|
TWO BROAD PERSPECTIVES IN
THE RISE OF SCIENCE…
A HISTORICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL
OVERVIEW
THE PRIMACY OF THE IDEA….PLATO
THE FORM OR THE UNIVERSAL IS PERMANENT AND REAL
THE WORLD IS AS A CAVE
Key text from The Republic: Book 7
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the
shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows;
and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he now
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
|
|
|
WE SEEK TO FIND RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE…THE WORLD OF SENSE PERCEPTION IS AT BEST DECEPTIVE….BUT WE NEED IT TO REALIZE THE IDEAS…
THE WORLD OF MATTER…ARISTOTLE
THE FORM OR THE IDEA IS IN MATTER. THUS WE HAVE THE LAWS OF CAUSALITY:
- THE FORMAL CAUSE--THE IDEA OF THE STATUE "IN" MARBLE
- THE MATERIAL CAUSE--THE BLOCK OF MARBLE
- THE EFFICIENT CAUSE--THE SCULPTOR
- THE FINAL CAUSE--WHY THE STATUE WAS MADE
Key text from the Metaphysics:
16
But those who say the Forms exist, in one respect are right, in giving the Forms separate existence, if they are substances; but in another respect they are not right, because they say the one over many is a Form. The reason for their doing this is that they cannot declare what are the substances of this sort, the imperishable substances which exist apart from the individual and sensible substances. They make them, then, the same in kind as the perishable things (for this kind of substance we know)--'man-himself' and 'horse-itself', adding to the sensible things the word 'itself'. Yet even if we had not seen the stars, none the less, I suppose, would they have been eternal substances apart from those which we knew; so that now also if we do not know what non-sensible substances there are, yet it is doubtless necessary that there should he some.-Clearly, then, no universal term is the name of a substance, and no substance is composed of substances.
17
Let us state what, i.e. what kind of thing, substance should be said to be, taking once more another starting-point; for perhaps from this we shall get a clear view also of that substance which exists apart from sensible substances. Since, then, substance is a principle and a cause, let us pursue it from this starting-point. The 'why' is always sought in this form--'why does one thing attach to some other?' For to inquire why the musical man is a musical man, is either to inquire--as we have said why the man is musical, or it is something else. Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for (to give meaning to the question 'why') the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident-e.g. that the moon is eclipsed-but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical', unless one were to answer 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this'; this, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question). But we can inquire why man is an animal of such and such a nature. This, then, is plain, that we are not inquiring why he who is a man is a man. We are inquiring, then, why something is predicable of something (that it is predicable must be clear; for if not, the inquiry is an inquiry into nothing). E.g. why does it thunder? This is the same as 'why is sound produced in the clouds?' Thus the inquiry is about the predication of one thing of another. And why are these things, i.e. bricks and stones, a house? Plainly we are seeking the cause. And this is the essence (to speak abstractly), which in some cases is the end, e.g. perhaps in the case of a house or a bed, and in some cases is the first mover; for this also is a cause. But while the efficient cause is sought in the case of genesis and destruction, the final cause is sought in the case of being also.
THUS WHAT DOES EACH PURSUE?
SCIENCE INVESTIGATES THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND DEMANDS PROOF FOR ITS REALITY
RELIGION INVESTIGATES THE SPIRITUAL WORLD AND DEMANDS ACCEPTANCE OF ITS REALITY WITHOUT PROOF...
THAT’S THE THING ABOUT FAITH. IF YOU
HAVE IT, NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY;
IF YOU DO NOT, NO EXPLANATION WILL WORK
[Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Major Kira]
IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN THE SPIRITUAL
AND THE PHYSICAL?
WHAT CONSTITUTES AUTHORITY?
REASON--WHAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT USING...
FAITH--WHAT REVELATION FROM SOME OTHER AUTHORITY TELLS US
1--SOME BELIEVER WE TRUST
2--SOME TRADITION WE ACCEPT
CLASSICAL PERIOD AS NOTED ABOVE...
A-PLATO AND FORMS OUTSIDE MATTER-THE GOOD
1--THE TIMAEUS--THE MAKER
2--ARE THE IDEAS COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY? TO WHAT DOES THE MAKER LOOK FOR A MODEL? DOES GOD "LOOK"?
1--THE FOUNDER OF SCIENCE
2--WHAT IS OBSERVABLE CAN BE CLASSIFIED AND STUDIED
3--INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION:
4-ETHICS--WE BECOME VIRTUOUS BY FORMING VIRTUOUS HABITS...
5-THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOLDEN MEAN:
Excess.............. Mean ........... Deficiency
Fear / Confidence
Rashness...Courage...Cowardice
Vanity...Magnanimity... Cowardice
Irascibility...Patience...Submissive
THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY
--AQUINAS--MELDS ARISTOTLE AND THE CHURCH REASON IS USED TO TEACH FAITH
--AUGUSTINE--FAITH IS REQUIRED FOR SALVATION
--REFORMATION:
LUTHER--FAITH JUSTIFIES
--REASON AND SCIENCE = HERESY
THE RENAISSANCE
GALILEO--"THE BIBLE TEACHES HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN, NOT HOW THE HEAVENS GO…”
BACON--THE FOUR IDOLS--TRIBE, DEN, MARKET PLACE, THEATER: GET TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THINGS VS. SCHOLASTICISM
1--GENESIS IS WRONG???
