Robert Boyle and the relation between religion and science [PDF]

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Department of Philosophy and Moral Science Chair: Prof. Dr. E. Weber

Robert Boyle and the relation between religion and science by Merel Lefevere

Promotor: Dr. S. Ducheyne

Dissertation submitted to obtain the postgraduate diploma in Logic, History and Philosophy of Science

Academic year 2009–2010

ii

Contents Inhoudsopgave

i

Introduction

1

1 Robert Boyle a unification of voluntarism, reformism, physico-theology and early modern science? 2 1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Religion and science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

1.1.1

A mutual influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

1.1.2

Signs and meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.1.3

Revival of the physical world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

1.1.4

Textual methodologies endangered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

1.1.5

New methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

The meaning of nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

1.2.1

Cartesianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

1.2.2

Physico-theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Voluntarism, empirical science and the reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

1.3.1

Voluntarism and empirical sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

1.3.2

Boyle and the reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

i

2 Boyle’s Notion of Nature and causation

15

2.1

Occasionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

2.2

Concurrentism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

2.3

Notion of Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

2.4

Refined concurrentism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

2.5

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

Conclusion

33

Bibliography

34

ii

Introduction This dissertation is divided in two chapters. In first chapter I start with a more general framework to discuss the relation between science and religion, by following Harrison’s [1998] claim that early modern science developed as a re-reading of the two books, nature and scripture, because of changing methodology in reading the Bible. After sketching this evolution there were two possibilities to assign a new meaning to nature, Cartesianism or physico-theology. I will focus on physico-theology with Robert Boyle as my main character. Still in the first chapter I will discuss the relation between voluntarism, reformism and Boyle’s modern, empirical science. In the second chapter two possible interpretations of Boyle’s relationship between God and nature will be looked into. The first interpretation is the occasionalist account, which states that God is the only efficacious cause in the world, the second interpretation states that both God and bodies in the natural world can produce phenomena, however not separately but by cooperating. In this chapter I will use Boyle’s A free enquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature to test both interpretations with Boyle’s actual claims. It will be clear that a concurrentist interpretation is best suited to deal with Boyle’s view that God created the universe, settled the laws of motion and is needed to maintain the order, although bodies in nature have the capacity to transfer motion from one to another. By using Anstey’s arguments [2000], this concurrentist interpretation can be refined.

1

Chapter 1 Robert Boyle a unification of voluntarism, reformism, physico-theology and early modern science? 1.1 1.1.1

Religion and science A mutual influence

The relation between science and religion is still a widely discussed topic. Osler [1997] describes different metaphors that have been used in historiography of science and adds another. The first metaphor focusses on conflicts between science and religion, with Galileo’s trial as a paradigm case, as complete opposites of each other. The harmony metaphor emphasizes the positive influence that religion had on the rise of modern science, as exemplified by the famous but strongely discussed merton-thesis. The segregation metaphor preserves the autonomy of science and religion by considering them as seperate but equal disciplines. Osler self suggests there was a conceptual influence and interaction between religion and science, between theology and natural philosophy. This mutual influence can be conceived by two metaphors: appropriation and translation. By speaking of ‘appropriation, we acknowledge the change in a previously 2

established idea, theory, technique, or practice as it enters a new historical (and perhaps geographical) location. [...] ‘Translation’ refers to a relationship between abstract symbol systems mediated by individuals in specific historical contexts. [Osler, 1997, p.101-102] With this metaphors Osler wants to emphasize the deep interconnectedness between both disciplines. This interconnectedness is also what makes Harrison’s claim when he argues that it is the changed hermeneutics of reading the Scripture that had a crucial influence on the rise of early modern science [Harrison, 1998].

1.1.2

Signs and meaning

One of the main figures for the medieval hermeneutics for reading the Bible is Origen (185-254). For him every visible thing can teach us about that which is unvisible. Origen demonstrated that the physical world could be made intelligible by a process of exposing the spiritual realities that were symbolized by material things. The key in this interpretation methodology was allegory. For Origin, scripture had three senses, corresponding to body, soul and spirit. The literal sense was the obvious sense. The second sense, corresponding with the soul is the moral sense; Scripture learned us how to live. The highest sense, corresponding with the spirit, was the allegorical sense and contained timeless theological truths. By using this method, passages that seemed nonsensical in the literary reading, could have sence when read allegorically. The same methodology was applied to the physical world. The lowest reading of nature was to serve physical needs, animals and plants are used for food. The problem of dangerous, annoying and useless animals could be explained on the moral or allegorical level. Nothing was without purpose, and if no meaning could be found on the basic level, things in nature became signs for a deeper meaning. Harrison gives the pelican in the Physiologus as an example, it became an enduring symbol of Christ’s atonement [Harrison, 1998, p.24etseq.]. Augustine argued that scripture only talked about faith or morals, references to natural objects did not communicate information about the physical world. It was the other way around, knowledge of physical objects in nature could only serve understanding the resemblances of scripture. To use the metaphors of the two books, for Augustine the book of nature was completely subordinate to the book of scripture. The study of nature itself was only possible by studying the scripture.

3

1.1.3

Revival of the physical world

In the renaissance of the 12the century nature was rediscovered. The physical world was regarded as a place of divine activity. This physical emphasis was also evident in the experience of sacraments: In the mass, the centrepiece of medieval religion, priests were to rehearse the process of incarnation by transforming the matter of bread and wine into the very substance of God. The elemnts of the mass were not simply naked signs, significant for what they symbolised: now they were vested with intrinsic importance for what they literally were - the body and blood of Christ. Participants in the eucharist saw themselves as ‘eating God’. [Harrison, 1998, p.37] This elevation of the physical world resulted in a new status of the senses. Knowledge of things was now accessible through our sense organs. Aquinas claimed that all our knowledge comes from sensation. This reversed Augustine’s view, it is not God who makes the knowledge of the world possible, it is the world that makes possible our knowledge of God. This re-apriciation of the physical world had as an outcome that the empirical world was considered a coherent entity, accessable for systematical investigation. This means that the empirical world no longer is a dull reflection of the intelligble world, but it became valuable to investigate the patterns of that world itself. The book of nature needed to be read in itself, but this happened with the methodologies that were previously used on the book of scripture. “Nature was a new authority, an alternative text, a doorway to the divine which could stand alongside the sacred page” [Harrison, 1998, p.45]. In this framework the idea grows that with this new knowledge of God one can restore the similtudo that was lost after the Fall, the restoration of the human likeness to God. Through knowledge, the world would be reunited, and both knower and known would be redeemed. The human begin was to comprehend all things in both ontological and epistemological senses of that term. [Harrison, 1998, p.59] Turning away from the book of scripture to the book of nature was thus not motivated by a secular impulse. The natural knowledge was pursued as part of the human redemption, it was a religious process. Neither was it driven by secular methodologies. It is important to notice that this turn towards the physical world was in no way a turn to an empirical science. The study of nature happened by studying texts. 4

For the scholastics, nature existed primarily in books, and if from time to time they were to add glosses to the authorities on the basis of their own observations of the world, they nonetheless saw as their main task the preservation and transmission of a world which had already been closely observed by great minds in the past. [Harrison, 1998, p.65] They had the idea that men used to be in possession of a complete knowledge of the world, but it was lost with the Fall, although it was partially maintained in oral traditions and in scripture. This knowledge had to be rebuilt by reconstructing the ancient texts and eliminate the contradictions by the tools of logic and dialectic. The study of nature was thus a study of the books about nature. The idea was that one only encounters individuals in the world, but in those individual bodies there is an essence which enables us to attain a universalization. The culture of books is something that allowed putting trust in the world, since everything one could encounter is already told about; if one learned about the universal essence one can understand the individual manifestation.

