Upload
giovanni-schiava
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
1/12
1
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
2/12
2
Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern
existence.
Giovanni Schiava
This article has been awarded the Italian
NATIONAL AWARD OF PHILOSOPHY, 2013 (Certaldo)
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
3/12
3
Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern
existence.
Giovanni Schiava
A rather simple and non-trivial answer
I think I have solved a major philosophical problem: the struggle between science and
religion1... Except I do not believe there are major philosophical problems to be solved, as
much as debates on different ideas which, if open to dialectics, can serve those who ask
for them. The question is: why is science constantly gaining ground on religion? The
answer is rather simple and not trivial: because science offers more opportunities to man's
ambitions and his possibilities of achievement. The answer may be plain to see but
perhaps too obvious to be so crucial. Both science and religion cling to their respective
ideas that are believed to be univocal. In the following pages I will attempt to clarify the
premises of my argument: a long and strictly philosophical, although clear, digressionwill be made. It will only apparently move away from the topic of the article, but would
certainly prove useful to the understanding and justification of my proposal.
The metaphysical mindset
I believe that to this day, and I could not tell since when, we Westerners have had a
mindset that Gianni Vattimo and Richard Rorty2
defined as a "metaphysical mindset."
"Metaphysical mindset" generally indicates that way of being and seeing the world that
still belongs to us. However, if we are not able to separate ourselves from it, to look at itfrom a distance, we would not be able to acknowledge it. In other words, to understand it
and live it as "awareness" it is necessary to change and re-describe ourselves as well as
our vision of the world. The metaphysical mindset contains the traditional distinction
1 I have borrowed this sentence from the Austrian philosopher K.R. Popper: "I think I have solved a major philosophicalproblem: the problem of induction" in G. Reale, D. Antiseri, Il pensiero occidentale dalle origini ad oggi, La Scuola, Brescia 1992,
vol. 3., p. 743.
2 All the major bibliographical references for this article are to be found in some works (footnoted) of the Italian philosopherGianni Vattimo and the American Richard Rorty.
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
4/12
4
between subject and object, between a knowing subject and a known object. The
metaphysical mindset believes in a reality that exists outside those who perceive and
know it; it believes in the existence of things as they are known and described, regardlessof who knows and describes them; it believes that things exist "objectively", despite the
subject that describes them. The computer on which this article is written is what it is not
because it is me who describes it, denotes it, and makes it what it is; it will still be the
same object even if all mankind and myself disappear from the universe at this very
moment. This is what the metaphysical mindset thinks. It is the common sense mindset,
because it is traditionally and culturally rooted, because it is what we are made of.
Changing this mindset means changing the very idea of man and becoming, perhaps, what
Nietzsche used to define as the Superman or Beyond-Man, or at least anything else that
man is not now. Why call it "metaphysical mindset"?
From Plato on, metaphysics has been interpreted as the reality of essences, the Absolute
Reality, the true reality beyond sensible appearances. If the things we normally perceive
keep changing, there will nonetheless be an ultimate foundation that is unchangeable,
incorruptible, eternal and always identical to itself: the essences of things, generally
known as "truth." We are born and we die but the essences remain unabashedly identical
to themselves. The Absolute is the essence among essences without which nothing would
be. Plato identified it in the Absolute Idea; religions in the gods or God. The concept of
metaphysics as we understand it today is ascribable to its first Western theorist, Plato,
who clearly divided a Sensible world from a Supersensible one, life on earth from the
afterlife. However, I would push the concept of "metaphysical mindset", seen as
humankind's attitude to seek stability and certainties as forms of guidance, back in time.
As I have mentioned before, I cannot indicate a specific time for when this need becomes
stronger, but it certainly coincides with the development of man's sensitivity andintelligence which renders him more vulnerable to the inconstancies of life.
Whatever the case, from the existence of certainties, until their absolutization into eternal
essences, it has developed what many psychologists and philosophers have defined as
"objectifying thought". The thought, our thought, creates the external reality, the objects
and things; it makes us believe in the objective existence of everything that is "out there",
using Rorty's expression that clearly conveys the idea. The metaphysical mindset we
speak of today is our normal and common mindset. It perceives things existing in itself,
existing as we see them without taking ourselves into account, who see things the way we
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
5/12
5
do. According to the metaphysical mindset there is "out there" a world that exists
objectively: its knowledge is nothing more than an understanding of the object as it is. In
any case, the world would be that way even if it were not us to get to know it. This is anidea of reality that separates the knowing subject from the known object and makes them
two quite distinct realities.
