Saturday, December 01, 2007
“Knowledge is power”
He might not be a young-Earther, but he’s not at all happy with the modern age. Pope Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical - “‘SPE SALVI facti sumus’ - in hope we were saved” - earns him a front page report in today’s Irish Times. The report identifies the key theme in the encyclical, which ploughs a familiar furrow, “Man cannot be redeemed by science”. Benedict points the finger of blame for, among other things, the French Revolution, Marxism and the Russian Revolution at “the foundations of the modern age” which “appear with particular clarity in the thoughts of Francis Bacon [added link]” - and, in particular, Bacon’s ‘New Instrument for Rational Thinking’ - Novum Organum, published in 1620.
As a supernaturalist it isn’t a surprise that Benedict seeks redemption in terms of the “salvation of the soul” but, I’d suggest, it is the threat to those supernatural beliefs, through the use of Bacon’s New Instrument for Rational Thinking which leads him to argue that
“In order to find an answer to this we must take a look at the foundations of the modern age. These appear with particular clarity in the thought of Francis Bacon. That a new era emerged—through the discovery of America and the new technical achievements that had made this development possible—is undeniable. But what is the basis of this new era? It is the new correlation of experiment and method that enables man to arrive at an interpretation of nature in conformity with its laws and thus finally to achieve “the triumph of art over nature” (victoria cursus artis super naturam). The novelty—according to Bacon’s vision—lies in a new correlation between science and praxis. This is also given a theological application: the new correlation between science and praxis would mean that the dominion over creation —given to man by God and lost through original sin—would be reestablished.
Anyone who reads and reflects on these statements attentively will recognize that a disturbing step has been taken: up to that time, the recovery of what man had lost through the expulsion from Paradise was expected from faith in Jesus Christ: herein lay “redemption”. Now, this “redemption”, the restoration of the lost “Paradise” is no longer expected from faith, but from the newly discovered link between science and praxis.”
And, as highlighted in the Irish Times, he goes on to argue
“Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it.”
However, Francis Bacon himself had a view on such thinking, from Novum Organum
“Finally, if anyone objects that the sciences and the arts have been perverted to evil and luxury and such like, the objection should convince no one. The same may be said of all earthly goods, intelligence, courage, strength, beauty, wealth, the light itself and all the rest.”
And Bacon also added an argument which, if Benedict did not seek to criticise that which followed - The Enlightenment - could have seen him call for a return to Bacon’s original ideas.
“Just let man recover the right over nature which belongs to him by God’s gift, and give it scope; right reason and sound religion will govern its use.”
But perhaps the criticism of Bacon is also down to some of his other thoughts.. and their clarity.
“Idols of the cave have their origin in the individual nature of each man’s mind and body; and also his education, way of life and chance events. This category is varied and complex, and we shall enumerate the cases in which there is the greatest danger and which do most to spoil the calrity of the understanding.
Men fall in love with particular pieces of knowledge and thoughts: either because they believe themselves to be their authors and inventors; or because they have put a great deal of labour into them, and have got very used to them. If such men betake themselves to philosophy and universal speculation, they distort and corrupt them to suit their prior fancies.”
Pete Baker @ 02:45 PM
Harry,
The French Revolution created a state church (as Joseph II and other Catholic monarchs had being doing in the 18th century) - it did not seek to destroy religion. Some of the elements of the revolutionary movement did undertake a campaign of dechristianisation, but were halted by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. Religious toleration was central to the Reovlution, and although non-juring Catholics were persecuted, it was overwhlemingly for their connections with counter-revolution. As for the notion that the French Revolution did not grant religious freedom, I suggest you look at the issue of citizenship for the Protestant and the Jews.
On the arming of the people, well the most revolutionary period of the Revolution was precisely when the people was armed, and defended and extended the gains of the Revolution. America has many achievements. Many built on slavery and exploitation, just like those of the ancient Greeks. Let’s throw in genocide too. Oh, and let’s not forget good luck - no serious military challenge from a modern industrialised power (compare France) and unthinkable natural resources, good climate etc.
As for centralisation and subordination to the state. The state, especially in France, was being centralised throughout the early modern period. The early Revolution reversed this, but the demands of war and fighting counter-revolution enforced centralisation. As for subordination to the state and Public Safety, as I mentioned earlier the French were explicitly drawing on classical traditions. Salus populi suprema lex est.
