The Impact of Voluntarist Theology on Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Messiah University Mosaic Biology Educator Scholarship Biological Sciences 8-1984 Creation, Contingency, and Early Modern Science: The Impact of Voluntarist Theology on Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy Edward B. Davis Messiah University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://mosaic.messiah.edu/bio_ed Part of the History of Religion Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the Life Sciences Commons Permanent URL: https://mosaic.messiah.edu/bio_ed/186 Recommended Citation Davis, Edward B., "Creation, Contingency, and Early Modern Science: The Impact of Voluntarist Theology on Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy" (1984). Biology Educator Scholarship. 186. https://mosaic.messiah.edu/bio_ed/186 Sharpening Intellect | Deepening Christian Faith | Inspiring Action Messiah University is a Christian university of the liberal and applied arts and sciences. Our mission is to educate men and women toward maturity of intellect, character and Christian faith in preparation for lives of service, leadership and reconciliation in church and society. www.Messiah.edu One University Ave. | Mechanicsburg PA 17055 CREATION, CONTINGENCY, AND EARLY MODERN SCIENCE: THE IMPACT OF VOLUNTARISTIC THEOLOGY ON SEVENTEENTH CENTURY NATURAL PHILOSOPHY An essay in the history of scientific ideas Edward Bradford Davis, Junior Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science Indiana University August 1984 ii Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee: Edward Grant rederick Churchill 20 August 1984 iii 0 1984 Edward B. Davis ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iv To Kathy and Katie V PREFACE Like many other historians of science, I began my undergraduate education as a science major--physics, in my case--and subsequently discovered that the conceptual development of my field was more interesting to me than the current state of research. Uncertain about my future career plans, I taught secondary science and mathematics for a few years. During this time my interest in the history of science continued to grow, and the interaction between science and religion became the primary focus of that interest. With the advice and encouragement of Professor Richard Rosen, who had first exposed me to the history of science at Drexel, I decided to pursue a graduate degree in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University. I have never regretted that decision. The faculty at Indiana grounded me solidly in the history and historiography of science, raised my sights, corrected some of my deficiencies, and tolerated my idiosyncracies. Without their patience and expertise, my life would be far poorer today. I would like to thank them for supporting my first year of study with an Indiana University Fellowship, without which I could not have embarked on what has been for me a great adventure. Any list of contributors to this dissertation must vi begin with Richards. Westfall, who took to heart the responsibilities he assumed in accepting me as a student. His books and lectures on the personalities, ideas, and institutions of the scientific revolution have been a powerful influence on my own understanding of that period. His expert guidance, constant encouragement, and profound literary instincts have helped this project come to fruition. If he had done half as much for me, he would have done more than enough. Other members of my doctoral committee have also contributed to this project. Edward Grant, whose familiarity with medieval science is second to none, steered me through the deep waters of Aristotelian natural philosophy after the Condemnation of 1277. Gerald Strauss lent his considerable expertise in religious history and, going well beyond the call of duty, intelligently criticized each chapter as it was written. And Frederick Churchill, more than anyone else, taught me the meaning of historiography. Noretta Koertge, though not a member of my committee, helped me revise my dissertation proposal and was always happy to talk about my research. Another "outsider," James s. Preuss, read drafts of three chapters. For roughly a generation, historians of science have witnessed a debate within their discipline between "internalist" and "externalist" approaches to historiographical issues. No doubt some will describe this vii dissertation as "internalist" because I argue from the perspective of intellectual history, while others will call my work "externalist" because I look "outside" of science, to theology, for an ultimate explanation. Though I do not object to these labels~~' I reject the debate with which they are associated--! have no reason to assume that the one kind of explanation is intrinsically better than the other. I would prefer that this work, and all others, be judged on its own merits and deficiencies, without regard to such historiographical biases. Several scholars have evaluated some of my ideas in this spirit, and I would like to acknowledge them here: Dwight Bozeman, William J. Courtenay, Gary Deason, Richard Greaves, and David