Metaphysical philosophers, too metaphysical
As already said, the metaphysical mindset belongs to us. It was only thanks to the
nineteenth- century philosopher Nietzsche that the "awareness" of this distinction has
emerged, together with the will to change. This will has not yet been fulfilled. In order for
it to become established it will need a long period of maturation. Even those philosophers
who have analysed it and acknowledged it (according to a 'non-metaphysical mindset' it
would be more appropriate to say that they have proposed it) are, still, too metaphysical.
From the medieval age, the need to move the existential line from God to Man has
become stronger. From Saint Thomas who used human reason to prove faith and obtained
a boomerang effect since his considerations offered more possibilities to reason; through
Gugliemo d'Ockham, an ante litteram Kantian, who moves reason away from the realm of
faith conferring it more autonomy; through the renaissance animus encompassed in thesentence "man controls his own destiny"; and the decisive turning point of 'I think
therefore I am' by Descartes for whom thinking justify itself; we, finally, get to Kant who,
with his philosophy of transcendentalism, brings out the contradictions in the dispute
between metaphysics and science, imbuing humankind with the revolutionary conviction
of being 'the conditions of possibility of the known objects', since the objects we know are
what they are because of our own way of knowing them, of our a priori forms of
knowledge. There has clearly been a progressive strengthening of the autonomy of human
reason with respect to God. This reaches its climax with Hegel who, interpreting the
Kantian transcendentalism in his own way, transformed reason in Absolute, the only
possible reality: everything that is real is rational and everything that is rational is real.
This delusion of grandeur infected Nietzsche, anti-Hegelian for his philosophical spirit
but a true Hegelian for his spirit of power.
The great nineteenth century philosopher, Heidegger, defined Nietzsche as 'the last
metaphysical' because despite the fact that he was the first one to turn things around, to
show things from a different perspective, to denounce the false existence of all essences,
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
6/12
6
of all the truths and of objective knowledge, he used the very same categories typical of
the metaphysical mindset to conduct his own battle. For the same reason we cannot define
ourselves non-metaphysical, Nietzsche, a century ago, did not have the linguistic andcultural means, as well as the mindset, to propose something totally different. He talks
about God, Apollo and Dionysius in order to identify two possible dimensions of
humanity: the rational and irrational. He talks about Will to Power as if it were a superior
entity in order to offer man a new interpretative spirit. Allow me to dare: that his tendency
to go beyond the possible categories of interpretation he had at his disposal was what
drove him mad cannot be ruled out.3 After all, he was criticizing, fiercely attacking, that
metaphysical mindset that was part of himself, taking himself to self destruction. Even
Heidegger, who cherished Nietzsche's lesson, was too metaphysical. To some extent, he
was even more metaphysical than Nietzsche. The theoriser of the modern Being,4
impeccable analyst of the twentieth-century, revises the category of Being avoiding, with
different tricks, the out of fashion absoluteness of the Hegelian Spirit in order to
re-propose a metaphysics imbued with existentialism. In talking about Being, Heidegger
recycles terminologies, categories and ways of thinking typical of the most ancient
metaphysical mindset, the one pre-dating Plato and still in use nowadays. Heidegger's
metaphysics lies not in what he said as much as in the language he used to say it. When he
talks about Being, Being-in-time, Being-in-itself and about truth as a revelation of being,
he uses the typical language of metaphysics. I do not believe that Heidegger was thinking
of a Being which could disappear from the face of the earth when all humankind
disappeared. Heidegger was thinking of a Being that would survive humankind. In this, he
was metaphysical, more than Nietzsche. The same could be said for our philosopher
Emanuele Severino. Having being impressed by his logic and dialectics, I can repeat what
Gadamer said when attending Heidegger's lectures: "he opened your eyes [...]. WhenHeidegger taught, you could see things in front of you, you could almost seize them".5 I
have experienced this first hand when listening to Severino: I had the impression of seeing
and touching the Being. However, after I woke up from that injection of logic, I had to
work hard to resume my reason and to admit that it had been a real experience of the
3 On the nature of Nietzsche's madness in the last period of his life there are still different opinions, especially on whether itwas organic or psychological.4 The philosophy of Heidegger and Severino, who will be discussed later, pivot on the Being, a term used to express the
meaning of 'being'.5 G. Reale, D. Antiseri, Il pensiero occidentale dalle origini ad oggi, ed. cit., vol. 3., p. 453.
