Between Scientific and Metaphysical Thinking
Amar Murray
A question persistently troubles me when I read history, especially European history: why did the revolutions of religious reform produce outcomes so different from those of other revolutions, such as the French Revolution? Both involved bloodshed within divided societies, yet the difference in their outcomes was profound and decisive. To satisfy my intellectual curiosity, I must travel back to Paris and meet my friend, the revolutionary cleric, once more. Together we can kindle the gentle fire of conversation and keep our minds from freezing in the frost of ignorance.
My destination is Paris during the Revolution, outside the same church. I look around for my friend and find him watering plants in the adjoining garden.
“Good day, sir.”
“Welcome. Ah, my friend! How good to see you again.”
“Thank you. My mind is occupied by a question and thirsty for an answer. I hope you can satisfy that thirst as you satisfy the thirst of these plants.”
“Gladly. Ask your question.”
“Please explain the difference between the earlier revolutions of religious reform and the French Revolution now. Why should we expect this one to transform society rather than fail as those did?”
“Well, religion had come to be approached through its clergy and their interpretations, until those interpretations became religion itself. Faith in God was reduced to everyday details and personal procedures. It descended from the realm of spirit and values into daily particulars that had nothing to do with faith in God. This descent obstructed the development of conscience, that inward witness, the voice of God within us. It also made it easier to control minds and direct them in ways that served the interests of those who, with unfortunate confidence, considered themselves God’s agents.
“All this took place under a single heading: the interpretation of religion. That interpretation was presented as God’s will, bringing destruction upon dissenters in this world and hell in the next. The agent thus indirectly became the principal. The cleric became religion itself, and minds were confined to a very narrow path: inwardly seeking the approval of religious authorities while outwardly professing obedience to God.
“The leaders of religious revolutions recognized the problem of their age. They sought solutions by offering new interpretations of religious scripture, taking a step toward freeing God’s words from human domination. Many different ideas arose, leaving enormous human massacres in their wake, all under the same claim: the divine entitlement of one party, sect or religion to interpret the unseen. Blood became the natural price of an absolute, single-track metaphysical mind. Calvin, one of the leaders and theorists of these revolutions, declared: ‘God wills that compassion and humanity be set aside when striving in His cause.’”
“A compelling analysis, sir. But what position did the thinkers of the French Revolution take?”
“You must know Montesquieu’s Persian Letters.”
“Yes.”
“Among other things, the book examines the intellectual extremism of each side, even as all profess tolerance. Through the voice of a Persian Muslim prince, it criticizes France’s religious institutions, political authority and social conditions. Yet we also see that the critic himself, the Persian Muslim, practices precisely what he condemns in others: the same extremism, hatred and intolerance.
“Rebellious thinkers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Descartes and John Locke fully recognized the problem. Their intervention went much further than that of the thinkers of religious reform. They chose not to reinterpret scripture yet again, because doing so would draw them into an endless spiral of rival claims. Instead, they replaced interpretation with faith and put scientific reasoning to work in place of an absolute, single-track metaphysical mind. The result was a worldwide renaissance and an immense civilizational advance in thought and science.”
To be continued.