The modern world is founded on science, not only technically and intellectually but metaphysically too. Science is regarded as objective knowledge or as close to that as we can get. It is something everyone from all cultures can agree on and benefit from. It releases us from the ignorance of our ancestors. It has also, in many respects, been a complete disaster for humanity.
Science should be founded on the love of truth but it is not. Modern science has very little interest in truth. Its main concern now is to protect its own interests and power, and for this a materialistic world view is essential. If science were to accept that there were truths, foundational truths, beyond its reach and inaccessible to its methods of investigation it would, in its eyes, be admitting a kind of defeat. It would be acknowledging its inferiority to religion, to revelation and to the spiritual. But it proudly believes itself to be above these things and it does so for the very reason that it is, in fact, below them which is its attachment to the rational principle and the denial of any higher faculty in man. This is like a blind man denying the existence of light just because he can't see it.
But this truth is blithely ignored by most modern scientists, secure in their illusions and, I have to say, intellectual arrogance. Nor do they seem aware that their approach is based on several a priori assumptions, specifically the assumption that the world accessible to them through their methods and their instruments is self-supporting. In other words, that matter is primary. This most certainly is an assumption and actually a fairly ignorant one since it leaves all the fundamental questions unanswered.
We have instead the assertion, based on nothing more than speculative hope, that one day science will uncover these truths as it has so many others though note that it has never discovered a single fundamental truth about the world. Everything it has discovered is to do with phenomena alone which has led to the supposition that phenomena are all there is.
Science can never understand the world because when it looks at it what it sees is a reflection of its own way of looking. The information it gleans from the world can't go beyond the limitations of its reason based approach because all that approach can uncover is the part of life that is open to it. Higher levels of existence that are not accessible to reason and sensory observation simply can't be detected. So it is not that science sees what it wants to see but what it sees is all it can see because what is observed is determined by what is observing and how it observes. A fly sees the world according to the limitations of its mind and so does a scientist. The difference, and it is an important one, is that the fly can't help it but the modern scientist imposes these limitations on himself because he denies a faculty higher than reason. Now, reason is certainly not a false faculty. It is God given, but when it is taken as man's highest faculty and its existence is used to reject higher spiritual principles then the servant has become master and reason becomes a tyrant that insists the world is seen according to its own limitations.
If we note how modern science started we can see the near inevitability of its descent into spiritual ignorance. For nature to be regarded solely as an object of study and exploitation it was separated from its roots in the spiritual world, a world not open to investigation by the new methods. As time passed and the new approach proved highly successful in material terms it came to be seen as the only way in which the world could be understood despite the protestations of people like William Blake and writers and artists associated with the Romantic movement of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. When science through Darwinism came up with its own creation myth its triumph was assured, and we now live with the spiritually disastrous results of that. Even much spirituality nowadays, such as it is, has to accord with science if it is to be accepted as realistic, the very opposite of what should be the case.
Anyone taking the line I have here will inevitably be asked if (for example) he uses computers or avails himself of the advantages of modern medicine. In other words, if he uses some of the many benefits that science has brought. If the answer is yes, he will be charged with hypocrisy. However it's not that simple. We all live in the 21st century and, unless we take to the woods and become hermits, we have to do so. No one disputes that modern science has brought many material benefits. It would never have made the inroads it has if it had not done so, but the point is it has brought them at immense spiritual cost. If we live in the modern world then we more or less have to use the products of science, and we can legitimately do so though I would suggest we should do so to a limited degree if we wish to avoid being contaminated by the mindset behind them. For it is not science that is bad but the mindset behind it, though I admit it can be hard to disentangle the two especially when the products of science reinforce the idea of man as a machine.
And so I say that, while science has brought some good things on the material level (it has brought many bad and unholy things too), these don't begin to compensate for the spiritual destruction it has wrought. But I would also add that it is not science per se that I am attacking here but a science not pursued in the light of the reality of God and the hierarchical supremacy of revelation and spiritual insight to unsupported reason. If science acknowledged that there are truths, deeper foundational truths, beyond its reach then it might begin to acquire a wisdom it currently lacks and which we so desperately need. If it pursued knowledge not for its own sake or even humanity's sake but for a fuller revelation of God then it might start to discover something really worthwhile.