Review of The Future by Marc Augé — On Scienticism and Creationism

I’m generally interested in anything about time. The past, the present, the future, circadian rhythm, how we feel time, you name it. I don’t know what to expect from this book, but there could be lots of aspects about this part of reality that can only be talked about prospectively (unless you’re anchored to sometime in the past like me who was a bit left in 2012–2016, making me constantly feeling like I live a bit in the future at any given time ever since, but anyways!). The scope of the future this book talks about covers the philosophical, affective, and political aspects.

I find the epistemological dissection of the future, mainly in the first 2 chapters, intriguing. The rest is just okay. And as we go deeper into the book there are lots of hot takes made from a bubble or at least a partially informed position. Or maybe I just can’t agree with the writer on some polarizing topics.

For example, Augé disagrees with the loose usage of scientism term. It’s either no scientist falls under scientism if it is totalitarian, or it shouldn’t be used at all if scientism refers to humans’ capability to learn with indefinite progress. The first point generalizes all scientists to the highest ideal and does not account for the existence of scientism in the non-scientist of his assumption. The second point renders scientism indistinguishable from science. But it isn’t. People can in fact excessively believe in science so much like a superstition. Some people treat big names in science like prophets and act defensively to any disruptive findings. Science is essentially falsifiable, thus maintaining such close-minded behaviour is not scientific at all. I reckon that this is one sign of scientism. Susan Haack (2012) proposed 6 signs of scientism namely: “the honorific use of “science” and its cognates; using scientific trappings purely decoratively; preoccupation with demarcation; preoccupation with “scientific method”; looking to the sciences for answers beyond their scope; denying the legitimacy or worth of non-scientific (e.g., legal or literary) inquiry”. Not all scientists are scienticist but scientism does exist among the infinite spectrum of people. His argument for scientism is not well laid out and anywhere convincing. If anything, it just makes him rather scienticist. He still said that we should approach the notion of progress with science in view, not in the name of science as there is no absolute original knowledge, which I concur with. But his hasty conclusion of scientism doesn’t sit right with me and my valuation of his overall writing.

Also, he asserted that science is the inverse and opposite of all fundamentalism including creationism. Such a notion is made under his own assumption of what the fundamental part is, which I wouldn’t dare to guess, but probably of a stagnant and imposing nature. This is a strange supposition from an outsider of the belief. As a creationist, I just have to say that the fundamental part is pretty simple, e.g. there is a creator, and everything else is creation. This includes the law of nature and everything we can deduce with science. I’m not sure in what ways science is an inverse of creationism, but I’ll take it into biology as a microbiologist. The common belief is that creationism is at least the opposite of evolution, but I beg to differ. I do believe that Adam and Eve are exceptions. But as the order of chemistry and physics is a creation of omnipotence, the inevitable mutation of each nucleotide in DNA can very well be the start of creation. A creator’s existence doesn’t imply a rigid concept of creation. It can be the fixed law of nature, and it can be the ever-changing species in space-time. As nature and creation are essentially the same, they won’t get in the way of each other. The pursuit of science itself is an attempt to read and venerate the creation in association with the creator. Humans might fall short in the interpretation of God’s will, or finding the gaps of science. But it only requires us to postpone the conclusion, and remain open to a future truth, instead of burning the bridge and judging them as opposites.

Disagreeing with the writer doesn’t make the book bad. Contrasting views are actually quite nice as a stimulation for a discussion. It’s an opportunity for me to construct my own position on the issue, without which I would just feel iffy abstractly. It’s also quite interesting to see a French political view. But well, there’s just nothing very exceptional besides the philosophical bits at the beginning. And it’s quite reaching for some chapters to be a talk of ‘The Future’, making this book rather not cohesive. Apparently, this book is a part of a Futures series. As an everything time-related stan, I’m looking forward to what the other 5 books have to offer.

Reference
Haack, Susan. “Six signs of scientism.” Logos & Episteme 3.1 (2012): 75–95.