Mind Field

VIII. The Shape of Things to Come?

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to engage in a little speculation regarding the possible future course of events. I prefer to limit the scope of my remarks to a few specific areas which I deem to be of special relevance to the future of the ideology to which I myself subscribe–namely, naturalism–and the possible role it might play in the ongoing development of human thought and society, continuning on the concept of ideas through time.

A. The building of interdisciplinary bridges

If one were to walk into any college or university to find out how knowledge about the universe is being accumulated and distributed, one would likely notice that the institution has been compartmentalized into a number of departments, each representing a discrete field of study. Whether it be Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, or Economics, these fields have been organized into their own separate entities. They each have their own vocabularies, ways of doing research and a core body (or bodies) of knowledge. This organizational structure may be well-suited to the tasks of research and instruction, but it also tends to set apart, to one degree or another, the scholars of one discipline (and sometimes sub-disciplines) from those of others and from the public at large. And though these scholars are for the most part well-trained communicators and are able to simplify and translate much of their work into language that can be understood by those outside their fields, there still remain differences in conceptual framework that can be difficult to overcome.

While the large-scale topography of academia may be described in terms of these discrete disciplines, when we take a closer look we can make out the existence of certain interdisciplinary features as well. In the natural sciences, these are easy to spot. Even though a specialist in Chemistry, for example, may have limited knowledge of much of the content of the field of Biology, there is a body of knowledge regarding the nature of the universe, and an approach to research, that is shared by both fields. Such a common conceptual foundation facilitates significant back-and-forth communication between these disciplines, with the resulting benefits for research in both fields. With regard to the various fields which comprise the social sciences, interdisciplinary features are rarer. On the whole, there is less agreement, I believe, among these disciplines (and sometimes within the same discipline) over research methods and over what should constitute the foundational body or bodies of knowledge than is the case with regard to the natural sciences.

While it is impossible to predict the scale or timing of such developments, I believe that as time goes on the process of building interdisciplinary bridges among fields will accelerate. Within the natural sciences I believe that the foundation is already firmly laid and we should expect more steady progress along these lines. For the social sciences, I believe that the most significant steps along this road still lie in the future. For instance, since every social science field deals with the activity of human beings, it seems reasonable to expect that any general theory of human behavior, if widely accepted, would tend to bring about a basic convergence in approach among the various disciplines. Also, the links between Biology and Psychology, already strong, are likely to become stronger, mapping out new areas of common ground for a number of social science fields.

As for the possibility of a general integration between the natural and social sciences themselves, only time will tell. On a philosophical level there is no real distinction, seeing as how human beings are as much a part of nature as anything studied by physicists and chemists. On an organizational level, there are many possibilities, such as the development of some new meta-discipline or the carving out of some ad hoc sub-discipline (perhaps in the field of philosophy). What form such an institution might eventually take is anybody’s guess, but it seems likely, given the utility of specialization when it comes to research and instruction, that the existing structure of an academia divided into discrete disciplines will be preserved.

B. The rise of organized naturalism

To judge by the events of the last couple of centuries, the impact of scientific knowledge and the technology associated with it upon our lives will most likely become stronger rather than weaker as time goes by. Assuming that we don’t blow ourselves to bits or poison ourselves into extinction, I expect that large numbers of people will continue to promote scientific ways of thinking. Professional educators and researchers will most likely be in the forefront, as they are now, but many others, for whom science may be either a vocation or an avocation, will probably not be far behind.

I imagine that there will be a growing number of people who will consider everything that exists as being part of nature, subject to universal scientific laws, and who will conceive of particular bits of scientific knowledge as being elements capable of being put together in such a way as to make up a systematic and coherent view of the world. Individuals will differ with respect to the particulars, but as time goes by, it seems likely that more and more people will see themselves as subscribing to a worldview based upon these principles.

As is natural in such cases, some of these would be expected to attempt to build organizational structures to (among other things) propagate such views. Whether such a thing would be called “naturalism” or something else is an open question, but whatever the label, these institutions would necessarily be made up of individuals, each with their own particular views on the precise nature of things, and each with their own ideas about exactly what should be done. Because of this, and because future discoveries and practices might significantly alter the physical, social, or ideological landscape, little can be said with reasonable certainty about what the future might hold for such a movement, except that, once started, it is likely to keep going for a long time–perhaps as long as thinking beings inhabiting the Earth are able to contemplate the natural order of things. And if sentient life exists elsewhere in the universe, perhaps longer.

C. The persistence of diversity

Even if a naturalistic view of the world, in the abstract, does turn out to be a good approximation of the way the universe actually is, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority of the world’s people will ever embrace it. There are those, I am sure, who would see it as the closest thing to truth that we will ever have, but in view of the character of the human psyche observed so far, and of the nature of the human condition, I think it is safe to predict that the majority of people will continue to hold on to those types of belief systems which have heretofore predominated. The hard facts about human mortality have not been done away with by an increase in our knowledge of the physical universe, and coming to terms with them will never be an easy task. The comfort of simple and profound answers to the questions of life’s ultimate meaning and purpose can be very appealing; it should not be surprising if people were to continue to flock to them. The prospect of comprehending, in some measure at least, the awesome grandeur that is the universe, and the challenge of facing the facts, wherever they lead, can also be very attractive for those so inclined, but like with the proverbial straight and narrow road, these are likely to be the few rather than the many.

What then can we say about what most people will believe, if they will not believe in a scientific worldview? The precise makeup of those systems of thought that might populate the intellectual landscape of the future is impossible to predict with any great certainty, but I would venture to guess that those of the present and the past are the best guide as to what the future might hold. They seem to be able to touch something very deep in the human soul (so to speak), and unless human nature changes, those in the future would be expected to have to do likewise. They might be variations or syncretistic combinations of existing beliefs, or perhaps new and original formulations, but I imagine that they would still have to enable one to make sense out of those things that otherwise would seem to make no sense, and to find answers to those fundamental questions of life that otherwise would seem to have no answers.

I believe that the present state of affairs–with a number of discrete systems of thought competing for the hearts and minds of people worldwide–will continue. It is doubtful to me whether any single ideology will ever be able to gain (or gain for long) the allegiance of a significant majority, given the existing diversity of human cultures and historical traditions, and in light of the tendency among people to engage in argumentative discourse and to conceive and formulate new and original ideas. The fact that schisms and disputes are ubiquitous features in the history of thought makes the prediction of more of the same seem a safe bet.

Within this maelstrom of diversity, naturalism should find itself right at home.