What is scientism?

In a certain sense the church, or at least true Christians, in this respect take the place of Christ, for "Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." As to the divine nature, true Christians, as partakers of it, necessarily possess its properties, viz., light and love, "Among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life." But how sad and how solemn is it to see now, as when Jesus was in the world, that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not." It is in contact with spiritual death. In nature light banishes darkness, not so necessarily in moral things, and in the spiritual world; men love darkness rather than light. Their heart is darkened, their mind reprobate (Rom. 1:21-28). Even Christ, who is the Truth and the Light, has been in the world, and when in it was rejected. Equally is the divine record of this, and the light of testimony in His members, rejected. The acme of intellectual conceit is now to boast in knowing nothing — Agnosticism. If that does not please, you have Positivism; science is everything — everything is to be a matter of mathematical demonstration — what cannot thus be proved is to be rejected. Alas for Divine revelation! Man's reason sits in judgment on God's word, declares it no revelation at all, and denies the possibility of revelation altogether. "This then is the positive philosophy; the extension to all investigations of those methods which have been found successful in the physical sciences, the transformation of all knowledge into a homogeneous body of doctrine capable of supplying a Faith, and consequently a polity" (Lewes's History of Philosophy).

"And what will be gained if the point be made out? Not a few things. For one, as partly indicated already, the scientific demand of the age will be satisfied. That demand is that all that concerns life and conduct shall be placed on a scientific basis. The only great attempt to meet that at present is Positivism.

"But what again is a scientific basis? What exactly is this demand of the age? 'By Science, I understand,' says Huxley, 'all knowledge which rests upon evidence, and reasoning of a like character to that which claims our assent to ordinary scientific propositions; and if any one is able to make good the assertion that his theology rests upon valid evidence and sound reasoning, then it appears to me, that such theology must take its place as a part of Science." "Mr. Frederic Harrison, in name of the Positive method of thought, turns aside from ideal standards which avow themselves to be lawless, which profess to transcend the field of law. We say life and conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis of law, and must rest entirely in that region of science (not physical, but moral and social science), where we are free to use our intelligence, in the methods known to us as intelligible logic, methods which the intellect can analyse. When you confront us with hypotheses, however sublime, and however affecting, if they cannot be stated in terms of the rest of our knowledge, if they are disparate to that world of sequence and sensation, which to us is the ultimate base of all our real knowledge, then we shake our heads and turn aside.' This is a most reasonable demand, and we humbly accept the challenge" (pp. 23-24). Now all the "important articles of religion" are a matter of revelation, and have been recorded in Holy Scripture in the language of inspiration. As to this the apostle says, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God: which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:9-14).

The truth is that Positivism, far from real progress, is a retrograde movement, so extreme in principle that the human mind can be made to sink no lower, with a bombastic veil of words to hide its sores and rags. What is Comte's "Law of the Three States"? That by invariable necessity the human mind in every one of our principal conceptions, in every branch of our knowledge, passes successively through three different theoretic states: first, the theological or fictitious state; secondly, the metaphysical or abstract state; thirdly, the scientific or positive state. In the first stage the mind studies the nature of things with their causes, originating or final; in the second, or transition stage, the mind replaces supernatural agents by abstract forces, real entities inherent in different things; in the positive stage, all is renounced save the pursuit of their invariable relations of succession and similitude, i.e., phenomena and laws. Comtism will have you to ask, not Why, but How only. You are simply to rank each particular under its class, the height of knowledge! and alone true!! Classing a thing is all you are to know or seek; though it really supposes knowledge of the thing and of classification before you can class it with certainty. It is a mere cheat of infidelity, child of the revolution which was the monstrous reaction from popery.

Mr. A. shows clearly that the assumption of the three is folly. For, first, it is untrue that the Three States are universal, many branches of knowledge not passing successively through these stages. Next, they are not necessary, being not universal. Thirdly, they are therefore not necessarily successive. All, as far as true, may concur simultaneously, or they may never all three succeed or coexist. They are not axioms, but unfounded. And Positivism, the desired result, is just limitation to the lowest degree of knowledge, an absolute interdict on all below the surface or above us in time or for eternity, the exclusion of all truth beyond the senses or the mind's inferences, save on the laws of phenomena. It supposes a race without a Why, without a responsible soul yet more, and most of all without God. It is the materialism of Lucretius, of Epicurus, of the most audacious evil-workers among men. The sophistry of its living English representative, Mr. Harrison, is well laid bare in this book. He, too, is not open, replying to Sir Fitzjames Stephen that "There is no godhead now in humanity." Did he not know that his master laid down (and no Pope ever had or claimed such infallibility) that humanity is a goddess to be worshipped only through her best organs, which to a man are mother, wife, and daughter, to a woman father, husband, and son? No doubt it is the language of Bedlam; but Mr. H. as a Comtist is not free to repudiate it.

