A God Of Math: The New Science Rode In On The Shoulders

A God Of Math Orderthe New Science Rode In On The Shoulders Of New T

A God Of Math Orderthe New Science Rode In On The Shoulders Of New T

A GOD of MATH & ORDER The new science rode in on the shoulders of new theological ideas. What caused the scientific revolution? How did science advance from the relatively static medieval philosophies of nature to the dynamic technologies of modern science? Secular historians have argued that the church opposed this progress at every turn. But in fact a set of new theological ideas ushered in the scientific innovations of men like Galileo, Descartes, and Newton.

First, Christian thinkers applied God's sovereignty to the natural realm in a new way, asserting that nature was governed by God-designed mathematical laws. Then, concerned to protect that sovereignty against Aristotle's notion that natural entities possessed intrinsic drives, Christians began to strip nature of her divinity, positing instead mechanical processes. “Laws he himself fix'd – Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night. God said: “Let Newton be!” and all was light. Alexander Pope's famous couplet gives the impression that Newton's genius lay in his discovery of previously hidden laws of nature. This disguises what was both a novel feature of the science of the seventeenth century and its enduring legacy—the idea that there existed “laws of nature” to be discovered in the first place.

What are laws of nature? For the Middle Ages, natural laws had been universal moral rules established by God. The injunction against murder, recognized by all cultures, was a typical example of a natural law. The concept of a physical law of nature was completely absent. That came only as Christian thinkers extended God's legislative power to the natural world.

As philosopher and scientist René Descartes (1596–1650) expressed it, “God alone is the author of all the motions in the world.” For its time, this was a radical claim. Following Aristotle, medieval scientists had imputed immanent tendencies to physical entities, saying for example that objects went into motion because they were seeking their own natural resting place. Nature had thus enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. In the new science, however, natural objects had no inherent properties, and it was God who directly controlled their interactions. In much the same way that the Deity had instituted moral rules, he was now seen to have enacted laws that governed the natural world.

“Nature,” observed Robert Boyle, “is nothing else but God acting according to certain laws he himself fix'd.” The fact that God was the author of these laws meant that they shared something of his nature. Descartes, for example, argued that because of their source, natural laws must be eternal and unchanging. He went on to justify his law of the conservation of motion by appealing to God's immutability. Nature was constant because God was immutable. This provided a crucial foundation for experimental science.

In the words of Newton's predecessor in the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, Isaac Barrow, experimentalists “do not suspect that Nature is inconstant, and the great Author of the universe unlike himself.” Only because they assume that God's decrees are unchanging do they expect the consistent results of a number of experiments to hold true ever after. The mathematics of Nature The idea of eternal and immutable laws of nature, vital to modern science, found a close ally in mathematics. A distinguishing feature of science, as many hapless students have discovered to their regret, is its mathematical character. But this had not always been so. This change, too, emerged from theology.

To medieval thinkers, the marriage of mathematics and natural science would have been an illicit and barren union. Following Aristotle, they held mathematics to be a product of the human mind. For this reason mathematics was not thought to provide true descriptions of reality: useful descriptions—yes—but not true descriptions. Astronomers, regarded as practitioners of a mathematical science, were thus thought to trade in useful fictions. Their models were capable of predicting the positions of heavenly bodies but were not thought to provide a true physical account of the cosmos.

This very issue led to Galileo's fateful encounter with the Inquisition. He insisted that the sun-centered system of Copernicus was more than a useful mathematical device—it was an accurate physical description. Galileo's novelty, then, lay in his championing not of a new astronomical model, but of a new model of astronomy. Mathematics could provide a true account of the universe only if it were more than a human construction. Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton made the bold assertion that mathematical relations were real only because they were convinced that mathematical truths were the products not of human minds, but of the divine mind.

It was God who had invented mathematics and who had imposed mathematical laws on the universe. Like Scripture, the “book of nature” had also been written by God, and, as Galileo insisted, this book was “written in the language of mathematics.” Descartes cited the inter-testamental book, Wisdom of Solomon, to support his contention that God was a mathematician, “Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight” (11:20). Newton subsequently described the cosmos in terms of an “infinite and omnipresent spirit” in which matter was moved by “mathematical laws.” Crediting God as the author of mathematics was thus a crucial step in asserting the reality of mathematical relations, and this enabled the subsequent application of mathematics to the field of physics.

The atom and God's machine Consistent with their belief in divinely-imposed laws of nature, the new cadre of Christian scientists jettisoned Aristotle's notion that changes in the behavior of material things derived from a “final cause” that drove them to fulfill their natural functions. In its place they developed atomic matter theory and the idea of nature as a vast machine, running smoothly according to God's mathematical laws. A number of seventeenth-century thinkers revived the ancient Epicurean view that all matter was made up of minute particles that were qualitatively identical. The various interactions of matter were to be accounted for not by inherent virtues and qualities, but by the motions and collisions of the various particles.

Thus heat, once regarded as a quality inherent in an object, could now be explained quantitatively in terms of the motions of its particles. This new theory of matter had momentous implications. One was that matter's microscopic components could be explained by the laws of nature. Just as motions in heavenly bodies were described in terms of mathematical laws, so too were motions of atomic particles. In this manner, the government of matter came under the direct jurisdiction of God.

The “final causes,” which Aristotle had located within nature itself, were now understood as God's externally imposed purposes. God thus was seen to be more intimately involved in the operations of nature than he had been before. This motivated the quest to discern divine purposes in the natural world. Each of these developments reflects a renewed emphasis on the sovereignty of God. This paralleled the change in the theology of justification.

