There is another school of thought that is relevant to this discussion and that is the pragmatism of Dewey and Peirce. In the absence of evidence, when presented with a number of possible options that cannot be established with any degree of confidence, which option should be given the most consideration, and why? The pragmatist would assert that in such situations, one should always take the path that is capable of generating the most beneficial results for society, the individual, or the institution.
As an example, consider the origin of life at the molecular level. It is fair to say the scientific community lacks the evidence and understanding of the pre-biotic conditions that had a hand in creating the molecular machinery that gave rise to self-replicating organisms. As the problem is so complex and may be so specific to conditions and contingencies that cannot be replicated in our current environment, we may never understand.
So, in the absence of evidence, should we posit a rational transcendent explanation for molecular origins and leave it at that?
As the aim of science is to construct naturalistic theories to explain and predict, there is no benefit to the institution of science or to society to posit such an explanation. Even if such a hypothesis was true, science is not concerned with the transcendent, nor is it capable of testing hypothesis that, by definition, transcend the natural world. As such, this option should not even be considered as it is self-defeating to the goal and aim of science. Furthermore, when posing such a solution, there is no impetus to continue to explore and test and find naturalistic explanations that add to our understanding of natural phenomenon. Such dead-end explanations may very well result in stifling potential knowledge obtained through discoveries that benefits humanity via advancements in medicine and technology. In short, transcendent explanations are benign and have no pragmatic value for the institution, the individual, or society.
The pragmatic position is very much relevant to the creation/evolution debate and the adoption of ID in schools etc. Is it really beneficial to the students of science, to the institution of science itself, and to society at large to interject such benign explanations into the curriculum? The philosophical pragmatist, whether a theist or an atheist would both respond with a resounding "no!" Forget about the details, such a position does nothing to advance the institution of science or society and should be rejected on pragmatic grounds alone.
Another example concerns the existence of the soul and the personal survival of bodily death. Of course, science cannot empirically disprove the existence of the non-physical, nor can it test for such things. The pragmatist, however, would assert that in the absence of evidence, we should reject this world view as it offers no overall positive benefit to society and has shown to be counter-productive to society in many instances. Such a view tends to cause the individual to live for the future and not the present. What happens now takes a back seat to what happens in an unseen world that transcends our existence.
For many pragmatists, such a dualist position also is ultimately dehumanizing because it tells us we are not really what we appear to be -- beings immersed inside the confines of a corporeal world. Such a view inevitably leads to the rejection of the seen for the unseen. If we are living in the end times, who cares what happens to the environment? If we are the last generation, as many believe, It doesn't matter what we leave for our grandchildren, because there won't be any grandchildren.
The pragmatist sits quietly in the corner listening to the debates and occasionally comes forward to offer a slap across the face. The pragmatist would not be concerned with responding to the dualist position on rational grounds; she would simply approach the dualist and offer up the following -- "Please get your head out of the clouds. If this concerns you, wait to worry about these things when you are abut to die, we have important work to take care of while we are here."
Obviously, the pragmatic position has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of assertions. The pragmatist is more concerned with practicality, hence the term pragmatic. There will always be questions that cannot be answered; there will always be an absence of evidence for some assertion, hypothesis, claim, or world view. In our search for truths, it is rare to find the individual willing to give consideration to the pragmatic effects our search has on our institutions and society at large. The pragmatist is simply asking individuals to occasionally pause to consider these types of questions -- given the priorities and goals of our institutions and of society, is there any practical value in heading down a particular fork in the road?
™ Version 4.2