The narrative that you (and Benedict) retail is a coherent one that provides a great story. But that’s all it is, a story.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 01:40 AMYou prove my point about the differences between the two Revolutions, Garibaldy, the French Revolutionaries either tried to abolish religion or impose their own state religion, the Americans decided it was no business of the government to be involved in religions and decreed that it was a matter for the conscience of individual citizens, I know which system I prefer.
Yes, the French Revolutionaries armed the peasantry while they were useful in getting rid of the Ancien Regime, and then disarmed them when they got hold of power. Ten years earlier the American Revolutionaries anticipated this by specifically instructing the citizens to remain armed just in case their current rulers got too uppity and needed to be shown the door, again I know which system I prefer.
In my recollection the United States faced war from the biggest serious Industrialised empire on earth, twice, at the time of its birth, they won both times as they did when they were challenged by another industrialised power a century and a half later. Slavery played no role whatsoever in the great industrialisation of the United States indeed it was a hindrnce to forming a modern dynamic economy. The climate of the United States was no more or less benign than that of Russia or China or Brazil or any other similarly sized country.
Try harder in finding excuses other than its extremely wise and balanced political system for explaining the success of the United States you might eventually come up with something relevant.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 03:42 AMBelated typo correction: “The problem with an objective approach to morality is that it can’t be shown that it is not in the best interests of the individual to act unjustly toward others.”
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 05:00 AMHarry,
I see natural resources play no part in your tale of American success. This seems to me to be the most relevant thing, and shucks, I even mentioned it. Perhaps you ought to read things more closely before going into denunciation mode.
You’re of course right about the early conflicts, but unlike France, Germany, Russia, and even Britain there was little need for it to concern itself with the possibility of war with a major power for most of the C19th, and specifically when it was really becoming the world’s leading industrial power. Allowing it to develop peaceably and get on with things. If you can’t see how the absence of any serious threat played no role in its political or economic development (such as not losing its equivalent of the Rhur or Alsace-Lorraine) then I can’t help that. On the climate thing, the US has much less regular flooding than say China, while the majority of its most heavily inhabited areas do not experience the extremes of cold of say Moscow. This stuff mattered a lot more in the past than now in terms of food production, absence of crises affecting government etc. On slavery. The wealth created by it, and by the genocide practiced on the original inhabitants in pursuit of the railways funded many of the august educational institutions that produced the flowering of science and literature etc you refer to in the last century and a half. As I said above, America has amazing achievments. But to put them all down to its political system is extremely simplistic.
As for the French Revolution’s state religion. Yes one was created but there was also full religious toleration for other religions too. Seeing as you seem to have missed that the first time, I thought I’d repeat it.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 10:59 AMPlease don’t read too much into my not mentioning natural resources, Garibaldy.
I simply omitted to include it along with climate and I also forgot to mention geography, Brazil, Canada, Russia and China along with many other countries had just as abundant natural resources as the United States, they still do. These countries were also populated by peoples who had taken over the lands from original settlers (as is the case in almost all pieces of inhabited land on planet earth) and slavery and serfdom were not exactly unheard of in those societies also, so how come they could not manage to emulate the US’s success?
For your information for most of the 19th century western European nations did not have to fight major wars against rival powers, whereas the Americans were continuously battling (rightly or wrongly) the Indian tribes, Mexico as well as having a massive civil war of their own.
I still say the successful development of the United States’ society was due hugely to the unique political settlement of their constitution, you keep throwing up factors that were commonplace in other lands, do you want to keep trying or will you concede the point?
I did not miss your reference to tolerance of religion in Revolutionary France, it’s nonsense, the Catholic Church suffered dreadful depredations at the hands of the Revolutionaries, if you are unaware of this I suggest you read about it again.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:17 PMHarry Flashman @ 11:17 AM:
Brazil, Canada, Russia and China ... how come they could not manage to emulate the US’s success?
Access to European (at first, especially British) markets and technology; open sea-routes to and from the European market; a constant supply of imported skills from (pre-1775) Ulster and (later) Germany; shared language (and culture) with British and German technical development; a low-cost, high-value cash crop (tobacco, later also grain); an enterprise economy ("the Protestant work-ethic") and a mobile and fluid one based on money and exchange; the Scottish and Scots-Irish education tradition (Princeton, Harvard, Yale ...); evolving production methods to achieve low-cost, high-quality manufacture; the benefit of lacking a non-productive, high-maintenance aristocratic class; an educated class of entrepreneurs and administrators (all those bloody lawyers); the rule of law and an open political society (all those bloody lawyers, again); the frontier tradition ...