c. Lindberg. Margaret J. Osler, whose work closely parallels my own, has been gracious and helpful. Because she has written so thoroughly about Gassendi and Charleton, I did not include them in my project. Her work on Descartes is just as good, but does not make my own work superfluous. A project of this magnitude could not have been completed without the assistance of cooperative and knowledgeable librarians. The staff of the reference desk at the Indiana University Library and their colleagues in the rare book room of the Lilly Library all meet this description. They have been, at all times, courteous and thoroughly professional. Barbara Halpern deserves special mention for promptly purchasing several dissertations at my viii request. In recent years the history of science, like other areas in the humanities, has suffered from a sharp decline in the amount of funds available to support research. The appearance of any new sources of support is therefore all the more significant. In 1980 the Charlotte w. Newcombe Foundation began to fund dissertations dealing with the influence of religious values on society. I would like to commend the Newcombe Foundation for viewing science as a part of society and for making grants to graduate students in the history of science. As a recipient of a Dissertation Year Fellowship for 1983-84, I would like personally to acknowledge their generous support, without which the completion of this dissertation would have been greatly delayed. Finally I want to thank my wife, Kathy, whose emotional and financial support made it possible for me to spend five years in Bloomington working toward a goal which often seemed elusive and distant. I owe her a debt far too great to be repaid simply by dedicating this essay, with love, to her. Bloomington, IN 30 July 1984 ix CREATION, CONTINGENCY, AND EARLY MODERN SCIENCE: THE IMPACT OF VOLUNTARISTIC THEOLOGY ON SEVENTEENTH CENTURY NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ABSTRACT Could God have made it true that 2 + 2 = 5? Was he bound to make the best of all possible worlds? Is he able at this moment to alter the course of nature, either in whole or in part? Questions like these are often associated with medieval theology, not with early modern science. But science is done by people, and people have not always practiced the rigorous separation of science and theology that has come to characterize the modern world. Although many 17th century scientists sought validity for their work apart from revelation, divorcing science from religion was something they never intended. Indeed most natural philosophers of the scientific revolution assumed without question that the world and the human mind had been created by God. This was no small admission, for it meant that both the manner in which and the degree to which the world could be understood depended upon how God had acted in creating it and how he continued to act in sustaining it. Fifty years ago the late British philosopher M.B. Foster identified two different theologies of creation which differ profoundly in their implications for natural science. Rationalist theology, which assigns to God the activity of pure reason, "involves both a rationalist X philosophy of nature and a rationalist theory of knowledge of nature." Voluntarist theology, which "attributes to God an activity of will not wholly determined by reason," implies that the products of his creative activity are contingent and can be known only empirically. By a careful analysis of four natural philosophies of the early modern period--those of Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, and Newton--! intend to show that there was indeed a connection between theological voluntarism and empirical science in the 17th century. xi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: TESTING THE FOSTER THESIS 1 CHAPTER ONE: THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277: NOMINALISM AND VOLUNTARISM IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES 14 CHAPTER TWO: GALILEO AND THE GOD OF REASON 34 CHAPTER THREE: GOD, MAN, AND NATURE: THE PROBLEM OF CREATION IN THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY OF RENE DESCARTES 67 CHAPTER FOUR: DIVINE FREEDOM, HUMAN LIMITS, AND EMPIRICISM IN ROBERT BOYLE'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 122 CHAPTER FIVE: ISAAC NEWTON, DIVINE FREEDOM, AND THE REJECTION OF RATIONALISTIC NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 182 CONCLUSION: THE IMPACT OF VOLUNTARISTIC THEOLOGY ON SEVENTEENTH CENTURY NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY 242 xii ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY BJHS British Journal for the History of Science DNB Dictionary of National Biography JHI Journal of the History of Ideas SHPS Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ULC University Library, Cambridge x UP x University Press INTRODUCTION: TESTING THE FOSTER THESIS Creative activity in God, material substance in nature, empirical methods in natural science--how closely each of these involves the other is made clear by an examination of almost any of the great philosophies of the modern period.