Sunday, July 18, 2021

The Decline of Science: Why we Need a new Paradigm for the Third Millennium

I am not saying that all science is corrupt, but if images like the one above exist, it means that there is a serious problem of corruption in science. And note that it comes from "Scientific American" -- not exactly your average tabloid! It may well be that Science is going the way many historical belief systems went: abandoned because they were not consistent with the needs of their times. And, as in ancient times, the decline of a system of beliefs starts with the corruption of its main supporters -- in this case, scientists.

 

If you read the "Decameron," written by Giovanni Boccaccio in 1370, you will notice the slandering of the Christian Church as a pervasive thread. At that time, it seems that it was an obvious fact that priests, monks, nuns, and the like were corrupt people who had abandoned their ideals to fall into various sins: avarice, gluttony, blasphemy, carnal lust, and more.  

Boccaccio's book would not have been possible a few centuries before, when the Christian Church still enjoyed enormous prestige. But something had changed in the European society that was gradually making the Church obsolete. It was unavoidable: ideas, just like empires, are cyclical, they grow, peak, and then decline. Christianity had been born during the late Roman Empire when the European society had no use for the warlike ideals of ancient paganism. Christianity took over and created a system of beliefs that was compatible with a society with no imperial ambitions. But, with the waning of the Middle Ages, Europe became rich again and the Church started to be seen as an obstacle to economic and military expansion. Boccaccio was the voice of a new mercantile class that saw money as an instrument of growth and that didn't want to be ruled by a priestly class that preached poverty and self-punishment. 

It would take more than a century after Boccaccio before things came to a head when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg in 1517. After Luther, another turning point arrived some 30 years later with the so-called "Controversy of Valladolid," a debate that took place in 1550 and 1551 in the city of Valladolid, in Spain. It was about the status of the Native Americans. For most of us, what we remember about this story is a grotesquely deformed narrative of solemn Spanish inquisitors debating on whether the Native Americans had souls or not and that the conclusion was that they didn't. That gave a free hand to the conquistadores to kill and enslave the natives at will. 

The reality was much different. Below, you'll find a hugely interesting post by Paul Jorion that tells the true story: the result of the Valladolid debate was a victory for the rights of the natives. But, as you might expect, the voice of the Church was mostly ignored while the debate was turned into anti-Spanish propaganda by those who were actually exterminating the Native Americans: the British and North European colonists. The Catholic Church received such a blow from this campaign that it never completely recovered from it.

An unexpected result of the Valladolid debate was a return of Paganism in art. (I tell this story in my blog, "Chimeras"). During the debate, one of the discussants, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, tried to justify the enslaving of Native Americans by arguing that the Pagan society of classical times was not inferior to the modern one. And that, since in those times slavery was commonly practiced, then it could be practiced by good Christians, as well. 

Sepulveda's point was not accepted in Valladolid, but it seemed to resonate with the European views of the time. Paganism used to be considered the very essence of evil during the Middle Ages, but it became fashionable. You see that especially during the 19th century, when a cultured European person could not avoid having in his library at least one "breviary of mythology" that listed and described ancient Pagan deities. Thomas Bullfinch's "Mythology" (first published in 1855) was especially popular in the English speaking world. 

Bullfinch's paganism was mostly a game for intellectuals and it never trickled down to ordinary people in the form of an organized cult. But the European belief system evolved into something that had no rules preventing the ruthless exploitation of natural resources, be they minerals, living creatures, or people who could be branded as "savages." This new system was supposed to avoid a repetition of the Valladolid controversy. It was called "science." 

The transition took some time and it is still partly ongoing, but Science clearly won the battle, relegating Christianity to a set of superstitions good only for old women and peasants. Instead, science was the right belief system for the Imperial Europe of the 19th and 20th centuries. It emphasized competition, survival of the fittest, economic growth, and wealth for those who could catch the right opportunities. This attitude probably peaked in mid 20th century with dreams about the human "conquest of space" to restart the saga of the conquest of the New World. 

Alas, not all dreams can be turned into reality. By the second half of the 20th century, it was becoming clear that economic expansion was destroying the very resources that had made it possible. At the same time, pollution in the form of climate change was leading the whole planetary ecosystem to collapse. Humankind was, again, facing the need for a paradigm shift and, as usual, not everyone agreed on what was to be done. 

A modern equivalent of Luther's 95 theses was the report titled "The Limits to Growth," published in 1972. The report noted the depletion of natural resources and the effect of pollution; two factors that, together with the increasing human population, were leading humankind to a major collapse for some moment in the mid 21st century. The report strongly argued in favor of stopping economic growth and stabilizing the human population before it was too late. 