1.1.4

Textual methodologies endangered

Irreconcilable differences formed a major threat for this methodology. And according to Harrison, this is exactly what happened in the sixteenth century. The movement of textual criticism to return to the original, unedited texts revealed disagreements amongst authorities. It’s still a culture of books, but one wants to return to the earliest most accurate text. This movement switched the focus to the content of the texts. In natural history knowledge was increased by etymological research, but the involvement with nature grew, since the texts were corrupted, the authors had to consult nature itself to see if the description matched a known species. One also became interested in the used methods of the ancient ‘scientists’. Next, the explorations to the new world disclosed major black holes in the ancients’ knowledge of the natural world. With al the new plants and animals, as they were not in the books, the allegorical reading became more difficult, because these new discoveries were potentially unintelligible symbols. But for Harrison, the main force behind this change was the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther extricated the original Bible from al its glosses and commentaries and read it as a new text, detached from the tradition and the authority of the Church. The authority was given to the scripture itself and the meaning of the scripture could be determined by every individual itself. Freeing the book of scripture of authority was also applied to the 5

book of nature. For Protestantism the Bible was the ultimate source to settle theological disputes, so in order to reduce ambiguities a literal reading was promoted and the whole chain of moral and allegorical references was eliminated, only content was left. This freed the nature of the biblical categories and objects could now be related by mathematics, mechanics or other categories.

1.1.5

New methods

After the allegorical implosion, new methods were to be found to read the two books. A new attitude grows towards the Bible. It is approached as a text that was written, in, and for, another world than ours, unlike the medieval tradition where this text functions as a story in which events are told beforehand and where the spiritual understanding of a new situation is the locus where the spiritual efficacy of the Trinity manifests itself. This change can be traced from several angles, according to Harrison. First, understanding scripture becomes a matter of literal, historical reading, and in theology the idea rises that this text has a determinate meaning. Second, the meaning of religious rites changes: the consecration of bread and wine in the Eucharist is no longer an event that literally repeats another event, but it an act of memory. Harrison refers to the Ten Articles of 1536 of Anglicanism in which is mentioned that the “sprinkling of the holy water was to put us in remembrance of our baptism, holy bread to put us in remembrance of the sacrament of the altar” and so on [Harrison, 1998, p.124]. By considering the Bible as a historical text, the gap between scripture and other texts started to reduce. It makes it possible that the Bible is just one account, however with more chronological antiquity, among many of the same reality. Further, this new status of the Bible had as a result that not every passage could be read as a moral or theological message, there had to be historical and geographical knowledge in there as well. This new perspective on the Bible led to a ‘Mosaic philosophy’, in which the Bible was interpreted as a text of natural philosophy. Also the utility of things had previously been found only on the symbolical level. Since this became impossible, alternative, but still divine purposes hidden in natural things had to be sought. The assumption was that everything in nature was in some way useful. This was manifested in the re-emergent question of useless or hostile animals and plants. Several explanatory roads were possible. They could be instruments of divine justice, or exist because of the principle of plenitude. They could even be made for a spur to human industry. In the metaphors of appropriation and translation of Osler this could mean that the idea of individual natures that possess immanent finality was replaced in a mechanical 6

interpretation with the idea that nature as a whole is the product of God [Osler, 1996]. In these circumstances it was possible again to learn about God by studying nature, not through knowledge of exemplary forms but by investigating the design in the world, since for everything done in nature there is a purpose and there is a divine providence that orders all things. This is an attempt to enumerate all the violence that befalls a body, and an attempt to point up all the features of this body that allow it to maintain itself despite this violence.

1.2

The meaning of nature

In the seventeenth century there are two opposing programs to deal with understanding divine intentions. One is associated with Descartes, the other with Boyle.

1.2.1

Cartesianism

The traditional Christian view was that we have sense organs, given by God, so that we can understand his creation [Gaukroger, 2006]. Descartes denied that our sense organs produce any knowledge, they are simply given to protect our bodies from injuries. Gaukroger [2006] describes this position by seeing it as a response to the failure of Thomism. In the Thomist understanding natural philosophy and theology were autonomous disciplines. Natural philosophy was Aristotelianism and relied on sense perceptions. Theology was christian and was founded on revelation. Aquinas wanted some sort of neutral superdiscipline which would connect theology with natural philosophy, and thought metaphysics was suited for this role. At the beginning of the seventeenth century scholars began to realize the failure of this project; Aristotelianism and Christianiry could not be reconciled. Descartes proposed a program in which he argues that God transcents our knowledge and cannot be reached by natural reasoning. For us humans it is impossible to grasps ideas such as omnipotence or omniscience. This gap cannot be bridged by metaphysics, but it can be closed by the doctrine of clear and distinct ideas. God has given us a faculty so that we can evaluate supposed truths, but it is necessary that God guarantees the proper functioning of that faculty. This means that we cannot know God’s purposes in nature and God is not present in nature.

7

1.2.2

Physico-theology

For Boyle it is the primary goal of natural philosophy to reveal evidence of the purposes of God in nature. Natural philosophy was the road to natural theology, a theology based on reason and experience. By admiring and investigating the natural world, we can discover more about it’s creator. For Boyle the world was created and not a cause of blind chance, and Boyle transforms natural enquirey into a form of worship [Gaukroger, 2006]. God did not only create the world, but because of Boyle’s his doctrine of inanimate matter and mechanistic philosophy, God needed to play an active role in de maintenance and guidance of natural processes. For Gaukroger it were suchlike projects that increased the succes of the legitimation and consolidation of science in the early modern times, since the natural philosophy was not a separated from religion, but is was used to fulfill the projects of natural theology [Gaukroger, 2005]. In the next section we will look deeper into two further questions. First the relation between voluntarism and empirical science, of which Boyle is often used as a key paradigm. Second, the influence of the reformation on Boyle’s thought.

1.3

Voluntarism, empirical science and the reformation

1.3.1

Voluntarism and empirical sciences

Foster [1934] claims that before there could exist a modern science of nature, there first must be a modern conception of nature. Since the modern doctrine of nature is incompatible with the Aristotelian doctrine, something must have changed. His claims is that it is the acceptance of the Christian doctrine of creation in science that caused a shift in the conception of nature, and therefore a change in natural science or natural philosophy. Greek natural science assumes that the essences of natural objects are definable, this presupposes that definition is an act of pure reason. Therefore there is something in an object which is intelligible and distinct from sensible. This is what the Greek called the form, distinct from the matter of an object. For an object to be definable, it is thus the form that makes the thing to be what it is. The corresponding theory of nature distinguishes the natural world in a similar way. Since only intelligent knowledge is sufficient for under8