Shall I continue?
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 12:45 PMA fine list Malcolm.
Very succinctly put and all of the factors you mention prove my point that the uniquely favourable settlement of the US political system based as it was on British, evolutionary, ‘protestant’ principles of political, religious and economic liberty and tied up with constitutional democracy led to the success of the United States.
Thank you I couldn’t have summarised it better myself.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 02:11 PMHarry,
On the French Catholic church. It underwent some much needed reform, with the support of the majority of the clergy. Then there were the attacks on it you mention. Then toleration was restored, then the deal with Napoleon. As a whole, the Revolution massively increased religious toleration, despite the repression of 1793-4.
The idea that the other countries you mentioned had just as abundant resources as the US is simply not the case, and particularly not when you take into account what was needed to kickstart and sustain early and middle-term industrial development of the type that saw the US forge ahead in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Fossil fuels, rivers, labour supply all within economically viable distances of major population centres. That is where climate becomes important as many of the resources in places like Canada and Russia were simply not easily accessible, never mind the fact that in Russia especially the labour supply was (almost literally) tied to the land.
My point about the US’ geopolitical situation was that it lacked the threat that caused instability, insecurity and massive defence spending in Europe, even during the period 1815-54. The wars against the Indians were nothing like the scale of European warfare, while the Civil War, brutal though it was, was relatively short and an internal affair.
I see you’re now moving out from just the political system to religious and economic liberty as well. So you’ve already shifted ground. I will not concede that the US’ political system made it so successful for the simple reason that it was merely one factor among many.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 03:08 PM*I will not concede that the US’ political system made it so successful for the simple reason that it was merely one factor among many.*
Well therein lies our difference of opinion.
The Civil War, the war with Mexico, the ongoing wars with the Indian tribes were far more serious and disruptive than any of the minor wars faced by Russia for most of the 19th century, Brazil had nothing of the kind.
The Mississippi valley which cuts right through the US flooded every bit as much as anywhere in China.
The wheat fields of the Ukraine were absolutely closer to the markets of western Europe than those of Kansas.
The great rivers of Europe and Asia had been navigable for a millennium before anyone discovered North America, yet still you insist that the Yanks just got lucky with the hand that nature - or God - dealt them and their chosen method of ordering their society (and no I am most certainly not shifting ground, the way society orders its economic, religious and judicial systems are all political) was of no particular relevance.
So if the political system which US citizens designed for themselves was not the most important factor in the success of the United States, explain to me please the situation of the Russian Jews. They for the most part had comfortable homes, farms and businesses in Russia. Unfortunately the political masters of Russia would routinely rob them of the results of their hard work such that hundreds of thousands of them decided to pull up stakes and get on boats to the United States where for decades they worked in menial tasks and squalid conditions but nevertheless managed to forge a lifestyle for themselves such that today they would not even dream of returning to live in Russia even if they were offered their own farms and businesses back.
Why is that?
I say it is because of the unique nature of the political/social/cultural settlement of the United States embodied in the US Constitution.
You believe that there’s nothing special in the US Constitution and that given the right combination of mineral resources, geography and climate there’s no reason why the descendants of Russian Jews couldn’t feel perfectly safe and at ease and prosper in today’s Russia.
I say, right, whatever.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 03:54 PMAnd Harry I say that if you transplant the US constitution to countries without those other advantages you do not get the wealth and achievement of the US. So there you go.
Posted by on Dec 03, 2007 @ 05:06 PMWell no one’s ever tried I suppose but that doesn’t take away the fact that the political ethos of the United States was the primary motivating factor of its success and not the random collection of natural phenomenon to be found in the continental United States.
You say tom-A-to and I say tom-Ay-to there’s not much either of us is going to do to change the other’s mind but at least you have now conceded that far from being an irrelevance in fact the US political system was a major factor in the success story (I say it was far and above the biggest factor) at least that is an advance from your earlier position that the dumb Yanks just got a lucky break from God.
Posted by on Dec 04, 2007 @ 12:58 AM
