"There is a debate today in intellectual spheres over the nature of truth. Truth is obviously a multi-faceted idea, and the fight over which facet of that idea is most fundamental represents a larger cultural battle that has been going on since the time of Descartes. Which is most fundamental, the cold-hard, factual, and empirical truth that science seeks to verify, or the indirect and quasi-subjective truth of morality and human value? Which is more important, the body or the soul? The external world, or man’s interior world? Recently, two public intellectuals, Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, in a series of public debates, spent over eight hours debating this issue. Can there be a scientific morality? Can the empirical sciences speak about the realm of human happiness and goodness? Or is there something about the human person that is beyond simple empirical explanation? This was a theme that Walker Percy himself also addressed in many of his writings. The early part of the 20th century, especially, was the playground of what Percy and C.S. Lewis called “Scientism.” The idea that science could explain all had begun to creep into society as the naturalistic scientific theories of the 19th Century began to be applied to the realms of culture and human beings. This short paper will focus on some of Percy’s essays to show that Percy very strongly rejected the idea that science could provide an empirical morality for human beings: (1) First, because there an is aspect to man that is not directly empirical, but rather “triadic.” (2) Second, because any attempts for a solely scientific worldview for man lead to his alienation. (3) And third, human meaning and flourishing is drawn out, not by science, but rather, through literature and faith."
Comments
Post a Comment