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
7/12
7
Being as thought: the thought that talks about itself and justifies itself through its logic:
the equivalent of Descartes 'I think, therefore, I am'. Heidegger and Severino seem to have
learnt Nietzsche's lesson on 'awareness', on the distinction of the metaphysical mindset,and attempt to go beyond it in order to save what can be saved. Both philosophers state
that there is a need to go back to philosophy before Plato, before he invented the
metaphysics that differentiates between the subject and the object. It is a recuperation of
the past; it is a trick to save the Absolute, a certainty that transcends individual men and
whose finitude it could survive. A metaphysical certainty altogether, since it offers a
stable and guaranteed point of reference. However they twist it, both philosophers look
like old metaphysicians who try to change things by attempting to remove some
traditional categories away from the destructive vortex of nihilism. They too, like
Nietzsche, are metaphysical, still too metaphysical. In general terms, almost all nineteenth
century philosophy seems to be searching a way out from Nietzsche's nihilism. In a way
or another, they do not want to resign themselves to the total annihilation of the past but
want to save all that they cherish the most, in a nostalgic and existential manner.
Not even Rorty and Vattimo, the two philosophers we had taken as reference point in this
long digression on the metaphysical mindset, escape this fate.
Richard Rorty is perhaps the first one to consciously propose a mindset opposite to that of
metaphysics; an alternative that he refers to as 'ironic': "The situation - Rorty explains - is
that of those who are never quite able to take themselves seriously because they are
always aware that the terms in which they describe themselves are subject to change,
always aware of the contingency and fragility of their final vocabularies, and thus of their
selves".6
Farsighted and enlightening except that he too was tied to tradition, to his
formative tradition of the philosophy of language. According to Rorty, man does not stand
on fixed and stable categories; he changes just the way everything does. The problem isthat Rorty ascribes exclusively to language the formation and the changes of man. Each of
us is the way we are because we are shaped by our language or, like Rorty said, by our
own final vocabulary. It is not clear why he had to reduce all that man is to language,
without including in what shapes man every other life experiences: art, music, lovers'
gaze, pain and joy. 'The idea that human beings are simply incarnated vocabularies'7
6 R. Rorty, La filosofia dopo la filosofia, Editori Laterza, Bari, 2003, p.907 Ibidem, p. 107
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
8/12
8
suggests a metaphysical mindset; it does not leave other possibilities open, it bans every
other possible experience, falling once again into a fixed and univocal reference, the only
and indisputable reference, the only means through which reality can be interpreted, thebest one.
An even more peculiar case is represented by the father of Italian hermeneutics and of the
so- called 'weak thought'. Vattimo is an excellent critic of the metaphysical mindset, a
brilliant illustrator of its vicissitudes. Despite exposing, in public, the metaphysical
mindset, he reevaluates in private its most existentialist content. Vattimo states: "Having
left behind the metaphysical claim to objectivity, today none should be able to say 'God
does not exist' [...] What, I believe, can be said in non-metaphysical thinking is that a great
part of the theoretical and practical conquests of reason in modernity, up to the rational
organization of society, to liberalism and democracy, is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian
tradition and cannot be conceived outside it [...] 'To grasp' the rule of the process in which
we are implicated does not mean to look at it objectively and to demonstrate it as uniquely
true: this is why one speaks here of interpretation.8 Vattimo openly underlines the
impossibility to take the distance from the metaphysical mindset without avoiding the
inheritance of interpretative tools and canons: for the same reason why one cannot say
that 'God exists' one cannot say 'God doesn't exist'. We do not have an objective
knowledge that can tell us how things out there really are. Similarly, in private, the
anti-metaphysical philosopher addresses God and recite his prayers to him: "Religion has
always implied a sort of dependence, something that I myself continue to perceive [...]
This is, therefore, a creature feeling; I depend on it and I cannot avoid depending on it."9
Vattimo's religious formation shows itself throughout his life through ups and downs. He
is a man who has dedicated all his youth to God. Who has dialogued with God over the
years. He has addressed God in his most difficult times. God has been his partner andsupporter in his most painful experiences. This man cannot, therefore, erase his sense of
God and of sacred things suddenly. It would be like suppressing a consistent part of
himself. We are what we have been, we are what we have lived, thought, seen and loved.
