In John Henry Newman’s article “The Philosophical Temper, First Enjoined by the Gospel, John outlines both the adjoining and the separation of philosophy and scripture. He talks about the causes and effects of both scenarios as well as his opinions.
Although he made (16) separate points in the article, I felt as though a few of them were somewhat repetitive so I will not go through all of them, instead I will briefly go over what I thought were the most important topics of discussion.
John initially points out how people have claimed that Revealed Religion poses a threat to philosophy. Do you think that is a legitimate claim? Do you agree with John in that scripture cannot be subject to change?
Similar to Bonaventure he too points out “The lord is my light”. I felt as though this was an interesting similarity seeing as light usually leads to knowledge and truth.
He then makes an interesting point in that some of the greatest philosophers have been forced to submit their reason to the gospel. This is in fact a very valid point, many philosophers of old times were literally afraid to not give God some credit in some way in fear that if they did not include God in their writings that they would face severe consequences. Do you think this makes earlier philosophy less credible?
Further, he goes on explaining the importance of morals seen in Jewish and Christian faith. He explains their importance towards scientific investigation and knowledge. Do you agree in thinking that these are necessary things?
The point that John made that I found to be the most interesting was the point he made concerning Mother Nature. He explained that she will seem impossible and mysterious to everyone except those that are patient and faithful.
Since the search of truth is such a tedious process, John explains how easy it is to stray off course and to focus too much on one thing over the other; that being too much on philosophy or too much on scripture. I believe this to be totally relevant and I feel as though the best theologians and philosophers are the ones that blend the two of them together.
Lastly he points out that he is concerned with how modern science is starting to stray away from philosophy yet he believes that there couldn’t have been so much scientific progress over the years without scripture and theology. I think this is a relevant claim, do you think that scientific discoveries over the course of time benefitted from philosophical knowledge and scripture?
I found John Henry Newman's article fascinating in its weaving together of science and religion, specifically Christianity. Rather than just stopping at pointing out the similarities between science and religion, or showing points of intersection, he takes it a step further to show how the basis for the scientific understanding actually has some of its roots in religious inquiry.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions outlined above: I really am not qualified to give a relevant opinion on some of the finer points that some of the questions raised, such as 'Do you think this makes earlier philosophy less credible?' I haven't studied most of these issues in great depth. However, I do agree with Newman's overall thesis that Christianity has culturally shaped the Western hemisphere's approach to the world in many respects, science among them.
I do think that Scripture poses a threat to philosophy. It has been displayed even in our discussion that however Scripture is interpreted will have an impact on what can be called "true" of philosophical ideas. Many philosophers however, use God as the starting point for their ideas, and teach their philosophy as a way to get to God. Whether or not this was done by choice, or fear of not submitting to Scripture, is another thing to think about. The topic of morality in this text, I believe, is a good example of how Christianity has changed the world, and has shaped the world. Law and behavior has been shaped around "what is the good", which I believe was based off of Scripture. Scripture seems to outline what is good in human nature, and I think that society has always been based off of what has been taught in religion. I think he is explaining in this text that patience, modesty, caution, etc. are similarities that some would say all great philosophers and theologians posses. The ones that are too hasty and such, cannot ponder on objections to their theories and thoughts. I think that Newman would appreciate wondering about these objections, because it is only human that we do not know everything. I think that philosophy and religion cause people to wonder about the universe and how everything works. Our drive to discover knowledge, as a human race, has caused us to ponder and question what we don't know. In order to question what we do not know, we must probe our minds and search for the answer. I think this has resulted in scientific discoveries and advancements. I do not think without philosophy or religion, that we would know all about science that we do today.
ReplyDeleteI concur that Christianity has shaped the western world. However, concerning his claims that religion does not hinder science are patently untrue. Galileo Galilei posited a theory that the world is round and orbits around the sun. For this he faced charges of heresy. Not only this, but another book arguing with religious validity was ordered to be burned. He was died under house arrest.
ReplyDeleteMore recently, the church has battled the use of stem cells. While the morality of stem cell research is questionable, it is inarguable that the church has attempted to actively battle scientific viewpoints and consequentially science.
John Henry Newman also put forth the argument that "the character, which scripture draws of the virtuous man..." is only found in "traces" in non religious authors. Off the top of my head, Isaac Asimov was a practicing atheist who did not oppose religion. For those of you who don't know, Asimov wrote the foundation series which won the only hugo for "best series of all time."
Newman also supported the viewpoint that ancient philosophers were notoriously "jealous of each other... [and] treasured up their supposed discoveries with miserable precaution." He completely ignores Socrates who purposefully didn't write down any of his, in the words of Newman, "Musings".