The result was a debate in some respects similar to that of Valladolid, in the 16th century. The human memesphere split into two factions: one that wanted to keep the expansion going, the other stating that it was time to stop. 

The evolution of the debate has seen the enlargement of the split between the two factions. The supporters of science brand their opponents as "catastrophists" and argue that all the problems created by science could be solved by more science. The idea is that we need science to develop new sources of energy, and substitute dwindling natural resources with new, more abundant, ones (in a moment of peculiar hubris, this idea was called "the principle of infinite substitutability"). The other side started using the term "scientism" to emphasize the ideological character that science was taking. The catastrophists keep calling for a managed retreat from the overexploitation of natural resources.

So far, scientism has maintained the upper hand in the debate, but the worsening of the worldwide situation has led its supporters to take a rigid position that reminds that of the inquisition of the Catholic Church. It is "Technopopulism" an unholy alliance of scientists and politicians. They seem to operate on the assumption that what science says cannot be discussed because it is science, and that science is whatever they decide it is. Debates are not allowed anymore, opponents are branded as "deniers," while doubts are considered heresy. Fortunately, the technopopulists don't have the power to burn their opponents at the stake (not yet).

But times are changing fast. Much faster than they were changing at the time of the controversy of Valladolid. So, the technopopulists are spreading the seed of their own destruction. Forced into an ideological straitjacket, science is suffering badly: scientists are human beings and they are not invulnerable to corruption. And corruption is spreading rapidly, especially in those areas where science is in strict contact with profitable markets: medicine, chemicals, cosmetics, food, energy, and others. In addition, science suffers from cronyism, elitism, inability to innovate, lack of standards, self-referencing, and more. We are seeing an enormous problem with scientific reports based on falsified data or on experiments never done. We arrived to the point that it has been claimed that "It is time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise"

Clearly, we can't keep going in this way, but since very little or nothing is done to stop the trend, the result can only be that the public is losing trust in science, at least the way science is understood today. It is possible that in the future science will go through a defamation campaign similar to the one that turned the Catholic faith into a heap of superstitions. Science will likely be accused to have been the major force involved in the destruction of Earth's ecosystem and scientists will be accused of having operated exactly with that purpose. Some of them actually did, but the many who tried to oppose the destruction will be forgotten or their work misunderstood. Their attempts to redress the situation will be used as an act of accusation against science, just as the mistreatment of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists was used as an indictment against the Christian religion.

So, what will replace science? For the time being, Christianity has been completely blown out of the holy water by the technopopulist offensive. Most Christians are still wondering about what hit them. They haven't recognized how they are being pushed into irrelevance by not reacting against the beliefs that scientism is imposing on them. But, in a non-remote future, we might see an evolution parallel to the shift that occurred during the 16th century. At that time, Paganism resurfaced as an alternative to Christianity. Now, Christianity may resurface as an alternative to science. Alexander Dugin is a good example of this return to older views. 

But things always change and never return the same. Christianity absorbed and reworked many Pagan beliefs, just like science absorbed many Christian ways of doing things, with, for instance, universities acting very much like Christian monasteries. So, whatever will replace science, will maintain much of the science of old, except that it will be reframed in forms more suitable for the new views of the world. And some sections of science -- perhaps most of it -- will be flatly branded as "evil," just like the ancient Gods were rebranded as demons and monsters. 

Then, the great cycle will restart, and we'll see where it takes us. Maybe it will be a new form of Christianity, maybe a new form of Paganism, a Gaian cult of some kind. The beauty of the future is that nobody can force it to be what they want it to be. 


See also "The Roots of the Great European shift from Christian to Pagan Figurative Art Subjects"


The Valladolid Controversy

by Paul Jorion June 23, 2021 (translation by UB)


The "quarrel" or "controversy" of Valladolid (1550-1551) will find its place in the panorama of anthropology that I am writing at the moment. Since this is a subject that I am new to and where I cannot avail myself of any expertise, please be kind enough to point out to me any factual errors I make. Thank you in advance!

In 1550 and 1551 there took place in the city of Valladolid in Spain what would go down in history as the "quarrel" or "controversy" named after this city in the province of Castile and Leon. What was it? It dealt with the Christian European civilization behaving like an unscrupulous invader on a continent of which it knew nothing, within populations of which it was until then unaware of the very existence, which it then discovered in real-time as it grew on the territories of the New World, and the devastation that accompanied this advance.

