Nicholas of Cusa and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshrp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshrp

Guest
Hi,

I think that one of the best Catholic theologians is Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who probably was the greatest mind of the Renaissance. But he influenced a lot of scientists, and was a teacher of Leonardo da Vinci. Some of the scientists he influenced were Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz. And through them, people like Carl Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. Often atheists say that science contradicts the claims of the Bible and religion, but I think that people like Nicholas of Cusa prove that all the documents of the Bible are consistent with scientific epistemology.

I’d like to talk about and study Cusa’s works with others, especially his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance)

His works can be found at jasper-hopkins.info/

Anyone interested please message me or continue the discussion on this thread.

God bless,
Joshua
 
Hi,

I think that one of the best Catholic theologians is Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who probably was the greatest mind of the Renaissance. But he influenced a lot of scientists, and was a teacher of Leonardo da Vinci. Some of the scientists he influenced were Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz. And through them, people like Carl Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. Often atheists say that science contradicts the claims of the Bible and religion, but I think that people like Nicholas of Cusa prove that all the documents of the Bible are consistent with scientific epistemology.

I’d like to talk about and study Cusa’s works with others, especially his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance)

His works can be found at jasper-hopkins.info/

Anyone interested please message me or continue the discussion on this thread.

God bless,
Joshua
Thank you very much for the reference. It looks very interesting, and I, of course, find that Anselm is a prelude to Cusa is particularly attractive. There’s a lot there to look at, so I’ll try to see what’s there (and elsewhere) and then continue on this thread.
Thanks again.
anselm
 
Hi,

I think that one of the best Catholic theologians is Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who probably was the greatest mind of the Renaissance. But he influenced a lot of scientists, and was a teacher of Leonardo da Vinci. Some of the scientists he influenced were Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz. And through them, people like Carl Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. Often atheists say that science contradicts the claims of the Bible and religion, but I think that people like Nicholas of Cusa prove that all the documents of the Bible are consistent with scientific epistemology.

I’d like to talk about and study Cusa’s works with others, especially his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance)

His works can be found at jasper-hopkins.info/

Anyone interested please message me or continue the discussion on this thread.

God bless,
Joshua
What’s fascinating about Nicholas Kryfts (de Cusa) is that he was one of the First Theologians to insists that Monarchs’s Authority came NOT from God but from their Subjects----which of course, anticipated Locke and others.

He also was one of the first to use the term “As Above, So Below,” which is a Good Term in some contexts but Dangerously close to Esotericism and even Anticipatory of New Ageism in other Contexts. I mean this in the sense that that statement has been used, primarily by Esoteric Societies. :o

I like the context most people put that statement in----the Nature of the Universe mirrors the Nature Of God; God is unknowable by Human Beings; all that we can really know is that we are ignorant, so our knowledge of God (and also the Universe) is what He is not. for example, He’s not Limited—He’s Infinite; insofar as the Universe mirrors God, it too must Unbounded (though not genuinely Infinite) .

Therefore, the Earth can’t be at the Center Of The Universe, since for there is no Center of An Unbounded Space—nor can it be said to be at Rest, for Rest and Motion are said to be relative, depending on the Observer.

So Kryfts also upheld the Idea of a Non-Earth-Centric Universe did WAY before others in the Renaissance did.
Many of the ideas above came from a favorite Philosophy Book that I have that is favorable to Kryfts, BTW. I LOVE Kryfts. 👍
 
What’s fascinating about Nicholas Kryfts (de Cusa) is that he was one of the First Theologians to insists that Monarchs’s Authority came NOT from God but from their Subjects----which of course, anticipated Locke and others.

He also was one of the first to use the term “As Above, So Below,” which is a Good Term in some contexts but Dangerously close to Esotericism and even Anticipatory of New Ageism in other Contexts. I mean this in the sense that that statement has been used, primarily by Esoteric Societies. :o

I like the context most people put that statement in----the Nature of the Universe mirrors the Nature Of God; God is unknowable by Human Beings; all that we can really know is that we are ignorant, so our knowledge of God (and also the Universe) is what He is not. for example, He’s not Limited—He’s Infinite; insofar as the Universe mirrors God, it too must Unbounded (though not genuinely Infinite) .
Therefore, the Earth can’t be at the Center Of The Universe, since for there is no Center of An Unbounded Space—nor can it be said to be at Rest, for Rest and Motion are said to be relative, depending on the Observer.

So Kryfts also upheld the Idea of a Non-Earth-Centric Universe did WAY before others in the Renaissance did.
Many of the ideas above came from a favorite Philosophy Book that I have that is favorable to Kryfts, BTW. I LOVE Kryfts. 👍
Very, very interesting OrdinaryMelkite and joshrp. I knew Nicholas of Cusa had proposed a heliocentric universe 100 years before Copernicus but took no further interest in him. Which of the site’s headings can the passage quoted above be found. As for his theology, I answer that:

Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep
?’ — (Job. 38:33&37).