1883 290 At the present day, at least in this country, all who reject Revelation seem to be uniting under the name of Secularist. Under that name are found those who assail the Being, the Attributes, the Personality and the Providence of God, and who endeavour by philosophy — falsely so called — to overthrow the christian's faith in the genuineness, authenticity, inspiration, and exclusive authority of the Word of God. Could they succeed, all belief of a future judgment, and consequently the immortality of the soul, would be derided as an idle dream, and the grossest materialism would become the universal creed. And what do these Secularists propose as a substitute for the Bible? They pretend that sufficient guarantee for morality is found in nature and in human intelligence. What their idea of morality may be is difficult to say; but according to their highest definition, can it fill the craving void felt by every soul at one time or the other? A craving after the unseen and the unknown? A craving which compels the idolater to worship the image his hands have made, and leads the infidel to idolize the god of his imagination, i.e. his reason, himself?

Positivism is another name for the latest phase of infidelity, differing but little if at all from Secularism. It is a combination of all shades. It is materialistic; for the man whose name is identified with this system denied all that is supernatural — by which he meant theological. He put aside all that is metaphysical; i.e. he allowed nothing but mere matter, the relation, the succession, the likeness which one thing bears to another. This system teaches that human perfection is to discard all reference to a Divine cause, and to resolve everything to nature and to mechanical laws. This will be the "universal religion" which will supersede all other creeds and notions; the one doctrine sufficiently comprehensive to answer all questions, and sufficiently positive to convince all men. This "Religion" has no starting-point save what it calls the active, affectionate and intelligent tendencies of human nature. In a word "Collective Humanity" is God! Are there in human nature no other tendencies but those of love and intelligence? Are not the opposite rather the tendencies which so prevail that love and intelligence as characterising mankind are only names, truly of things conceivable, but little beyond? Hatred and therefore war, ignorance and therefore superstition, mark the annals of the world. Some few by great perseverance and incessant labour may emerge from the mass of ignorance; but who, at any period, of men stood forth as the exponent of universal affection and goodwill? Possibly a man might die for his friend; but the exceptionality of such a case proves the general rule. Let the history of mankind bear witness. And if this witness be received, when where and how is this affectionate and intelligent "Collective Humanity," the god of the Positivist, to be manifested? It certainly will be a god that had a beginning. But in fact this system denies the Being of God and is Atheistic. It denies the personality of God — for man in the aggregate is God — and therefore Pantheistic. Deism it denies as providential superstition; like Secularism it affirms the law of nature to be the sole agency at work in the world. It is infidelity in its widest meaning, in its most illogical form; and its most absurd theories shock every rational mind. Nor does it come behind any previous school of scepticism in daring impiety. At a comparatively recent meeting of Positivists in a neighbouring country it was proposed and carried nem. con. that the idea of God should be banished from the country.

Every one that cares may know that Prof. Huxley puts inquiries of this kind on the same level with "lunar politics," and that to make the little corner of the world in which one lives a little less miserable and ignorant, as his duty is, "it is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited; the second, that our volition counts for something as a condition of the cause of events. Each of these beliefs," he says, "can be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try." Beyond this, he conceives we have but the Maya of the Buddhist — illusion. And a writer in The Westminster Review generalizes this as the conviction of the scientific man, of whom he says, "Above all things, he is silent in the presence of truths (or falsehoods) which he has ascertained to be beyond his reach. And he commands equally, in respect of these, silence on all others of mankind."

