Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I have been reading a lot lately works by the Eastern Orthodox lay theologian and poet Philip Sherrard (1922-1995), who, in several books (see The Rape of Man and Nature and Human Image: World Image), issued a radical theological critique of modern scientism. Sherrard was a masterful “deconstructor” of the heretical theological and misguided metaphysical presuppositions that underlay modern science. Influenced in part by the philosophy of René Guénon and his followers – disciples of the so-called Sophia Perennis – Sherrard was able to show that modern materialism, naturalism or scientism has its roots in the distorted image of the human self that was inculcated by bad theology in the modern period. As Sherrard poignantly notes throughout his writings, it is always the case that our human “self-image” generates our “world-image.” This is true of all civilizations and cultures, and our modern techno-scientific society is no exception (despite the silly pretensions of Enlightenment-influenced rationalists to the contrary). However, according to Sherrard, there is one big difference between traditional and modern societies in this regard: the self-image exemplified by modern society – formed by a faith-desire to see the world as nothing more than a mathematical grid – rejects the traditional idea that physical nature and the human subject have an essential connection to one another.

Sherrard argues convincingly that it is modern blindness to the essential connection of the human self to physical nature that is responsible for the environmental dilemmas of our age. For Sherrard, the modern environmental crisis is, in sum, the result of bad metaphysics. Viewing the world as nothing more than a mechanism susceptible to mathematical analysis and as detached from any participation in spiritual reality, modern humanity has, according to Sherrard, sought to “rape nature” for the sake of dominance and control. Moreover, in Sherrard’s opinion, it is little use to turn to scientists to seek a way out of this situation. Sherrard thinks that the blindness of many scientists to the metaphysical crisis of the modern age is total and complete:

Modern science has emerged because, knowingly or unknowingly, scientists themselves have accepted and continue to work within a certain framework of metaphysical or philosophical principles that constitute a reality in their own right and quite apart from the phenomenon to which they have given birth. This is to say that modern science, far from being merely a pragmatic, materialist or empirical discipline independent of metaphysics – and it is this which many scientists would want us to believe – in fact presupposes and implements in its every aspect, theoretical and practical, a metaphysical or philosophical view of things that is anything but neutral, self-evident, self-proven or a matter of common sense. It is this view that determines the whole character of modern science as well as the character of the society which is fashioned in its image.

Few contemporary scientists appear to be aware of this. Scientists are specialists, and within the confines of their specialties they are no doubt capable of producing theories and effects consistent with the premises they have adopted. But scientific knowledge itself has no depth and no complexity: it represents the lowest common denominator of the most average kind of mentality. Its authors have never even grasped the crucial distinction between wisdom and speculative hypothesis based on experiment. Hence once they venture outside the confines of their specialties and try to justify their theories and effects in terms of value or to assess their metaphysical or human significance, they produce only nonsense, because the premises which they take as their standards are not comprehensive enough to allow them to do anything else.

Indeed, judged by the normal standards of metaphysical or philosophical discourse, scientists – but for the rarest exceptions – display a total lack of competence in this realm: the thought in this respect of such a highly esteemed scientist as Albert Einstein, for instance, is bewildering in its naiveté (The Rape of Man and Nature, 11).

Sherrard, in typically modern, Eastern Orthodox fashion, lays the blame for our distorted, modern self-image too much at the feet of the acceptance by Western Christianity of Aristotelian philosophy. He calls for a return to a more Neo-Platonically influenced theology, such as was found in the great tradition of the Eastern Church Fathers. We here at C-L-S would not want to countenance all aspects of Sherrard’s analysis of things, least of all his bias against Aristotle. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that some of the best modern Thomists have likewise called for recognition of the more overtly Neo-Platonic themes in Thomas himself, such as the participation of all things in God, or of a greater appreciation for intuition in the realm of knowledge.

At any rate, I find Sherrard’s “eco-conscious” critique of scientism – though extreme at times – quite a refreshing departure from much contemporary Christian discourse about modernity and science. Too often in the last half-century, too many of the great ecclesiastical figures of the Church have evinced a dangerous ambiguity toward the metaphysical distortions of modern thought and culture…