This blog begins a series of philosophical posts examining current day social thought in America, and its historical underpinnings. We are all products not only of the current age, but of the ages that precede us in history. While philosophical pragmatism may sound like an ivory tower term dreamed up by philosophers with too much time on their hands (which may be true), it actually is a useful term that reflects 19th century thinking and has had profound implications throughout the 20th century into now, the 21st. In Nancy Pearcey’s book Total Truth, she describes philosophical pragmatism as a distinctly “home-grown” American philosophy that has been enormously influential since the late nineteenth century when Darwinism (Charles Darwin’s theory of the transmutation of species, or rather, evolution at the macro level) crossed the Atlantic. It’s core assumption, according to Pearcey, is that if life has evolved, then the human mind has evolved as well, and all the human sciences must be rebuilt on that basis. This ethic has had no small effect on American thinking, as Pearcey notes, as it has not only altered the way Americans think, but also the very structure of American social institutions.
Pearcey notes that at its heart, pragmatism is a (purely) Darwinian view of knowledge (epistemology). Pragmatism means the mind is nothing more than a part of nature, rejecting the older view that the human mind is transcendent to matter, in favor of a Darwinian view that mind is produced by matter. This presumption subverted both traditional and liberal forms of theism, since both forms make mind prior to matter. In traditional theology, a transcendent God creates the world according to his own design and purpose, whereas in liberal theology, an immanent deity externalizes its purpose through historical development of the world. Notwithstanding the differences between the two, both views hold that mind precedes matter, shaping and directing the development of the material world. Yet Darwin reversed this order, by positing that mind emerges very late in evolutionary history as a product of purely natural forces. Mind is not a fundamental, creative force but merely an evolutionary by-product. For the pragmatists, this “naturalizing” of the mind was the most revolutionary impact of Darwinian theory, implying that mental functions are merely adaptations for solving problems in the environment. So to get this right, our beliefs are not reflections of reality, but rules for action aimed at a payoff, not aimed at truth. As the pioneering psychologist William James opined, truth is the “cash value” of an idea. If it pays off, then we can call it true.
Previous to this system of thought, notes Pearcey, the dominant theory of knowledge was based on the biblical doctrine of the image of God. It is because human reason reflects the divine reason that we can trust human knowledge to be generally reliable. God created our minds to “fit” the universe that he made for us to inhabit, and when our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, they are designed to give us genuine knowledge (more specifically, epistemologist Alvin Plantinga argues that our beliefs have warrant if produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in a congenial epistemic environment, according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth). Yet the pragmatists, states Pearcey, faced squarely the implications of evolution. If blind, undirected natural forces produced the mind, they said, then it is meaningless to ask whether our ideas reflect reality. To pragmatists, ideas are simply mental survival strategies—continuations of the struggle for existence by other means.
In general, pragmatists hold the belief that knowledge is a social construction, in that individuals don’t create knowledge, groups do. William James however, was more charitable in that he allowed each individual to decide what works satisfactorily for them, suggesting that something is true for someone if it meets their needs. In other words, whatever you decide, that’s your truth. In essence, this was the precursor to what we now call postmodern thought, which is becoming increasingly dominant in American culture today. The “pragmatic” thing to do, these days, is to believe there is no objective moral truth, and that we make our own truth. Whatever works, is true. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. But what is important to understand here, according to Pearcey, is that pragmatic success does not make a claim true. And therein, I assert, lies the fallacy of pragmatism. It avoids truth claims, but in so doing actually makes a truth claim which is, ostensibly, an objective truth. In my view, the wholesale acceptance of a Darwinian system of thought that is not properly aimed at objective truth is ill-considered, and will lead us down a highly dangerous path if carried to its logical conclusion. We need look no further than the 20th century regimes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, all of which accepted and implemented, with horrific results, a purely Darwinian worldview. The key question is if that is our inevitable trajectory as we continue to reject objective truth under the rubric of “pragmatism.”
* References:
Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford, 1993.
share on: facebook
Posts