When a beloved person dies we feel, at first, incapable of perceiving the sense of reality. It
does not make any sense to us that that person does no longer exist, because that person is
8 G. Vattimo, Credere di credere, Garzanti, Milano, 1998, pp. 66-67.9 R. Rorty, G. Vattimo, Il futuro della religione. Solidariet, carit, ironia, (ed. by Santiago Zabala), Garzanti, Milano, 2005, p.84.
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
9/12
9
and always will be a part of ourselves. That person has contributed to our formation and
self-modification and she/he has become a part of ourselves. The same can be said of
God.As can be seen, even if for existential reasons, in Vattimo God and the Absolute reappear
'outside the window' and he makes a honest attempt to bring them in the private sphere.
A metaphysical science, too metaphysical
I will now attempt to go back, step by step, to the main topic shown in the title of this
essay. All the philosophers mentioned in the previous sub-chapter have developed their
philosophy from the awareness that: "[...] the objective world order has fallen to pieces
both because the traditional realistic image of knowledge (according to which the mind is
a mirror faithfully reflecting things as they really are 'out there') did not stand up to
philosophical critique, and because the will to power has established itself as the sole
essence of techno-science, so that if there is a world order, it is produced by man, by his
intellect or praxis".10
The world as we know it is our 'creation', our attempt to organise a space in which we
could put into effect actions, do things: this seems today the most useful and appropriate
proposal that we have.
11
Not everybody will agree, but between the destructive andconstructive traits of nihilism we should start to focus on the second one. Rather than
crying on what is not anymore or nostalgically and existentially trying to save what can be
saved, it would be more appropriate to evaluate what is left and which new things can be
proposed. If philosophy has always been into the heart of the matter, science seems to
proceed without a collective awareness. Many scientists do not consider having or not an
objective knowledge as a problem: to them the objective knowledge is a certainty. Even
though science's methodological approach leaves no doubt on the falsifiability of nature,
as K. Popper underlines, scientists believe (privately and in public) that science discloses
the world in the exact same way it is out there and not in the way we construct it following
opportunity and usefulness criteria. Emanuele Severino writes: "It is obvious that
mountains are moved today by the hypothesis of science. However, the power we
experience is not the truth. Science itself recognises it when it considers itself as a
10 G. Vattimo, Credere di credere, ed. cit., p.84.
11 Already in the first half of the nineteenth century, the American pragmatism of W. James and of J. Dewey had transformedthese ideas in philosophical doctrines.
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
10/12
10
'hypothetical-deductive' knowledge, always falsifiable.12
The metaphysical mindset
which shapes us, does not spare us in our judgement on science, nor does it spare those
scientists who appeals to the objective truths of science. The present debate betweenevolutionism and creationism, between supporters of Darwin's scientific theory and the
supporters of a religious dogma of a creator God, looks more like a discussion between
metaphysics and therefore between people who want to be absolutely right, rather than
between men who are interested in proposing their own idea for a useful and rich of
opportunities debate.13
There are scientists, unfortunately quite a few, that I have defined
as ignorant14 because they ignore the real nature of what they do: they do not reveal truths,
they propose ideas of a world to be fulfilled. These ideas are accepted or rejected
according to what opportunities they offer.
Between science and religion
It is clear from what has been already said that every aspect of man's life has its own
ontological validity, a word that is more metaphysical than ever. It gives us, metaphysical,
way too metaphysical, an idea of how every cultural, existential and emotional
manifestation of man has its own reason. Every aspect of man expresses a part of the
meaning of man and of his world, and one aspect is not more real than the others until itdoes disappear or it modifies itself to become something different. This modification
happens inside that dynamic and dialectical process that is life as we know it, as we
'create' it. Religion and science are two of man's dimensions present in his life, sometimes
more sometimes less, according to the desires and occasions that arise. Claiming that
religion tells lies and science tells the truth, or vice versa, is a dialectical attempt for them
to overpower one another in order to have their way. It is a dialectical attempt that can
only be more successful in changing and modifying man if it becomes a dialogue and a
12 E. Saverino,Ma la scienza non offre verit, Corriere della Sera, 13 August 2005.13 The diatribe that, in the last few years, has animated the United States, with civil and political effects, involves theologians,
philosophers and above all scientists (Richard Dawkins, L'illusione di Dio. Le ragioni per non credere, Mondadori, Milano, 2007).
