How Should We Then Live Part 6: The Scientific Age (I)

This was a complicated episode with fairly weighty ideas being thrown out at a fast clip. I struggled to take notes without pausing. As such this episode and probably the next will also require two parts in order for me to review and respond to the material. Additionally in this episode I wish to interact on a slightly more involved level with some of the arguments assumptions made by Schaeffer. These are really important issues, especially today and these touch on some very basic and fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge that I think are critical when considering the nature of Biblical authority. I think Schaeffer and his followers have missed the mark on this latter albeit critical point.

I agreed with much of what Schaeffer said with regard to the dangers of viewing man as mechanism, the implications of Darwinism and how in many respects nihilism is the result of this trajectory.

But there were many problems along the way, in the presentation of facts, in interpretation and in general terms, how these issues are framed.

The apex (or perhaps nadir) of science and philosophy gone wrong is of course the tragedies surrounding the WWII and Nazism and yet I grow frustrated with the version of narrative presented by Schaeffer as it ignores the evils of colonialism and the many genocides and holocausts which took place long before Hitler and yet were less shocking due to their non-European context. The Nazis were almost unique in their industrial death-camp approach and yet such policies had been carried out previously in other contexts though perhaps not with German efficiency, Namibia excepted of course.

Additionally I just cannot agree with what often amounts to Schaeffer's oversimplification of historical events. When Biblical Christianity was no longer the social consensus, it led to the rise of Nazi Germany or so we're told. This is to ignore not just the history of Germany and the effects of Christianisation but it also ignores the fact that many Christian leaders eagerly supported Hitler especially during the early years. Was he a Christian? Church leaders certainly had their doubts but he was fulfilling a social role that they believed important. He was opposed to communism and the decadence of Weimar. He was bringing moral order and purpose to society. These things they believed were deeply Christian and so Schaeffer's presentation is flawed if not on one level misleading.

There's no doubt that the modern state has powerful scientific tools at its disposal and there are those that would use them to consolidate and project power. Technology facilitates this and indeed at that moment in the film its very dated quality comes into play as many technologies now exist that Schaeffer could not have dreamed of. However, the world is also growing more complicated and while Evangelicals remain eager to deny and dismiss the problems associated with population and the strain on resources, they are nevertheless real and quite serious problems. In other words government is becoming increasingly complicated. This is not to defend the 'elites' Schaeffer refers to but at the same time I don't believe all of them are committed to some kind of deliberate evil programme that will reduce mankind into some kind of Matrix-like resource to be exploited. The real evils associated with power are just as much at work within the circles Schaeffer would form alliance with and he is blind to many of the evils of history and the evil at work among many individuals, episodes and systems he would champion.

I found myself frustrated by the discussions surrounding the definitions of death and questions of reproductive science. I would frame these differently and in many cases I think Evangelicals have boxed themselves in, embracing much they shouldn't and thus tying themselves into knots in the process. Many 'goods' that are assumed are things that I'm not so sure are in fact 'good'. Given that there's nothing 'natural' about death I find the discussion to sometimes stray into strange territory. I don't find anything 'natural' about being hooked up to machines, let alone swapping organs and while Schaeffer raises some valid issues surrounding IVF, I am glad to report that most conservatives following in his wake have rightly come to question the whole practice.

There's yet another irony at work in some of his criticisms of psychology in general, Skinner and Behaviourism in particular. In the 1970's there was still a fairly widespread hostility in conservative Christian circles to psychology and counseling, though it was certainly changing and would continue to change under the influence of people like James Dobson and Tim LaHaye. Schaeffer is critical of Behaviourism and yet his successors have largely embraced these ideas and today's Evangelicals embrace psychology and therapy and in many cases Behaviourism with virtual abandon. In fact to question it, is to be labeled heterodox or to be reckoned some kind of backwoods neanderthal. I am well aware of the Biblical Counseling movement and the efforts of men like Jay Adams but even those circles have been heavily infiltrated and corrupted by the influence of secular psychology and its methods.

There is an overarching 'progress' narrative to Schaeffer's presentation, one that used to be more commonly heard and associated with the Reformation. Society is being improved. Industry and technology are making the world better and helping to actualise the Kingdom in space and time. Some still embrace this way of thinking and yet many clearly have their doubts. In some circles there has been a reaction to this. Some of Schaeffer's heirs have (for a variety of reasons) rejected this narrative and have become critical of science and medicine, rejecting vaccines and advocating for forms of agrarianism. I also think he dodges some issues, like why the Islamic and Chinese worlds did not advance in science, even while choosing to ignore their critical contributions to the development of Western thought. Today, the Western supremacy and rejection of cultural cross-influence narrative has become even more popular championed by popular writers such as Rodney Stark and Alvin Schmidt. These authors take an even more radical line than Schaeffer and yet are equally unconvincing and likewise utilise deeply flawed and unbiblical categories.