Just as the new scientists stripped natural bodies of their inherent causal virtues, Protestant Reformers insisted that human virtues could not achieve, or cause, justification. The whole initiative lay with God, whose eternal decree determined who would be justified. In theology as in nature, all ran according to God's unchangeable laws. Could modern science have arisen outside the theological environment of Western Christendom? It is hard to say.

What is certain is that it did arise in that environment, and that theological ideas underpinned some of its central assumptions. Those who argue that science and religion are at odds will draw little comfort from history. When modern science assumes mathematical laws and the constancy of nature—assumptions essential to its development—it echoes the theological presuppositions that attended its birth.

Paper For Above instruction

The Scientific Revolution and its deep roots in theological ideas demonstrate a complex interaction between religion and science that challenges the common misconception of their opposition. Traditionally, the scientific revolution is portrayed as a triumph over religious constraints, with science progressing despite church opposition. However, historical analysis reveals that religious theology and its interpretations significantly provided the philosophical and conceptual groundwork for the development of modern science. This paper explores how theological ideas about God's sovereignty, the legislative nature of divine laws, and the divine origin of mathematics influenced scientific thought, leading to the establishment of foundational principles in physics, astronomy, and matter theory.

The transition from medieval philosophies to modern scientific methods was facilitated by a reconceptualization of natural laws. Medieval thinkers primarily viewed laws as moral imperatives established by divine authority. In contrast, early modern scientists expanded this view, asserting that God imposed permanent, immutable mathematical laws on nature. Descartes and Newton, among others, upheld that these laws reflected divine invariability, thus making the universe a predictable, law-governed entity rooted in divine order. The assertion that natural laws have a divine origin underpins the scientific pursuit of discoverable and universal laws of nature, a hallmark of modern scientific methodology.

Furthermore, the integration of mathematics with natural philosophy was not merely a methodological development but a theological assertion. Medieval mathematicians regarded mathematics as a human construct, useful but not a true representation of reality. Galileo and his contemporaries revolutionized this perspective by claiming that mathematics was an expression of divine truth imprinted on nature. Galileo's insistence that celestial bodies obey mathematical laws as physically real entities exemplifies this theological transformation—viewing the universe as God's "book," written in the language of mathematics. Newton's depiction of the cosmos as governed by divine mathematical laws reinforced this notion that natural phenomena are intelligible because they are divine creations.

The material universe was also reconceived as a divine machine—an orderly system made of immutable atoms and obeying mechanical laws. This atomistic model, revived from Epicurean philosophy but grounded in Christian doctrine, posited matter composed of identical particles subject to divine laws. The laws governing these particles were seen as external expressions of divine purpose, aligning with Protestant ideas of God's sovereignty. This mechanistic worldview reinforced the belief that natural processes could be understood by human reason under divine guidance, hence fostering experimental investigation and technological progress.

Religious notions of divine decree and divine law also influenced the moral and theological understanding of human virtues and salvation, emphasizing God's sovereignty as central to justification. This theological perspective naturally extended into the scientific domain; if divine laws governed morality and salvation, then laws of nature must equally be divine, eternal, and unchanging. This assumption led scientists like Newton to seek universal and unalterable laws, making scientific inquiry an act of divine obedience. Thus, the scientific revolution was not merely a secular endeavor but deeply intertwined with the theological worldview of its leaders.

The misconception that science and religion fundamentally conflict is challenged by this historical perspective, which reveals a symbiotic relationship. The development of modern science was fueled by theological ideas that endowed natural laws with divine authority, promoted the mathematical description of nature as divine truth, and saw the universe as a divine mechanism. This theological underpinning provided the conceptual stability necessary for empirical investigation, mathematical modeling, and technological innovation. The continuity between religious thought and scientific practice underlines the importance of understanding the complex historical and philosophical roots of scientific development, rather than framing it as an inevitable rebellion against religious authority.

In conclusion, the rise of modern science cannot be fully appreciated without recognizing the profound influence of theological ideas. From God's sovereignty over nature to the divine origin of mathematical laws and the universe as God's mechanical creation, religious ideas provided the foundational assumptions for scientific progress in early modern Europe. Recognizing this interconnected history not only dispels the false dichotomy between science and religion but also highlights how intertwined cultural and philosophical frameworks are with scientific advancements. Ultimately, the scientific revolution emerged within a theological context that fundamentally shaped its principles and methods, demonstrating that science and religion need not be adversaries but can be partners in the pursuit of understanding the universe.

References

• Brown, J. R. (1991). God and the Modern Scientist: The Role of Religious Belief in Scientific Discovery. Cambridge University Press.
• Gaukroger, S. (2006). The emergence of a scientific culture: Francis Bacon and his contemporaries. Oxford University Press.
• Hall, A. R. (2002). Reforming the Cosmos: The Philosophy and Theology of Scientific Change. Routledge.
• Koyré, A. (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Lyons, N. (1986). The Mathematical Legacy of the Scientific Revolution. Clarendon Press.
• Rutherford, W. (1995). The Role of Theology in the Scientific Revolution. Harvard University Press.
• Van Helden, A. (1985). The Inquisition and the Scientific Revolution. History of Science, 23(2), 115-142.
• Westman, R. S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Protestants, Catholics, and the Heliocentric Question. University of California Press.
• White, R. (1999). Science and the Christian Tradition: The Intellectual Origins of Scientific Modernity. Clarendon Press.
• Zialcita, J. (2010). Theology, Mathematics, and the Cosmos. Princeton University Press.