arndt@lymph.DEC (08/12/85)
To Al Alqustyniak who said that "he should know better than to
argue with Ken Arndt' over what Whitehead said about the rise of
science vis a vis Christian belief:
I had made the comment that "science as we know it rose only under
the Christian world-view. A statement Whitehead, Oppenheimer and others
have made as well."
I've got the print out of it all somewhere in this great mess of
stuff in my den here at home, but at this point it's exact location
(and motion?) are known perhaps only to God. Al gave a quote from
what he remembered as a statement from one of Whitehead's books he
thought was called, "Science and Reality" to the effect that "science
rose AGAINST the Christian world-view". Now he didn't give the reference
but he asked me to look it up. Unless he's refering to a different
Whitehead (not Lord Alfred North) I don't know what he is talking about.
And he said he's leaving the net! So if anyone has contact with him,
please forward my reply, as late as it is. Thanks.
Could Al perhaps be refering to Whitehead's book PROCESS AND REALITY???
Especially the part "An Essay on Cosmology". It gives Whitehead's
statement of his metaphysical philosophy but in very technical and hard
to read style not the least because of his use of traditional terms in
new ways.
Alfred says in his book SCIENCE AND THE MODERN WORLD, Mentor, '25, the
first chapter entitled, "The Origins of Modern Science":
(He points out the debt to Aristotle and then goes on to speak of the
debt modern science owes to the Christian world-view.)
"I do not think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest
contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement.
I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurence can be
correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner,
exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible
labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive
conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power
of research - that there is a secret, a secret which can be revealed. How has
this conviction been so vividly implanted on the European mind?"
"When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other
civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its
origin. It must come from the medieval insistance on the rationality of
God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality
of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search
into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.
Remember that I am not talking of the explicit beliefs of a few individuals.
What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned
faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not
a mere creed of words."
"In Asia, the conceptions of God were of a being who was either too arbitrary
or too impersonal for such ideas to have much effect on instinctive habits of
mind. ANY DEFINITE OCCURRENCE MIGHT BE DUE TO THE FIAT OF AN IRRATIONAL
DESPOT, OR MIGHT ISSUE FROM SOME IMPERSONAL, INSCRUTABLE ORIGIN OF THINGS.
(italics mine) There was not the same confidence as in the intelligible
rationality of a personal being. I am not arguing that the European trust
in the scrutability of nature was logically justified even by its own theology.
My only point is to understand how it arose. MY EXPLANATION IS THAT THE FAITH
IN THE POSSIBILITY OF SCIENCE, GENERATED ANTECEDENTLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MODERN SCIENCIFIC THEORY, IS AN UNCONSCIOUS DERIVATIVE FROM MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY."
(again italics mine) Pg. 19
So as far as what Whitehead said, I just don't know what Al was talking about.
I have previously mentioned a book by Stanley L. Jaki, SCIENCE AND CREATION,
Science History Publications, NY, '74. He makes the same points as Whitehead
above in MUCH detail covering many civilizations. See also his new book,
(I've ordered it but haven't read it yet) UNEASY GENIUS: THE LIFE AND WORK OF
PIERRE DUHEM. Duhem, a historian of science writing early in this century,
traced the beginnings of modern physics back PAST Galileo and his teachers to
CHRISTIAN teachers of the 1300s (Buridan) who formed the basis of Newton's
First Law.
By the way, Jaki has a very interesting article in the current National Review
(Aug.23) entitled, "On Whose Side Is History?" in which he addresses these
issues and mentions how Professor Needham (known to all who study the history
of science), and a marxist, in writing his seven volume series on the history
of science in China expected to account for it, or the lack of it, on the
basis of a marxian interpretation to the effect that the feudal lords and
their economy were the reason science did not flurish but died still born.
However, by volume two Needham (1955) had reached a totally different
conclusion! THE CHINESE OF OLD FAILED IN SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY HAD FAILED IN
THEOLOGY!!! HAVING REJECTED, SOMETIME IN THE EARLY SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C.,
THEIR BELIEF IN A PERSONAL, RATIONAL, AND TRANSCENDENTAL CREATOR, A LAWGIVER,
THE CHINESE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY OF THE HUMAN MIND TO FATHOM THE
LAWS OF NATURE!!! (italics mine) pg.41
Well, you get my drift. I could go on and on and quote chapter and verse
on the topic but you too have libraries at your call.