What all this meant was to define how the winners would now treat the vanquished and that would be the question posed in a great debate that would span a period of two years and in which two champions of Spanish thought of that time would face off against each other. Great intellectual and ethical problems had to be solved in the scholastic tradition still of a disputatio, in front of the enlightened public of what we would call today a commission, which would decide at the end of the debate which of the two speakers was right. There were mostly Church people there.

On stage, there were two thinkers solemnly defending one and the other, opposing points of view. They clashed at the level of ideas by mobilizing all the art of dialectics: an art that intended to convince, specific to the discourses held in ancient Greece on an agora. To defend one point of view, Juan Gines de Sepulveda (1490-1573) who in a nutshell considers the inhabitants of the New World to be cruel Savages and that the question was, essentially, how to save them from themselves. And, to defend the opposing point of view, the Dominican Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566), who affirms that the Amerindians are, like the Europeans, human beings, whose differences should not be exaggerated with them, and that it is a question of integrating peacefully into a Christian society by conviction rather than by force.

The brutal conquest of Mexico took place from 1519 to 1521, and the equally bloody conquest of Peru from 1528 to 1532. We are now in 1550, almost twenty years after this latter date. The situation, from the point of view of the Spaniards, is that they have won: a huge empire of New Spain has been conquered by secular Spain. It is a victory, even if internal quarrels continue, on the one hand between the colonized, as at the time of the conquest, which their incessant dissensions had fostered, and on the other hand between the colonizers themselves, manifested by a litany of palace revolutions and assassinations of conquistadors between them, and that in Peru as in Mexico.

But the time has come for Charles V (1500-1558), “Emperor of the Romans”, to take a break. We must think about how to treat these conquered populations, decimated in equal parts by battles and massacres, and by the ravages of smallpox and measles, against which the local populations were helpless, having no immunity to these diseases hitherto absent from the continent. It is considered today that Mexico had some 25 million inhabitants on the eve of the first landing of the Spaniards in 1498. In 1568, the population was estimated at no more than 3 million and, it is believed that in 1620 there were only a million and a half Mexicans left.

The phase still to come would no longer be that of Mexico or Peru, whose conquest was completed and where colonization was then carried out well, but that of Paraguay, which would begin in 1585, thirty-five years later. Charles V, an enlightened sovereign, just like his rival François I, his contemporary: two kings who reflect, who are not only warriors, who ask themselves questions about history, knowing that they are major players. They share a conception of the world enlightened by the same religion: Catholicism. The reign of Charles V will end a few years later: in 1555. It will then be his son Philippe who will become sovereign of Spain and the Netherlands. Later, in 1580, he will also be King of Portugal. Charles V demands that any new conquest be interrupted as long as Las Casas and Sepulveda exchange their arguments on the question of the status to be recognized for the indigenous populations of the New World.

Charles V had not, however, remained indifferent to these questions until then: already in 1526, 24 years before the Valladolid controversy, he had issued a decree prohibiting the slavery of Amerindians throughout the territory, and in 1542, he had promulgated new laws which proclaimed the natural freedom of the Amerindians and obliged to release those who had been reduced to slavery: freedom of work, freedom of residence and free ownership of property, punishing, in principle, those who were would be violent and aggressive towards Native Americans.

Paul III was Pope from 1534 to 1549. In 1537, thirteen years before the start of the Valladolid controversy, in the papal bull Sublimis Deus and in the letter Veritas Ipsa, he had officially condemned, in the name of the Catholic Church, the slavery of Native Americans. The declaration was “universal”, that is to say that it was applicable wherever the Christian world could still discover populations which were unknown to it on the surface of the globe: it was said in Sublimis Deus: “… and of all peoples which may later be discovered by Christians ”. And in both documents, so in Veritas Ipsa also: “Indians and other peoples are real human beings”.

When the quarrel began, Julius III had just succeeded Paul III: he was enthroned on February 22, 1550. The general principle, for Charles V, is that of alignment with Church policy.

In the "quarrel" or "controversy" of Valladolid, one of the moments of solemn reflection of humanity on itself, it is not the Church, but the Kingdom of Spain, which summons religious authorities, experts, to try to answer the question "What can be done so that the conquests still to come in the New World are done with justice and in security of conscience?".

