Lesson Outline – Phase II writers



3a: The late 18th and early 19th centuries

Unit overview

Abstract:

The main focus of this topic is the period and concept of Enlightenment: the Age of Reason. Although the term ‘Enlightenment’ might be familiar to some students of History and/or Buddhism, the intellectual scene of the 18th to 19th century will be a new experience for the majority. Possible pre-conceived ideas and assumptions about our intellectual past will be explored, hopefully ‘enlightening’ the students (Lesson 1).

The following aspects characterise this period:

• The Clockwork Universe, Fixism and Natural Theology. (Lesson 2).

• David Hume and the question of miracles. This part is about the implications and consequences of a mechanistic view of the universe. (Lesson 3).

• Joseph Priestley, John Wesley and Michael Faraday. Under this heading, various responses to the relation between religion and science will be explored. Also, that some of the main issue of today have their roots in this period: Traditionalism and Fundamentalism on the one hand and a dynamic and more inclusive world view on the other hand. (Lessons 4 and 5).

The main point of this unit is to understand that present day ideas about Religion and Science have their roots in the soil of our past and also that what we produce today will have an impact on tomorrow’s world.

Learning Opportunities

Lesson 1 The students will work in groups to complete a mind map outlining the main characteristics of the period and how the relation between Science and Religion was seen both positively and negatively.

Lesson 2 After studying material on the Static World View (The Clockwork Universe), the students will produce a table to display their research into ‘God, Science and Society in the 18th Century. This will include the ideas of Fixism and Natural Theology.

Lesson 3 The implications and consequences of a mechanistic view of the universe are considered through discussion of Hume’s critique of miracles.

Lessons 4 and 5 In groups, the students will prepare and give a presentation to the rest of the class on Joseph Priestly, Michael Faraday and John Wesley. They will consider the extent to which some of the main issues concerning the relationship between Religion and Science today have their roots in this period.

Background information

The Age of Reason: Enlightenment (Student Resource 1: The Age of Reason: Enlightenment)

[1]The 18th century witnessed a huge increase in human knowledge -- an ENLIGHTENMENT. Knowledge would, it was hoped, conquer fear, superstition, enthusiasm, prejudice and even death itself. For this to happen, there had to be criticism of the existing social and political systems of the West – the Old Order.

Facing the Enlightenment was the past -- and in terms of its intellectual history, the Enlightenment had to abandon ("reverse") its past. One of the first things to go was metaphysics, a branch of philosophy that deals with ultimate questions of our existence. It had to go -- it was medieval. In its place, came epistemology, the study of knowledge. What is knowledge? How do we know? What does it mean to know something? This was the main concern of the scientific revolutionaries. If the medieval social and political order had collapsed then something had to take its place. Human knowledge was to serve man but first man had to verify his knowledge.

For Plato and for Descartes, although for different reasons, man has ideas present in his mind at birth. The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) who was most responsible for providing an alternative view -- the empirical point of view […]. Together with his fellow countryman Newton, it was Locke who provided the 18th century with its epistemological Bible. For Locke, the human mind was a blank slate upon which experience records itself as human knowledge.

The Enlightenment saw no problem with knowledge. That is, there was no problem of how knowledge of the world is possible. One had to only open their eyes -- knowledge was all around -- NATURE! Nature is reasonable -- Nature can be understood. Nature is rational. Man is part of Nature, therefore, man can be understood. Without a doubt Nature and Reason became the most heavily used and abused words in the 18th century vocabulary.

If it can be said that the aim of the Enlightenment was social reform, how was social reform to be achieved? The answer was more than clear -- by man. By the 18th century, man believed himself to be master of Nature, no longer its victim. The first question, then, was what is man? No doubt this was a difficult question to answer. The 18th century came to no consensus over this question. What the Enlightenment thinkers did agree upon was that theology held no answers. Man was not a sinful creature who could only be saved by self-denial while patiently awaiting death and ultimately salvation.

The Static World View (Student Resource 2: The Static World View)

Science and religion agreed on one thing at the beginning of the 18th century: the world was static. […] An immutable God had created once and for all a universe that was as unchangeable as its Creator. […]

All beings were points on a line - and the points (or beings) were ordered according to the hierarchy of creation. Animals were "higher" than vegetables, which in turn were "higher" than minerals. Also society - nobles were "higher" than the bourgeoisie, clergy were "higher" than laity, men were "higher" than women, and all humans were "higher" than brute animals. […]

Species existed as they were created, unless, of course, God had wiped them out in the Flood. […] Science and Nature became vehicles to confirm the unchanging truth of Scripture; Reason was guided and dominated by Revelation.

The law-like regularity of Isaac Newton's Nature confirmed its creation by a Law-giving God: the watch must have a Watch Maker. Newton, and his 18th century followers, insisted on the clear distinction between the Creator and the created. God was the only active, self-moving, self-willing, self-sufficient, and eternal being. Matter, by contrast, was passive, inert, determined by God's will, dependent upon His nature, and finite. Matter in motion is due to God's acting on matter so that it conforms to His will.

