Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:20:05.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

God, Man and Nature: The Problem of Creation in Cartesian Thought1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Edward B. Davis
Edward B. Davis
Affiliation:
Messiah College, Grantham PA 17027
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of creation, which has largely disappeared from contemporary scientific discourse, was central to the scientific revolution. What modern scientists recognise as the only relevant relation – that between the knower and the known, man and nature — was understood three centuries ago as secondary to God's relation to the created order and his relation to created minds. For most early modern natural philosophers, both the manner in which and the degree to which the universe could be understood depended on how God had acted in creating it, how he continued to act in sustaining it, and how he had made the human mind — profound theological questions indeed. Over the centuries Christian thinkers, though reaching a consensus on the reality and goodness of the creation, have differed widely on the precise nature of created minds and the created order. The spectrum of views manifests an underlying dialectic between God's unconstrained will, which utterly transcends human comprehension, and God's orderly intellect, which serves as the model for the human mind. Often this has been expressed in terms of the distinction between God's absolute power to do whateverases and God's ordinary power to uphold the creation in an orderly and faithful manner. Individual thinkers typically acknowledge that God has both will and reason, both absolute and ordinary power, but usually emphasize one over the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , August 1991 , pp. 325 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Foster, M. B., ‘The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Natural Science’, Mind, 1934, vol. 43, pp. 446–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Christian Theology and Modern Science of Nature’, Mind, 1935, vol. 44, pp. 439–66 and 1936, vol. 45, pp. 1–27.

3 ‘Christian theology’, pp. 1, 10, and 5n.

4 Among those scholars generally favourable to the Foster thesis are Hooykaas, R., Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Klaaren, E., Religious Origins of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977)Google Scholar; Osler, M. J., ‘Descartes and Charleton on Nature and God’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 1972, vol. 35, pp. 523–542Google Scholar, ‘Providence and Divine Will in Gassendi's Views on Scientific Knowledge’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 1983, vol. 44, pp. 549–60, and ‘Eternal Truths and the Laws of Nature: the Theological Foundations of Descartes’ Philosophy of Nature', Journal of the History of Ideas, 1985, vol. 46, pp. 349–62; McGuire, J. E., ‘Force, Active Principles, and Newton's Invisible Realm’, Ambix, 1968, vol. 15, pp. 154–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Boyle's Conception of Nature’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 1972, vol. 33, pp. 523–42; Oakley, F., ‘Christian Theology and the Newtonian Science: the Rise of the Concept of the Laws of Nature’, Church History, 1961, vol. 30, pp. 433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Omnipotence, Covenant & Order: (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); and O'Conner, D. J., ‘Introduction: Two Philosophies of Nature’, in Oakley, and O'Conner, , eds., Creation: the Impact of an Idea (New York: Scribner's, 1969), pp. 15–28Google Scholar.

5 The standard edition of Descartes' letters and writings is Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Adam, C. and Tannery, P., 12 vols. (Paris, 1897–1913)Google Scholar. When quoting extended passages, I will employ several of the many reliable English translations, which will be cited as they appear. Locations of passages in Adam and Tannery will be abbreviated simply as ‘AT’, followed by the volume number and the page (s). For passages from Descartes' dialogue with Burman, however, I will refer the reader to John Cottingham's excellent edition and translation, Descartes' Conversation with Burman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), which will be cited hereafter as Burman. If no published translation is cited, then the translation is my own.

6 See his letter to the Princess Elizabeth of 15 September 1645 (AT IV, 291).

7 See Principles of Philosophy 1. 23 (AT VIIIA, 14); Descartes' letter to Mesland of 2 May 1644 (AT IV, 118f); and Burman, pp. 31f. Cf. his letter to Mersenne of 6 May 1630 (AT 1, 149f), where he claimed that for God, willing and knowing are the same thing.

