Introduction
to �Was Darwin Wrong?�
My article below was written in reply to the cover
article �Was Darwin Wrong?� in the National Geographic for November 2004, a
question that they answered inside with a very big �No�. Receipt was
acknowledged, but predictably no mention was ever made of it in the magazine
itself. I would like to comment here on this omission from an anthroposophical
perspective, because it directly concerns what Owen Barfield termed �The Great
Tabu� � a prohibition that, like it or not, is still very much alive.�
As all will doubtless know, a battle royale has been
and is going on, in the United States especially, between Christian Creationism
and Darwinism. This battle is actually between two opposing and scientifically
unproductive monisms, a non-critical Luciferic �monism of spirit� on the one
hand, and an illusionary Ahrimanic �monism of matter� on the other. The
Luciferic monism (Creationism) is based upon a literal interpretation of the
Book of Genesis, whereas its Ahrimanic counterpart is based, as my article will
clearly demonstrate, chiefly upon a kind of trick, a seriously mistaken piece
of verbal logic. At the moment there
appears to be very little room for any middle ground in this conflict, but
eventually there will be a recognition of these failings and anthroposophists
need to be prepared for it.
There is a brave attempt being made at developing a
dualist middle ground, which goes under the name of Intelligent Design theory,
but it is rooted in conventional religious thought and as most anthroposophists
will realize this is ultimately not the solution.� It is a middle ground to be sure, and we should be thankful for
it, but helpful though this is it cannot lead to a strengthening of the
�science of the spirit� that Rudolf Steiner bequeathed us, and so, without
being at all negative we need to make this difference clear to ourselves and to
others. A science of the spirit can
only arise out of a monism, never out of a dualism, Christian or otherwise, but
it must arise from a monism of spirit that is the product of critical thought,
not one that, like Creationism,� is
based upon a non-critical belief in holy writ.
A �monism of thought� was the name that Rudolf
Steiner gave to a logically sound epistemological argument that he made in
support of a genuinely critical monism of spirit. Steiner�s �monism of thought�
is simply an intellectual argument. It is not in itself a separate kind of
monism, because there are only two possible monisms, one of matter and the
other of spirit, only one of which can be true (i.e. the true source of all
natural creativity) But there exist a vast number of religious and
philosophical arguments that have been made in favour of them both. Steiner�s
argument � his �monism of thought�� is in my view, and in the view of many, the
most convincing to have appeared anywhere, thereby filling a need that monist
materialism has completely failed to fill. We must not, however, confuse an
epistemological argument with a �monism in itself�, i.e. with the force that
created the universe. An argument can
point to the truth of a given monism and encourage a critical approach to it,
but can never replace it. A spiritual monism and an argument concerning it are
two totally different things, and we mix them up at our peril, because this
leads, like Darwinism itself, to an unconscious dualism (see the essay �Post Cartesian
Dualism� in my book). Anthroposophy cannot (must not) be based upon a dualism,
because then it ceases to be a �science of the spirit� and becomes just another
religion, and a rather weird one at that � which is how most people see it
today.
That with the advent of anthroposophy there now
exist two opposing critical monisms is undeniable, as is the fact that
ultimately only one of them can be true. However, neither science nor religion
really want to know this, because it puts both of them in a philosophically
untenable position in contrast to anthroposophy. But this cannot be helped, it
is not a popularity contest that we are engaged in. If we are motivated by the
seeming need to make anthroposophy popular, or scientifically respectable where
material monists are concerned, and are willing to gloss over the opposing
monisms issue in order to do this, then surely we are on the wrong track � this
is not what the future of anthroposophy requires of us.
�
In the conversation that is going on today between science and religion, many of the participants are trying to ignore this inevitable clash between monisms. They do this by discounting Descartes, whose famous dualism is built out of the same two incompatible monisms. But all that they accomplish by this is to push the issue underground. It is still there in every problem that science must confront, more so in some perhaps than in others. Take the origin of consciousness, for example, here there are two clear options: (i) consciousness is created by the brain � monism of matter (2) the brain is created by consciousness � monism of Mind, and where �origins� are concerned there is no dualist middle ground whatever. Science has so far failed to explain consciousness as product of matter, and anthroposophy has yet to explain the creative workings of consciousness in this realm either; it is one of the many problems that Steiner left for us to solve. There have been some brave attempts, like Robert Zimmer�s essay �A New (Platonic) Theory of Perception and Mental Activity� (http://www.difficulttruths.com) but we still have a long way to go as genuine monists to accomplish this. After all, did Steiner not tells us (in the lecture series �From Jesus to Christ�) that as anthroposophists today we must be prepared to swim or row against the current if we are ever to reach our destination?
Rudolf Steiner�s �science of the spirit� is based upon a critical approach to a monism of spirit, which in turn rests on the epistemological argument that he termed a �monism of thought��that which Owen Barfield called �Rudolf Steiner�s Concept of Mind� (http://www.difficulttruths.com) At the level of intellectual theory this is what ensures anthroposophy�s status as a science. In actual practise, however, it is a very difficult path indeed that Steiner has offered us, because its success as a science is dependent on the gradually maturing cognitive development of each would-be scientist. If we do not in course of time develop the ability to cognize the spirit that Steiner himself so clearly possessed, and that he asks of each of us, then no amount of logical argument is going to help.
Nearly one hundred years have passed since Steiner
lived among us. And humanity as a whole is now far more likely to want to take
seriously and to develop these cognitive abilities, if it first comes to
clearly understand what is wrong with science�s materialistic status quo.
Steiner made it very clear that materialism was a �sadly mistaken worldview�,
but for reasons of his own he did not point the finger at logic. As I have
already argued, in my article �The Great Impulse� (also to be found on my web
site), this may have been because it was then too early for him to do this,
because scientific materialism had not yet completed its essential task. I
suggest that now it has completed that task, and the article below is offered
as my contribution to showing exactly where and how the scientific status quo
falls short in the realm of verbal logic. It is not in any way meant as a
substitute for, or to minimise in any way, the difficult developmental task
that Steiner asks of each of us.
Comments and critiques are welcome.
Don Cruse
Go to
article: Was Darwin Wrong?