It is heartbreaking that the tv film “La controverse de Valladolid” (1992), by Jean-Daniel Verhaeghe, with Jean-Pierre Marielle in the role of Las Casas and Jean-Louis Trintignant in that of Sepulveda, as well as the novel by Jean- Claude Carrière, from whom he was inspired, took such liberties with historical truth that it was affirmed that the central question in the quarrel was to determine whether the Amerindians had a soul. No: this question had been settled by the Church without public debate thirteen years earlier. Sublimis Deus affirms that their property and their freedom must be respected, and further specifies "even if they remain outside the faith of Jesus Christ", that is to say, that the same attitude must be maintained even if they are rebellious to conversion. It is written in the Veritas Ipsa bull that Native Americans are to be "invited to the said faith of Christ by the preaching of the word of God and by the example of a righteous life." In 1537: thirteen years before the commission met.

The question of the soul of the Amerindians was of course raised in Valladolid, but in no way to try to resolve it: on this level, it was a closed issue. In reality, it had been resolved in fact by the Spanish invaders: it would have been possible to summon young men and women of mixed race in their twenties to Valladolid, including Martin, son of Ernan Cortés and Doña Marina, “La Malinche,” living proof that the human species had recognized itself as “one and indivisible” in the field and that the question of whether these people, whom their mother could accompany if necessary, dressed in Spanish fashion, and most often militants of Christianity in their actions and in their words, had a soul, would have been an entirely abstract and ridiculous question, the problem having been solved by the facts: in the interbreeding which immediately took place, in this reality that men and women have recognized themselves sufficiently similar not only to mate and immediately procreate, but to sanctify their marriage, in a sumptuous way for the richest, according to the rites of the Church. Circumstances, it should be noted, were the opposite of what would be observed in North America, then in the case of almost all Protestant settlers - with the exception of Quebec - from the end of the 16th century.

The meetings in Valladolid will be held twice over a month, in 1550 and then in 1551, but most of the texts available to us are not transcripts of the debates: they are correspondence between the parties involved: Juan Gines de Sepulveda, Bartolomé de Las Casas, and the members of the commission.

Las Casas had first been himself an encomendero, a slave settler: he managed plantations where Native American slaves were initially employed found, plantations in which, reacting to the Church's commands to give back their freedom to the natives enslaved, that he ceased to exploit, with others: blacks imported from Africa. There will be a great regret in his life, he will talk about that later. Most of the encomenderos were not as attentive as Las Casas to instructions from the mother country or the Vatican. Already in 1511, in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos, who exercised a decisive influence on Las Casas, refused the sacraments and threatened with excommunication those among them whom he considered unworthy. Here is his famous sermon:

"I am the voice of the One who cries in the desert of this island and that is why you must listen to me attentively This voice is the newest you have ever heard, the harshest and the most tough. This voice tells you that you are all in a state of mortal sin; in sin you live and die because of the cruelty and tyranny with which you overwhelm this innocent race.
Tell me, what right and what justice authorize you to keep the Indians in such dreadful servitude? In the name of what authority have you waged such hateful wars against those peoples who lived in their lands in a gentle and peaceful way, where a considerable number of them were destroyed by you and died in yet another way? never seen as it is so atrocious? How do you keep them oppressed and overwhelmed, without giving them food, without treating them in their illnesses which come from excessive work with which you overwhelm them and from which they die? To put it more accurately, you kill them to get a little more gold every day.
And what care do you take to instruct them in our religion so that they know God our Creator, so that they are baptized, that they hear Mass, that they observe Sundays and other obligations?
Are they not men? Are they not human beings? Must you not love them as yourselves?
Be certain that by doing so, you cannot save yourself any more than the Moors and Turks who refuse faith in Jesus Christ. "


Las Casas' reflections led him to give up this role of planter and he took a step back for several years. Charles V then offered him access to vast lands in Venezuela on which he could implement the policy he now advocated towards the Amerindians: no longer the use of force, but the power of conviction and conversion by example. Las Casas is a thomist. Following the line drawn by Thomas Aquinas, he reads in human society a given of nature. It is not a question of cultural heritage, that is to say of the fruit of the deliberations of men, but of a gift from God, so that all societies are of equal dignity and a society of Pagans. is no less legitimate than a society of Christians and it is wrong to attempt to convert its members by force. The propagation of the faith must be done in an evangelical way, namely by virtue of example.

Facing Las Casas, there stands Sepulveda, an Aristotelian philosopher who finds in the texts of his mentor, not a justification for slavery, absent in fact from the texts of the Stagirite, but the description and the explanation found there of the slave society of ancient Greece, represented as a functional set of institutions: a legitimate model of human society. Sepulveda considers slavery, obedience to orders, to be the proper status of a people who, left to themselves, commit, as we can see, nameless abominations. Sepulveda finds argument in the atrocities committed, in particular the uninterrupted practice of human sacrifice, for which the populations brutally enslaved by the dominant society of the moment constitute an inexhaustible source of victims, but also their anthropophagy, as well as their practice of incest. in the European sense of the term: fraternal and sororal incest within the framework of princely families in Mexico, "incestuous promiscuity" if you will, in the pooling of women among brothers, a difficulty that the Jesuits later encountered in the case of the Guaranis of Paraguay, which they will resolve by banning the “longhouse”, the collective dwelling of siblings.

