The intellectually illegitimate children of Isaac Newton

The incredible scientific success of Isaac Newton led to intellectual revolutions in science, philosophy, economics, and theology. But many of the ideas developed and promoted have a dubious intellectual parentage. 

The key issues to consider centre around whether Newton's approach, success and interpretations in physics translate to other topics of interest.

Newton studied a specific topic: the mechanical motion of bodies, including cannonballs and planets. He used a method appropriate to that topic. High levels of precision, both in measurement and in making theoretical predictions were possible. This led to high levels of certainty about what was true and what was not.

A few intellectual bastards fertilised, fed, and sustained by the success of Newtonian mechanics include the following.

 The mechanical philosophy

The clockwork universe. 

People are machines.

 Strasbourg Astronomical Clock

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first philosopher of modern science and a founder of sociology (social physics). He was the founder of positivism, claiming that societies progress through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. These correspond to eras of primitive (Christendom), Enlightenment, and modern science. Comte promoted a hierarchy of sciences with physics as the most fundamental. Comte's legacy has been roundly criticised by Pierre de Gennes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics.

Foundationalism seeks to establish truth logically by starting from a few axioms that can be taken as self-evident or "justified". There are parallels to Newtonian physics in that it starts with just Newton's laws and can deduce all the details of mechanical motion from these laws.

Theology was diverted in unfruitful directions and impoverished by these intellectual movements that claimed credence because of the success of Newton. There was a desire to mimic methods and levels of certainty of Newtonian physics. Here I identify several problematic movements in theology.

Deism. This was a natural outgrowth of the clockwork universe.

Foundationalism. Theology is largely concerned with propositional truth rather than with godly living. The object-subject distinction was considered possible and desirable.

Liberal theology. Since one could not match the confident certainty of Newtonian science one was left with doubt about everything: the reliability of the Bible, miracles, the existence of a heavenly realm, and the divinity of Jesus. The solution was the methods of historical-biblical criticism (form, source, redaction, literary, .. criticism), demythologisation, ...

Fundamentalism.  This reaction to liberal theology led in the opposite direction. A desire for certainty produced notions such as the infallibility of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture, and strict true-false dichotomies with little room for paradox, dialectic, imagination, or polyphonic readings of texts.

Modernist forms of apologetics.  In the second half of the twentieth century in the U.S.A. , there was the development and promotion of evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. They attempted to show the intellectual validity of orthodox faith to the point that anyone who did not believe or accept the arguments presented was portrayed as irrational. Presuppositional apologetics aims to show a non-Christian that their worldview is intellectually incoherent and then in their despair preach the gospel to them.

In conclusion, I do not think any of these movements was particularly helpful. They impoverished theology rather than enriching it. Their intellectual foundations were shaky. They created as many problems as solutions. They lacked nuance and in hindsight are now seen by many as problematic. Humans and the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not cannonballs or planets orbiting the sun like clockwork. The methods and certainty of Newton cannot be uncritically transposed onto other areas of knowledge.

Why did the success of Newton lead to an intellectual revolution?

A common view today is that science provides the best, or even the only, means to discover the truth about anything, whether in physics, politics, or theology. Furthermore, science supersedes "faith" and provides a basis for certainty. What are the historical origins of such views.

A pivotal time in the intellectual history of the Western world was the 17th and 18th centuries when stunning advances were made in understanding the physics underlying the motion of bodies, from cannonballs to planets. This success was encapsulated in Isaac Newton (1643-1727) formulating calculus, his three Laws of Motion, and his theory of gravity. This made it possible to understand and quantitatively describe the motion of bodies, whether on earth or in the heavens.

These stunning successes led to significant new developments in science, philosophy, economics, and theology. They drove and provided legitimacy to the thinking and claims often associated with the era identified as the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason.

My main purpose here is to highlight how several intellectual moves (claims and arguments) were made that were debatable, including by theologians. These moves impoverished theology and science, both then and now, particularly in relation to the nature of certainty and choices of methodology.

To understand why these scientific advances were so disruptive it is helpful to review what the stunning achievements of Newton and his scientific children were. Until Galileo stirred the pot, the views of Aristotle dominated science, philosophy, and theology, especially in the Roman Catholic Church. Key elements of Aristotelianism that were demolished include the following.

• Reason not experiment takes priority.
• To understand the natural world, one makes common sense observations, not precise measurements.
• A ball falls faster than a feather.
• The earth is not in motion.
• On earth moving bodies slow down and stop if left to themselves.
• Motion on earth and in the heavens are different.

(Aside: My appreciation of these points is due to Peter Harrison.)

This distinction between heaven and earth may have fuelled some readings of scripture that emphasised sharp distinctions between heaven and the earth, the spiritual and the material.