Remember, I am NOT saying one has to so believe in order to DO science NOW,
merely (ha) that it appears - and is the conviction of a goodly number of
very different people (Whitehead, Jaki, Needham for example) that basic
beliefs of the CHRISTIAN FAITH uphold the assumptions modern science is
founded upon. I would also say that any MEANING to come from our examination
of the world through science must come from a 'religious' task, but that's
another article, eh? I've already stated my conviction that science is at
bottom a 'religious' venture and here I was trying to show that that's
ACTUALLY how it started for modern science!
Regards,
Ken Arndtalan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (08/23/85)
[ I know that i know that i shouldn't try to argue with Ken... ] Excuse me for continuing this discussion on .origins, but this is the last i have to say on the subject. Synopsis: Ken A. says that Alfred Whitehead said, in effect, that science as we know it rose only UNDER the Christian world-view. I replied that he said that it rose AGAINST the Christian (rationalist) world-view. I mangled my reference, but it was, as Ken notes, SCIENCE AND THE MODERN WORLD. Ken then quoted from the book quotes indicating that he idea is right and mine wrong. Needless to say, this note is not an admission my idea is wrong. Ken, your out-of-context quotes are convincing (the main reason i am replying is to not leave our readers with the wrong idea they give). The reason they are so convincing is that Whitehead doesn't see history as black-and-white [surprise!] and is not trying to present a completely one-sided arguement. So, the book is strewn with seemingly contradictory stmts. He is trying to give the whole picture. To understand what he is trying to say, you (dear net-readers) must, unfortuately, read the book and not exerpts. I have succumbed to providing my own set of quotes from the book, at the end of this article; but, Ken, with Whitehead we can throw quotes at each other forever without getting anywhere. The fact is that while i read the book and afterwards, it was clear to me that one of his main reasons for writing it was to convince us that science rose AGAINST the rationalist world-view. That world view was created by Aristotle and carried by the Christian religion, reaching its culmination with St. Thomas Aquinas. In my opinion, the Christian world-view is still primarily rationalism. I love talking about these things, but hate writing; i don't have the time. Also, access to the usenet is now an inconvinience for me. I will continue reading several of the newsgroups, but cannot afford to carry on dialogues on the net. My quotes follow: ---------- From SCIENCE AND THE MODERN WORLD chapter: The Origins of Modern Science [ Whitehead describes Aristotle's world-view ] The Greek view of nature...was essentially dramatic...It conceived nature as articulated in the way of a work of dramatic art. Nature was a drama in which each thing played its part...[This] was the view which subsequent Greek thought extracted from Aristotle and passed on to the Middle Ages. chapter: Science and Philosophy [ Whitehead states that Aquinas was an Aristotelian ] (p.s. everyone should already know this) The reason why I have put Descartes and James in close juxtaposition is now evident...[T]hey are both to be contrasted with St. Thomas Aquinas, who expressed the culmination of Aristotelian scholasticism. [ In the rest of the quotes Whitehead states that science rose AGAINST rationalism ]. chapter: The Origins of Modern Science [In 'Dialogues on the Two Systems of the World] Galileo keeps harping on how things happen...It is a great mistake to conceive this historical revolt as an appeal to reason. On the contrary, it was through and through an anti-intellectualist movement. It was a return to the contemplation of brute fact; and it was based on a recoil from the inflexible rationality of medieval thought. later in the chapter: Science has never shaken off the impress of its origin in the historical of the later Renaissance. It has remained predominantly an anti-retionalistic movement... later in the chapter: The popularity of Aristotelian Logic retarded the advance of physical science throughout the Middle Ages. If only the schoolmen had measured instead of classifying... Chapter: The Century of Genius (first page): ...the unbridled rationalism of the thought of the later Middle Ages. By this rationalism I mean that the believe that the avenue to truth was predominantly through a metaphysical analysis of the nature of things, which would thereby determine how things acted and functioned. The historical revolt was the definite abandonement of this method in favor of the study of emperical facts... --------- PS: One last comment: I don't agree with Whitehead's ideas on these matters; i just want to set the record straight about his views. alan