Las Casas responds to Sepulveda by stressing that the Spanish civilization is no less brutal: "We do not find in the customs of the Indians of greater cruelty than that which we ourselves had in the civilizations of the old world." Very diplomatically, he draws his examples from the past and says "formerly." "In the past, we manifested a similar cruelty", highlighting for example the gladiatorial fights of ancient Rome. He also draws his argument from the monumental architecture of the Aztecs as proof of their civilization.

If the two points of view presented differ, and even if their positions are considered diametrically opposed, the two parties agree on the fact that the invaders not only have rights to exercise over the Amerindians but also duties towards them, and in particular, in the context of the time and the question to be answered, there is no dispute between them as to the duty to convert: this is the dimension strictly speaking "Catholic" from the very framework of the debate. Their difference lies in their respective recommendations of the methods to be used: peaceful colonization and exemplary life for Las Casas and, for Sepulveda, institutional colonization based on coercion, given the brutal features of the very culture of the pre-Columbian populations.

Let us remember: two extremely brutal contexts on both sides, to the point that Las Casas, at the end of his life, will write a small book devoted only to the atrocities committed by the conquistadors, a small book in which that propaganda will systematically exploit against Spain, by its rivals: the Netherlands, France and England, although this does not mean that these nations will not also be guilty of the same crimes in the territories that they will annex in their business colonial. Mutual surveillance therefore of European nations vis-à-vis possible abuses committed by others, from a diplomatic perspective of foreign policy.

The controversy officially ended in 1551 when Charles V, on the recommendations of the commission, formalized the position defended by Las Casas. It will therefore be by invoking the Gospels and by example, that conversion should continue and not at the point of the sword.

A victory which, however, will not immediately have enormous consequences on the ground, any more than the papal bulls had had before it. The encomenderos will respect only weakly the injunctions coming from the mother country. Wars between Native American tribes will continue despite the presence of missionaries and a small military contingent. The bandeirantes of Sao Paulo will organize raids, supplying the encomenderos with prisoners, who will be on the plantations, so many de facto slaves. Etc.

A year after the controversy was ended, in 1552, Las Casas undertook to write his "Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias", the very brief account of the destruction of the Indies, which will therefore be his testimony on the atrocities, on the atrocities, of the colonization of New Spain by the Spaniards.

When, from the end of the same century, missions are founded in Paraguay, called "Reductions", it will be in the exact line of the proposals of Las Casas.

It will be essentially Las Casas who will obtain, thanks to his vibrant plea in favor of the local populations, that the question of slavery is closed once and for all in Central and South America: there will be no indigenous slaves, Amerindians will be considered as full citizens and, as an unexpected consequence, since the Church has not pronounced on the question of knowing whether Africans could be enslaved or not, the Spanish and Portuguese authorities will consider that the decision in favor of the position of Las Casas opens suddenly the possibility of a systematic exploitation of the African populations to draw there the stock of slaves required by the plantations of the New World. It is Las Casas who will be in a way responsible for an acceleration of the slavery of Africans insofar as the authorities both civil and ecclesiastical, by discouraging the enslavement of the Amerindians, will indirectly encourage the planters to turn, as a replacement, towards the slave trade in African blacks, a situation in which Las Casas found himself at the time when he was encomendero. In his correspondence, at the end of his life, he was bitterly criticized for having indirectly been the cause of the aggravated enslavement of Africans.

The sincere concern of Bartolomé de Las Casas to spare the Amerindians, preserved them from the even more tragic fate of their brothers and sisters of North America within the framework of an essentially English colonization which, from the start, consisted of spoliation and genocide without any interbreeding.

 

Note: Paul Jorion describes Charles 5th as an "enlightened king." By all means, he was. If you can still see the city of Florence as it was during the Renaissance, if you can still admire the works of art of people such as Michelangelo and Benvenuto Cellini, it is because in 1530 Charles 5th ordered to treat the Florentines with clemency after that the Republican forces had been defeated and Florence taken by the Imperial Army. Honor to a king who deserved it.