From Miracles to Mechanism (Student Resource 3: From Miracles to Mechanism)

The mechanistic world-view of science, then, assumed that Nature was orderly, static, and passive, and that there was a well-defined distinction between the Creator and His creation. To many, the more science was uncovering the wonders of Creation, the more it was evident that a Providential, Omnipotent God was responsible for bringing it into being and sustaining its existence. But there had been a subtle change in the understanding of His relationship to His world. From the mid-17th century on, there was an increasing belief that the Providential, sustaining activity of God was through the Laws of Nature, not through specific, miraculous, Divine activity. […] Miracles were no longer consistent with the "consistency" of God Himself, and so scientists could seek to understand the "natural" basis of these extraordinary or mysterious events…

Natural theology became the means by which the wonders of Nature were shown to reveal the wonderful God of Nature. […] The study of Nature increased one's understanding and knowledge of the God of Creation. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Boyle Lectures on The Being and Attributes of God, argued that:

“[the] harmony and order of the universe pointed to a Creator who is as beneficent as he is wise. The fatherly rule of God demanded of his children a benevolence like his own, and these elementary truths - the fatherhood of God and our duty to show a good will comparable with his - were the essential ingredients in their teachings”

A reasoned study of God's workmanship would lead to a reasoned appreciation of the Worker and a reasoned understanding of one's duty.

But what happened in the process to the God revealed in Scripture? At first, nothing. The God revealed by Nature was certainly not dissimilar to the God proclaimed in the Old and New Testaments. Omnipotent, omniscient, providential, eternal - this God had the attributes of the God traditionally known by Scriptural revelation. […] The purpose of Scripture was now viewed primarily in terms of salvation-history, as the story of what the God who can be known from Creation had done on behalf of human beings in Jesus Christ.

But there were two main changes regarding Scripture. First, it was no longer believed to be the source of authority for science, and soon it would not be the authority for politics, history, and moral theory. It spoke authoritatively about salvation: it told of our need and of God's response. Second, God's revelation in Scripture was no longer the highest authority. Now it was understood in terms of how human reason had seen God's revelation in Nature. […] Christianity is the religion of reason; the Christian God is the God of Nature. The title of Locke's work, The Reasonableness of Christianity, expresses the basic conviction of the age. In this sense, rationalism was not a doctrine about religion but an approach to its problems.

Hume’s Critique of Miracles[2] (Student Resource 4: Hume’s Critique of miracles)

1. A miracle is a breaking of the laws of nature; and because a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle is complete.

Why is it more than probable that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remained suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are consistent with the laws of nature and only a breaking of these, a miracle, can prevent them.

2. No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless it would be even more miraculous if the testimony were false.

3. [There has never been] in all history, any miracle witnessed by a sufficient number of men of such good education, integrity and reputation, and at the same time so open and public, that it could not be denied.

4. The surprise and wonder caused by miracles is so wonderful that it will make people believe in them even if they did not experience the miracle for them selves. And even if an enthusiast for religion knows a miracle to be false, he may go on teaching it in order to promote his cause.

5. In matters of religion, whatever is different is wrong …It is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), is simply put forward in order to destroy the other religions and their miracles.

From Revelation to Reason

During the 17th century, Diderot said "The supposition of any being whatever placed outside of the material universe is impossible .... There is no more than one substance in the universe, in man, in animal." For Diderot, all things were formed by the inherent motion of atoms; his was a kind of materialistic monism. But this philosophy no longer needed the First Cause or Watchmaker of natural theology, and so Diderot rejected all theologies and philosophies that posited an immaterial God. […]

Here we see the sharp break between science and religion, between scientist and religious believer. […] Active matter, that is, matter that is uncreated and indestructible, that has as inherent properties motion, feeling, and thought, that is constantly in flux throughout the universe according to well-defined laws, this kind of matter eliminated the need for a God who created and sustained.

One might accuse the philosophes of practicing "arm-chair science," but "experimental science," especially in the area of biology, was supporting their position. […] Continuing his experiments, Trembly sought to discover if these organisms were capable of regeneration. No matter how he cut the polyp -lengthwise, crosswise, big pieces, small pieces - each piece always gave rise to an entirely new polyp. Soon other experimental work showed that worms, which were known to be animals, could do the same thing, and so the hydra's place in the animal kingdom was established.

But this created a problem. If every portion of an animal could reconstitute a new animal, where was the animal soul or organising principle? To say that every piece of tissue, no matter how small, contained the soul was beyond belief and meaning. To say that every piece of tissue, no matter how small, contained a preformed embryo of the next generation was just as unlikely. The work on the polyp supported the materialistic views that denied the existence of soul. Without soul, matter must possess the ability to express all the properties seen in Nature. […]

Here is a clear statement of the implications of active, dynamic matter. Rather than an unchanging world, conceived in the mind of God and executed by His omnipotent power, Nature is in a constant state of ceasing to be as it is and beginning to be something else. Rather than motion being the result of God's will, it is an inherent property of matter itself, and the specific motion is the determined result of prior motions. Such reactions have occurred eternally and will occur eternally. God as an explanatory hypothesis is no longer needed.