2--THE RISE OF TECHNOLOGY--TELESCOPE
3--THE MIND MATTER CONTROVERSY
A--DESCARTES--INNATE KNOWLEDGE-REALISM
WHAT CAN BE KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY:
1-MOVE FROM THE COMPLEX TO SIMPLE
2-WHAT YOU SAY IS NOT DEPENDENT
ON ANYTHING ELSE
3-USE WHAT YOU FIND TO BUILD…
4COMBINES DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION-
5-SOME KNOWLEDGE IS INNATE
“COGITO ERGO SUM”
DESCARTES WANTS: 2 + 2 = 4 IN ETHICS; MIND AND MATTER ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, AND KNOWLEDGE [OF GOD] IS INNATE
B --LOCKE AND THE TABULA RASA--NOMINALISM
1-KNOWLEDGE IS A PRODUCT OF WHAT
THE SENSE EXPERIENCES
2-IDEAS ARE FROM THE SIMPLE TO THE COMPLEX
3-LIMITS MUST BE PLACED ON WHAT THE MIND CAN KNOW
4-WE MUST BE CONCERNED WITH WHAT HUMAN CONDUCT CAN EXPLAIN
TOWARD MODERN TIMES
DEISM--GOD AND NEWTON..LAWS OF NATURE
EVOLUTION--GENESIS WRONG AGAIN BUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
UTILITY:
--BENTHAM--PHYSICAL REALITY
--MILL--SPIRITUAL REALITY
EXISTENTIALISM:
--KIERKEGAARD-LEAP OF FAITH TO GOD
--SARTRE--LEAP OF FAITH TO OURSLEVES-WE ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY
BACON--TWO WAYS TO KNOW GOD--WRITTEN SCRIPTURE AND NATURAL SCRIPTURE (I.D.)
GALILEO--GOD GAVE US REASON TO USE TO KNOW HIM: THE BIBLE TEACHES HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN, NOT HOW THE HEAVENS GO.
DARWIN--EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT, NOR IS IT INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
MIRACLE
FAITH
-AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT THAT
INTERRUPTS THE LAWS OF NATURE
-GOD ACTED FOR A REASON
SCIENCE:
-WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS BEFORE AND AFTER THE EVENT?
-WE USE THE PHRASE MEDICAL MIRACLE
MY PHILOSOPHY OF STAR TREK CLASS CONSIDERS THESE ISSUES IN GREATER DETAIL USING:
- GENE RODDENBERRY'S HUMANIST INTERVIEW--SECULAR HUMANISM = UTOPIA
- SHELLEY'S NECESSITY OF ATHEISM
- SARTRE'S EXISTENTIALISM AS A HUMANISM
AN EXCELLENT PHILOSOPHICAL
SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL THAT DEBATES
THE 'SCIENCE-FAITH' CONTROVERSY IS
WALTER MILLER'S
A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ
&
AN IN DEPTH STUDY OF THE FAITH vs. SCIENCE
CONTROVERSY IS EXPLICATED by RICHARD E.
RUBENSTEIN: ARISTOTLE'S CHILDREN
HARCOURT BOOKS, 2003.
Chapter VIII provides a thought-provoking summary of the text enriched with contemporary examples that deconstruct predispositions many hold regarding his topic. Some excerpts follow...
1. "What is mythical is the idea that faith and reason have always been implacable enemies--an idea that implies that any other relationship between them is impossible." (p. 273)
2. In the 1300's Bishop Buridan demonstrated that Aristotle's belief that two types of motion existed was open to question. Oresme postulated that the earth did not remain fixed in the sky, quite an argument from a bishop as such protocols tended to contradict a literal read of Sacred Scripture. Ironically, Aristotle was used to deconstruct Aristotle, p. 279. {Instructor's note: Aristotle must have learned much about Socratic irony...why was The Republic written?}
3. Rubenstein argues that, "...a sovereign God who gives his creation both meaning and autonomy--provided fertile soil for the development of new scientific and religious ideas." (p. 280)
4. I worked with a science teacher who argued, somewhat with tongue and cheek but somewhat seriously that "Aristotle was a bum," meaning he set back scientific thought centuries. Rubenstein addresses the question: "What accounts", he wonders, "for this ferocious hostility?" (p. 285)
5. Rubenstein suggests that historically, the Medieval ethic of Aristotelian Christianity was an obstacle to the secularists whose ethic of economic exploitation could not expand. (p. 286). Luther epitomized the anti-Aristotelian bias. As a consequence, he believes such a bias generated subjective textual interpretations of the Bible that separated a now required scientific analysis from "subjectivist religion." (p. 289). Aristotle thus became discredited as his ideas were associated with a Catholicism that seemed to retard the very scientific progress secularists wanted. (Instructor's note: See Chapter VII which discusses Ockham's Razor.) The schism between science and faith widened to this day.
6. Rubenstein believes the increasing importance of a globalist perspective in our own era requires more and more an Aristotelian perspective. Ironically today science has become what faith once was: an absolute with "a God of the gaps" (p. 292) filling in what science cannot yet explain. Essentially with such examples as cloning, gay rights, abortion on the front page, perhaps the survival of our world depends on a philosophical perspective that defines the relationship between what is and what ought to be. {Instructor's note: Readers of Frankenstein and Dracula well understand what is at stake).
A CONTROVERISAL READ FOR THE FAITH -SCIENCE
ISSUE IS DAN BROWN'S ANGELS AND DEMONS:
(See especially Chapter 94, the camerlengo's address on the relationship between faith and science in the modern world. Note the irony...
"I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!"
Click here for Brown's Web Page
WHAT DO YOU CONCLUDE?
|
|
|