standing what is and what happens in the actual world, the sensuous experience can only be an illustration of that knowledge. This theory of nature presupposes that neither form neither matter is created. If matter is created it would possess a positive being, and thus contradict with the view that only form defines an object. If form were created, it would not be intelligible. As Foster summarizes, “nature may be conceived as dependent upon a supernatural power for the activity by which its two elements are conjoined, but not for the being of either element” [Foster 1934, p.456]. A created nature, as in the Christian doctrine, contradicts the two conditions for an object to be definable, since the work of creation is not purposive, natural objects can have no form that is distinct as the object of the intellect. The form of an object is in this doctrine no longer intelligible and it is not the real essence of an object. Where a Demiurge is wholly subordinated to theoretical activity, a Christian God has an autonomous activity of will. Moreover by an act of Divine will, it follows that contingency is an essential to the creation. The contingency is no longer an imperfection in the embodiment of form, but it is what constitutes a natural object. But this contingent aspect is only accessible by the senses. So if nature is necessary contingent, this should be reflected in the science of nature. Because there is something in nature, depending on Divine will, that is not knowable by pure reason, the science of nature must depend on the evidence of sensuous experience. Foster claims thus that modern science could only rise when the Greek view on nature was replaced; and this change in conception was only possible by accepting the Christian conception of God as the object of understanding. Harrison [2002] doubts that voluntarism had a direct causal influence on early modern science, as Foster claimed. He sees several problems for this claim: there were important modern voluntarists who were not empiricists, central concepts in voluntarism such as ‘necessity’ and ‘contingency’ are used in an ambiguous way and voluntarism is inconsistent with the physico-theological motivations. Harrison defines voluntarism as “that view of the Deity that elevates his will over his intellect [¨ı¿½] those identified as medieval voluntarists argued that the will is more noble than the intellect, and that the will commands the intellect in both God and the human soul. Some knowledge of divine will is required, and access to such knowledge is gained through revelation. [¨ı¿½] Because God might have instituted any natural order he desired, nature must be directly consulted in order to determine which specific laws he actually promulgated.” [Harrison 2002, p.2] Classic examples of voluntarism are Pierre Gassendi, Isaac Barrow, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. For Harrison it is conspicuous that Rene

9

Descartes is not in this list, since he was a radical voluntarist and simultaneously commited to the possibility of a priori knowledge of the laws of nature. Harrison quotes a letter from Descartes to Mersenne (1630) in which Descartes claimed that “the mathematical truths, which you call eternal, were established by God and totally depend on him, just like all the other creatures” and a passage in Objections and Replies in which Descartes states that God’s will precedes his intellect, it is because God willed that three angles of a triangle should equal two right angle, that this is true, not the other way around [Harrison 2002, p.3]. For Descartes there is no necessary connection between voluntarism and empiricism. He claimed that we can have a priori knowledge of the laws of nature, because those truths are in our minds. Another important remark on the supposed relation between voluntarism and empiricism can be found in the changing reception of the Bible in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. As we already told, the reading of the scripture changed drastically in the seventeenth century. The Bible was read as a historical text, containing historical and geographical knowledge. The assumption was that legitimate knowledge of both nature and God could be found in the scriptures, and thus knowledge without sensuous experience was still taken very seriously. One of the important implications of voluntarism, as shown by Foster [1934], is the contingency of the created order, as opposed to a necessary act. Descartes shows us that it could be that God freely chooses to create necessary truths. Does the contingency determines the Divine will or is it a view about the relation of the creation to God? Contingency could be an antonym for necessity or it could be a synonym for dependence. For Harrison it is problematic to speak of contingency as dependence, since this would mean classical theism, meaning that all operations in nature are solely and directly dependent on Divine will. An immediate dependence can be found with the occasionalists, for whom God is the only causally efficacious agent in nature. But such a direct dependence subverts the very idea of laws of nature, since there are no active principles needed anymore to mediate between God and nature. This dependency position is thus not necessarily associated with empiricism. Moreover, if everything in nature is directly dependent on Divine will, there are no contingent events, in the sense of opposed to necessity, in the world. There can only be laws of nature if God’s will is constant and immutable. If nature is directly dependent on God’s will than that will needs to be stable or if it is unstable there can be no laws of nature. The pure voluntarist claim that everything is dependent on God’s will, is thus inconsistent with the physico-theological program, since this whole project rests on the possibility to discover a rational design in the empirical world. Harrison points out that 10

Boyle, and others, was therefore not a pure voluntarists, since he emphasizes God’s wisdom and beneficence a lot. For the physico-theological program to succeed, nature could not be a random collection of phenomena, there had to be a design, a structure in the world; and this is what Boyle repeats several times in his Notion of Nature: I think it probable [...] that the great and wise author of things did, [...], put its parts into various motions [...]. And that, by his infinite wisdom and power, he did so guide and overrule the motions of there parts at the beginning of things, as [...] they were finally disposed into that beautiful and orderly frame we call the world; [...]. And I further conceive that he settled such laws or rules of local motion among the parts of the universal matter, that by his ordinary and preserving concourse the several parts of the universe, thus once completed, should be able to maintain the great construction [...]. I suppose no other efficient [cause] of the universe but God himself [...]. [Boyle, 1996, p.39, my italics] In order to maintain the relation between voluntarism and early empirical science a particular interpretation of the power distinction potentia absoluta et ordinata was used. The traditional meaning is that God set up our present world with his absolute power, although he could have constituted any type of world. In this sense God’s absolute power was never actualized, it consisted of the possible worlds that God could have created. God’s ordinary power is manifested in everything that happens in the created world, the regular phenomena and the irregularities. In another usage of this distinction, God remained the possibility to use his absolute power in the created world to go against the settled course of things, as constituted by God’s ordinary power. This is one of McQuire’s [1972] basic assumptions. According to him seventeenth-century thinkers supported a basic doctrine, originating from William of Ockham, in which two modes of Divine omnipotence are distinguished. God has absolute and ordinary power, potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata. Voluntarist theologists then claim that it is God’s power which set up the natural and moral order, by means of absolute creation. In order for this creation to happen, God does not need a sufficient reason, he is absolutely free to create any world he wants. Once the framework is established, secondary causes and moral laws are immutable. But, “though all laws and causes have their continual source in Divine Will, that Will itself is not arbitrary and capricious” [McGuire, 1972, p.526], thus God operates through the laws that are being nurtured by his own will. However, God also possesses absolute power, by which he is capable of going against the established order, since this order is not ultimate. It 11

was regarded that God’s absolute power was manifested through miracles. God’s use of his absolute power was seen as a suspension or alternative use of the secondary causes. This doctrine is connected with other dogma’s, such as creation ex nihilo and Providence: “...the initial act of absolute creation was of the same type as a contingent thing’s being made to endure and to exist” [McGuire, 1972, p.526]. Both the creation and the continuance in existence required God’s omnipotence, since there was nothing in nature that could self-endure or subsist. Moreover, this absolute creation suggests that God is providentially in contact with his creation, both in termins of ordinary and extraordinary providence. For Harrison [2002] points out that other interpretations of this distinction include William Courtenay [1974] who claims that the power distinction rules out an arbitrary God who changes his mind and goes against the established laws of nature, which is precisely what voluntarists want to account for. Harrison also doubts that medieval nominalists were directly relevant for the seventeenth century, since Reformers could have misinterpreted them. But even then, there is no evidence that Calvin and Luther transmitted the medieval ideas of divine power to early modern times. Harrison further writes that the use of the power distinction in the seventeenth century always refers to the classical distinction and was not considered equivalent to the distinction between ordinary and extraordinaty power. However, according to McGuire [1972] the ideas of voluntarism and the power distinction are closely linked to a theological tradition which includes William of Ockham, Augustine, Calvin and the German encyclopaedists of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In his argument Robert Boyle was strongly influenced by calvinism, we will discuss this in the next subsection.