In summary, I strongly disagree with some viewpoints posited in this piece of literature. However, that being said, it did put forth some well thought out points.
PS, thank you to the poster for posting questions that really helps and I encourage others to do that when they post. Which reminds me, do you think his arguments are well supported?
Newman stirred up some interesting points within the article about science, religion, and philosophy. Personally, I do not think that Revealed Religion pose a threat to philosophy because in all honesty I believed that there are certain things in the world that both philosophy and religion cannot explain due to either contradiction between the two or the mysterious aspects of what we are trying to examine in the world.
ReplyDeleteMoving along with the questions prompt of the blog, I do think that philosophy at that time is less creditable because of a few reasons. One of the first reason is that you have to think in the context of what is happening at the time. Comparing it to today, I believed that during the early 1800's, more people were religious when compared to today. Therefore, the philosophic works might be tailored to the satisfaction of the people of the time because since people were religious at the time and if you do not include credit to God in your work then people might not read your work, Thus, you might not get credit for work and people might think you're crazy for thinking the way you're thinking. Hence, the philosophers at the time might be hesitant in what they want to truly convey. However, today the same thing is going on in science, but in reverse. This might be a little transgression from what we're doing now, but I think it has some relevance. I watched some documentaries about Religion and Science over the summer, and in the world today, many biologist and scientists are being scrutinized every time that mentioned God in their publication and some even have careers that are destroyed by this. So in order to avoid this, they leave the notion of intelligence design out of their work. In a sense, comparing then and now, it appears that it is the reverse.
In regards to Christian and Jewish morality in scientific knowledge and investigation, I believe that they carry extreme importance in what we should or should not investigate. One specific example would be Lewisite which was discovered at this University in Maloney Hall by Reverend Julius Aloysius Nieuland (Yes, this is dark CUA History) during his doctoral studies in the chemistry of acetylene. Rev, Nieuland at the time knew that Lewisite could be used a chemical weapon and therefore he abandoned years and years of research on it. The relevance here is that, as a scientist and a priest, Rev. Nieuland knew that he had a primary responsible towards humanity to not use his scientific work to harm others. Thus, his morals had some significant impact on his scientific knowledge and investigation of Lewisite.
Moving onto how scientific discoveries might or might not benefit from philosophy and theology, I think science had really benefitted from the two because before science, philosophy and theology was how we were able to take in knowledge. Scientific discoveries benefitted from theology and philosophy by that science often improve upon the works of philosophers. One example would be Aristotle's idea of an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. At the time, Aristotle's force was depended upon "velocity," but Newton made an importance discovery that would define Force as mass multiplied by acceleration. Thus through this example, science is able to build upon philosophy.
Timmy I think your real life example of Rev. Nieuland's scientific discovery and his moral decision is a great way to explain the importance of both theology and religion. I think there comes a point with anything where you need the influence of one or the other and would otherwise be unable to have a positive outcome. It can definitely be proven that science has benefitted from the influence of philosophy many times in history.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering the effect of religion on, I see no threat. I personally see philosophy as a pursuit of a better understanding of values and beliefs. I believe God is a fundamental part of this, not including God would make philosophy incredible. In my opinion God’s role can be interpreted as showing how people imagine they should act whether or not they do, ones thought process beyond this is in itself what philosophy builds and develops upon. In other words I feel that God should be included in philosophy but not used as the trump card, but more as one of the many elements of philosophy. I agree that science usually clashes with philosophy and religion though they share many commonalities, but that this is why scientific theories benefit. The clash drives people to want to gain a better understanding. I really found Newman’s article very interesting, it made me really think and see connections I had never previously thought about.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I like how it's on a first name basis with John haha.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a few of these points. I dont know that I would say that I think scripture gets in the way of philosophy. I remember a few days ago in class how we talked about if something is true in one way it has to be true in the other. I think that tends to fit in with a lot of our religion and philosophy. I think most of them overlap from observation and then into doctrine.
However I feel that scripture cannot be subject to change, as we have invested such a great deal in believing that it is in someways an unchanging absalute. I cant imagine though, a scenario where philosophy would really contradict the church's teaching.
I am a believer that scripture and religion poses a threat to philosophy because it gives you starting points that you assume to be true. However I do believe that there is good that can come from believing in religion. Like you point out about the morals of the christian and jewish religions, both try and make the best of human nature but since people make their own assumptions about religion the good gets clouded and detracts from moving forward.
ReplyDelete