Modern Science

[Fomalhaut]

It is for sure modern science have given lots of benefits to humankind. But I have to say that I have been very skeptic for modern science for a while. What do you think about it? Is it ethical at all? Does it serve to the evolution of humankind spiritually at all? When something is unquestionable, it becomes a dogma itself. I think modern science has become a dogma in itself in our times.

[Wyrmfang]

Modern science represents concretely the final stage of certain kind of thinking (which began to expand vastly after Descartes). In this modern thinking truth is equated with certainty and the more primordial conception of truth appearing still in the religious thinking of Middle Ages virtually disappeared. If we believe that the world is ultimately teleological, then we of course cannot absolutely condemn modern science and the so called "scientific world view".

The common mistake in occult circles (especially in so called traditionalism) is to argue against modern science and world view. We cannot argue against it because such arguing is exactly the spirit of modern science: truth is certainty and nothing more. Modern science is a deserved fulfillment of certain era, it cannot finally be measured as good or bad. If we are to go beyond it we must let it be as it is, not to fight fire with fire. Modern science and modern world view are allmighty in their own realm, in the realm of certainty. We must concentrate on religion, art etc. and not try to capture science and modern thinking by its own means - namely by arguing that it is false.

When it comes to philosophizing in these matters, I recommend Heidegger, and especially Schelling, before any occult author I know. It is said that Heidegger still longs to a "golden age", and therefore is attached to modernity, so perhaps Schelling is the most forward-looking author in these matters. Some insights can also be gained from Kant and Kierkegaard.

[obnoxion]

The common mistake in occult circles (especially in so called traditionalism) is to argue against modern science and world view. We cannot argue against it because such arguing is exactly the spirit of modern science: truth is certainty and nothing more. Modern science is a deserved fulfillment of certain era, it cannot finally be measured as good or bad. If we are to go beyond it we must let it be as it is, not to fight fire with fire. Modern science and modern world view are allmighty in their own realm, in the realm of certainty. We must concentrate on religion, art etc. and not try to capture science and modern thinking by its own means - namely by arguing that it is false.

I tend to agree with fra Wyrmfang.

I think that the achievements of modern science and the scientific method are undeniable. I also acknowledge that the topic is too vast for me to comprehend, having dedicated my life to religoius matters.

The questins i'm interested in are the kinds of questions that science seems uniterested about or so far unable to deal with, which are basicly the subjective religious experience, and the meaning behind pheonomenon.

[Necrosophiacos]

I agree with Wyrmfang. It is better not to argue with modern science and use it as our ally. As everything is useful within its paradigm or field of application to a certain extend, which may benefit mankind. Taking in consideration the orthodox abrahamic religions, have opposed science and its development, as Satanists, i believe we must support science and its development, personally i consider Magick and Sorcery a form of science the mundame world have not been able to fully comprehend.
In accordance to the original topic, mundane science is very limited despite the achievements, technology have not been able to place man beyond our moon, revive dead organic tissue,make somebody live further than 122 years of age, or cure various illness...also the transmutation of low metals into gold and silver, which according my understanding it can be actually done by a Beta Radiation Cannon which was used on slurry from a sandmine where gold was extracted, but this was stopped because it could affect the commercial market balance of precious metals. Thus is kept underground.
This may be compared to some magickal techniques to alter reality or perception which are kept hidden from the unitiated ones.
But, as everything in the cosmos is cycle of death, rebirth and re-manifestation a bright future of many wonders as the active principle of intelligence is exercised many technologies will pass away, others will be assumed again to expand, influencing forces of nature in one way or the other.

[Wyrmfang]

For the sake of clarity I elaborate my comment a bit. Of course no one can reasonably argue against established scientific results: it is a fact the earth is quite more than 6000 years old (although it belongs to the nature of facts that it is possible in a very weak sense that this is not the case).

But I claim also that we must not argue against the so called scientific world view as far as it does not claim anything incoherent (for example physical reductionism of logical positivists which is long since refuted). The whole logic of arguing is characteristic of modern thinking; this applies not only to empirical facts but also to philosophical truths, as far as truth is conceived as certainty. It is awkward to say that modern world concentrates too much on hard facts and at the same time claim that for example reincarnation is such a fact (although "unknown to modernity").

[Fomalhaut]

We must concentrate on religion, art etc. and not try to capture science and modern thinking by its own means - namely by arguing that it is false.