1.3.2

Boyle and the reformation

First we will question if Boyle had a nominalist ontology. According to McGuire [1972] this means that only individual objects exist and since everything is only dependent on God, their are no relations between those individual things. In this description this is indeed similar to what Boyle argues. Anstey describes how nominalism in the seventeenth century existed in two forms, the ontological form, according to which universals do not exist and a semantic thesis of Ockham, who stated that the references to ostensibly unversals do not refer to any objective existents [Anstey, 2000a]. It was the first, ontological, use that McGuire ascribed to Boyle. The position that everything in the natural world are unrelated particulars is consistent with ontological nominalism, but Anstey shows that it does not entail it. For Boyle everything was dependent on God for its existance and in some cases 12

also for the relations to each other. By quotes of Christian Virtuoso I Anstey [2000] shows that if God’s assistance would cease, the collisions between matter would still occur, since they have the causal efficacy to transmit motion to one another and to change direction, but the great construction would fall apart in chaos, because “God established the lines of motion” [Boyle, 1996, p.75]. But non of this is situated in a discourse of nominalism. Anstey claims that Calvin himself did not even engage in the question of nominalism versus realism, so how could Boyle have been influenced by it? McGuire [1972] argues further that nominalism is closely related to voluntarism, but again, neither position entails the other. Anstey agrees with McGuire’s claim that Boyle was a voluntarist, but disconnects this from any nominalist position. There were a lot voluntarist influences in his immediate sources, such as Descartes and Gassendi, but non of them were Protestant and Boyle never discusses calvinism in his treatments. Anstey strengthens his thesis by investigating the references in Boyle’s writings [Anstey, 2000a, p.16 etseq.] and finds only one reference to Calvin and one to Luther. Further Anstey mentions the Seraphic Love, the Essay of the Holy Scriptures and Style of the Scriptures to show the paucity of reformist references. The Seraphic Love discusses the disagreements between the Calvinist and Arminian position on predestination, but Boyle remains neutral, since his aim is to show that either position allows one to still celebrate God’s love. But Boyle never mentioned Calvin himself in this treaty, but he refers to socianism. Boyle’s Essay of the Holy Scriptures defends biblical translation into vernacular, a Lutheran idea, but again Boyle only makes one reference to a reformer in this treaty, to Theodore Beza. McGuire’s claim that Boyle mentions a lot of calvinist writers is invalidated since Anstey shows that the authors he mentions are not Calvinist theologians, they rather should be unified arount the theme of Christian apologetics. Also in Style of the Scriptures Boyle uses the same and similar references, who seem to be Christian defenders of the faith and ancient authors. Anstey then situates Boyle theological influence arount the Tew Circle, since Boyle admired Falkland, read Hammond and was intimate with Barlow. This Tew Circle provided a method for natural philosophy, based on early Anglican theology, that was charactarized by a doctrinal minimalism, avoidance of disputation and a reconciling ‘via media’ [Anstey, 2000a, p.24]. These are all features that are present in Boyle’s natural philosophy. Anstey does not want to deny that Boyle has been influenced by reformed thought, but his writings in natural philosophy fir the apologetic framework better, since their is no evidence of Calvinist theology in his works. Boyle’s voluntarism is inspired by Descartes,

13

Suarez and Gassendi, rather than by the reformers. The conclusion that Robert Boyle is an epitomized character of the close relation between Reformation and Scientific Revolution cannot be maintained.

1.4

Conclusion

In this chapter I’ve started with a general framework of the relation between science and religion, in which the changing hermeneutics of reading the Bible has created a new position for the study of nature. After this allegorical implosion there had to be created a new meaning for nature, and for this there were two candidated: Cartesianism and physico-theology. In the third section I focus on the latter program by discussing the relation between voluntarism and empirical science and by considering one of the key figures of phsyco-theology, Robert Boyle and his relationship to the reformers. The further development of Boyle’s relation between God and nature will be the subject of the second chapter.

14

Chapter 2 Boyle’s Notion of Nature and causation 2.1

Occasionalism

One of the interpretations of Boyle’s laws of nature can be found with J.E. McGuire [1972]. In his article he wants to propose an alternative to the ’received’ opinion in which seventeenth-century thinkers viewed God’s relation to nature as primarily a first efficient cause. This makes nature relatively independent of God. Thus, “scientific knowledge establishes nature as a self-contained, self-regulating, law-governed system which can be likened in its interrelations to a machine” and “as nature came more and more to be conceived as a system of laws relating matter and motion, the doctrine of divine providence declined in importance [...] in natural philosophy” [McGuire, 1972, p.524]. One of McGuire’s basic assumptions is that seventeenth-century thinkers supported a basic doctrine, originating from William of Ockham, in which two modes of Divine omnipotence are distinguished. God has absolute and ordinary power, potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata. Voluntarist theologists then claim that it is God’s power which set up the natural and moral order, by means of absolute creation. In order for this creation to happen, God does not need a sufficient reason, he is absolutely free to create any world he wants. Once the framework is established, secondary causes and moral laws are immutable. But, “though all laws and causes have their continual source in Divine Will, that Will itself is not arbitrary and capricious” [McGuire, 1972, p.526], thus God operates through the laws that are being nurtured by his own will. However, God also possesses absolute power, by 15

which he is capable of going against the established order, since this order is not ultimate. It was regarded that God’s absolute power was manifested through miracles. God’s use of his absolute power was seen as a suspension or alternative use of the secondary causes. This doctrine is connected with other dogma’s, such as creation ex nihilo and Providence: “...the initial act of absolute creation was of the same type as a contingent thing’s being made to endure and to exist” [McGuire, 1972, p.526]. Both the creation and the continuance in existence required God’s omnipotence, since there was nothing in nature that could self-endure or subsist. Moreover, this absolute creation suggests that God is providentially in contact with his creation. There are different positions to deal with this relation between Providence and secondary causation. For Thomas Hobbes causes always necessitate their effects. Hobbes claimed that God was a first efficient cause and that after the creation the world maintained itself independently of God by second causes. “For Hobbes, ..., to deny that voluntary acts have been necessary all along is to envisage a failure of causation: it is to envisage uncaused events, and this is impossible” [Gaukroger, 2006, p.461]. This view rules out Providence and was thus inconsistent with Christian cosmology. Another, more common, view is that of Descartes. He claimed that after the creation, God inspirited the world with an unchanging amount of motion, so that moving bodies would be self-regulating. He “postulated a conservation principle and three laws of nature which regulated all corpuscular interactions” [Gaukroger, 2006, p.462]. However, Descartes also argued that “nature was recreated from moment to moment by God’s arbitrary fiat. Thus secondary causes would cease to exist were they not continuously maintained by Divine Will” [McGuire, 1972, p.530]. In this position the secondary causes are still dependent on Divine Providence. McGuire continues with Malebranche, who restricts any causal powers to the divine level. According to Gaukroger [2006] Malebranche rationalizes cartesianism to bring out the complete dependence of bodies on God. Since God is the only true cause, then all causes in nature are “merely occasions of Divine Will” [McGuire, 1972, p.531]. According to McGuire, Boyle did not accept occasionalism. For him God is a transcendent, first and efficient cause and nature is, once created, maintained by God’s ordinary power: I think it probable [...] that the great and wise author of things did, [...], put its parts into various motions [...]. And that, by his infinite wisdom and power, he did so guide and overrule the motions of there parts at the beginning of things, as [...] they were finally disposed into that beautiful and orderly frame we call the world; [...]. And I further conceive that he settled such laws 16

