to issues that turn them on," and "for republicans, those are often social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and contraception. But the rise of a new strain of fiscal conservatism has also led to moralistic portrayals of votes on spending and the debt limit. And when issues are framed around morality, compromise becomes very difficult." I doubt, however, that the social issues are in themselves the "core problem." I think, rather, one's position on social issues serves simply to signify and substantiate one's alignment with faith-based and increasingly theocratic social and economic truths. The importation of the "habits of thought of the natural scientist and engineer" into the social and economic spheres -- a mindset that seeks neither moral approbation or disapprobation, but causality in human social and economic behavior, and if not causality, then predictable correlation -- "impose ideals of organization on sphere[s] of thought to which they are not appropriate," and they are not appropriate because they are mechanistic accounts that deny human freedom, and because they deny human freedom, they preclude the possibility of moral choice and moral blame. If social behavior can be reduced to causality and correlation, then it is difficult to ascribe moral blame to individuals for "their choices," their unwillingness or inability to conform to prevailing moral standards. If social behavior can be reduced to causality and correlation, it also implies an obligation for the creation of social and economic policy. If the absence of work, for example, is the underlying causal factor for the rise in single parent households, if the relationship is indeed mechanistic, then the solution to single parent households is simply to create jobs, not to insist upon the moral probity of young women, is not to demand abstinence and then test that abstinence by denying access to contraception.
No comments:
Post a Comment