Elements of Newton's mechanics that had a significant intellectual impact, included the following.

a. Just two mathematical equations can describe a diverse range of mechanical phenomena.

b. Solving these equations produced results that could be compared to detailed and precise observations (experimental data) of the motion of planets and cannonballs. Furthermore, the equations could be used to make predictions, such as the existence of new planets. This is how Neptune was discovered.

c. The same laws described the motion of bodies in the heavens and on earth.

d. The motion of bodies could be understood simply in terms of cause and effect. 

e. An axiomatic approach was possible where mechanics can be understood as following from a few simple assumptions, such as the stationary action principle.

For the purposes of this discussion, the most important implication of all this was that certainty was possible. Theories were testable and we could clearly know what was true. Ptolemy's model of the solar system was wrong. Copernicus and Newton were correct. There was no need to invoke deities to understand the motion of heavenly bodies. The latter was embodied in a famous, albeit apocryphal, dialogue between Napoleon and Laplace.

Aside: An example of the level of precision possible is the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury. The observed magnitude of this effect disagrees with Newton's predictions by an angle of less than one ten-thousandth of a degree per orbit. This discrepancy was later solved by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

In life success often leads to hubris, whether in business, politics, science, or Christian ministry. For example, today there is a mythology that athletic success can translate into success in business and politics. The success of Newton's mechanics led to a hubris that became embodied in the Enlightenment. In particular, several intellectual moves were made that are contestable. The most important move was a confidence that similar approaches to that used for mechanical motion were appropriate to obtain knowledge about other objects of study. Furthermore, it was assumed that similar levels of success and certainty were possible and would occur in due time.

A different perspective begins with the observation that each field of science, from physics to biology to sociology, is concerned with a distinct object. The nature of this object then determines the methods to use, what it is possible to know, and what levels of certainty were possible concerning any knowledge gained.

In the next post, I will introduce some of Newton's intellectual bastards, influential ideas and methods that are claimed to be scientific, but are actually debatable. Some marginalise Christian faith, which is considered old-fashioned, unscientific, or intellectually inferior. Some of these ideas impoverish theology. 

Can we be certain about the truth?

We yearn to know the truth, whether about astronomy, God, family history, or politics. But what is the best method to find the truth about a specific subject? How certain can we be about whether what we discover is actually true?

A modern view is that science provides the best method to discover the truth and that it can provide certainty. This view was developed and advocated in 18th century Europe following the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. This perspective obtained significant intellectual credibility due to the success of Newton's theories of gravity and mechanical motion. These theories provided highly accurate descriptions of the motion of bodies, whether that of planets or cannonballs. Science was certain, in contrast to "faith". Science provided a method to discover the truth about everything.

But, people are not planets or cannonballs. Biological cells are not cannonballs or planets. To study people, literature, biological cells, or the Triune God an approach that is appropriate to the object under study is necessary. Chemistry, condensed matter physics, psychology, sociology, and theology all involve different methods, assumptions, and concepts. This also leads to different criteria for deciding what is true, and the levels of certainty that are possible. This is now generally accepted by academics who study the history and philosophy of science. However, this view has not spread to most scientists, particularly those who are perceived as "public intellectuals." 

Newton's success is to be admired and celebrated. But it does not follow that a similar approach is appropriate for other fields of study. Neither should we necessarily expect similar levels of certainty.

In the first few pages of Karl Barth's Evangelical Theology: An Introduction  he states that theology is a "science" [wissenschaft = a discipline of study] because it seeks

"to apprehend a specific object and its environment in the manner directed by the phenomonen itself...to understand it on its own terms and to speak of it along with all the implications of its existence." 

In the next post, I will discuss in more detail why the success of Newton led to such seismic intellectual shifts. 

Cooking up meaningful relationships

Last weekend my wife and I went to the movie theatre to see, The Kitchen Brigade, a feel good French movie. A gourmet chef loses her job because she cannot get along with others, particularly a pretentious and demanding restaurant owner. The only job she can get is in a canteen, cooking for a group of young African men, who are in France with precarious legal status. The movie is quite funny, the characters are endearing, and it builds empathy for the plight of refugees and immigrants. Some might consider there are elements of the "white saviour" genre trope. On the other hand, the redemption that occurs is mutual.

A while back we also enjoyed watching the movie Mostly Martha. It is also quite funny, celebrates food, makes you hungry, and highlights that relationships matter.

I had a feeling of deja vu watching the movie. I was pretty sure I had seen it before. Well not quite, my daughter pointed out that there is a Hollywood version, No Reservations. I had seen that one.

How do we characterise this age?

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.            

A recent sermon at church by Philip McGann on Ephesians 5 brought to my attention the following passage written by Neil Postman in 1985. He reflects on whether the dystopian future envisioned by George Orwell or that of Aldous Huxley had been realised.

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. 

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Neil Postman - Foreword to Amusing Ourselves to Death

This characterisation of modern life was written long before smartphones, Twitter, and Netflix came on the scene. It is even more apt today.