8 The letters to Mersenne of 15 April, 6 May, and 27 May 1630 (AT 1,135–53), and 17 May 1638 (AT II, 154ff); to Mesland on 2 May 1644 (AT IV, 118f); to Arnauld on 29 July 1648 (AT V, 223f); and to More on 5 February 1649 (ATV, 267–79). For relevant passages in the Objections, see AT VII, 380 and 431–33; the passage in Burman is on p. 22. The secondary literature devoted to Descartes' view of the eternal truths is considerable. I will cite here only two articles which are closely related to the subject of this essay: Funkenstein, A., ‘Descartes, Eternal Truths, and the Divine Omnipotence’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1975, vol. 6, pp. 185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and M. J. Osler, ‘Eternal truths’.

9 This is quoted with permission from Descartes: Philosophical Letters, ed. and trans. Kenny, Anthony (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 11fGoogle Scholar. Additional references to Kenny will be cited simply as ‘K’.

10 As found in K, 14f.

11 Quoted with permission from The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, and Murdoch, Dugald, 2 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), vol. II, pp. 291 and 293ffGoogle Scholar. Hereafter this translation will be cited as ‘CSM’. The original passage is found in AT VII, 431f and 435f.

12 Letter of 2 May 1644, as found in K, 151. Cf. the letters to Beeckman on 17 October 1630 (AT 1, 156ff) and to Arnauld on 29 July 1648 (AT V, 223f), in which Descartes refused to maintain that God could not perform certain things, including logical contradictions.

13 See ‘Descartes, Eternal Truths, and the Divine Omnipotence’. On God and rationality in the Middle Ages, see pp. 150–52 of Funkenstein's book, Theology and the Scientific Imagination (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

14 This is M. J. Osler's interpretation, in her essay ‘Eternal truths’.

15 Burman, pp. 32 and 22, respectively. A related proposition, ‘that God might have made creatures independent of him’, is considered in Descartes' letter to Mesland of 2 May 1644 (AT IV, 119). Descartes called this a contradiction, yet refused to say that God was bound by it.

16 AT XI, 43. An essentially identical passage is found earlier in the same chapter, on pp. 37f. Cf. Principles II. 36 (AT VIIIA, 61f).

17 Speaking of divine repentance, Calvin said that ‘we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves. Therefore, since every change among men is a correction of what displeased them, but that correction arises out of repentance, then by the word ‘repentance’ is meant the fact that God changes with respect to his actions. Meanwhile neither God's plan nor his will is reversed, nor his volition altered; but what he had from eternity foreseen, approved, and decreed, he pursues in uninterrupted tenor, however sudden the variation may appear in men's eyes. Institutes of the Christian Religion [1559], ed. McNeill, J. T. and trans. Battles, F. L. (London: SCM Press, 1960), 1. 17.13Google Scholar.

18 Principles II. 36–39 (AT VIIIA, 61f); Le Monde, chap 7 (AT XI, 44f).

19 Objections and Replies V (AT VII, 369).

20 Meditations III (AT VII, 49), as given by CSM II, 33.

21 AT VII, 434f.

22 See Collins, J. D., Descartes' Philosophy of Nature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), pp. 48fGoogle Scholar; cf. p. 27.

23 See Hatfield, G. C., ‘Force (God) in Descartes' Physics’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1979, vol. 10, pp. 113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 AT XI, 48.

25 AT VIIIA, 6, as found in Principles of Philosophy, trans. Miller, Valentine Rodger and Miller, Reese P. (Dordrecht Reidel, 1983), p. 4Google Scholar. Reproduced by permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hereafter this translation will be cited as ‘Miller’.

26 AT VII, 53, as found in CSM II, 37; cf. Principles I. 29 (AT VIIIA, 16).

27 Quoting from K, 99.

28 Principles I. 29–30 (AT VIIIA, 16).

29 AT III. 383, quoting from K. 104. Cf. Method IV (AT VI, 40).

30 See Brehier, E., ‘The Creation of the Eternal Truths in Descartes' System’, in Descartes: a Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Doney, W. (New York: Macmillan, 1967), pp. 192–208, esp. pp. 200fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 AT VIIIA, 24.

32 See Meditations VI (AT VII. 71).

33 Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, p. 42. His analysis rings true: ‘There cannot be a void, not because God could not have made it, but because he does not will it to be, and I know this because my reason cannot conceive how a void could possibly exist.’ Cf. Descartes' letter to Chanut of 6 June 1647 (AT V, 50–58).

