Overly-Scientific Philosophy

Through studying and practicing philosophy, I have noticed a trend in modern philosophy, and which has existed throughout the history of philosophy. By nature, philosophy attempts to define truth by reason. Its "evidence" can vary widely, from thought experiments to the nature of existence, which is why philosophy contains many sub-groupings, such as ontology, existentialism, phenomenology, etc., all of which examine life from different perspectives. By contrast, science examines the details and patterns of the physical universe, proposes a hypothesis to explain it, and then collects as much data from the specific field of interest as possible until their hypothesis is either proven or replaced. This can also involve experiments to verify the collected data or hypothesis, corroborative efforts with other scientists, etc. With science, reason is a tool to explain data - not a source of truth in and of itself. But, to philosophy, reason is not only sufficient, but is the primary (even exclusive, according to some philosophers, like Descartes, Plato, Hegel) method of recognizing and understanding truth.

Truth is different from fact, however, the latter being the object of scientific inquiry. Truth is not necessarily dependant on nature, or ourselves. Truth is higher than nature, and is abstract in essence. Its fullness cannot be grasped by exclusive examination of nature and the events of life, neither of which are abstract. Reason must be used to understand the abstract truth.

But the influence of science, even from the time of Aristotle, on philosophy is evident in the trend I have noticed of philosophers using a more scientific approach, rather than pure philosophical reason. Many philosophers seem to observe people's thinking and behavior, and the behavior and quality of existence, and base their philosophical conclusions entirely on this, without any abstraction or reasoning beyond the evident material. This is science - not philosophy.

Because human beings have a tendency to view good and evil as pleasure and pain, philosophers claim they are the true standards of morality. Because people tend to desire their own happiness above all else, without concern for means, philosophers claim happiness is the central desire and purpose of human life. Since God is invisible, they claim He does not exist. Since nature functions by science, they claim there can be no divine intervention or Creation. Since human behavior can be partially understood by psychology and neurology, they claim we have no soul. Since consciousness is a central part of our lives, they claim that when our brain, and thus our consciousness, dies, we cease to exist and have no afterlife. They claim that since a woman can have an abortion is private, it is legitimate. They claim that if a person is adult, they have the right to do anything they please. They claim that since Darwinian survival of the fittest seems to be the way of nature, it has always been, will always be, cannot be different, and since it is the way it is, it could not possibly be the effect of sin or some other malformation in nature. Since citizens of democratic republic states vote, they claim it to be a full democracy without aristocracy.

These are only a few examples where the use of pure physical data is taken as the entirety of rational information available to the philosopher, or at least the only information with any real validity or importance. Anything abstract is said to be either meaningless or nonexistant, unless it is directly attached to nature, such as mathematics and biological patterns.

Personally, I consider this a sad trend in philosophy. I appreciate and even enjoy the scientific method. But it is not the way of philosophy, and should not be. Philosophy is meant to be abstract - that is its entire purpose, however irrelevant or foolish that is said to be by people. Unless truth is seen as higher than fact, there is no point in philosophy. It is merely a tool of science, economy and politics, a mere shadow of its natural status as the highest act of human reason and, in my opinion, one of our most spiritual activites: the contemplation of Truth. This love seems to have died in society over time, especially in modern times, where the material is all that is important. Yet, we continue discussing issues of truth, as we always will. We cannot escape what we are - rational, curious, sentient, moral beings. I only wish people could see the deep spirituality and the uniquely human activity of contemplating truth. What else could be more important? Even God Himself said, "I AM the Truth". By contemplating truth, who else are we contemplating but God? What could be more spiritual?