Irawan Wiharja

 WHERE IS WESTERN SCIENTIFIC CIVILIZATION GOING?

In recent centuries, the baton of knowledge has been held by Western scientific civilization—but since Immanuel Kant, in particular, who limited the scope of reason to the realm of phenomena—then the emergence of empiricist thinkers—followed by the proclamation of the Vienna School—we understand where science in Western civilization is headed.

The lurking danger, particularly feared by religious scholars, is when humans only understand the physical world but are blind to the metaphysical dimension beyond the physical. Rationality is distorted, swept away by the strong current of empiricism. Rationality is reduced to the empirical. The door of rationality to metaphysics is firmly closed.

But this is also a characteristic of the end times foretold by the prophets: when a one-eyed perspective becomes dominant—it is like a play that has almost entered its final act—the sign is when the antagonists have taken control of the stage.

..........

And today the world is witnessing the dominance of Western scientific civilization, which has also emerged as a worldview of science based on empiricism—framed by positivism and, on the other hand, utilized by materialists in a different way.

However, the method Science is never singular. It is not just empiricism; rationalism serves as another foundation for understanding reality. Even in the revealed religious tradition, the horizon is much broader: there is the realm of essence (the deepest ontological truth) and the realm of wisdom (meaningful wisdom that transcends mere data).

However, the tradition of modern Western scientific civilization has indeed chosen a very specific path: rigorous proof based on observation and verification. Since the rise of Francis Bacon and David Hume, Western epistemology has moved toward radical empiricism—where something is considered "meaningful" if it can be verified sensorily. This culminated in the Logical Positivism movement, which explicitly removed metaphysics from the scientific realm.

The result is clear: reality is reduced solely to what can be physically measured. Questions about meaning, purpose, and ultimate cause are no longer considered matters of science, but merely speculation or even linguistic illusions.

In fact, if we look to the broader philosophical tradition—from Immanuel Kant to Ibn Arabi—we will discover the realization that reality does not stop at phenomena. Kant himself recognized the limits of empirical reason with the concept of noumena (das Ding an sich), while Ibn Arabi spoke of layers of reality that can only be uncovered through inner purification and spiritual intuition.

At this point, we must be honest: modern science does have a strong tradition of explaining the physical "how," but it often remains silent when asked about the deepest "why." It can explain the mechanisms of nature, but it fails to answer the purpose of existence.

Therefore, it would be too shallow to reduce this brief life to merely collecting empirical facts, only to end up meaningless. Humans are not merely sensing creatures, but also meaning-seeking creatures. They ask not only "what happened," but "why do I exist" and "where is all this leading?"

This is where religion and metaphysics do not exist as "gap-fillers" (gods of the gaps), but rather as horizons of meaning—ones that have always existed in a different realm from science. Science explains the structure of the world—revelation, and wisdom explains the meaning of existence within that structure.

If both are understood proportionally, there is no conflict—instead, there is completeness: reason bridges, empiricism tests, rationalism structures, and revelation provides direction.

Without a sense of purpose in life, knowledge may be abundant—but empty of meaning—empty of spiritual happiness.

==================

===================

Note: Comte adds the word science and observation together. So "if science (is) grounded in observation." The 'if' equates to a wide range of probabilities and the missing (IS)? What 'IS' lends itself to a qualification of the observer acting as the empiricist. I believe that makes a causal relationship to examine, theoretically, everything plausibly made into something of observance. I am a big believer in what acts as theoretically based. My point is why - why make inferentially relevant material into something non-material in nature. (i.e. the linear vs. the abstract) My second point follows that ontological reasoning has a place in philosophy if the philosopher has engaged as a source of her language. Both reflect meaning and purpose as stated in Irawan's dissertation.

- Marco