or rules of local motion among the parts of the universal matter, that by his ordinary and preserving concourse the several parts of the universe, thus once completed, should be able to maintain the great construction [...]. I suppose no other efficient [cause] of the universe but God himself [...]. [Boyle, 1996, p.39] This brings us to Boyle’s famous passage about laws of nature. Since God is sovereign over nature and settles it’s behaviour, then “a law is but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior” [Boyle 1682 (1996), p.24]. This implies that only intellectual beings are able to receive and act by law. McGuire quotes Boyle in the Christian Virtuoso where he says: “inanimate bodies which cannot incite or moderate their own actions, are produced by real power, not by laws” [McGuire, 1972, p.535, his italics]. This real power is no other than God himself. This means that for Boyle causation is something that is imposed on observed regularity by the human mind. “A law of nature is the conceptualization of similarity observed between phenomena, arising from the fact that the human mind observes phenomena as similar” [McGuire, 1972, p.536]. According to McGuire it is Boyle’s nominalist interpretation of reality which induced him to this new concept of laws. Since every existing thing is completely dependent on Divine power, so there is no reason to presume inherent connections among the particulars. “The laws of phenomena and their properties are not interrelated. Hence a priori insight into the structure of nature is not possible since there exists no intrinsic relations among physical phenomena” [McGuire, 1972, p.528]. The question remains why we should expect future phenomena to act upon the laws of nature. For Boyle the laws of nature are a way to know about God’s instructions upon nature. To answer the question, Boyle falls back on Providence. After creation God has chosen to govern the universe in such or such a way, and as already mentioned “though all laws and causes have their continual source in Divine Will, that Will itself is not arbitrary and capricious” [McGuire, 1972, p.526]. According to McGuire the ideas of Notion of Nature are closely linked to a theological tradition which includes William of Ockham, Augustine, Calvin and the German encyclopaedists of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. This influence can be situated twofold. First, the young Boyle was tutored by a Calvinist called Marcombes, and secondly, Boyle was closely related to the Hartlib circle, which was Calvinistic in outlook. McGuire says that Boyle must have found the Calvinistic theological doctrines in widely read works of Calvin, the encyclopaedists and the Cambridge Puritans and lists some titles of books that Boyle presumably has read. 17

2.2

Concurrentism

Timothy Shanahan [1988] focuses on the question whether or not there are secondary causes in nature according to Boyle. As we have seen in the previous section, McGuire denies this and argues that for Boyle everything that happens in nature must be ascribed to God, and to God alone. The ‘received opinion’, which can be thought of as metaphysical deism stands at an opposite extreme from McGuire’s occasionalist interpretation1 . To clarify the meaning of metaphysical deism, and to construct his own argument for an intermediary interpretation of Boyle, Shanahan considers some medieval formulations of the arguments. According to William Durandus de Saint-Pourcain (1270-1332), God is the primary agent which creates secondary agents, and conserves them and their powers in existence. In causing further effects the secondary agents do not need assistance from God. If God would act, than he would either act by the same action or by a different action by which the secondary cause acts. Durandus excludes action by the same action for two reasons. First, a secondary agent does not need God’s influence to perform his actions. Second, it is not possible that the same action comes from two or more agents such that it is completely and immediately from both agents, unless they act from the same power. Since God and a secondary agent cannot act by the same power, they do not act by the same action. Analogously, action by a different action is also excluded by Durandus. If an effect was produced by two different actions, then either one of the actions effects the thing before the other does, or else simultaneously. If God’s action comes first, then the creature brings about nothing, and vice versa. If God creates a part, and the secondary agent another, then the same problem remains. If the different actions occur simultaneous, then one of the two would be superfluous, and moreover, two actions cannot have the same terminus. Durandus thus concludes that God does not act immediately in the production of the effect of a secondary cause. Shanahan shows by several passages that Boyle understood events in nature to involve causal activity from both God and natural entities. In his Essay containing a requisite digression concerning those, that would exclude the Deity from intermeddling with matter [Boyle, 1663], Boyle argues that God’s guidance and regulation is necessary to maintain the laws of motion that govern the interactions of bodies. It is noteworthy that Boyle’s position is not only similar to Aquinas, but he also uses the same analogy: 1

McGuire himself claims that Boyle did not accept occasionalism, but Shanahan will argue that McGuire did not understood what occasionalism really is, and that it is in fact correspondent with McGuire’s interpretation of Boyle.

18

... as the quill that a philosopher writes with, being dipped in ink, and then moved after such and such manner upon white paper, all which are corporeal things, or their motions, may very well trace an excellent rational discourse; but the quill would never have been moved after the requisite manner upon the paper, had not its motion been guided and regulated by the understanding of the writer. [Boyle, 1663, p.174] Shanahan points out the context of the development of the concurrentist position. “Recall that occasionalism was originally a response to the rejection of miracles based on adherence to a doctrine of the necessity of nature. Concurrentism, in turn, was developed as a response to occasionalism while trying to avoid the opposite error of supposing that natural entities produce effects independently of God assistance” [Shanahan 1988, p.565]. This led Shanahan to look onto Boyle’s position on miracles and in Some physic-theological considerations about the possibility of the resurrection [Boyle, 1675] he speaks about the burning, but unharmed young men from the book of Daniel. In this essay Boyle gives two possible explanation for the miracle. The first option is that God withdraws his confluence with the flames, he interrupts the fire’s action. The second option is that the fire keeps its power to burn, but God does not cooperate with the flame to produce the effect in the young men. The first explanation corresponds with Aquinas position, the second explanation is how Molina deals with the miracle. This means that for Boyle, God contributes to nature in two manners: he created the matter and set it in motion, and he continues to preserve the natural order by maintaining the laws of motions and the effects from secondary agents. Both God and the natural entities play a causal role in our physical universe.

2.3

Notion of Nature

i In the preface of Notion of Nature, which is dated 29 September 1682, Boyle himself wrote that he started writing this treaty in the 1660s. However, in the conclusion Boyle says that it is more a collection of writings, established in different times and different circumstances. The actual publication took place in the early summer of 1686 and it seems that Boyle carried out revisions to the book right up to the last minute. From the preface it is clear that Boyle wants to place himself between two opposites: atheists, who ascribe to much to nature and theists, who consider nature as necessary to prove God’s existence and providence. Further, he states that he does not want to question 19

