Mondays with MacDonald (on the limitations of science)

by Steve Douglas

December 5th, 2011 | 3 Comments

I would not be misunderstood: there is no fact of science not yet incorporated in a law, no law of science that has got beyond the hypothetic and tentative, that has not in it the will of God, and therefore may not reveal God; but neither fact nor law is there for the sake of fact or law; each is but a mean to an end; in the perfected end we find the intent, and there God—not in the laws themselves, save as his means. For that same reason, human science cannot discover God; for human science is but the backward undoing of the tapestry-web of God’s science, works with its back to him, and is always leaving him—his intent, that is, his perfected work—behind it, always going farther and farther away from the point where his work culminates in revelation. Doubtless it thus makes some small intellectual approach to him, but at best it can come only to his back; science will never find the face of God; while those who would reach his heart, those who, like Dante, are returning thither where they are, will find also the spring-head of his science. Analysis is well, as death is well; analysis is death, not life. It discovers a little of the way God walks to his ends, but in so doing it forgets and leaves the end itself behind. I do not say the man of science does so, but the very process of his work is such a leaving of God’s ends behind. It is a following back of his footsteps, too often without appreciation of the result for which the feet took those steps. To rise from the perfected work is the swifter and loftier ascent. If the man could find out why God worked so, then he would be discovering God; but even then he would not be discovering the best and the deepest of God; for his means cannot be so great as his ends.

George MacDonald (from his sermon “The Truth”, published in Unspoken Sermons, Series 3, 1889)

December 5th, 2011

  • http://detheologized.wordpress.com/ John A.

    MacDonald is wonderful, and only the tip of the iceberg of a great generation whose work was left behind when the rage for analysis came in.

    I agree that the scientist needs to be a strict materialist in the course of his work, but he is responsible for preventing this narrowness of view from becoming part of his whole identity. We need to interpret the ‘great commandment’ to allow for both a scientific mindset (when appropriate) and an openness to the human world of love and duty and religious promise.  The scientist who carries his materialist mindset home with him to dinner is a fool.  The best philosophy is one that enables one and the same person to be both critical and devout.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Once again, well said, John. There is no more faithful supporter of science’s endeavor at unraveling the mysteries than myself, and MacDonald was remarkably supportive himself, but it’s more than a little frustrating to see scientific inquiry turned into reductionism.

      Lewis was good on this subject as well, and as I read this sermon (“The Truth”), I can’t help but think that he owed quite a debt to it.

  • TruthOverfaith

    May this message from our Lord bless you at this special time of year.

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/jesus-appears-in-a-dog-butt/