Many so-called conservatives are buying into the progressive presumption that things are progressing inexorably in one direction, which the progressives think is a liberated future and which conservatives think is a libertine hell. Such conservatives agree with the progressive perspective; they just don’t like it!
It is odd that those who consider themselves “progressives” assign an inexorable inevitability to the course of the future. They scorn those who believe in God for their superstition but they appear to believe in a supreme unalterable will to history and especially to the almighty Future which is predestined to be superior to the present. This is why they can talk of people being on the “right side” and the “wrong side” of history. Those who believe in a bright future ushered in by advances in technology will prove to be on the right side of history; those who are skeptical of such a future are ipso facto on the wrong side of history.
To be fair, such progressives don’t believe that history has a personal will but merely that the cleverness of science will always make things better. The future is bright because science will solve all problems, ushering in a golden age, free from poverty, slavery and religion. Such a naïve faith in science and its omnipotence appears to be stronger than ever in the wake of the blind faith placed in the “experts” during the recent pandemic. Refusing to conform to the judgments and dictates of the “experts” makes one a dangerous dissident and a threat to society.
The problem with those who hold this progressive understanding of history is that they are ignorant of reality. They believe that people behave badly because they are not comfortable enough. When science is able to satisfy all their material needs, people will be happy. It is a view of reality rooted in a flawed understanding of humanity. People are not happy when they want more but when they want less. The key to happiness is in self-limitation or self-restraint, not in self-indulgence and self-gratification. Those who spend all their time seeking comfort make themselves miserable, as well as making others miserable through the consequences of their selfishness. The pursuit of comfort is the path of corruption, or what is rightly called decadence, in both individuals and in societies. It leads to the anarchy which betrays happiness and freedom with a Judas kiss.
The irony is that progressivism is based on a reductionist understanding of science. In the ancient sense, science is “knowledge” (scientia), which includes the knowledge of God (theology) and the love of wisdom (philosophy). Science, in the modern understanding of the word, was what the ancients called natural philosophy. It was the study of nature. The blind faith that this sort of science can deliver us from evil is not real science but scientism. It is a political ideology based upon the worship of technology, not the love of science per se. It is the enthronement of cleverness and the abandonment of wisdom.
A further irony is that many so-called conservatives are buying into the progressive presumption that things are progressing inexorably in one direction, which the progressives think is a liberated future and which conservatives think is a libertine hell. Such conservatives agree with the progressive perspective; they just don’t like it! They fall into despair in the presumption that the progressives are predestined to be on the winning side of history, even if they don’t accept that it’s the right side. They are like Denethor in The Lord of the Rings who spends so much time staring into the palantír stone that he believes the demonic propaganda that he sees in it, committing suicide on the assumption that evil is too powerful to resist and that its victory is inevitable. If, however, we look to the past as a guide to the future, it is evident that the progressive culture of death is not only deadly but suicidal. The progressive utopia is destined to implode in its own too-muchness. When this begins to happen, even erstwhile progressives will come to their senses, their eyes being opened to the reality of the lie they’ve believed.
When the whole of society is heading towards the abyss, Chesterton quips, the wise are in the rear. When the abyss becomes visible, everyone will want to be in the rear!
The consequences of scientism with respect to the real future, as opposed to the imagined future of the progressives, can be perceived by the employment of a technological metaphor. Human society can be likened to an automobile. It keeps moving forward safely and in the right direction with the coordinated use of the accelerator, the steering wheel and the brakes. The accelerator is technological progress, the steering wheel is wisdom, and the brakes are tradition. When all work together, we move forward with safety and in the direction in which we need to go. The problem with scientism is that it has its foot down on the accelerator, refuses to use the brakes and has thrown away the steering wheel.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out where such an ideology will lead. We either have to abandon this way of driving or expect one hell of a crash. And we can be sure that those who drive in this way will not be judged as being on the right side of history.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “Napoleon Crossing the Alps” (1800) Jacques-Louis David, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Insightful!
It seems that biology strived from dust through life (precambrian soul), motion (secondary soul), emotion (tertiary soul), and reason (quarternian soul) towards God, virtue, and immortality, but that scientism is fake science, which presents coevolution as some kind of triumph of the self, while in fact, life, motion & emotion, and reason coevolved with reciprocity in gifts between God and creation, eventually creating and installing the human being in original grace, for charity. Humility, then, capable of friendship even unto death, will be on the right side of history, while unbelief, capable only of betrayal, is soon wrong. The biblical accounts are trustworthy and most ancient, and they reveal God in true myth, virtue in good ethos, and immortality in beautiful logos. Our Lord is creator, redeemer, and consolator of history, only with every soul that God saves. Our Lady is on the right side of history, then, because she agreed on salvation.
Progressives betray their adherence to the most benighted form of chronological snobbery. That is, “We Moderns” are superior to our poor vile ancestors because we are richer, enlightened, and better in every way. “We Moderns” are practically perfect in every way, and will always be the pinnacle of perfection.
Except.
They somehow forget there will be humans alive long after “We Moderns” have turned to dust, who will look on “We Moderns” as crude savages. They have confused gadgetry with progress, and a temporary ascendancy with success. In the Sixties, in college, one observed how full of themselves they were. They had attached themselves to a very ephemeral set of social prescriptions, with equally evaporating grounds for their preening demeanor. As years have passed, and their Brave New World failed to materialize, they were left, behind in their Desolation of Smug.
Excellent point. The ideology of perpetual progress is ultimately self-defeating, for what is now deemed “progressive” will inevitably be backwards if progress unfolds in a linear direction.
Much appreciated insights! Thank you for sharing what I’m sure is on so many minds. Articles like this help those of us who still don’t have the skills to articulate our understanding.
Ah yes, though I will defer to Revelation in eager anticipation of the 2nd Coming…debating the means and effectiveness of those who chose to stand with God or to stand against God is alway interesting between competing and mutually exclusive world views is always interesting.
The best one can offer the progressive atheists is that choices matter while encouraging then to make better and wiser choices.
From the point of view of game theory, consider a chess tournament metaphor: If the best chess player wins with white and draws with black, but the other players risk to loose with white or to win with black by not playing for draws. Then random outcomes between the other players will push perhaps a few of them above the best player in the tournament table. In the long run, the best player will always be in top, but rarely first, while the others who take risks will be all over the table, from first to last. The metaphor is that the best practice does rarely win, if too many people with bad practices outnumber it. But in the long run, the best practice remains in top, while the bad ones go hither and thither. In the City of God, the true, the good, and the beautiful remain permanent, while in the earthly cities that come and go, ideologies go hither and thither. The City of God rarely wins over the earthly city in fashion, and whose earthly glory derives from riskful games with other earthly cities who lost, but the City of God remains in top for her virtue.
Luminous text that manages in a few words to summarize our situation.
Well done. Thank you.
How eerie that I awoke with scientism in my mind a few days ago and saw this article immediately after I arrived at work. The scientism that surrounds me each day reminds me of the dark words of Judge Holden in Blood Meridian:
Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth.
Contrast that with Whitman’s “When I Heard the Learned Astronomer.”
I do not believe in a liberal determinism, but at the moment, Judge Holden is dancing on the bar.