“In his Essai sur l’étude de la littérature (1761), Gibbon set out to trace the origins of a fundamental shift in intellectual values in the West. During the previous hundred years, he noted, physics and mathematics had gradually come to replace the study of belles lettres as the pre-eminent form of learning. Indeed, this was just the kind of thing that Meric Casaubon had feared and warned against a hundred years earlier. ‘I hope it will not be required’, Casaubon writes, that learning generally and divinity in particular ‘shall be tried by the Mathematicks, and made subservient to them; which yet the temper of some men of this age doth seem to threaten, which scarce will allow anything else worth a man’s study; and then, what need of Universities?’ Casaubon, like all students of belles lettres, had regarded the study of ancient literature — philosophy, history, poetry, oratory — as an intrinsic part of any form of knowledge of the world and our place in it. Gibbon sensed that, by the 1750s, the era of belles lettres as the dominant form of learning and understanding was coming to an end.
“Gibbon himself was one of the first to attempt a sustained analysis of the fundamental transformation of intellectual values of his era. This transformation was to become even more radical and complex over the next hundred years, and it has a strong claim to being the single most fundamental feature of the modern era. The West’s sense of itself, its relation to its past, and its sense of its future were all profoundly altered as cognitive values generally came to be shaped around scientific ones. The issue is not just that science brought a new set of such values to the task of understanding the world and our place in it, but rather that it completely transformed the task, redefining the goals of enquiry. The redefinition begins with attempts by seventeenth-century natural philosophers to establish the legitimacy of science, or natural philosophy, as it was then. The means by which this legitimacy was established involved a fundamental appeal to objectivity and non-partisanship, what later became the idea that science should be value-free. But how can something that is value-free realize human ideals and aspirations? The answer is that it cannot, and what in fact happens instead is that scientific, technological, and economic goals replace — rather than realize — more traditional political, social, and cultural ones. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India, provides a typical example of what is at issue in a speech in 1960, where he spelled out how he understood the implications of science for India in these terms:
“It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people. . . . Who indeed could afford to ignore science today? At every turn we seek its aid. . . . The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science.
“At stake here is not merely an issue of how a third-world country might model itself on and catch up with the West, but rather something that goes to the core of the way in which the West conceives of how its future will be determined, and what values and goals this future will embody. As John Gray reminds us:
“Today, faith in political action is practically dead, and it is technology that expresses the dream of the transformed world. Few people any longer look forward to a world in which hunger and poverty are eradicated by a better distribution of the wealth that already exists. Instead, governments look to science to create ever more wealth. Intensive agriculture and genetically modified crops will feed the hungry; economic growth will reduce and eventually remove poverty. Though it is often politicians who espouse these policies most vociferously, the clear implication of such technical fixes is that we might as well forget about political change. Rather than struggling against arbitrary power, we should wait for the benign effects of growing prosperity.”
— from Stephen Gaukroger, The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210-1685 (Oxford, 2006)
Related reading and listening
- The recovery of true authority for societal flourishing — Michael Hanby addresses a confusion at the heart of our current cultural crisis: a conflation of the concepts of authority and power. (52 minutes)
- Theological realism — Kevin J. Vanhoozer discusses theologian T. F. Torrance’s understanding of the positive relation between science and theology. (52 minutes)
- Seeking control, in white magic and The Green Book — Alan Jacobs on C. S. Lewis’s critique of the modern pursuit of god-like control
- Freedom from the nature of things? — Leon Kass on the pressure exerted by the authority of science to embrace reductionistic materialism
- Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity — In a 2003 interview, Leon Kass discussed his book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. The unifying theme in the book’s essays is the threat of dehumanization in one form or another. (36 minutes)