 

29 comments:

  1. Thought provoking article, thanks as always Ugo

    >And some sections of science -- perhaps most of it -- will be flatly branded as "evil,"

    Eugenics springs to mind there perhaps ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    >In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with a heated debate on whether these technologies should be called eugenics or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think much of the field of "nanotechnology" should be branded as inherently evil, especially when it is coupled with medicine and scientists start discussing how to inject this and that into people. But there are plenty more cases.

      Out of curiosity, Menucha, you commented a few minutes after that I published this post. Do you use a feed or something like that?

      Delete
  2. Saying that science is another belief system is quite stretching it IMO. What did centuries of Christianity give us in terms of changes in daily living, how can that even come close to the technological changes brought about by science especially since 19th century? The entire face of humanity has changed so drastically and changes accelerated so quickly that I don't think this is a valid framework for comparison.

    You just can't brand 'science' as evil, it is merely a tool and way of thinking. Certain aspects of it perhaps, like the corruption by corporate funding in big Ag or big pharma for instance. But the beauty is that there are always opposing views and everything is subject to open debate, not forgetting that LTG itself was based on scientific analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, in my mind saying that science "Isn't" just another belief system is stretching it. Maybe a quick read of Popper and Kuhn would be in order here.

      Delete
    2. The way I see it, Christianity was the perfect belief system for the society in which it was adopted. The problem of Europe in the early Middle Ages was how to salvage at least something out of the wreck of the old empire. The Europeans were few (at some moment, Europe had just 18 million inhabitants, can you believe that?), they were desperately poor, and they were a Babel of different languages and usages. The Church provided a common language (Latin), a class of intellectuals who could save much of the old knowledge, including a justice system that was reasonably fair. After the economic collapse of the 4th century, the Church at least avoided a cultural collapse. About technologies, people still think that the Middle Ages were barbaric and primitive. Not at all! Just think of an invention called "codex" -- that today we call "book"....

      Delete
    3. As Ugo noted in the post, there's a difference between science and scientism. Try bringing vaccines up for debate and see what results you get.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Degringolade. I have read and reread this post, and it is really too dense for me to comment. The intersection of the beliefs of the laity, the churches, the scientists, and the politicians is a minefield to me. A somewhat related popular history book , "How the Irish saved civilization" concentrated just on the way the monasteries in Ireland preserved books and knowledge after the collapse of Rome, and took an entire book to cover a tiny slice of the transformation from Pagan to Christian thought."The conquest of Mexico" took 3 volumes. IIRC. So yeah, this idea of going from Scientism to the next level is going to take a while.

      Delete
    5. Yes, "How the Irish saved Civilization" is a great book. Truly deserving to be read. And it is very much in line with the reasoning I am developing here.

      Delete
    6. The Church didn't save anything, Homeric culture was dead before the Empire collapsed and its embalmed corpse was little more than propaganda for the regime,which crumbled with it.

      This is because civilizations start as cultures and end as extreme totalitarian regimes that do a gleichschaltung on the traditional society, turning its culture into propaganda props for the regime.

      We see this today, we started with a culture and society, Medieval Christiendom and ended up with a collection of national security states for whom Truth is whatever is convenient to their powerholding cliques.

      We this in how the clergy is so eager to be seen as modern intellectuals that they have destroyed christian piety, regarding it as an embarassement. Anybody who wan't to know what it used to be has to work like an archeologist to find out what it used to be. Science too has been mostly destroyed and itys remains turned into an regime ideology.

      Christianity didn't save the Ancient world because there was little left to be saved. Rather it provided a foundation upon which a new society could grow and prosper.

      Delete
    7. Yes but is civilization worth saving?

      Delete
    8. Some things, I'd say yes.

      Delete
    9. Very /offtopic, so feel free to delete, but I am occasionally working on an sf novel with a beneficial? organization dedicated to reducing the 40 generations of barbarian rule on earth to 3 or 4 generations. Maybe call it the Foundation ... wait ...
      Reminds me to inquire about your "Gaian" screenplay.

      Delete
    10. Thank you NN for pointing out that crucial difference. Indeed scientism as a philosophy and worldview has it's flaws. As to what would replace such a pervasive way of thinking, I think the question could be moot given how quickly things are deteriorating. The loss of accumulated scientific/technological knowledge makes the regression to some form of paganism and/or spiritualism likely, in my view.

      Delete
  3. Ugo:

    This is going to take a while to digest. Lots of meat here.

    Thank you for this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, I keep learning new things, some are quite hard to digest. But, as we say here in Tuscany, what doesn't kill you makes you fatter ("quel che non ammazza, ingrassa).

