Natural Philosophy: Retrieving an Imaginary of Disciplinary Discipline , Alister McGrath. Oxford University Press 2023. 256 pages
Aristotle said that theoria, which is the disinterested observation of the natural world and the linguistic root which gives rise to the notion of “theory”, was the highest good man could strive for. While this was partly meant to be a philosophical validation of his leisurely aristocratic lifestyle it also revealed a deeper truth. The Ancient Greeks found inspiration for this “contemplation” practice in the observation of pan-hellenic games, religious festivals, which brought together antagonistic city-states. In stark contrast to the modern concept of the neutral observer and the modern idea that the neutral observer, studying nature provided both a way to understand the world and an opportunity to see what is there.
The idea that empirical inquiry was somehow inseparable with the personal practice of moral or spiritual improvement would continue well into the 19th Century, when the “natural philosophy” became obsolete. This was a significant shift and led to considerable technological advancement. It also came with a price, including the exclusion of all broader questions about the purpose and how it might benefit human flourishing. Alister McGrath’s latest book will be out in the early part of next month. He explores the reasons for the loss and how to recover some of the insights and methods of the earlier tradition of natural philosophy.
The first half Natural Philosophy: Retrieving an Imaginary Disciplinary gives a quick overview of the rise and decline of a constantly changing discipline that encompassed many disciplines, including science, philosophy and mathematics. The footnotes are the most detailed, with much of the information being relegated. This is to emphasize the unique features that were once associated with studying the natural world and have since fallen through the cracks of modern science. One was the aspiration towards universalalism. The Book of Nature appears to have been written in a shared language that would allow St. Thomas Aquinas or the factions of English Civil War to contemplate God’s purpose without having to debate scripture.
The second was that nature study was fortiori about the study of oneself, a conviction which resonated with the Medieval Church and a world brimming with symbols and signs pointing beyond their own to the divine. The 12th century saw the revival of Aristotle’s ideas. Empirical investigation was a means of encouraging religious devotion. In the 16th century, Francis Bacon saw our increasing control over nature as a complement religious faith and a part of our path towards redemption.
The Fall of man led to his loss of both innocence and his control over the creation. Both of these losses can be redeemed in this life; the first by faith and religion, and the second by science and arts.
Galileo would argue that natural philosophy was better than traditional theology, as it was written in the pure language of mathematics. The extraordinary harmonization between celestial mechanics and terrestrial mechanics was viewed as the ultimate proof of God’s design and magnificence.
It was to be a victim of its success. The predictability and order of Newton’s universe were so well-tuned, it didn’t require the daily maintenance of its creator. It was a complex piece of clockwork that started at the beginning of the world and then went on its own. Although the natural world was still a wonder and a place of wonder, it wasn’t the right place to have a personal encounter or relationship with an impersonal, distant god. Cultural upheaval, as well as an ever-growing cosmopolitan society, put pressure on the notion of moral absolutes. The result was a sharp philosophical distinction among facts and values and growing skepticism about whether any description of nature could lead to moral judgments or other normative conclusions. This process only accelerated with the Industrial Revolution and its obsession with technological achievement.
Keats and other romantics might have criticized the “unweaving of the rainbow” in the face its clinical dissection. But the 19th century would see professionalization of science. William Whewell, a pioneer in scientific terminology, first used the term “scientist” in 1840s to describe a movement to establish an academic identity for scientists. Popular works also began to rewrite history to fight the dogmatism of established religions. Darwin remained the classic natural philosopher, mixing careful observations with deep and profound meditations on man’s place in it. His interpreters would see in Darwin’s theory of evolution a world that was red in tooth, claw and one that man had fortunately overcome through scientific rationalism and a stiff upper lip.
Many are realizing that although the specialization in the natural sciences has brought unprecedented technological advancements, it has also been a mixed blessing. It is obvious that the environmental damage caused by an overly instrumentalist approach to the natural world is a concern. However, the moral and political imperative to follow the science to the exclusion all other considerations stems from the same fundamental disconnect between facts and values which now characterizes scientific inquiry. McGrath’s second book focuses on the possibility of restoring various aspects of natural philosophy. This includes a better awareness of nature, which recognizes its intrinsic value and its practical utility; as well as a respect for the natural world that acknowledges our dependence upon it.
However, the discussion is very abstract. The problem is in redefining the relationships between different disciplines of the natural sciences without falling prey to a simplistic reductionism that views everything as a part of fundamental physics. The second problem is how we can overcome the cultural dominance scientism. This belief holds that the natural sciences are the only reliable source for knowledge and therefore do not require any input from outdated disciplines like ethics or philosophy. Morality, however, is just another self-interested strategy to maximize genetic propagation. McGrath points out that such reasoning is flawed. It is a mistake to claim that scientific reasoning has made all value-judgements obsolete. This is just another value-judgment about how we should approach life. Arguments that science is the only source for knowledge are based on the fact that science can be used to support this belief. However, science only provides scientific justification. This means that we only have one way of arguing that science is the only source. These are debates that have been going on for decades in philosophy departments, but they do not seem to have any impact on scientific institutions.
Perhaps the problem is that natural philosophy required more than just being attentive to nature and open-minded about different disciplines. It was also very structured. McGrath explains that natural philosophy enjoyed its Golden Age in the religiously oriented seventeenth-century. This was a time when the natural world was viewed as divinely created and capable of giving insight into God’s plan. No amount of philosophical debate about the epistemological flaws in scientism will be able to restore what nature study was meant to do.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
This reminds us of Goethe’s Faust where the eponymous physician first introduces himself via his academic achievements:
I have studied Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Medicine -- And, sometimes, even, alas! Theology -- End to end, with labor eager;
However, it is not just a collection of complementary discipline, but a carefully ordered hierarchy culminating with religious devotion. Once Faust makes his famous bargain–essentially dropping Theology as his major-all of his other learning unravels. Each one becomes corrupted in the absence any ultimate purpose (it was his misused medicine that kills Gretchen). McGrath’s book provides a fascinating overview of the subject. There are many aspects of natural philosophy that can be used to reconnect scientific progress with basic human flourishing and life-giving questions. However, McGrath may have underestimated some of the difficulties involved. Not only the academic barriers to better interdisciplinarity, but also the cultural shift required to reweave Keats’s rainbow. Faust can only be saved by divine intervention in Goethe’s play. He is still condemned for eternity in the original story.
