Science and causal schism
Dear XYZ,
At some point, science overtook religion as the predominant way in which people explain their experience. However, these two explanatory approaches operate differently. One big difference is how each handles arguably the biggest question that any of us would encounter — “why am I here?”
To better understand this divide, we can use Aristotle’s notion of the four causes, which he used to understand why something is. The four causes are material, formal, efficient, and final. We’re only interested in the latter two, so I’ll be focusing on them. According to Aristotle, an efficient cause explains how something came to be, which can also be understood as a mechanical explanation. On the other hand, a final cause explains the purpose of something, in philosophical terms, one might call it teleological explanation.
Let’s use a chair as an example. The efficient cause of a chair is the carpenter and the processes that were taken to go from raw materials to a chair. The final cause of a chair (i.e. its purpose) is to be sat on.
When it comes to existential questions like, “why am I here?” Religion often answers both questions, whereas science answers only the first question. For instance, Christianity (roughly) posits that God created people — the efficient cause — and that our purpose is to seek salvation through Christ — the final cause. Science, answers the same question with a series of occurrences that got us where we are — Big Bang, evolution. In some ways, we can think of it as a schism between the past and the future. Both offer stories about how we got here, but only religions give us a direction of where we go from here. One could possibly argue that science tells us what we are mammals with innate desires to survive, reproduce, and gain social status. However, knowing that hardly gives us an aspirational North Star, or any semblance of what it means to do those well.
So what? Why is this important? I often revisit a part of David Foster Wallace’s speech This is Water:
…in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. David Foster Wallace
Many people will now consider themselves as atheists or perhaps more loosely, not subscribe to any organized religion. However, that does not mean that they don’t believe in anything, it just means that whatever they believe in may not have a simple label. Unless we are deliberate, most of us will simply take on the path of least resistance and adopt the values of mass culture. For instance, we frame ourselves as consumers, and our purpose is to buy goods and services to make us feel better about ourselves. Or perhaps we might frame ourselves as utility-maximizing rationalists, as the economists like to imagine.
The causal schism brought about by the strength of science in explaining efficient causes but its weakness in final causes means that for many of us are educated scientifically, our default disposition is one void of meaning. This is related to Nietzsche’s lamentation that “God is dead […] And we have killed him.” Modernity is often one lacking in meaning and purpose.
So it falls to each one of us to understand, interpret, and formulate what meaning means to ourselves. What values do we hold dear? And what do we consider sacred? These are things that modern life tends to ignore, but I think are extremely important for us to live a good life — one filled with meaning and fulfillment.
Good luck on your journey.
xoxo,
K