In my last note, I wrote about the effects of scientism on the academic world in regards mainly to psychology. I mentioned metaphysics, but the subject went unresolved. The issue currently facing the academic world in regards to metaphysics, which has probably already been decided regardless, is whether or not to eliminate it to pave the way for physics.
The study of metaphysics, in of itself, requires or acknowledges the existence of the supernatural, and furthermore necessitates it in conclusion. Seeing as how it is focused on something that defies what we know of the natural world, it is not any surprise that the academic world today, which, as I have mentioned, is so biased towards naturalism, would even consider eliminating this school of study. One of the important distinctions to make when considering this discussion is that metaphysics is not a physical science and cannot be measured, it is rather a matter of philosophy. So the first real tension we see in this conflict is one of trying to replace a philosophical study with a scientific one. If you have broached the subject of philosophy at all, you would know that this is an absurdity since philosophy is a study of the questions of existence, not a measurement of the physical world. Science, by its very nature, cannot explain what metaphysics approaches, no matter how advanced it becomes. Science, and naturalists or whoever else worships it, has the extreme bias of only recognizing the existence of the physical world, or the cosmic “box” as it is sometimes referred to. So when we talk about replacing metaphysics with just physics, you have not only denied the existence of anything beyond the physical world, but you have denied even the investigation beyond the only world you accept as real.
Science, for that matter, relies on metaphysics in a lot of ways that we just assume are scientific. The discussion of origins, for example, is a metaphysical study. Origin of life and the origin of the universe, which people who think that science is the only answer subscribe to evolution and big bang theories for, can never be explained by science, seeing as how they already happened, so there is no way to test it, and since we have no way to naturally prove that matter can be created from self perpetuating energy that exists from nothing or that life can be created from organic material and we never will. Because we are just reasoning that it is the only possible explanation means it is a matter of metaphysics. Reasoning the answers to questions that are naturally impossible to answer doesn’t sound very scientific or physical…rather more like the definition of metaphysics.
I wrote these pieces on science because I have not only noticed that more and more students, professors, and people in places of power are subscribing to ideas that entrench this worldview in our society because they think it’s the only fair way of doing things. In fact, people seem to think that the only way to have a real discussion is to not involve anything that’s not physically proven or any spiritual ideas. The religious right is seen as trying to destroy science when in reality the naturalists are trying to eliminate spirituality from existence. It’s a threat to their worldview and any society who has a major component of spirituality will not be the materialist society they want. The French Revolution was an excellent example of this transition. All priests and monks who didn’t take a vow to the state to dictate how they conduct their religion were killed and/or exiled. All church property became property of the state and the state sought to ultimately control people’s religions as well as their property. If you take a look at where France is now, a socialist, borderline fascist, state style where students aren’t even allowed to wear religious symbols at school. It conflicts with the secular humanist nature of the state where religion is a threat to the state.
This is a precedent in the current academic world now, too. Spirituality is something to be studied as a social phenomenon, not a claim to truth. The supernatural is scoffed and rejected on the outright in the classroom. This country has been enduring a purge of religions that conflict with naturalism for some time, and the materialistic, secular human, mass consumer, aggressive society we see today should be no surprise as an outcome. There should be a battle for truth in the classroom, not a force feeding of one truth claim. If you are a naturalist, you might not have any problem with the direction of our society or the state of academia, but just because you have the high ground socially does not mean it should be that way.