the vulgar notion of nature, because it is vulgarly received, but because he considers it vast importance that philosophy and physics holds a right notion of nature. Further Boyle wants “to keep up the glory of the divine author of things from being usurped or entrenched upon by his creatures” [Boyle, 1996, p.6]. In the first section Boyle clarifies his position. Phenomena in nature are the result of matter moving according to the ‘laws of local motion’ instead of by “an intelligent overseer, such as nature is fancies to be” [Boyle, 1996, p.11]. For Boyle, this does not result in an elimination of divine providence, since a machine-like universe, running on its own like a Strasbourg clock does more justice to God than a puppet-like nature which demands God’s continuous intervention. God does not need a semi-deity to govern the universe. Boyle also points out the superiority of the mechanical philosophy, both philosophical and theological. In his mechanical philosophy there is still a place for providence. First, God settled the laws of nature. Second, God preserves those laws. Boyle says that if God “but continues his ordinary and general concourse, there will be no necessity of extraordinary interpositions” [Boyle, 1996, p.12]. This means that the laws of nature exist in themselves, but only have effects because they are maintained by God, so both factors are needed to cause natural phenomena. Still in the first section, Boyle addresses the problem of anomalies as contradicting the idea of a universe governed by God. Boyle claims that things such as eclipses, floods, earthquakes or eruptions of Vulcan are a result of a mechanical universe and as thus foreseen and wanted by God. Moreover, God is not bounded by the laws he set in motion after the creation of the universe, he still had absolute power and can go against the laws of nature if he pleases to do so. In the second section of Notion of Nature Boyle summarizes possible uses of the word ‘nature’. He begins by referring to Aristotle’s Metaphysics in which he found no less than six possible meanings of ‘nature’. In English the situation is even worse. ‘Nature’ is used for the author of nature, also called natura naturans. One can speak about the nature of the thing, or say that someone is noble by nature. Nature can be used for an internal principle of motion, if one says that fire moves naturally upwards. Nature can be understood as the established course of things or as an aggregate of powers belonging to a body. Nature can be used for the universe or the system of the corporeal works of God, and last, but most common, nature can express a semi-deity. Boyle also mentions several relative uses of ‘nature’, in which nature’ is contrasted with violent, human made and miracles. Boyle suggests an alternative concept for every previous mentioned use. Instead of natura 20

naturans one should simply speak of God. One should not speak anymore of the nature of a thing, but of it’s essence. A man is not noble by nature, but he is born so or qualified as such by his original temperament. Fire does not move upwards naturally, but that motion is determined by certain causes. Instead of using ‘nature’ to the established course of things, one should just speak of the established order. Powers belonging to a body should be called constitutions or temperament or even mechanism, but not nature. If one wants to speak of the universe, he should just use the term universe, and not nature. As for ‘nature’ as a kind of semi-deity: “the best way is not to employ it in that sense at all” [Boyle, 1996, p.23]. In the final two paragraphs Boyle refers to the idea that objects in nature act conformably to laws. But although he admits to use those expressions himself, Boyle states that it is a wrong impression to consider that bodies really act according to God’s law, because “I must freely observe that, to speak properly, a law being but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior, it is plain that nothing but an intellectual being can be properly capable of receiving and acting by a law” [Boyle, 1996, p.24]. For Boyle nature is thus incapable of obeying laws, and therefore “God should at the beginning impress determinate motions upon the parts of matter, and guide them as he thought requisite for the primordial constitution of things; and that ever since, he should by his ordinary and general concourse maintain those powers which he gave the parts of matter to transmit their motion thus and thus to one another”[Boyle, 1996, p.25]. From this last paragraph it is already clear that Boyle ascribes objects in nature at least one power: the power to transmit motion, but that this power can only exist by the maintenance of God. In the third section Boyle starts with Aristotle’s definition of nature, in which nature is the principle and cause of movement and rest in the thing. He finds this definition very puzzling and dark, since it is not clear whether the principle or cause is a substance or an accident. More important is that Boyle remarks that there is no reference to ‘nature’ in the vulgar sense of the word. “And I do not remember that, in the Old Testament, I have met with any one Hebrew word that properly signifies nature in the sense we take it in” [Boyle, 1996, p.28]. Nor is the word ‘nature’ to be found in the English translation of the Old Testament. In the fourth section Boyle recites the functions ascribed to nature according to the vulgar view: Nature is a most wise being, that does nothing in vain: does not miss her ends; does always that, which (of the things she can do) is best to be done; and 21

this she does by the most direct or compendious ways, neither employing any things superfluous, not wanting in things necessary, she teaches and inclines every one of her works to preserve itself. And, as in the microcosm (man) it is she that is curer of diseases, so in the macrocosm (the world) for the conservation of the universe, she abhors a vacuum, making particular bodies act contrary to their own inclinations and interests, to prevent it, for the public good [Boyle, 1996, p.32]. Boyle notes that men ascribe things to nature, that are actually performed by real agents. It is not the law that punishes murder with death, since the law (dead letter) cannot perform such a thing in a physical sense; it is really the judge or the executioner that performs the punishment, according to that rule. “For it seems manifest enough the that whatsoever is done in the world, at least wherein the rational soul intervenes not, is really effected by corporeal causes and agents, acting in a world so framed as ours is according to the laws of motion settled by the omniscient author of things” [Boyle, 1996, p.36]. Although Boyle’s intention was not to propose a new notion of nature of his own, he suggests to make a distinguish between the universal and the particular nature of things. As for the universal nature, that is the aggregate of the bodies that make up the world, “it is the result of the universal matter of the universe [...] whereby all the bodies that compose it are enabled to act upon, and fitted to suffer from, one another, according to the settled laws of motion” [Boyle, 1996, p.36]. From this quote it is clear that God had enabled the individual bodies with secondary causation, since they can act upon one another according to the laws of motion. The particular notion of nature is than the general nature applied to a distinct portion of the universe. Boyle also refers to the holy scriptures to argue that there is no semi-deity, since in “the whole account that Moses gives of the progress of it [the creation of the heavens and the earth], there is not a word of the agency of nature. After all, “God saw everything that he had made” [Genesis 1:31, my italics]. But God settled laws or rules of local motion among the parts of the universal matter and “by his ordinary and preserving concourse the several parts of the universe, thus once completed, should be able to maintain the great construction, or system and economy” [Boyle, 1996, p.39]. Things that are said to be done by nature among inanimate things are really done by particular bodies acting on one another by local motion, not by an intermediary semi-deity. 22

Boyle further shows by referring to many historical figures and writings that considering nature as sort of deity resulted in idolatry in antiquity; such as worship of the sun and the moon. Now we know that the earth is a round mass of very different substances with a rude and uneven surface, and that the moon is a body full of mountains and craters that borrows its light from the sun, so there is no need anymore to ascribe a soul to this celestial bodies. The regular motions of the stars, the moon and the earth are all consequences from the settled laws of motion. The fifth section contains five arguments for the obscurity of the vulgar concept of nature. First, in philosophy one must not believe anything without proof. Boyle claims that he did not find a physical proof for a divine conception of nature and that there is not such reference in the Scripture. Second, using Ockham’s razor, Boyle claims that the by him questioned notion of nature is unnecessary. Supposing the common matter of all bodies divided into minute parts and constituted to form the world together with the laws of local motion and God’s ordinary and general concourse is sufficient to explain the production of the observed phenomena in the world. Third, the questioned notion of nature is dark and odd for Boyle, so that it is difficult to really understand what it is. Is it a corporeal or an immaterial substance, or something in between? Is it a body, and if so what kind? Fourth, the vulgar notion of nature is dangerous to religion, and thus Christianity. This notion denies God of worship and gratitude by men, since it could be led away to that imaginary being called nature. Also the mere existence of God could be questioned, because one of the most efficacious arguments in favour of God and a divine providence is the consideration of the visible world. If the managed operations in the world are ascribed to mere nature instead of to the wisdom and goodness of God, that argument is weakened. Boyle’s final argument states that the vulgar notion of nature contradicts with certain experiences we have. If the great care of nature can be derived from the measures she takes to prevent a vacuum, than how does it happen that their are vacuums found in glass pipes wherein water and quicksilver subside? Another contradiction is that nature’s watchfulness for the good of the world by making heavy bodies descending to the center of the earth and making the light bodies ascend towards heaven, is not consistent with a piece of oak that falls down when let go in the air, but ascends when let go under water. Neither does it match the observation that a dropped ball will rebound on the ground and making lesser rebounds before it comes to rest. For Boyle, nature is playing very odd games. The second half of the fifth section is out of order, as Boyle himself realized after printing [Hunter and David, 1996]. We will however follow the chronology of the printed version.