When it comes to philosophizing in these matters, I recommend Heidegger, and especially Schelling, before any occult author I know. It is said that Heidegger still longs to a "golden age", and therefore is attached to modernity, so perhaps Schelling is the most forward-looking author in these matters. Some insights can also be gained from Kant and Kierkegaard.

Thanks for the suggestions. I have a long reading list and I will add these authors' to my list. I have written at the beginning of the paragraph that it has given lots to mankind. I also did not tell that I do not support modern science, I am just skeptic about its ethics.

[MAF]

Modern science represents concretely the final stage of certain kind of thinking (which began to expand vastly after Descartes). In this modern thinking truth is equated with certainty and the more primordial conception of truth appearing still in the religious thinking of Middle Ages virtually disappeared. If we believe that the world is ultimately teleological, then we of course cannot absolutely condemn modern science and the so called "scientific world view".

The common mistake in occult circles (especially in so called traditionalism) is to argue against modern science and world view. We cannot argue against it because such arguing is exactly the spirit of modern science: truth is certainty and nothing more. Modern science is a deserved fulfillment of certain era, it cannot finally be measured as good or bad. If we are to go beyond it we must let it be as it is, not to fight fire with fire. Modern science and modern world view are allmighty in their own realm, in the realm of certainty. We must concentrate on religion, art etc. and not try to capture science and modern thinking by its own means - namely by arguing that it is false.

When it comes to philosophizing in these matters, I recommend Heidegger, and especially Schelling, before any occult author I know. It is said that Heidegger still longs to a "golden age", and therefore is attached to modernity, so perhaps Schelling is the most forward-looking author in these matters. Some insights can also be gained from Kant and Kierkegaard.

While there is much appreciation for science as whole, with the benefits it has brought to humankind, in agreement with Fomalhaut, I remain a bit skeptical. In my academia career, I have learned how science has come to evolve, and theories that have been accepted through countless experimentation and studies. I would say when it comes to modern science I am 50/50 on the subject matter, mainly because I do not have a full understanding of it as a whole. Throughout my years as a student I have focused on many other subject matters.

You have made great points here and I agree with you on what you've said. The ways of modern science and modern thinking, it is what it is at the moment and we can all agree to disagree. I will look into the works of the authors you have mentioned. At the moment I am starting to gradually understand Strauss and his views as noted in one of his books, if I"m not mistaken Strauss admired Heidegger's works.

[Jiva]

I also agree that it's better to use modern science as an ally. In fact, Iit surprises me that scientific fields relating to physics aren't cited as allegories by occultists on a more regular basis. Ultimately it doesn't matter if the literal science is correct or not, rather that the symbolism the individual uses resonates with said individual or is understandable enough to be used as a metaphor for an audience.

I also think part of some occultists' problems with science is based on mistaking simplistic “common knowledge” with science. There is no ultimate truth in science, just generalities that have been found to be predictable enough to be successfully utilised by humanity. There is much that cannot be explained at the present, or simply can act in ways that are outside typical common knowledge. For example, water doesn't necessarily extinguish fire, the speed of light isn't an absolute constant and can be slowed, and light can be bent. The latter example and the field of quantum mechanics in general – especially relational quantum mechanics – could be viewed as a modern example of alchemical relations between transmuting metal and transmuting the soul.

[Fomalhaut]

I also agree that it's better to use modern science as an ally.

For further misunderstandings I would like to make one thing clear: I did not mean in anyways that humanity should take modern science as an enemy. My criticism was / is mostly for those who take modern science as a religion and support the idea that we should not question it at all. Doesn't it become a dogma itself then? How can it develop and be more beneficial for humanity? How can it be unbiased?

[Wyrmfang]

My criticism was / is mostly for those who take modern science as a religion and support the idea that we should not question it at all. Doesn't it become a dogma itself then?

There is such thing as religious attitude towards science; thinking for example that science can some day answer to some question before even thinking is it conceptually possible. For example, what the hell does it mean that science could "explain love"?

But taking science as the most reliable instrument in empirical knowledge is not a dogma. Science is not one dogmatic structure, it is a multitude of different methods always open to criticism, and continuosly criticized.

How can it be unbiased?

No one claims it is unbiased. But the point of science is exactly to be always open for further findings and to correct its biases.

How can it develop and be more beneficial for humanity?

This is completely another question. I would say nothing can be done before we human beings collectively, scientific or not, develop to a level in which we no more use neutral knowledge destructively. In the end, science is not to be blamed any more than religion (just think about how much evil is also done in the name of religions), we human beings are.