A goal of this series is to explore the relationship among science, philosophy and faith. Previously, I made the case that modern physics is recasting philosophical questions, suggesting that quantum artificial intelligence invigorates Spinoza’s strict rationalism. As a counterpoint, before I further this argument in later essays, I would like to pause and recognize the limits of objectivity.
The value of objectivity is largely unquestioned because of its extraordinary achievements. Science, mathematics and abstraction have transformed the earth and lifted the standard of living for millions. Modern “progress” and its conveniences have been practically dispositive. However, the success of modern science has obscured its explanatory powers.
The distortion is driven by the fact that we forget that science is fundamentally descriptive. It describes the world without explaining it (describing “how” without addressing “why”). As science more accurately depicts nature, it creates the illusion that the granularity itself is an explanation and contingent events are exhaustive. The unintended consequence of the triumph of objectivity is unduly elevating contingency at the expense of necessity, obscuring our search for truth.
A banal example of how the delegitimization of necessity distorts inquiry is “believing” in evolution, where a series of “accidents” become a scientific explanation. However, the mutations of natural selection are not why we are here, but how. Description in this case elevates chance as a final cause, when the accidents are, rather, the means for the (unexplained) progression to humans. Similarly, the holy grail of physics, where a theory of everything would contain comprehensive laws reconciling matter across the quantum and cosmological spectrum, would not be an explanation, just a more accurate depiction of nature.
The primacy of objectivity can be traced to the scientific framework itself, which is founded on extinguishing the subject in order to achieve a neutral standpoint. Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript highlights the stultifying effects of abstraction. The essence of the problem is leaving behind the subject. Objective reflection makes the reflector (the subject) accidental. Abstract thought ignores the temporal and “can get hold of reality only by nullifying it…”. In contrast to the wisdom of Socrates, where the knower is an existing individual, philosophy moves further from the existential with a false sense of completeness.
Thomas Nagel, in The View From Nowhere, similarly frames the limits of objectivity, which follow “directly from the process of gradual detachment by which objectivity is achieved. An objective standpoint is created by leaving a more subjective, individual, or even just human perspective behind; but there are things about the world and life and ourselves that cannot be adequately understood from a maximally objective standpoint”.
In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel wonders if the truth is beyond our intrinsic cognitive limitations, more than our current intellectual development. He concludes by saying the present-day consensus may prove laughable, though the replacement may be just as invalid. However, he suggests that at least we can appreciate that empiricism by itself is not enough. To rely on observation exclusively, with no appeal to reason, leaves us with a false reductionism or physicalism, denying real phenomena.
A recent logical extreme is the contingent infinite regress posited in Brian Greene’s latest book, Until the End of Time. For this preeminent and engaging physicist, a “theory of everything” is simply an exhaustive reductional account: “I can envision a future when scientists will be able to provide a mathematically complete articulation of the fundamental microphysical processes underlying anything that happens, anywhere and anywhen”. The challenge of applying these principles to the mind would be revolutionary, but not impossible – once we have “the superhuman vision…to analyze everyday reality at the level of its fundamental constituents”. Ultimately, observation is everything, and it is just a question of adequately describing the shifting particles. It is a deterministic yet fundamentally contingent world; the universe becomes an elegant accident.
This exclusive reliance on objectivity is problematic because any purely mathematical description is incomplete and contingent events are not exhaustive. Recalling Kierkegaard’s existential plea for subjectivity, a purely objective view eliminates the subject. Any complete theory or explanation must include the self. Similarly, modern physics extracts nature in order to describe it. Reductionism is incomplete because it accounts for everything, but existence. The net effect of such abstraction is the primacy of contingency.
The bias is illustrated with the rejection of Spinoza’s Necessitarianism. Spinoza’s rationalism flows from the strict application of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (“PSR”), where literally everything has a cause or reason. Determinism is insufficient and the PSR’s logical extreme means events literally could not be otherwise. Brian Greene effectively anticipates the same deterministic conclusion, envisioning a time when mathematics could isolate the position of every particle and predict the precise state of nature at the next instant. The distinction is that, for the reductionist, the contingent events have no (further) explanation – or, by way of the existential analogy, no subject. For Spinoza, as god and nature are one (Deus sive Natura), the absolute PSR is tantamount to divine agency. Necessitarianism is characterizing a unitary subject.
For these purposes, I simply contend that the reductionist account is incomplete, and the confusion arises because we forget that modern science is fundamentally descriptive. We construe it as an explanation because of its extraordinary power, success and granularity. Overlooking the limits of objectivity has become part of our “enlightened” mindset – pervasive and influential, inhibiting our search for the truth.
In this vein, as a cultural force, the exaltation of objectivity does even more than restrict theist speculation. It also has the effect of polarizing thought, creating binary worldviews which can reduce the appreciation for broader religious thinking. This splintering can diminish dialogue and the potential to understand common values – with material, practical consequences.
In the next essay, I will outline an example of such parochial thinking. To highlight possible controls on technological development, I will explore the notion of the Common Good as it relates to church teachings and our legal tradition. The Common Good was the original standard for patent/antitrust law and is embedded in our statutory framework. I will suggest that these mechanisms can help control the technological forces roiling our environmental, economic and cultural landscape.
The fact that the hegemony of objectivity can limit inquiry and consensus, however, does not mean that science will not continue to recast philosophical questions. An upcoming Blog piece on Spinoza will advance the argument that the leading edge of physics is invigorating monism, highlighting how the theory of “non-locality” reflects his unique conception of immortality. Modern physics, while intending to describe nature objectively, with agnostic pretensions, can still bring us closer to the realm of religious thinking.
Charlie Taben
Charlie Taben graduated from Middlebury College in 1983 with a BA in philosophy and has been a financial services executive for nearly 40 years. He studied at Harvard University during his junior year and says one of the highlights of his life was taking John Rawls’ class. Today, Charlie remains engaged with the discipline, focusing on Spinoza, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. He also performs volunteer work for the Philosophical Society of England and is currently seeking to incorporate practical philosophical digital content into US corporate wellness programs. You can find Charlie on Twitter @gbglax.