I also don't embrace the pro-industrialisation narrative but I am equally uncomfortable with some of the responses mentioned above and the historical narratives they often utilise. Despite the reactions to industrialisation, in many respects the debate today focuses not such much on industry and its effects on society but on the related question of technology. Again, these discussions would venture into territories Schaeffer would have struggled to imagine. That's not a criticism, that's just a testimony to how quickly society has changed with the advent of the computer. He does however tend to fall into a trap that divorces empirically derived knowledge from ethics and as such fails to reckon with industry's effects on society and the family. What was progress in one sense was highly destructive in other contexts. Technology is not morally neutral. Though some technologies can be used for good, many are in the final analysis harmful, especially as they proliferate, enter the mass market and become wed to daily life. Tools stray into the realm of toys and distraction, what were helps become burdens and eventually yokes. Problems are solved but in the process many more problems are created.

He attempts to escape the implications of Einsteinian Relativity in the realm of ethics by appealing to the constant found in the speed of light. And he utilises but misuses the famous 'dice' quote which was not an affirmation of religion but was actually in reference to Einstein's problems with the quanta and issues like superposition and entanglement. This was a point on which he became increasingly intransigent and many view it as something of a stain on his legacy. Quantum Theory proved to be a roadblock for Einstein who spent his life seeking for a unified theory that eluded him all his days.

In reality relativity did affect philosophy in that an epistemology rooted in empiricism was suddenly thrown into question as constants could nevertheless manifest in different ways depending on one's position. The constant remains constant when isolated but when thrown into certain contexts the perception of the constant and the way in which it could be measured and understood, the way in which it could be perceived by the senses was relative to the perceiver. This certainly affects theoretical epistemology and for those schools that seek to derive ethics from epistemological conclusions – yes, this certainly changed things. The new understanding certainly had an effect on culture, on art and other expressions of ideas. Einstein did not think that everyone had understood him correctly but nevertheless the very notion shook things up as it were.

Now this presents no dilemma for my Biblicist epistemology which argues for informed ignorance and finite apprehension at best and also embraces a great deal of mystery. But for Schaeffer (and others) these are real dilemmas and I found some of his commentary and confidence regarding what he deems to be 'Biblically' rooted science to be disturbing and risks creating a uniform epistemological model (a unified theory) which if applied to philosophy, theology and ethics will certainly lead to conclusions other than what is presented in the text of Scripture. The theory itself would certainly become the dominating paradigm and in many cases this is exactly what has happened. What many call 'Biblical Worldview' is in fact a unified theory, a deduced philosophical system which then dominates their epistemology, including how they read the Bible. Is it Biblical? I would say 'no' and in fact it risks undermining if not overthrowing Biblical authority.

While people argue over the Bible and what it says, the real and crucial debate is in the realm of prolegomena (preliminary or foundational considerations) and surrounds questions over the nature of knowledge, revelation and just what is the Bible? Is it an authoritative Word we humbly submit to or is it a Divine Axiom, a foundational starting point for the construction (through inference and deduction) of a comprehensive system that allows the Church to epistemologically and intellectually dominate and transform every facet and sphere of existence? The latter suggestion is evocative and appealing to the flesh and yet comes into direct contradiction with the basic message, doctrines and ethics revealed in the New Testament. The former is sufficient for the Church to function in the world, but it will not build civilisations which is why those who would are driven to what I have called the Axiom paradigm. We have different understandings of the Sufficiency of Scripture. His view I would argue is an abuse and de-covenantalised over-extension of the doctrine.

Once again Schaeffer, ever the critic of the Enlightenment all too often echoes some of its assumptions. Science indeed has become the new religion and yet I don't think Schaeffer is able to untangle these knots and presents little more than a philosophically driven substitute.

As always his primary motivation of Dominion is revealed as he casts culture in sacral terms. Art and science are holy and sanctified endeavors and this unbiblical foundational commitment is what leads to the muddled and erroneous framing of the issues and to the imperative to re-claim the science narrative. The crisis of the science narrative is no crisis at all for the strict New Testament adherent because the New Testament is not overly concerned with these categories and there is in fact nothing to re-claim. Men are building little sand castles and calling them universes and worlds. They can't see the vastness of the beach because it exceeds the power of the lens they insist on using and thus they also miss the great waves that are coming and soon will wash it all away. Men can build impressive toys and use their gadgets for evil things but science cannot even begin to touch on the foundational or fundamental issues regarding existence. It's a real threat in practical terms and its zealots are certainly enemies of the Church and eager to target it, and yet they represent no serious or existential threat to the Kingdom. They do represent a threat to Schaeffer's kingdom because his is defined as a social order which can unlike the True Kingdom, be cast down and destroyed.

Continue reading Part Six (II)