23

Boyle wants to make clear that the objects made against the vulgar notion of nature does not endanger providence. First, providence is no hindrance to the anomalies that Boyle pointed out, because it is nature that has to keep the universe in order, not providence. Second, nature is inferior to God, who “is not bound to make or administer corporeal things after the best that he could, for the good of things themselves. [...] Perhaps it may be added, that the permitting the course of things to be somewhat violated shows, [...], how good God has been in settling and preserving the orderly course of things” [Boyle, 1996, p.70]. Third, God is absolute, free and omniscient and the anomalies may be part of his plan, and seem only anomalies to us, short-sighted men since we are not blessed with a divine omniscience. Fourth, although God is free, independent and wise, he is also just an agent and irregularities could be to serve as punishments for guilty men, because in Genesis God declares that the ground or earth is cursed. Next Boyle talks about the question whether or not God could have created a better world. Boyle considers it unsafe to answer this question negatively, after all God is almighty and omniscient and it is not because God can do better that our world is not already excellent. Further, several creatures may be more perfect than they seem to us, if we consider the ends that God had in mind while making them. Boyle refers here to the shop of the clockmaker, women’s breasts filled with milk even if it is uncomfortable or even dangerous, having hair even if physicians in some cases prescribe that it be shaven off, the hens’ instinct to hatch their eggs even if housewives make them brood on duck eggs, etc. Also our emotions are given in our best interests, even when they are causes of diseases or mischief. Moreover, God not only comprehends his separate works but the whole system, and it could be that he did not intend the welfare of certain particular creatures, such as men, but subordinated their welfare to the care of the greater system. If nature would be a most wise being that is always keen on preserving the life of animals, than why do people suffocate by a hair in their throat or why do big-bellied women seem to miscarry by the smell of an extinguished candle? Nature seems to take improper and hurtful courses. He finds it strange that nature “should not be able to mould and fashion so small and soft and tractable a portion of matter as that wherein the first model and efformation of the embryo is made” [Boyle, 1996, p.78]. In the sixth section Boyle deals with arguments in favour of the vulgar notion of nature showing that they are better explained by a mechanical theory of nature. A first argument claims that diverse bodies have each their natural place in the universe and if they are removed from it, they tend to return to that place. Boyle agrees that bodies should indeed have a place according to their bigness, but inanimate bodies have no sense or perception, 24

so that they would have no preference to be in one place rather than in another or to return to a certain location. Also, it does not seem that all bodies have a tendency to join greater masses of connatural bodies. The filings of a silver bar do not return to the bar itself. Another argument is that elementa in proprio loco non gravitant, but Boyle refers to his hydrostatic experiments from which he argues that water does gravitate in water. Even bubbles do not overthrow Boyle’s reasoning, because coming closer to the surface and to the air they should be moving more quicker, but instead they move more slow, something that can be explained by gravity and upward pressure but not by a wise, being such as the vulgar notion of nature. Another argument is that bodies have a tendency to return to their natural state, but inanimate bodies are incapable of being concerned in one state or another, they lack the knowledge to make such a judgment. Moreover it is difficult to determine what that natural state is. How cold is the natural coldness of water, frog-cold or man-cold, cold as in the ocean or cold as in a sunny pond, cold as in winter or cold as in summer? Next, Boyle turns to the often misused distinction between natural and violent local motion. According to Aristotle’s principle that everything that moves, is moved by another seems to imply that all motion is violent motion, because it proceeds from an external agent. After the motion is caused externally, the body keeps moving according to an internal principle, natural motion. But motion does not essentially belong to matter, thus motion of bodies is either impressed by an external agent, God, or by other matter acting on them. Even if one accepts the distinction, it still is ambiguous since water moving upward by spitting it into the air is considered a violent motion, but water moving upward by sucking it through a straw is considered a natural motion. If one drops a football on a hard floor, both the downward fall and the upward rebound are considered natural motions. Another important argument comes from medical crises, “the strange shifts that nature sometimes makes use of in them to free herself from the noxious humours that oppressed her” [Boyle, 1996, p.92], such as strong fevers. Boyle does not deny the providence and wisdom in this crises of diseases, but where they come from. He claims that it is not an intelligible principle called nature, but God’s wisdom and ordinary providence that constitute the crises. “The body of a man is an incomparable engine, which the most wise author of things has so skillfully framed for lasting many years” [Boyle, 1996, p.92]. The critical evacuations, such as fever or vomiting, are results of the mechanism of the body, since one can initiate some mechanisms without nature’s watchfulness and other mechanisms still occur after death. Not all medical crises are salutary, and experience taught physicians to divide perfectly salutary crises from crises that lead to death, by comparing the characteristics of the crisis to the six conditions. According to these standards, nature rarely provides a perfectly salutary crisis, and thus 25

physicians “employ their best skill and remedies to suppress or moderate the inordinate motions, or the improper and profuse evacuations, that irritated nature rashly begins to make” [Boyle, 1996, p.95]. Boyle does not deny that some crises happen in very unusual ways and seem surprising, he therefore emphasizes that there still is divine providence that can interpose as a punishment or as an act of mercy. But most cases of medical crises are due to the “peculiar disposition in the primitive fabric of some parts of the patient’s body, or some unusual change made in the construction of these parts by the disease itself” [Boyle, 1996, p.96]. And “the divine maker of the universe being a most free agent and having an intellect infinitely superior to ours, may in the production of seemingly irregular phenomena have ends unknown to us, which even the anomalies may be very fit to compass” [Boyle, 1996, p.101]. The last paragraph of this section indicates again that the vulgarly received notion of nature can jeopardize God’s position. If nature is celebrated as it is, then God’s wisdom cannot be proven by his works, because nature could be the cause of them. In the seventh section, or the sixth according to the text since the first section was probably an introduction, Boyle tries to demonstrate how the mechanical philosophy explains natural phenomena better than the vulgar notion of nature. His overall claim is that nature is no true physical and distinct efficient cause but rather a notional thing, since everything that is performed in the material world is the result of particular bodies acting by the laws of motion, which are settled and maintained by God [Boyle, 1996, p.106]. First, it is incorrect to say that things are done by nature, rather they are done according to nature, such that nature is a system of rules not a distinct agent. It is not nature that causes the water to ascend in a sucking pump, but the pressure of the atmosphere according to statical rules or laws of the equilibrium of liquors. Second, trees grow and fruit matures by the course of nature, if that means that this happens by proper and immediate causes. Here Boyle makes a difference between the laws of nature and the custom of nature, or between fundamental constitutions and municipal laws. Boyle is setting up a hierarchy of laws in which the municipal laws are the least important and the catholic or general laws are the most important. In his example, water falls to the ground “by virtue of the custom of nature”, but in a suction pump the water is forced upwards by “virtue of a more catholic law of nature, by which it is provided that a greater pressure should surmount a lesser” [Boyle, 1996, p.108]. He then goes on to explain phenomena which are contrary to nature, preternatural, by this distinction. A spring that is forcibly bent is said to be in a preternatural state because it seeks to return to its former or ‘natural’ state. However, Boyle claims that it is merely one state of the spring being over-ridden by another state 26