This article of mine has been partially inspired by this diatribe, not so much to put pressure on the creationists (it is not in my
intention, nor in my possibilities) as to summon to their responsibilities those scientists who to the metaphysical reasons of
creationists oppose the 'truth' of science, presenting themselves as metaphysical. It is also necessary to intervene in defence ofthe scientific theories and of the freedom to be atheist that has been testified by the evolutionary scientist Dawkins, often
subjected to violent and unjustified attacks.
14 G. Schiava, La scienza ignorante. Critica allo scientismo persistente (http://www.girodivite.it/La-scienza-e-ignorante-Critica.html).
http://www.girodivite.it/La-scienza-e-http://www.girodivite.it/La-scienza-e-http://www.girodivite.it/La-scienza-e-http://www.girodivite.it/La-scienza-e-7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
11/12
11
debate sincere and available: an availability that increases when facing the rejection of a
metaphysical mindset and the acceptance of being always falsifiable, open to change.
Therefore, between science and religion it is a matter of opportunity. None of them statesthe real truth but each of them contribute to the change of man and of universe. The
tendency towards one or the other is subject to personal, private, and public causes. It is
because of the opportunities they offer men and humankind according to their attitudes
and will that men become closer to one rather than the other or make formidable
compromises.
Darwin proposed his evolutionary theory to replace creationism. It was first accepted by
few, then by many; today it is perhaps accepted by the majority. The parameter of
usefulness is not an already given one, there is not a pre-existing and eternal range to
which always refer. It is the proposal itself, in this case Darwin's evolutionism, to supply
with a new sense of usefulness: for example, the possibility to compile a biological
history of humankind extremely useful to modern scientific research, but less useful to
ancient men lacking with scientific research in a modern sense. How many proposals
made centuries ago and similar to today scientific theories are now forgotten because they
were useless? Democritus' atomic theory was very useful to him and to his followers as a
form of philosophy of life but it never had the same success as the atomic theory which in
the nineteenth century generated the atomic energy. What I am trying to say is that the
proposals made by men are proportional to their interests and to their possibilities, within
a specific culture. Galileo's experimental methodology on which modern science is based,
in developing new interests and new human aspirations, show a will of adapting the
speculative mind to the desire of controlling the world in a more direct way. This could
happen at the end of medieval times, when more autonomy to reason was recognised
together with the possibility of interpreting the world according to its own canons and notto the obligatory canons of religion. Moving to the field of religion, we will find the very
same opportunistic logic. Christ proposed eternal salvation to everyone who would
convert to the laws of God. He was first listened by few, then by many and finally by the
whole Western world. Which opportunities was this man offering? Eternal salvation,
beatitude. Today, for the opposite process, many people find science more useful than
religion, thanks to the opportunities it offers. A science that does not shy from promising
to find an answer to the human desire of eternal salvation. For this reason, it is more
difficult to believe in God. However, there are men who, among the different
7/28/2019 Between science and religion: an opportunity issue. The reasons for a postmodern existence
12/12
12
opportunities they see, value more spirituality and everything that allows them to develop
it, because it gives them more existential possibilities. Some of them cannot give up
religion because they can find in God a stable and protective interlocutor, almost a realperson who they can talk to during hard times. If we add the sense of authority, a
metaphysical residue, which many find advantageous hanging on to; or the difficulty in
taking the distance from who gives a sense to their own life, one can understand why God
still offers a lot to men. Science does not give, at the moment, stable guarantees for the
future; on the contrary, it sometimes creates anxiety, but certainly, in competing with
God, it supplies more opportunities to control the instability of life and to create life itself,
a power around which lies all the future of mankind.
Giovanni Schiava
http://www.facebook.com/GiovanniSchiava
https://twitter.com/#!/GiovanniSchiava
http://www.facebook.com/GiovanniSchiavahttp://www.facebook.com/GiovanniSchiavahttps://twitter.com/#!/GiovanniSchiavahttps://twitter.com/#!/GiovanniSchiavamailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://twitter.com/#!/GiovanniSchiavahttp://www.facebook.com/GiovanniSchiava