The fact is that science is unreliable. It is, at best, but bits of knowledge gradually acquired, thrown into a system, and placed in the pantheon for highest worship. But, supposing the bits of knowledge were faulty, could the scientific conclusion be right? Everything hangs on that. Hence the scientist has to grope in the dark. Each of our three philosophers threw their fellows overboard, and utterly rejected their scientific conceptions. Facts came before the third which led him to reject the second; and, in like manner, the second rejected the first. What scientific confusion! And what certainty have we as to the doctrines of their many followers right down to today? Science is in constant flux, so that the Twentieth Century Dictionary definition of it, “ascertained truth,” is plainly incorrect. It may be said, fearlessly, that there is truth which science cannot ascertain, the above quotation being witness, and therefore for people to prostrate themselves before such a goddess and to regard her as the fount of wisdom is one of the rank follies of the day!

If one appealed to any branch of physical science as to the first day, he could get no clear answer. Geology has confessedly, nothing to say. What can astronomy or optics do more? Science, as such, leaves out God — science, not scientific men, many of the greatest of whom have been true-hearted believers. Science, in itself, knows nothing of the power that originated, ignores the First Cause, and shirks ordinarily even the final causes which might summon heed to a first cause. It occupies itself with an established order in the world and with secondary causes, especially those at work before men's eyes or probably deducible from experience. The peril for the unwary is obvious, and real, and notorious. It would be much less if science were honest enough to acknowledge its ignorance of what is beyond its sphere. But often its interpreter says "There is not," where logically and morally he is entitled only to say, "I know not." This is not merely audacity without warrant, but sin of the worst kind. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." It is exactly where science finds itself confessedly stopped by a blind wall that scripture proclaims the truth from God. As He knows, so He revealed as far as in His wisdom and goodness He saw fit. "And God said, Light be: and light was. And God saw the light that [it was] good; and God divided between the light and the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one (or, first) day" (vers. 3-5).

159 Hence, let me add in passing, the form infidelity has largely taken in these days - what is called positivism or realism, saying, I know what I see and experience, with perhaps some small conclusions from it, and pretending to stop there. It does not, for it pretends to deny all beyond it. This is false upon the face of it, for if it only knows what is knowable to man from himself, it can deny nothing beyond it, any more than it can affirm. It is a low thought. But it is false on another ground. The mind has no certainty; but it has a multitude of thoughts beyond the sphere of the natural human powers which can decide on what is within these powers. There are a multitude of thoughts within us. We are incompetent to come to a conclusion, but there are thoughts and something or other to suggest them, but the heart has no answer. Where there is no infidelity, but merely the natural working of the human heart, this is the case. There is no further answer till judgment comes, till judgment returns to righteousness.

It is natural enough that science should boast of what it has discovered and can teach of material phenomena, the laws which govern them, and the results that flow from them. Nor is science to be blamed, because from its nature it cannot rise to moral truth, still less to the knowledge of God. Only those who speak for it are out of court when they venture to deny that anything higher and far more momentous can be learnt in a way incomparably surer than any teaching of man. They are wholly wrong and illogical even, when they affirm that there is nothing to be known beyond the blank wall where all science necessarily stops, unable to lead or go farther. The most thorough-going, the grossest, of materialists must and does confess that science can give no account of the originating cause of all, or, as they say, "the origin of the permanent causes themselves."* Science, says another of these sages, "is wholly powerless to penetrate the mystery which lies behind." But if science cannot discover, God can reveal. And the Bible begins with His revelation in words simple, clear, and worthy of Him. God would not have His people ignorant of the origin of all things through His power and goodness and wisdom, having called them into relationship with Himself, unworthy as they are, till the only Worthy One bring them to Himself in mercy and truth, then to walk in His light.

If such be the polity, what are the principles? Mr. A. answers: — "An apparatus of expedients for forestalling deep thinking by providing men with makeshift explanations, and even by preventing them from seeking any explanation" (p. 39); "a system of universal science, professing to educe a philosophy from observed phenomena, but in reality preceding science by an à priori dogmatic philosophy, and limiting research in science to such points as could be made to illustrate that philosophy" (p. 41). "Law" is assumed to mean the same thing in morals, as in matter, so that men are no more responsible agents than the planets: a conclusion which is justly said to be facilitated by the assumption of certain principles, the most extraordinary ever passed by sane men as enunciated by a sane man. First: in the positive state of mind, man properly speaking, that is, the individual, does not exist, or is only a pure abstraction; what is real is humanity. Secondly: society is an organism; not an organisation merely, but an organism. Thirdly: in society no such thing as rights exist, only duties. The word [or notion,] 'rights' must be banished from morals, just like the word 'causes' from philosophy" (p. 42).