Obviously Christian scientists rejected these philosophical views and especially the idea of active matter, but it was more difficult to reject the biological findings concerning the polyp and generation. The general tendency was to accept the data but reject the interpretation or implications. […]

Key Quotations (if applicable)

Joseph Priestly (1733-1804), wrote in a letter to Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

How glorious, then, is the prospect, the reverse of all the past, which is now opening upon us, and upon the world. Government, we may now expect to see, not only in theory and in books but in actual practice, calculated for the general good, and taking no more upon it than the general good requires, leaving all men the enjoyment of as many of their natural rights as possible, and no more interfering with matters of religion, with men's notions concerning God, and a future state, than with philosophy, or medicine…

Locke, 1690, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding,

Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas:--How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety. Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE. In that all our knowledge is founded; and from that it ultimately derives itself. Our observation employed either, about external sensible objects or about the internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected upon by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of all knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.

Aims of the topic

At the end of the topic most students will have:

• Gained knowledge and understanding of the period of Enlightenment

• Gained knowledge and understanding of the main controversies and solutions of the Religions and Science debate during the 18th century.

• Critically reflected on, and evaluated, some present day attitudes and ideas

• Personally evaluated the role of Religion and Science

Some will not have progressed as far but will have:

• A basic understanding of what is meant by the Enlightenment.

• A basic understanding of why some of the ideas caused controversy between science and religion.

• Shown awareness of some present day attitudes and ideas.

• Been able to express some of their own ideas about the role of Religion and Science.

Others will have progressed further and will have:

• Gained a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the period of Enlightenment

• Gained a detailed knowledge and understanding of the main controversies and solutions of the Religions and Science debate during the 18th century.

• Made extensive critical reflection and evaluation of some present day attitudes and ideas

• Personally evaluated the role of Religion and Science

Key Questions

• What is meant by the Enlightenment?

• What were the key ideas that came out of the Enlightenment?

• Who were some the main people who expressed some of these ideas?

Why did so many of these ideas cause controversy between Religion and Science?

• What are some of the present day attitudes towards Religion and Science?

Learning Objectives

To identify the main characteristics of the period of the Enlightenment.

• To outline some of the positive and negative effects this had on the relation between Religion and Science.

• To contribute in discussions about the nature of God and Society.

• To completed a table showing the views about God, Society and Science in the 18th Century as illustration of the Static World View.

• To read and discuss Hume’s Critique of Miracles.

• To discuss how Biblical miracles could be reconciled with science.

• To have given group presentations to the rest of the class on Joseph Priestly, John Wesley and Michael Faraday.

Learning Outcomes

• To demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key ideas of the Enlightenment

• To identify some of the key ideas in the changing relationship between Science and Religion during the late 18th and 19th Centuries.

• To make connections between the ideas of the Enlightenment and attitudes today about the relationship between Science and Religion.

• To be aware of attitudes regarding the authority of Scripture in this debate.

Resources

• 3a: overview

• 3a: Student Resource 1 The Age of Reason: Enlightenment

• 3a: Student Resource 1[LA] The Age of Reason: Enlightenment

• 3a: Student Resource 2 The Static World View

• 3a: Student Resource 2[LA] The Static World View

• 3a: Student Resource 3 Miracles To mechanism

• 3a: Student Resource 3[LA] From Miracles To mechanism

• 3a: Student Resource 4 Hume’s Critique of Miracles

• 3a: Student Resource 4[LA] Hume’s Critique of Miracles

• 3a: Student Resource 5 Joseph Priestly

• 3a: Student Resource 5[LA] Joseph Priestly

• 3a: Student Resource 6 Michael Faraday

• 3a: Student Resource 6[LA] Michael Faraday

• 3a: Student Resource 7 John Wesley

• 3a: Student Resource 7[LA] John Wesley

• 3a: Student Resource 8 From Revelation to Reason

• 3a: Student Resource 8[LA] From Revelation to Reason

Books:

• A Beginner’s Guide to Ideas, Raeper and Smith, Lion Publisher. Ch. 1.

• The Philosophy Files, Stephen Law, Dolphin.

• The Simpsons and Philosophy; Irwin , Conard, Skoble; Open Court.

• Pooh and the Philosophers; J Tyerman Williams; Methuen Publisher.

• Philosophy of Religion for A level, A Jordan et al., Stanley Thornes

• Philosophy goes to the Movies; Ch. Falzon; Routledge in chapter 1 (pages 33 – 44) discusses the following relevant films:

a) Rear Window (A Hitchcock, 1954)

b) You Only Live Once (F Lang, 1937)

c) Cabaret (Bob Fosse, 1972)

d) Citizen Kane (O Welles, 1941)

e) He Said, She Said (K Kwapis)

f) Hilary and Jackie (A Tucker, 1998)

g) Rashomon (A Kurosawa, 1951)

h) Twelve Angry Men (S Lumet, 1957)

Web Pages:

•

•

•

•

•

-----------------------

[1]

[2] David Hume, ‘An enquiry concerning human understanding’ (1748) in: Philosophy of Religion for A level, A Jordan et al., Stanley Thornes, pp. 171-173

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download