Science After Bacon
Eternal Concerns
The four Aristotelian causes are as follows (and please consider the example of a marble statue for demonstration): A material cause is what something is made of (e.g., marble). A formal cause is the shape, pattern, or essence that makes a thing what it is (e.g., the statue’s design or image). An efficient cause is the agent or force that brings something into being (e.g., the sculptor). A final cause is the purpose or goal for which a thing exists (e.g., to honor a god or beautify a temple).
Modern science is empirical in that the scientist confirms truth via his senses (i.e., empirically) and does not accept truths acquired purely by reason (rationalism) if they cannot be confirmed via his senses. It does not, however, deny the possibility of knowledge entirely (skepticism).
Material and efficient causes can be confirmed empirically. Formal causes and final causes cannot.
Modern science focuses on material and efficient causes and excludes formal and final causes.
Final causes exist naturally. But can be denied by man and replaced with an alternative function. For example, consider the oak tree. Its material cause is the acorn (from the earth; from below). Its formal cause is the oak’s genetic blueprint or DNA — its “oakness” (from the Logos, from above). Its efficient cause(s) are rain and sunlight, among other things (from behind), and its final cause is to grow, bear acorns, participate in the forest ecosystem, and fulfill its role in the larger order of life — to embody "oakness" in its highest form (from God’s will, from ahead). Now let us consider the intrusion of a lumber company in a forest. The oaks no longer participate in the forest ecosystem–that is, they are denied their final cause. Instead, they are put in reserve, and will serve the function determined by the buyer.
Insofar as modern science excludes formal and final causes, they are easily forgotten or dismissed entirely. This makes it easier to replace final causes with functions to serve man.
Technology is applied science in that it takes the information learned from examinaning material and efficient causes and applies it.
In the absence of contemplation of final causes, technology makes nature functional and useful in a way that serves the wants and desires of man.
When final causes are replaced with a function determined by man, formal causes or essences begin to interfere with man’s preferred function. A clear example of this can be seen in the extreme case of human rights and slavery. Human rights are rooted in the idea that each individual possesses inherent dignity and worth by being human. That is, by nature of their form or formal cause, they warrant freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, etc. Slavery is the denying of the man’s final cause and replacing it with a function determined by the slave owner. If one is seen to be human, and humanity has some inviolable essence, then one is not permitted to make this person strictly functional.
The Logos, as understood by the ancient Greek philosophers, is the divine ordering principle. It is that which works against entropy to make coherent and purposeful patterns in the world.
In the beginning was the Word (λόγος or logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
Formal causes are expressions of the Logos.
Nietzche’s phrase “God is Dead” declares the forgetting of formal and final causes. It denies nature’s formal causes insofar as formal causes are expressions of the Logos or Christ. It denies final causes insofar as final causes are expressions of divine or natural will.
If “God is dead,” as Nietzsche claimed, then humanity is free to redesign nature (to disregard formal causes), and to do so in alignment with one’s own ends (and against final causes).
Thus, here is the likely but not inevitable conflict between God and science: We first neglect the contemplation of formal and final causes, then replace nature’s final causes (God’s Will) with functions that serve ourselves. Then, we deny formal causes (Christ or the Logos) because they interfere with man’s preferred functions.
In an interview with Lex Fridman, Harvard philosophy professor Sean Kelly lays out a hypothetical conflict between Sarte and Dostoyevsky. Sartre wrote, “If there is no god, then all is permitted,” and Dostoyevsky agrees. He never explicitly says so, but the plots of The Brothers Karamozov and Crime and Punishment take this line of thought a step further. Both stories seem to concede “Yes, if there is no god then all is permitted.” But, Dostoyevsky points out, “Look at our lives, all is not permitted! When you commit terrible acts, such as the murders in each novel, your life becomes unlivable. Therefore, God is real.”
Historical Concerns
Timeline of the Scientific and Technological Projects
Pre-modern scientific efforts (e.g., Da Vinci, amongst others) aimed to identify and align man with nature's formal and final causes. This is distinct from the modern scientific project which aims to replace final causes with functions in service of man and, in its later stages, will remake nature’s forms when necessary (e.g., transhumanism).
The modern scientific and technological projects began with Francis Bacon (in a manner that was distinct from ancient or medieval evaluations of nature) and ended with the deployment of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a man on the moon. That is not to say that no discoveries were made using the scientific method after these events, but that the character of the scientific impulse or intention changed radically and no longer resembled the project initiated by Bacon.
It is inappropriate to restart the modern scientific project without addressing the underlying causes that led to the events at Los Alamos, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
How can we address these underlying causes? I’m going to present two possibilities: (1) The problem is that we (humanity) are not wise enough to properly use what we learned via the scientific method. The answer, then, comes not from blindly reaccelerating technology but from helping humanity become wise enough to use it. Or: (2) There is a problem with the scientific project itself. That is, there is something in Bacon's underlying pursuit that leads naturally to its dual end on the moon and at Los Alamos. The answer, then, will be to develop a new epistemology — that is, a new theory of knowledge that alters the fate of the scientific project.
The Inevitability of Nuclear Weapons
The Will-to-Power can be understood as an impulse or intention to deny any final cause endued to nature in favor of a function endued by oneself.
In absence of the contemplation of formal and final causes, humanity is primarily motivated by the Will-to-Power.
Insofar as the Will-to-Power is one’s desire “to assert its own form upon the world" it will necessarily conflict with the same desire or intent from others (Nietzche. The Will to Power. Section 693).
Because the Will-to-Power and Death of God combination denies any higher authority (by which one could derive a final cause), the conflict will necesarrily be decided by the stronger and more capable will.
In a modern conflict, both parties seek to “to assert (their) own form upon the world" and therefore must seek to strengthen their will and capabilities. One way this manifests is as an arms race.
The modern scientific and technological project seeks “the destruction of matter, by which energy is freed in order to be captured anew by man so as to be put at his service.” And “its essential stages are the discoveries and putting into man’s service, successively, of steam, electricity and atomic energy.” (Tomberg, The Empress).
The nature of an arms race requires continued escalation and therefore continued technological development. This ends in nuclear energy capture, which is put at the service of man against his neighbor, so that the neighbor submits to his will and he need not submit to the will of his neighbor.
Step Two
One must consider the possibility that there is another way.
