Is Philosophy the Answer?
Says Adler: "We cannot go to any other of the major branches of natural knowledge — to science, to history, or to mathematics — for it . . . Philosophy alone, of all branches of knowledge, can tell us what we ought to seek as well as both why and how we ought to seek it.
"Philosophy alone gives us knowledge of what is good and bad, right and wrong — the order of goods, the moral law, ends and means, happiness, the human virtues, and our duties" (The Conditions of Philosophy, Mortimer J. Adler, New York, Antheneum, 1965, p. 197).
But WHICH philosophy?
Shall we follow the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung who says "power comes from the barrel of a gun"? Shall we follow Soviet Russia's Communist philosophy; or socialism; or democracy; or dictatorship; or nihilism? Shall we follow Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam?
Shall we accept the "new morality" — where anything goes in sex and drugs? Shall we follow Victorian prudery, which claims sex is evil?
Is it right to kill in any situation? To steal? To commit adultery? Should man lie in any situation, on a personal or governmental level?
Obviously, philosophy per se has not been very scientific. That we need a "scientific philosophy" — one based on facts, on cause and effect, on truth, free from the desire of men — is certainly apparent. But such a "philosophy" has not yet been forthcoming.
In the physical sciences a wrong theory is soon proven to be so by the facts. But what are we to do in the social sphere? Must we follow foolish ideas before the foolishness is finally, if ever, demonstrated?
Can we use the scientific method to prove what is good and what is evil — without first following foolish and unproved hypotheses?
Yes we CAN, indirectly, use the scientific method to lead us to that which can establish what is right and wrong. We can find "ought knowledge," if we are willing to apply the scientific method in a new, different and exciting way — and to ABIDE by the laws we discover.
To do so, science must step into a field it has refused to have anything to do with. In order to solve the grave social issues confronting us, SCIENCE MUST BE WILLING TO STEP INTO THEOLOGY.
"Stepping Into Theology"
Let us explain by backing up to a previous section quoted from philosopher Mortimer Adler. In that quote, one section was left out. It here is printed in italics: "If we exclude from consideration the claim of revealed religion to offer us supernatural guidance [in the form of God-given laws) . . . philosophy alone, of all branches of knowledge, can tell us what we ought to seek as well as both why and how we ought to seek it."
But why disregard the possibility of such supernatural guidance — without putting it to a scientific test? Unfortunately, Dr. Adler and scientists in general have generally disregarded this possibility.
This "no-consideration" attitude is seen even in the natural and physical sciences.
For example, how does a scientist answer the questions of WHERE matter, energy and laws governing various aspects of the physical realm came from?
He doesn't.
Lincoln Barnett, writer of science books for the layman tells us: "Cosmologists — [those who try to answer why the universe is as it is and where it came from] — for the most part MAINTAIN SILENCE on the questions of the ultimate origins, leaving that issue to the philosophers and theology" (The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 108).
James A. Coleman, professor of science and popular science writer, plainly tells us: "They [scientists] do not attempt to answer questions relating to an Original cause — that is, where the laws of the universe came from or how they came into being" (Modern Theories of the Universe, p. 197).
Fred Hoyle, famed astronomer, cautions the inquisitive: "If we ask why the laws of physics . . . we enter into the territory of metaphysics — the scientist at all events will not attempt an answer . . . we must not go on to ask why" (Frontiers of Astronomy, p. 342).
All these and other scientists admit they avoid theology and philosophy.
And no wonder — when philosophy and theology have failed to satisfy the thinking mind.
Science has relegated the important "ought-knowledge" and the possibility of supernatural help in this important area, to those who have not been able or willing to find it. Can science discover it? Can it lead us to the source of "ought knowledge" by application of the scientific method WITHIN the realm of philosophy and theology?
Yes, if . . .
A New Challenge
Science must be willing to set up bold, new hypotheses in the realm of "ought-knowledge," and to scientifically test the possibility of a supernatural being.
With this in mind, this must be the proposed first challenge:
QUESTION: Is there a supernatural Being who can offer us the needed guidance and help to solve our social problems?
"But," you say, "we cannot verify this question. We cannot see God, or touch him." Not important!
"It is an error to suppose," said two authorities in their book, An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, "to suppose, as is often done, that science denies the truth of all unverified propositions. For that which is unverified today may be verified tomorrow" (Cohen and Nagel An Introduction To Logic and Scientific Method, p. 401).
"Indeed the most valuable hypothesis of science," they wrote earlier, ". . . CANNOT BE DIRECTLY VERIFIED" (p. 207).
We cannot establish by simple observation that two bodies attract each other inversely as the square of their distances — a law of physics. But "its implications can be clearly traced and then subjected to experimental confirmation" (Ibid., p. 207).
The question is, can the existence of God be subjected to experimental confirmation? Absolutely, yes — if one is willing to consider the possibility of the following:
The very existence of the earth — the creation, if you will — is experimental evidence indicating at least the possible existence of a Supernatural Being.
No one would claim that a fine watch, with its many dozens of intricate parts, evolved and came together without the aid of a watchmaker. The existence of a watch presupposes an intelligent craftsman PUTTING TOGETHER the watch. In like manner, the existence of this vast, complex interdependency of life forms DEMANDS the existence of a Life-giver and Creator.
Is not, in fact, the whole earth — and all life on it — experimental evidence proving that God exists?
Let us now look at the second question.
QUESTION: Is there a living Instruction Book for human beings which would contain the "ought-knowledge" necessary to explain why we have the problems we do and HOW they can be solved?
The Source of "Ought Knowledge"
A hypothesis must account for what we know — or provide the answers to the problems which generated the inquiry. In this case we are seeking the answers to the problems of this world.
Is there a book which contains the ANSWERS to those problems? Does it explain WHY we have the social problems we do?
A hypothesis must also "PREDICT that observation would reveal certain propositions to be true whose truth was not known or even suspected at the time the prediction was made" (Cohen and Nagel, op. cit., p. 207).
There is a book which contains laws and principles explaining HOW humans ought to conduct themselves. This book, called the Bible, claims to be the revealed word of a Creator God. It PREDICTS the outcome of wrong social ideas and habits. It also lays out the effects of following the "ought-knowledge" given within its pages.
If you want to PROVE the accuracy of these predictions — and unlock the key to the "ought-knowledge" we need — then it becomes YOUR responsibility to do something further. Because there is a way to submit these predictions to a test and see if they can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be accurate.