- Among Oppenheimer’s company — James L. Nolan, Jr., the author of Atomic Doctors: Conscience and Complicity at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age, discusses the Manhattan Project as a case study in the dangers of technological enthusiasm outpacing wisdom and caution. (27 minutes)
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 156 — FEATURED GUESTS:
Kimbell Kornu, Paul Tyson, Mark Noll, David Ney, William C. Hackett, and Marian Schwartz
- Recovering natural philosophy — Science teacher Ravi Scott Jain discusses natural philosophy, the “love of wisdom in the realm of nature,” as the overarching discipline in the sciences. (21 minutes)
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 155 — FEATURED GUESTS:
Donald Kraybill, Thaddeus Kozinski, David Bentley Hart, Nigel Biggar, Ravi Scott Jain, and Jason Baxter
- Cosmology without God — Modern science is practiced in the context of beliefs that are intrinsically metaphysical and theological, even though practitioners of science claim (and usually genuinely believe) that their disciplines are philosophically neutral. David Alcalde challenges such claims within a sub-field of astrophysics. (21 minutes)
- Diagnosing our political conflicts — Michael Hanby explains why the modern pursuit of freedom — obeying its founding logic — has taken such a destructive turn. (36 minutes)
- Carelessly invoking “science” in the pandemic — Historian of science Steven Shapin talks about about how the authority of “science” has been invoked by many political authorities during the pandemic, yet how scientific pursuits are deeply human endeavors. (18 minutes)
- Plagues and technocratic politics — Philosopher Michael Hanby insists that responses to COVID-19 were distorted by the widespread belief that science is a monolithic source of infallible knowledge, the only reliable source of knowledge about how we should live. (38 minutes)
- When “follow the science” doesn’t work — Peter Leithart reflects on the all-too-human nature of science and the effects of quarantine on the Church’s embodied mission. (32 minutes)
- The reality that science cannot see — Philosopher Paul Tyson illustrates features of daily life that science cannot “see,” such as love, friendship, justice, and hope, and argues that such things are nonetheless real. (20 minutes)
- Why “Creation” is more than “origins” — In this archive interview from Volume 121 of the Journal, Michael Hanby talks about why we shouldn’t assume that science can ever be philosophically and theologically neutral. (32 minutes)
- Mary Midgley, R.I.P. — Philosopher Mary Midgley (1919–2018) was a tireless critic of the reductionist, atomistic claims of modern science. (16 minutes)
- Rediscovering the Organism: Science and Its Contexts — Philosophers, theologians, historians, and research scientists are interviewed in an effort to describe the interaction of science with other disciplines and with the settings in which science is practiced and exerts its influence. (107 minutes)
- How science became the omnipotent arbiter of genuine knowledge — Peter Harrison on the creation of an allegedly neutral public sphere
- Shedding epistemic modesty — Peter Harrison on the rise of confidence in scientific progress
- Creation’s gift to the sciences — Michael Hanby: “There is no pure method, and no science can do and indeed ever does without a metaphysics and therefore ultimately a theology.”
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 121 — FEATURED GUESTS:
Daniel Gabelman, Curtis White, Michael Hanby, Alan Jacobs, James K. A. Smith, Bruce Herman, and Walter Hansen
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 108 — FEATURED GUESTS: Thomas Albert Howard, Jean Porter, Peter Augustine Lawler, Hans Boersma, Felicia Wu Song, and Elias Aboujaoude
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 104 — FEATURED GUESTS: James Le Fanu, Garret Keizer, Daniel Ritchie, Monica Ganas, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, and Peter J. Leithart
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 93 — FEATURED GUESTS: Alan Jacobs, James A. Herrick, Robert C. Roberts, J. Daryl Charles, Allan C. Carlson, and Sheila O’Connor-Ambrose
- Yuval Levin: “The Moral Challenge of Modern Science” — Yuval Levin calls for a more deliberate awareness of how science shapes how we ask and answer moral questions together. (44 minutes)
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 80 — FEATURED GUESTS: Stephen A. McKnight, Tim Morris, Don Petcher, Vigen Guroian, Paul Valliere, and Calvin Stapert
- Christianity and science in the beginning — Historian Stephen A. McKnight argues that Fransic Bacon did not employ religious ideas with cynical and manipulative intent, but with the utmost sincerity. But was he theologically sound?
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 72 — FEATURED GUESTS: John Polkinghorne, Francesca Aran Murphy, James Hitchcock, Wilfred McClay, Philip McFarland, and David Hackett Fischer
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 51 — FEATURED GUESTS: Nigel Cameron, David Blankenhorn, Robert Wuthnow, Mortimer Adler, Roger Lundin, Dana Gioia, Mary Midgely, and Ted Libbey