      Delete
  4. "But the European belief system evolved into something that had no rigid rules preventing the ruthless exploitation of natural resources, be they minerals, living creatures, or people who could be branded as "savages." This new system was supposed to avoid a repetition of the Valladolid controversy. It was called "science.""

    I think that this is definitely still a tactic. Consider this little gem by the archdouche George Will.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/16/some-welcome-pushback-russian-chinese-assaults-international-order/

    Apparently we are civilized and decide who isn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truly a beautiful title: "Opinion: Civilized nations’ efforts to deter Russia and China are starting to add up"

      Russia and China, evidently, are uncivilized savages. I wonder if this guy will ever take a trip to St. Petersburg to visit the Hermitage Museum.

      Delete
  5. A couple decades back people like Paul Feyerabend had already been pointing out, mainly in his book Against Method, that what we call science is really as faith-based as any religion or ideology.

    I think one of the most fatal blows to the whole edifice of Christianity came from Christianity itself with the arising of a school of thought known as the Voluntarists in the 16th to 17th centuries, headed by people like Rene Descartes, Pierre Gassendi and Robert Boyle -- partly as a response to another school of thought known as the Hermaticists or Neoplatonists, who entertained such ideas as the presence of God in all of Nature and hence the need to study Her workings to gain a greater understanding of God. The Voluntarists' most central belief is the complete freedom of God; He's completely free to fashion the Universe in whatever way He likes, even alter Nature laws so that 1+1 won't equal 2. Side-by-side with this view the Voluntarists also entertained a view of Nature as strictly composed of insentient matter -- totally devoid of any presence of God -- set in motion by purely mechanical and external forces and without any internal motivation (except for humans, who have souls).

    These ideas of the Voluntarists had far-reaching consequences: not only did they lead to the materialistic science of later times, but the very possibility of knowledge was actually undermined by them, because to point at anything as being necessarily so (and therefore as a piece of knowledge) would amount to saying God had no choice but to let it be so, which would contradict the view that He has complete freedom to choose. This was used at first to bring down the Hermaticists/Neoplatonists, but the supreme irony here is that in due course it came to undermine the legitimacy of the Church itself as well. After all, if you can't consider anything to be true and final knowledge, especially knowledge of God's existence, then how the heck are you supposed to know whether there's a God? And without any such knowledge, what footing could the Church have?

    Descartes apparently saw this danger and tried to go around it in his Meditations by establishing God's existence on the first premise that he (Descartes) is a thinking, self-aware being. But (I think) he cheated big time in certain ways. (Huh? You're saying that God isn't all that free to choose to do what He wishes, after all?) Certainly Hume didn't buy his arguments. And he and Kant were later to inflict yet further blows on the possibility of knowledge, above all knowledge of those things that mattered the most, such as God. Welcome to the modern world in which, as Solzhenitsyn lamented, men have forgotten God.

    I incidentally wonder if premodern China might have also contributed to the decline of Christianity in the West. When the texts and teachings of Confucianism -- a religion without an anthropomorphic God as its basis -- came to be known by the Jesuits and brought back by them to Europe, many European intellectuals seized on the alien teachings with excitement, apparently in a bid to oust the power of the Church by saying, "There you go, you can have morality without a God!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Science is always so posh and delicate, it cannot oppose the brutality of a fossil fuels-powered, desperate and vicious Social Contract...

    Watch this recent video on Coal in China;

    It cannot be that the outgoing 20th Century Physics couldn't calculate and anticipate that this is going to happen by 2021, but able to model and know exactly everything inside a Blackhole, decades and decades ago.

    It seems that when supressed, Science escapes to fantasies, like Blackholes, excess power from nuclear Fusion, wind, solar geothermal, etc, while the Social Contract enjoys that confiscation of Science - a tool in its unforgiving doctrine of Huxley's Over Organisation.

    Science and Scientists are so delicate and fragile, they cannot say in the face of a brutal Social Contract, and the armies of Inquisition workers on its (and only remaining across Economics) payroll - your reign is about to end - a mathematical certainty.

    When Science and Scientists forced to escape to Blackholes, the Social Contract itself resorts today to Pandemics and Gulags.

    Science is so honest and genuine at core, in 1865 Stanley Jevons has warned about the Energy Question, but our Western Civilisation preferred to side by the-no-more than a proposal postulating E=mc^2, choreograph WW I, the pathetic experiment of the Soviet Union, WW II and the theatrical Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Ignoring Jevons, who opposed exporting British coal, but instead socialising all fossil fuels worldwide to last drops - the Social Contract has actually messed up with Life.

