What can we say about Descartes and Newton

[Gabriel2]

What can we say about the philosophy in René Descartes? Does it follow the Church doctrine? What about his ideas in the mathematics? And what about Isaac Newton? His studies in physics?

 

[Willing_Spirit]

What does mathematics and physics have to do with Church doctrine?

 

[Magnanimity]

What can we say about the philosophy in René Descartes? Does it follow the Church doctrine?

I could write a lengthy response on this if I had the energy. I guess I’ll just say two things. First, Catholic Thomists are not particularly fond of/friendly toward the philosophy of Descartes (e.g., Etienne Gilson, Joseph Owens, Jacques Maritain, etc). Second, and this is part of the reason why they’re not fond of the Cartesian philosophy, Descartes himself is seen as the inevitable result of a decline in the substantial Catholic philosophy that occurred within the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. These Thomists will reason that during the time of Aquinas and Duns Scotus, philosophy reached its apex but began receding from there. The nominalism of William of Ockham led to a steady erosion in philosophy, which eventuated in folks like Descartes believing that philosophy (like the arts, religion and the sciences) needed reinvention. Descartes is a Renaissance man, so he proceeds to “reinvent,” just like many others were reinventing–Da Vinci, Martin Luther, Copernicus, Galileo…

There is so much more that can be said, of course. For a brief and helpful overview, take a look at E. Gilson’s book God and Philosophy. Highly recommended.

 

[Gabriel2]

I asked that because of the science that denies God, like theory of evolution.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

The theory of evolution doesn’t deny God. Many Catholics believe in the theory. Evolution is accepted as a possible means by which God created life. There are even passages that seem inline to me with evolution. It is said life first started in water, and Genesis 1 seems to suggest that is where life began too:

"20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

 

[Gabriel2]

I don’t believe the human came from the monkey.
You must be saying about a micro-evolution, right? Not the evolution which says a specie can become other.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

I actually am also skeptical that humans evolved from monkeys, but I know some Catholics do believe that, and I don’t think the Church has not ruled it out. Just like the big bang theory, if true, can be said to have been caused by God. Any rules of nature that are observed are said to be established by God.

 

[whatistrue]

I don’t believe the human came from the monkey.

Nor does the theory of evolution claim that we did.

 

[Barnesy]

I don’t believe the human came from the monkey.
You must be saying about a micro-evolution, right? Not the evolution which says a specie can become other.

We didnt come from monkeys. Who told you that??! Its a real interesting subject and you should read about it. I can tell you where you can find lots of information if you like.

And Newton didnt do any biology. He was into math and physics. He was a Christian to.

 

[Magnanimity]

I asked that because of the science that denies God, like theory of evolution.

Oh. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Both Descartes and Newton had long passed away before its publication.

However, since you are interested in this subject, allow me to recommend to you another great Gilson book. It’s called, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again. Also highly recommended.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Descartes sought to prove God by reason alone. And what he found was that, by reason alone, everything can be doubted, except one’s own existence. Faith is a gift.

 

[rossum]

I asked that because of the science that denies God, like theory of evolution.

Evolution does not deny God. Evolution denies some overly literal interpretations of Genesis, that is all.

For example:

Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,”

Science says that trees to not have hands and that hills do not sing. Does that mean that science denies God? Or that the woodenly literal interpretation of that passage is a wrong understanding of the text?

Science denies certain wrong interpretations of scripture. If God made the world, then the world that science studies is just as much from God as the word that God inspired. You need to look at the work of God to help you interpret the word of God correctly, as with that passage from Isaiah.

 

[rossum]

And Newton didnt do any biology. He was into math and physics. He was a Christian to.

He was a heterodox, non-Trinitarian Christian. Also very into alchemy.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m somewhat of a “lay Thomist.” I don’t think Descartes’ philosophy is overtly unChristian. However, I do think his approach to skepticism creates a hole that’s impossible to dig oneself out of, and his philosophy of knowledge and philosophy of nature is flawed. Out with the “immanence of thought”!

 

[IWantGod]

I’m somewhat of a “lay Thomist.” I don’t think Descartes’ philosophy is overtly unChristian. However, I do think his approach to skepticism creates a hole that’s impossible to dig oneself out of, and his philosophy of knowledge and philosophy of nature is flawed. Out with the “immanence of thought”!

He does argue that in-order for logical truths to be true, there must be something other than himself which is making it true. He characterises this as God.

So i think he does somewhat succeed in establishing the existence of the other.

 

[commenter]

Descartes sought to prove God by reason alone.

In Descartes’ time, right up to recently, the Church had to defend the importance of Faith, against those who said only Reason is reliable or relevant.

Today the Church has to defend Reason as well. The older atheists and agnostics were almost “faithful” in conscientiously following the path of Reason to logical conclusions, no matter if they were politically incorrect or against their personal preference.

Those types are fading.

 

[commenter]

Isaac Newton was a Christian, although some of his religious writings in his later years go off on tangents Protestants and Catholics would likely disagree with. But he is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time, probably the greatest. His work in Mathematics and Physics is so important that the Secular establishment can’t ignore him.

He believed in absolutes of True/False, and Right/Wrong. Those who say religious dogma makes a person unable to do serious objective inquiry have to explain away Newton, and others.

 

[Rhubarb]

Descartes was a devout Catholic whose ontology depends upon the Goodness (and existence) of God.

I didn’t read Newton in philosophy outside his correspondence with Liebneitz. But I don’t recall anything contrary to faith.