Galileo facing the Roman

Inquisition (1633)
by Cristiano Banti (1857)

Creation,
the Reformation
and the
Scientific Revolution

Two Books Tradition

The Book of Nature is read alongside
the Book of Scripture.
Both are read as works of God which point
to God. They are read allegorically. The
ancient and medieval worlds were
saturated in symbol.
The hermeneutical principles used to read
scripture (i.e. fourfold interpretation) were
also applied to nature.

Natural Philosophy in the 13th-15th

Centuries
Aristotles natural philosophy was initially treated
with great suspicion.
Aristotelian propositions (e.g. the everlasting nature of
the universe) were condemned by the Church.

However, Aristotles thought came to dominate the

curricula in the first European universities.
The exploration of nature had, for centuries, been
vital. It was both a subject area in its own right and
part of any Christians investigation into Gods
creation.
The focus was on observation, not experimentation.

Some examples of allegorical

readings of nature
For example, for St. Augustine man
was to have dominion over, and
tame, wild animals. These animals
were related to the passions of
humanity which were also to be
tamed.
The bird soaring in the air is a symbol
of the freedom of the Christian spirit.
Light is symbolic of God.

Corpus Christi
The pelican feeds its
young on its own
blood.

The Literal Sense

In August 1513, the young Martin Luther began a
series of lectures on the Psalms. He had arranged
for an edition to be produced which was free of the
glosses and commentaries of the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church.
No longer was scripture to be interpreted as part of
a tradition. It was simply the individual reader and
the text.
The system of allegorical interpretation in the late
middle ages had become extremely elaborate.
There was now a new emphasis on the literal
interpretation of both the book of nature and the
book of scripture.

Literal readings of Genesis?

If Genesis is no longer the bearer of

theological
truths
or
moral
imperatives, what is its purpose
and authority? (see Harrison, p.206
ff.)

In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus

published his treatise De
revolutionibus orbium
coelestium (On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres). This presented the
heliocentric (rather than
geocentric) model of he
universe.

The Galileo Affair

In 1610, Galileo made use of the telescope to support
Copernicuss findings.
In 1632, he published his Dialogue Concerning Two
Chief Systems of the Universe.
This led to his trial under Cardinal Bellarmine.
Galileos heliocentrism seemed to conflict with certain
passages of scripture (Psalm 96.10: Say among the
nations, The Lord is king! The world is firmly
established; it shall never be moved. He will judge the
peoples with equity.).
Other passages: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1,
Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5

The Galileo Affair cont.

This is often cited as an example of
the conflict between science and
religion.
But what was the real issue?
In 1985, the Austrian born
philosopher of science Paul
Feyerabend (1924-1994) gave a talk
at the Pontifical Academy in Krakow
entitled Galileo and the Tyranny of
Truth.
He argued that the Galileo affair was
really about the proper nature of
authority, the management of
transitions to new paradigms of
thought and the nature of intellectual
enquiry.
In other words, it was a very complex
matter.

 The medieval view of

humanity as
microcosm placed us
at the heart of the
hierarchy of creation.
The telescope and
heliocentric view of
the cosmos dislodged
that view.
But in new ways,
humanity reasserted
its central place
within the cosmic
order. Humans had
mastery over nature,
and the natural world
presented resources

What is creation for?

For the early Christians, ancient
philosophers and medieval theologians,
creation was good and a sign which
pointed to God. It was part of a cosmic
order of praise. Aristotelian science sought
the essences and qualities of things in
order to discern their meaning.
In the seventeenth century, as the
symbolic order of creation waned, there
was a new emphasis on the utility (rather
than the meaning) of creation. Creation
was for humanitys use.

Thomas Sprat (1635

-1713) in his The History
of the Royal Society
(1667):
The new philosophy shall
impart to us the uses of all
the Creatures.
Nol-Antoine Pluche (1688
1761) was a French
priest. Author of Spectacle
de la nature, he taught
that woodworm
contributes to

The Mechanistic and Mathematical

View of the Cosmos
If there was one aspect of
early modern natural
philosophy which
distinguished it from
Aristotelian thought, its
mathematics.
The power of the calculus
enabled Newton to establish
his classical mechanics
when he published his
Philosophi Naturalis
Principia Mathematica in
1687.