Some of the Lords most profound teachings come to us by way of questions. In the above He is showing us how little we know and the folly of our trying to figure out the extent of His Omnipotence.

After five hundred years of trying to answer the questions in Job. 38:33&37, we now know that the universe is indeed metaphysical, that is because of its nature, spatial, where the movements of bodies contained in it are subjected to relative movement. Without knowing a body that is fixed, then the true order of the universe - and thus its laws - are beyond the limits of human science. Thus Nicolas statement ‘the Nature of the Universe mirrors the Nature Of God; God is unknowable by Human Beings; all that we can really know is that we are ignorant, so our knowledge of God (and also the Universe) is what He is not.’ merely reflects the teaching in the Book of Job. His example He’s not Limited—He’s Infinite; insofar as the Universe mirrors God, it too must Unbounded (though not genuinely Infinite) does not make sense to me, ‘unlimited but not infinite’ The biblical universe rotates once a day, thus demonstrating it is not infinite, for something infinite cannot rotate. But as a poster replied to me on another thread, maybe the rotating universe is contained within an unbounded place. Maybe, but the universe itself is still finite even in such a scenario.

Now whereas the nature, order and mechanisms of the universe are and will remain outside the limits of human reasoning and science, the quote from Job above infers that He (and the angels) do know and only if He (or the angels with His permission) tells us will we know. Thus when God revealed a fixed earth/moving sun order in Scripture, who on earth could contradict Him. Given that was the unanimous interpretation of ALL the Fathers, why did Nicholas de Cusa offer a theology opposite to theirs.

Given then that God did reveal a rotating universe and inferred the earth is at the centre of it, and that the earth is fixed and the sun moves, and this was confirmed by the Magisterium later in 1616, 1633and 1664, Nicolas’s ideas in this sphere can now be said to be contrary to faith and in the case of promulgating a fixed sun, if in fact he did, formal heresy.
 
I’m a real admirer of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. I personally hope that one day he will be recognised as a saint, for his contributions. He was so far ahead of his time.

In the 1400s, he proposed the idea of alien life on other other planets, arguing living beings on other planets would reflect the “elemental composition of those planets”.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa wrote:

"…Therefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference – although when we compare the earth with the sky, the former seems to be nearer to the center, and the latter nearer to the circumference. Therefore, the earth is not the center either of the eighth sphere or of any other sphere…Life, as it exists on Earth, in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose, in a higher form in the solar and stellar regions. Rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this earth of ours alone is peopled — and that with beings, perhaps, of an inferior type — we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to God, who is the centre and circumference of all stellar regions. Now, even if inhabitants of another kind should exist in the other stars, it seems inconceivable that, in the line of nature, anything more noble and perfect could be found than the intellectual nature that exists here on this earth and its region. The fact is that man has no longing for any other nature but desires only to be perfect in his own.

Were we to suppose that, for the realization of the plan of the universe, the whole region of the other inhabited stars stands in some relation of comparison, unknown to us, through the intermediary of the universal region a certain relationship springs up from both sides between the inhabitants of this earth or region and the inhabitants of other stars — in the same way as through the intermediary of the hand there exists a relation of comparison between the particular joints of the fingers and the foot, so that all be suitably adapted to the whole animal; not even then with this supposition could we find a relation of comparison between those inhabitants of the other stars, of whatever nature they be, and the natives of this world.

For since that whole region is unknown to us, its inhabitants remain wholly unknown. To go no further than this earth: animals of a given species unite to form a common home of the species and share the common characteristics of their habitat, knowing nothing of or caring nothing for strangers. Their idea of strangers, even if it reaches some kind of vocal expression, is wholly exterior and conjectural and, such as it is, conceivable only after lengthy experience. Of the inhabitants then of worlds other than our own we can know still less, having no standards by which to appraise them. It may be conjectured that in the area of the sun there exist solar beings, bright and enlightened intellectual denizens, and by nature more spiritual than such as may inhabit the moon — who are possibly lunar — whilst those on earth are more gross and material. It may be supposed that those solar intelligences are highly actualized and little in potency, while the earth denizens are much in potency and little in act, and the moon-dwellers betwixt and between.

We make these conjectures from a consideration of the fiery nature of the sun, the water and air elements in the moon and the weighty bulk of the earth. And we may make parallel surmise of other stellar areas that none of them lack inhabitants, as being each, like the world we live in, a particular area of one universe which contains as many such areas as there are uncountable stars. In these local areas (we may guess), so countless that only He who has created all things in number can enumerate them, the whole cosmos suffers a triple contraction in its downward fourfold progress…"
  • Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464)
 
Thankyou Joshrp for starting this thred and providing the link. I am very interested in reading the works of Catholic scientists / philosophers, especially from centuries ago.

As a busy teacher it wil take time for me to read them so i may not get back to ask you questions, but thanks for making the documents available on CAF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top