34 Meditations V (AT VII, 71), quoting from CSM II, 49.

35 AT VI, 63f, quoting with permission from Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology, trans. Olscamp, Paul J. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), p. 52. Hereafter this translation will be cited as ‘Olscamp’Google Scholar.

36 AT XI, 47, quoted with permission from Le Monde: ou traité de la lumiére, trans. Mahoney, Michael Sean (New York: Abaris Books, 1979), pp. 75–77Google Scholar; cf. Method V (AT VI, 43).

37 See Descartes' letter to Clerselier, printed as an appendix to the fifth set of objections (AT IXA, 213); Principles II. 64 (AT VIIIA, 79); and the extract from his letter to Mersenne of 11 March 1640 found in K, 70f. Similar sentiments were expressed by Galileo, who also took mathematics to be the paradigm of scientific knowledge. I discuss this at length in my dissertation, ‘Creation, Contingency, and Early Modern Science: The Impact of Voluntaristic Theology on Seventeenth Century Natural Philosophy’, completed in 1984 at Indiana University. An excellent published account can be found in Ernan McMullin, ‘The Conception of Science in Galileo's Work’, in Butts, Robert E. and Pitt, Joseph C., eds., New Perspectives on Galileo (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978), pp. 209–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 See Principles III. 1 (AT VIIIA(80).

39 Principles III. 43 (AT VIIIA, 99), quoted from Miller, pp. 104f; bracketed portions are found only in the French version.

40 Method VI (AT VI, 64f), quoting from Olscamp, p. 52.

41 Ibid.

42 Letter of 10 May 1632 (AT 1,250–52), quoted from K, 125f. For Galileo's letter, see Le opere di Galileo Galilei, ed. Favaro, A. (Florence, 1899–1909), vol. 11, pp. 149fGoogle Scholar. Thomas Aquinas apparently had the same dream of constructing an a priori science of the heavens. See Funkenstein, A., Theology and the Scientific Imagination, pp. 131fGoogle Scholar.

43 AT X, 392–400, quoting directly from the last page.

44 Principles III 4 (AT VIIIA, 81); Method VI (AT VI, 64).

45 AT VII, 20.

46 Principles 111.46 (AT VIIIA, 100f).

47 AT VIIIA,80f.

48 AT VIIIA, 327.

49 Principles IV. 205 (AT VIIIA, 327f, quoting from Miller, p. 287; the bracketed phrase is found only in the French version. On moral certainty, see Morris, J., ‘Descartes and Probable Knowledge’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 1970, vol. 8, pp. 303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Principles IV. 206 (AT VIIIA, 328f), quoting from CSM I, 290f. The bracketed phrases, of which I have added the second, are found only in the French version.

51 Letter of 28 October 1640, as quoted by K, 79.

52 See my dissertation, ‘Creation, contingency, and early modern science’.

53 See ‘Eternal truths’. The quotations following this note come from pages 351 and 362 of her paper.

54 Here I agree with Schuster, J. A., in chapter VII of his dissertation, ‘Descartes and the Scientific Revolution, 1618–1634: an Interpretation’, Princeton University, 1977Google Scholar.

55 Quoting from K, 11.

56 See Sprunger, Keith L., The Learned Doctor Willam Ames:Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1972), p. 80Google Scholar. Richard Greaves initially suggested this possibility in commenting on a draft of this essay.

57 See Animadversiones in Synodalia scripta Remonstrantium, quoad Articulum Primum, sub praesidio D. D. Guilielmi Amesii, Disp. XXVIII in Academia Franekerama propugnatae a Studiosis Theologiae (Franeker: Uldericus Balck, 1629), especially the first several disputationsGoogle Scholar.

58 See pp. 23f in the introduction to Eusden's, J. D. translation of Ames, , The Marrow of Theology (Boston, 1968)Google Scholar.

59 See my dissertation and my paper, ‘Newton's Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton's Natural Philosophy,’ forthcoming in Fides el Historia.

60 Theology and the Scientific Imagination, p. 152.