MALICIOUS PHILOSOPHIES
53
upon another mystery; and at best, such a "reason" is simply an
unclear statement of the grounds upon which scientists regard as
unintelligible the
initial
"why" as to the world's existence. But
a mystery is no answer if the question to which it is a reply has
a definite meaning; and in the end, nothing is gained in the way
of intellectual illumination when the discussion terminates in such
a manner.
In the third place, the postulation of an "absolute cause"
or an "ultimate reason" for the world and its structure provides no
answer to any
specific
question which may be asked concerning
any particular objects or events in the world. On the contrary,
no matter what the world were like, no matter what the course of
events might be, the same Ultimate Cause is offered as an "expla–
nation." This is admitted in so many words by Professor Gilson:
The existence or non-existence of God ... is a proposition
whose negation or affirmation determines no change whatever
in the structure of our scientific explanation of the world and is
wholly independent of the contents of science as such. Suppos–
ing, for instance, there be design in the world, the existence of
God cannot be posited as a
scientific
explanation for the presence
of design in the world ; it is a
metaphysical
one."
But just what does an "explanation" explain when it explains
nothing in particular? What understanding of our world does a
metaphysics provide which is compatible both with a design in the
processes of nature as well as with its absence, with the existence
of specific goods as well as with their non-existence, with one
pervasive pattern of causal interactions
~s
well as with another?
There is a high price in unintelligibility which must be paid when
the canons of
sci~ntific
discourse and inquiry are abandoned.
And finally, the assumption that there is a superior and
more direct way of grasping the secrets of the universe than the
painfully slow road of science has been so repeatedly shown to
be a romantic illusion, that only those who are unable to profit
from the history of the human intellect can seriously maintain it.
Certainly, whatever enlightenment we possess about ourselves and
the world has been achieved only after the illusion of a "meta–
physical wisdom" superior to "mere science" had been aban–
doned. The methods of science do not guarantee that its con–
clusions are final and incorrigible by further inquiry; but it is
•o
p.
cit.,
p.
141.
