On Tue, 28 May 1996 Brian D. Harper wrote:
"... It sort of struck me as odd tonight that although I have
spent practically all of my adult life studying, practising and
teaching mechanics, I have really never thought much about the
theological or philosophical implications of my field."
This is, I am sure, a common experience. It reminds me very much
of "presuppositions" and how little we recognise them. Some are
legacies of history; some are cultural; some link directly to our
personal experiences - and all have a spiritual dimension to
them. Thanks for sharing that "odd" thought :-)
BH: "In several recent posts I have discussed how depressing the
mechanistic view of nature is. The universe is a huge machine
filled with other machines. ....
One of the reasons I took an interest in the self-organizational
view is due to the rather depressing philosophical aspects of the
mechanistic view of nature..."
Interesting! I've recently been reminded elsewhere that science
is not really characterised by how scientists get ideas,
hypotheses, etc, but by what they do with them once they've got
them. The idealist "inductive" model of science does not do
justice to the actual practice of scientists. Some get
brainwaves reclining in a bath; others during a dream; etc. -
examples which show science with a very human face. In your
case, the "rather depressing philosophical aspects" of your
discipline motivated you to explore another avenue. But science
is not demonstrated by the genesis of ideas, but in the way their
validity is examined. (In passing - is this the real difference
between science and science-fiction?).
BH: "About a week or so ago I started reading a book that paints
a different picture all together of the mechanistic point of
view. Actually, several articles in the book <God and Nature>
edited by David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers."
That book made a big impression on me. I think it is
outstanding.
BH: "In particular the article "Reformation Theology and the
Mechanistic Conception of Nature" by Gary Deason. Here the
fundamental assumption of the mechanical world view is that
matter is passive. Matter has no ability to do anything in and
of itself. Matter comes to life, so to speak, only when acted on
by external causes. This is nothing new to me, what was really
interesting was that according to Deason, the mechanists (Newton,
Leibniz, Boyle etc.) adopted this view because of their strong
belief in the sovereignty of God. To take matter as being
anything other than totally passive was to call into question
God's sovereignty. Interesting."
Yes! This is where one can point to Christian influences on the
development of science. This is where I would place a different
emphasis than Stephen Franklin (cited in a post by Loren) who
said:
".. because God created each entity with its own integrity and
power (this power being dependent on God while remaining
numerically distinct from him) and because these entities can
truly interact, a science of "causes between created things" was
possible".
The science came primarily from prior perceptions about God's
providential government of his creation, not from the perception
that each entity has its own integrity and power (IMO).
BH: "Now I think I understand Leibniz's accusation that Newton's
law of Gravity introduced occult qualities into science. No
mechanistic explanation for gravity existed. Therefore (according
to Leibniz not Newton) gravity was some type of innate property
of matter, therefore God was not sovereign."
Nicely put. I wonder how Franklin would handle that thought.
THE "MECHANICAL" VIEW
BH: "... I fully agree that this is the "modern" conception of
the mechanical view of nature. But if Deason is right, this
represents a 180 degree about face from the views of the original
mechanists. The mechanistic view was adopted so as to maintain
God's complete control of nature rather than to give the world
an existence independent of God. How could such a switch occur?
In another article in the book mentioned above it was stated that
the mechanistic view slipped into deism in the second generation
of Newtonianism. From our perspective its probably not too
surprising that such a slip would occur."
Just to say that I fully concur. My post was focusing on the 2nd
generation - which became known as the Mechanical View of nature.
There has been a growing awareness that Newton was not a
Newtonian! There seem to be a number of more recent scholarly
contributions to the history of science which make this point.
BH: "From our point of view a more interesting question might be
how Newton et al could hold to both the mechanistic view and
orthodox Christianity simultaneously. I think part of the
problem may be the way we view natural law. I think it is a
mistake to say that natural laws provide an "explanation" for
natural phenomena that makes God no longer necessary. .... This
reminds me of what Hubert Yockey told me in one of our
discussions: "Science doesn't explain nature, it just describes
her". How then does having a complete, compact description of
nature suddenly make God unnecessary?
Agreed. The inference I draw from your post is that we need to:
(a) Continually emphasise that natural law is DESCRIPTIVE rather
than EXPLANATORY (at least in any fundamental sense);
(b) Continually resist any attempts to make the cosmos autonomous
- whether in the deistic sense or in the naturalist sense. This
requires Christians to actively promote the teaching of God's
providential government of his creation.
Thanks for the feedback,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***