God the Holy Spirit, philosophy and science

Philosophical boundaries of modern science

Broadly speaking Philosophy concerns ultimate questions of God and humanity. This is to take the subject at it's origin and continual influence down the ages.  There are question marks over it's fitness to address modern questions of human science beyond this point, however, and we will have to address these at the proper time.

Yet there are good reasons why philosophical boundaries for human science be set because of the divorce of the modern mind from ultimate questions of the human soul. The words human science have been deliberately used since there is a very real sense in which no science can be a science without the a priori existence of human beings. I don't think I shall receive many objections of substance on this point! This brings us into immediate conflict with the modern assumption that the natural sciences- physics, biology and chemistry may exclusively adopt the title 'science'. What is often in mind where the word is used is a very particular interpretation of the word ‘science’.

I trust I will not be misunderstood at this point. I wish to contend for the fruitfulness of the ‘natural’ human sciences not to undermine them. My concern is only to lay out the boundaries for the participation thereof. And so the burning question is? What is science and what is the relationship it should enjoy with humanity? This seems to be a question that has been left largely untouched in the rush to engage in and pursue the knowledge of science.

Interestingly the great theologian Aquinas referred to all areas of human knowledge as the 'philosophical sciences'. We, like Aquinas, would do well to consider the broad theological and philosophical contours with which he considered them. But this will off course have to be considered in a very different way. Aquinas’ understanding of the philosophical sciences was dependent upon the Aristotleian corpus, a significant amount of which has been proved inaccurate by modern science. My argument is not that modern human science has not turned many aspects of our understanding of the world around, but rather that it has not overturned the fundamental tenets of our humanity and the boundary lines that have first of all been given us by God.

The intrusion of ‘science’ into these historical and cultural boundaries must be sharply dismissed by a redefinition. This dismissal should be understood as a cutting back in order that a more robust environment be created. The only way to set about this is to use the concept of human science. This will enable science to grow in right relation to the core issues of our world.

Monism

What we are really grappling with when we consider the boundaries of natural science (meant in the sense of general knowledge rather than  biology, chemistry and physics in particular is the problem of monism). As far as introductory boundaries are concerned this is an issue of philosophy of mind. The modern mind has been captivated by monism – the reduction of all things into their biological, physical and chemical constitution. Hegel described the main philosophical issue of his day as a ‘loss of Spirit’. And this is the same general problem that we encounter in ours, although we may mean different things by the phrase. The principle issue of theological engagement today is the nature of the Holy Spirit. Reality is not simply material. This is the philosophical assumption of the headlong rush into the pursuit of science which our society has often followed without realizing it.

May God help us. We are in the presence of a mighty Spirit! Let us press on to acknowledge him first of all and be guided and directed in all we do by his presence and glory!

The World Beyond

Is Plato’s claim to have knowledge of a world beyond sense experience doomed to failure?

Plato claimed to know the world of the forms – a world of ideals, an eternal world that contains the prototypes of reality. This he discovered through his academic endeavours and in particular through the rational discipline of Mathematics. He assumed this to be a world whose underlying premise was the Form of the good. This question assumes that there is a purpose towards which this knowledge was directed, which is likely to have been understood by Plato in terms of the divine craftsman or Demiurge as he understood him. So is Plato’s theory doomed to fail?

First of all we can see there are a number of strengths to Plato’s theory – perhaps this is why it has stood the test of time. The theory of the forms enables us to grasp the difference between the transcendent and the immanent, the eternal and the temporal. It assumes that there is a knowledge that is true regardless of the different types of sense experience that we may encounter down the years. It may therefore lead to the type of education that can prepare the philosopher for the challenges of politics, as indeed it has been seen to so do. Supporting this is the underlying moral purpose of the simile of the cave that Plato used to describe Athenian society. The illusion of ignorance combined with poor moral concept do have some hope of being cured through a knowledge of reality – the world beyond. This is the message of Plato’s cave.

Secondly, from a more educational rather than societal point of view – Plato’s theory can help us distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Plato believed there to be a form of goodness, justice and beauty. This was predicated on the unqualified concept of the forms rather than being a changing aspect of the experience of particulars, which are all qualified by personal subjectivity and opinion. A true knowledge can only be gained by knowing the Good, and this can be found in the world of eternity beyond. This enables us via comparison to properly know our experiences of goodness and justice.

On the other hand there are some more controversial aspects of Plato’s theory such as the reference to necessary knowledge being via the forms. For example science can quickly understand particulars through observation and sense experience without necessarily having to go through the process of contemplating the forms. For example it would not make sense for a scientist to have to go via mathematics to examine the human cell. A sufficiently powerful microscope would suffice. This illustrates the problem of Plato’s divisional theory. Knowledge may well be projected towards a realm of ideals that lie in the future. Analogies are used to describe this world. But in fact because of the vast spatial and time differences involved they may keep us from developing discoveries today. This is not to say that the forms don’t exist in some way, but rather that they may be more dynamically interactive with the world of sense experience.

Another issue that began to be identified was one of person. Although Plato does have a concept of personal reality in connection to the Forms, (the Demiurge or the divine craftsman we have mentioned) there is little development of this notion in his thought in the Republic, which relates more to abstract knowledge that has no definite human nature. How then can it be a knowledge that succeeds if it does not relate to human nature in someway? In as much as Plato’s thought is pure abstract knowledge that relates to an undefined transcendence it is doomed to failure. Augustine began to address this point in developing a Christian theology and western psychology. Because of the way in which Christ the second person of the Trinity remained both transcendent as God and yet shared our experience and time as a man with a human nature, then knowledge of a world beyond can have a successful outworking today. To a modern world of greater possibility Plato’s theory might also be understood to be intrinsically unjust since it is asks us to base society on a world that is intelligible but not sensible. How can an intelligible realm succeed in creating a just society if the concepts it believes itself to be founded upon are not rendered sensible to people in some way? This must surely be one of the most serious political objections to Plato’s theory of the forms.

In conclusion, Plato’s theory of the forms has had undoubted success in helping to create an intellectual climate for the modern world. Since Plato believed that particulars can at least in principle participate in the Form of the Good he provides hope for some kind of successful future. However, because of the divisional and hierarchical character of the theory it lacks a clear personal apprehension of human nature derived from a world beyond. As in the past so in the modern day a Christian theology is required to enable Plato’s theory to make sense today.