Mathematics
For Aristotle, mathematics and physics had
separate objects of study.
According to Aristotle, natural things had a
tendency to motion. Their principle of motion
was inherent within the thing itself (through its
form).
Plato had hinted at the use of mathematics in
the study of nature when he used geometrical
shapes and proportion. The use of mathematics
was based on the realm of becomings
participation in the realm of number and being.

Mechanism
For seventeenth century natural philosophy,
mathematics could identify laws of nature.
Matter is understood to be passive.
The universe is a machine in which motion is
not inherent within things, but is caused by
one thing exerting a force on something else.
Only efficient causation is considered
explanatory.
Laws of nature are not internal to nature
itself. They are imposed from outside.

The Radical Sovereignty of

God
Mechanistic cosmology was a way of ensuring
the radical sovereignty and freedom of God.
God decided the laws of nature and imposed
them according to his will.
There was no co-operation of God with creation
and the distinction between primary and
secondary causation faded.
This was allied to the Protestant reformers view
of salvation by faith alone. It is Gods sovereign
act, not something in which we participate by
works.

John Calvin on the flood

It must be always remembered that the world does not
properly stand by any other power than that of the Word of
God, that secondary causes derive their power from Him,
and that they have different effects as they are directed.
Thus the world was established on the waters, but they had
no power themselves, but were rather subject to the Word
of God as an inferior element. As soon as it pleased God to
destroy the earth, that same water showed its obedience in
a death-carrying flood. We can now see how wrong people
are who stop at the bare elements as though perpetuity
was to be found in them, and not rather that their nature is
amenable to the will of God. (Jean Calvin, Calvins New
Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. and Thomas F.
Torrance (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1960-),
vol.12, pp.362-63 (quoted in Deason, Reformation
Theology and the Mechanistic Conception of Nature,
p.177)

How do we distinguish between God

and Creation?
Ancient and medieval theology:
God is simple. The difference between God and creation is
a sheer ontological difference.
Creation participates in God and is sustained ex nihilo
Creation has its own integrity and natures are real
Creation resembles the creator in being an expression of
Gods nature

Modern natural philosophy and theology

Nature is passive and inert
God exerts his sovereign free will on creation by decreeing
the laws of nature
Nature could be other than it is
Nature does not co-operate in the divine purpose, but is an
instrument or machine subject to Gods will.

Mechanism
Mechanistic cosmology remains dominant in the
popular imagination. However, it was questioned as
soon as it was proposed.
One particular problem is that, in a mechanistic
universe, any process ought, in principle, to be
reversible. However, there seem to be plenty of
changes within the universe which are not reversible:

What is mechanistic
cosmology?
Matter is passive
Change does not take place because of the internal
principles of organisms (Aristotle) but because of
impacts of one piece of matter on another.
Deason, p.168: The seventeenth century replaced
Aristotles conception of nature as an organic being
achieving maturity through self-development with
the view of nature as a machine whose parts
undertook various movements in response to other
parts doing the same thing.
Mechanism requires only efficient causation, not
formal or final causation.
Matter is controlled by external laws.

A Symbolic Creation to a
Functional Creation

Signs
We can read signs. Like a text, they require
interpretation.
Signs can refer to other created things
(immanent reference), or they can refer to
the creator (transcendent reference).
All things, by virtue of being created, have a
transcendent reference to their creator.
Creation can therefore be read as a system
of signs.
This is a sacramental cosmology.

Functional and Symbolic Views of

Creation
Compare the silver cross around someones
neck and a mobile phone. Theyre both pieces
of metal. Whats the difference?
A phone is functional. It has a function (texting,
calls, email, apps). But it doesnt in itself
have any meaning. Its not immediately
symbolic.
A metal cross points beyond itself. It is a
symbol of something other the wearers faith
in Christ. It has no use (or function), but it does
have meaning.

Ancient Cosmology
The ancient cosmologies were
currently studying are all symbolic.
Creation points beyond itself to
something transcendent to God
(Genesis), the Forms, particularly the
Good (Plato), the First Mover
(Aristotle).
Creation is therefore a kind of text
to be read and interpreted.

Modern Views of Material

Nature
Nature is a series of object which are useful (i.e.
functional) for humankind.
They have no intrinsic meaning.
Insofar as they have meaning and are symbolic,
it is a meaning which is given by us through
culture.