    WW I and II have proven that Life is better for the Social Contract not to mess up-with, by socialising fossil fuels, as all the tens and hundreds of millions who have been killed in those wars have been replaced in not much longer than 9 months after the wars.

    There are reports claiming the US has burned 3rd of all its oil reserves in the course of WW II, which animated the killing of all those millions - just to have after it - a baby boom.

    Isaac Newton, the Coinage Director, has been buried with the greatest, Jevons has drowned.

    Isaac Newton's Science proved far from being final, Jevons' Science proved absolute.

    As fossil fuels deplete by the hour, the golden age of Science is ahead for people, having humans now articulated and documented for themselves the-bottom-line - "Energy, like time, flows from past to future";

    The common sense Science that explains the essence of a Social Contract and its relation to Physics - shoulder to shoulder and hand by hand - once for all.

    Wailing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This progression from paganism to Christianity to Scientism seems to confirm a human need to believe in something that gives their life context. Great post Ugo.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I assume you've seen this:
    https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I know. This lady is doing good work!

      Delete
    2. The Observation Problem in Quantum Mechanics is considered enough to demolish Quantum Mechanics.

      And this is exactly the case with The Limits of Growth and now Gaya Herrington's piece of work, too.

      You cannot describe the collapsing surroundings objectively and forget yourself is collapsing - unable to be aware of change everywhere else.

      This is why many people think The Limits of Growth has been no more than a weaponised Designer-Collapse Plan, rather than an honest Science.

      Humans must never dismiss the historic fact that whenever collapse occurs somewhere, a build up toward prosperity springs somewhere else.

      A fictitious Universal Collapse has only been imagined by LofG and now Herrington - both being ignorant to the Observation Problem.

      Delete
  9. First thanks for the reflection of the history of the replacement of the Christian weltanschauung by Scientism’s secular religion of perpetual growth and technology as the deus ex machina of the economic system and its ‘unintended consequences’.

    As to the next iteration of worldview. It is perhaps not a coincidence that you focused on the Catholic Hapsburg controversy regarding Amerindians. Of all the possible contenders for an alternative to the dominant paradigm one that is gaining in strength is Indigenous thinking sometimes referred to an ‘indigenization’
    I want to suggest that you take a look some texts by thinkers from this stream, starting perhaps, with a work called Native Science, by Gregory Cajete. It deals with some issues you raised in this blog entry. I think. Also, have you read anything by Vine Delora Jr. who did one of the first and most cutting attacks at European science in, but not only in, Red Earth, White Lies and God is Red? Following on from his work is Daniel Wildcat. Dr Wildcat worked with Vine Deloria and sets out the case for a biocentric, spatial epistemology. Soon after Vine Delora’s death he wrote a sort piece that discusses Vina Deloria’s philosophy entitled: Indigenizing the Future: Why We Must Think Spatially in the Twenty-first Century. Another indigenous philosopher worth checking out is Leroy Little Bear who shows how Blackfoot scientific thinking aligns with quantum physics.
    Recently an Australian aboriginal thinker brought out a book on how and why indigenous thinking is the best alternative for a world view to help humans get through the coming collapse. This is Tyson Yunkaporta, the book is: Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World. It’s an engaging read that I think you might enjoy for its style and spirit, if nothing else.

    A body of literature is building up around TEK, that is, traditional ecological knowledge. Some authors are Dennis Martinez, Raymond Pierotti, Melissa Nelson to name a few.

    By now you will have understood my point. You seem to suggest that a replacement of Scientism (which you critiqued so pithly) will be either with a reformulated Christianity or some kind of regenerated paganism. A third and much more audacious path is turning to the world views and ontology that the Europeans did all they could to exterminate. Wouldn’t that be the greatest example of poetic justice ever?
    Of course, a caveat is that indigenous thinking does not get co-opted by New Agers who are neoliberal wolves in ‘fake’ tribal/pagan clothing. My apologies of you are already acquainted with these thinkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Mr. Troia. A very interesting comment and you raise a lot of important points. I must confess that I am not acquainted enough with the authors you mention, but you make me wanting to learn more. I'll try to do my best!

      Delete
    2. I started with ordering the book by Vine Delora

      Delete
    3. How kind of you. You are very busy I know.. I really enjoyed The Seneca Effect which I had ordered as soon as it came out. If I have an email address I can send you some articles by a few of the other authors, such as Dr. Wildcat's appreciation of spatial thinking.

      Delete
    4. Yes, of course. My address is ugo.bardi--thingything--unifi.it. And thanks!

      Delete
    5. Yes, of course. My address is ugo.bardi--thingything--unifi.it. And thanks!

      Delete