So far as I've been told, we mostly owe the Victorians for the notion that society, in alliance with the sciences, is fated to evolve or progress towards a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.
Now, it is sometimes said that the Victorians were merely borrowing their notion of progress from Christianity. Specifically, the Christian idea that the world is evolving or progressing towards a post-Apocalyptic Golden Age of humanity. However, mythologist such as Mircea Eliade and others have long pointed out that the notion humanity is progressing towards a Golden Age is quite widespread, usually has nothing to do with Christianity, and apparently dates back to time immemorial.
Indeed, I am of the opinion that the concept of progress is deeply rooted in us -- encoded somehow in our DNA. Perhaps my main reason for thinking progress is an inherent concept is because it is a key and essential component of narratives, and narratives are ubiquitous to humans. That is, we are a story-telling animal. Everywhere on earth, regardless of the local culture and customs, we are a story-telling animal. How best to explain that fact than to at least suspect story-telling is rooted in our genes?
Yet, if story-telling or narrative is rooted in our genes, then so is -- in one form or another -- the concept of progress, for without some kind of progression, there is no such thing as a story. All you would have are a string of facts or events.
Hence, when we speak of 'the Victorian Concept of Progress', we must be careful to understand that the Victorians did not actually invent the notion of progress, nor did the Christians before them, but rather, they cast or shaped the concept in a more or less uniquely Victorian way by (1) conceiving of science as force driving progress and (2) by conceiving of the outcome of progress as a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.
Now, it does not take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to know what's 'iffy' about the Victorian notion. Namely science -- and those things associated with science (e.g. rationality) -- do not necessitate, do not guarantee a future of rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing. Indeed, they seem capable of leading to quite the opposite! Just imagine science yoked to an Orwellian state and making possible unimaginably effective technologies of oppression! Such is actually within the realm of possibility.
But here's the tricky part: Some people appear to have simply flipped the coin. Instead of saying science guarantees a rosy future, they say science guarantees a nightmare future.
So, is there any more merit to the later view than there is to the former? Or, more to the point: Whither is science taking us? And is it somehow fated to take us there?
Now, it is sometimes said that the Victorians were merely borrowing their notion of progress from Christianity. Specifically, the Christian idea that the world is evolving or progressing towards a post-Apocalyptic Golden Age of humanity. However, mythologist such as Mircea Eliade and others have long pointed out that the notion humanity is progressing towards a Golden Age is quite widespread, usually has nothing to do with Christianity, and apparently dates back to time immemorial.
Indeed, I am of the opinion that the concept of progress is deeply rooted in us -- encoded somehow in our DNA. Perhaps my main reason for thinking progress is an inherent concept is because it is a key and essential component of narratives, and narratives are ubiquitous to humans. That is, we are a story-telling animal. Everywhere on earth, regardless of the local culture and customs, we are a story-telling animal. How best to explain that fact than to at least suspect story-telling is rooted in our genes?
Yet, if story-telling or narrative is rooted in our genes, then so is -- in one form or another -- the concept of progress, for without some kind of progression, there is no such thing as a story. All you would have are a string of facts or events.
Hence, when we speak of 'the Victorian Concept of Progress', we must be careful to understand that the Victorians did not actually invent the notion of progress, nor did the Christians before them, but rather, they cast or shaped the concept in a more or less uniquely Victorian way by (1) conceiving of science as force driving progress and (2) by conceiving of the outcome of progress as a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.
Now, it does not take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to know what's 'iffy' about the Victorian notion. Namely science -- and those things associated with science (e.g. rationality) -- do not necessitate, do not guarantee a future of rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing. Indeed, they seem capable of leading to quite the opposite! Just imagine science yoked to an Orwellian state and making possible unimaginably effective technologies of oppression! Such is actually within the realm of possibility.
But here's the tricky part: Some people appear to have simply flipped the coin. Instead of saying science guarantees a rosy future, they say science guarantees a nightmare future.
So, is there any more merit to the later view than there is to the former? Or, more to the point: Whither is science taking us? And is it somehow fated to take us there?