which is equally ‘natural’ because it is “agreeable to the grand laws [...] that such a spring should remain bent by the degree of force that actually keeps it so...” [Boyle, 1996, p.108]. Boyle then examines six axioms about nature that he already stated in the fourth section. The first axiom is that all natural bodies are their own conservator. If this is to be interpreted as “no one body does tend to its own destruction” , than it is compatible with Boyle’s doctrine. If it on the other had has to be regarded as that “in every body there is a principle called nature to preserve its natural state” it is not [Boyle, 1996, p.112]. Boyle can see that bodies seem to act in function of their own preservation, but this is because they are determined to act that way by the original frame of things and the established laws of motion. A second axiom is that nature always reaches her end, but there are cases in which things happen otherwise. Not every born child is a perfect human, sometimes nature fails and produces a monster. Fevers or other medical crises do not always heal the patient, but sometimes make his condition worse. A third axiom states that “nature always acts by the shortest or most compendious ways” [Boyle, 1996, p.115]. Since inanimate bodies do not have any knowledge, there should be situations in which they are determined to act by other than the shortest way. Boyle shows that although a stone dropped in free air will fall directly to the center of the earth, but when dropping small bullet of marble or steel, when reaching the hard surface it will rebound several times and fall down again before settling. The shortest way to the center of the earth for the bullet is not to rebound at all. The same thing happens if a pendulum held parallel to the horizon is released or if a the needle of a compass is turning towards the north. The fourth axiom says that nature always does what is best to be done. Again Boyle repeats that inanimate bodies do not possess any knowledge, so their actions do not express what is best to be done according to their private capacities. If their was indeed such a semi-divine nature, than why does it not intervene when branches of overburdened fruit trees fall off and accelerate the death of the tree itself or why does nature not prevent the dangerous disorders in sick bodies? Also earthquakes, pestilences and famines are mentioned. According to the fifth axiom, nature abhors a vacuum. First Boyle says that the ascension of water or other forced motions can be accounted for without ascribing a tendency to inanimate bodies. Second, if one accepts the Cartesian notion of the essence of a body, than a vacuum is cannot exist, and thus nature is preventing something impossible. Third, if ons accepts atomism than a vacuum is not abhorred but it is necessary for local motion. Neither philosophical movement implies that nature abhors a vacuum. The sixth axiom of nature’s definition is that she cures diseases, as mentioned by Hippocrates. While men seem to believe that some provident being resides in a sick body that can only be assisted by physicians, Boyle 27

conceives that “the wise and beneficent maker of the world and of man [...] was pleased to frame those living automatons, human bodies, that [...] they may in many cases recover a state of health, if they chance to be put out of it by lesser accidents than those that God, in compliance with the great ends of his general providence, did not think fit to secure them from or enable them to surmount [Boyle, 1996, p.125-126]. Boyle compares this to shaking a compass: after the shaking the needle will return to its former position, facing the north. “And yet this recovery to its former state is effected in a factitious body by the bare mechanism of the instrument itself and of the earth and other bodies within whose sphere of activity it is placed” [Boyle, 1996, p.126]. Towards the end of the section Boyle argues that there is one great cause of this misconception of nature as a curer of diseases. The body of men is regarded as a system of gross and consistent parts instead of accepting it as a “very compounded engine that, besides these consistent parts, does consist of the blood, chyle, gall and other liquors, [...] incessantly and variously moving, and thereby put divers of the solid parts [...] into frequent and differing motions” [Boyle, 1996, p.133]. But a man is not like an empty boat, rather like a manned boat, since there is “an intelligent being that takes care of it” [Boyle, 1996, p.135]. In the final section, which does not have a numbering in the original transcript and probably was once Boyle’s conclusion, he argues for the corporeal, and inanimate nature. Boyle demands to know whether or not the created nature is endowed with understanding. Boyle makes a comparison between the macrocosmos and the microcosmos to show that although nature could be endowed with reason, there are a lot of phenomena that can be explained mechanically. Like in a human body breathing, blood circulation, digestion, etc. are performed without immediate agency or actual knowledge of the mind. Next, it is difficult to see how a created immaterial substance can move a body, since we see in human bodies that the rational soul “can only determine the motion of some of the parts, but not give motion to any” [Boyle, 1996, p.145]. If nature moves bodies in an unphysical manner, than how can we use this idea to explain phenomena? The next step in Boyle’s reasoning is considering a corporeal but knowing nature. This also raises several problems. First, how can a corporeal substance be the director of all motions in the corporeal world itself? Second, how can a corporeal being be present in all the small parts of the universe? Third, since motion does not belong to matter itself, who put nature in motion? If this is ascribed to God, than he could also have moved the rest of the corporeal matter. Fourth, how does a corporeal being knows the laws of motion? Fifth, how does accepting such a notion of nature increase our understanding of phenomena? Boyle finds it much more suitable to divine wisdom that only a few and the most simple means are used to produce the 28

phenomena in the universe. Boyle does not see any reason to grant that nature herself “produces any motion de novo, but only that she transfers and regulates that which was communicated to matter at the beginning of things” [Boyle, 1996, p.148]. So first causation is only possible by God, but nature can transfer and regulate the already existing motion and has thus secondary causation. The vulgar notion of nature does also not satisfy a good explanation, simply stating that a clock works as it does because it is made by a watchmaker is not enough. To really understand how it works, one needs an account of the structure and co-operation of the different parts. The closing part of this section deals with the positive consequences for religion of this mechanical notion of nature. It prevents people from a too excessive adoration for nature, which could lead them into erroneous religions. It does more justice to divine providence; instead of bluntly judging floods, earthquakes or similar events to be physical irregularities, Boyle’s doctrine can incorporate miracles, since a most free and most wise God already knew all the consequences from the laws he settled. The wisdom and skill that is displayed in “the fitting of things [...] may justly persuade us that his skill would not appear inferior in reference to the rest also of his corporeal works” [Boyle, 1996, p.162]. To finish, Boyle hopes that his doctrine persuades people to direct their worship and gratitude directly to God himself, who is the true and only creator. The conclusion reminds the reader that Boyle wanted to be cautious in proposing a new doctrine, but that tis was difficult in the heat of the discussion. He further announces a possible revised version of the treatise and closes the treaty with the following words: “I have written this discourse rather like a doubting seeker of truth than a man confident that he has found it” [Boyle, 1996, p.165].

2.4

Refined concurrentism

Shanahan [1988] refers to numerous passages that show the combination of God’s necessary general concourse and matter’s causal contribution to corpuscular interactions and also in our reading it is clear that Boyle ascribes certain capacities to bodies in nature. Peter Anstey [2000] doubts the influence of Aquinas or Molina on Boyle and that Boyle’s concurrentist position was a reaction on occasionalism, but agrees with Shanahan’s interpretation and finetunes his position. Shanahan and our reading shows by quotes from Notion of Nature that bodies have causal activity since they can transfer motion from on to another and that God maintains those powers which he gave the parts of matter. This 29

power is not an inherent quality of matter but it is given by God. According to Anstey this is not the only causal power implanted in matter. All bodies, once in the state of actual motion, whatever cause first brought them to it, are moved by an internal principle: as, for instance, an arrow that actually flies in the air towards a mark, moves by some principle or other residing within itself. [Boyle, 1996, p.89] Matter can not only transfer motion from on onto another, but matter can also maintain the motion by an internal principle. Still, Anstey found another causal efficacy in matter. In his Advices Boyle talks about matter being able to determine the motion of a body. Anstey admits that this is a reconstruction of Boyle’s ideas, since there is no systematic exposition in his work about the causal efficacy of matter, but it is coherent with Boyle’s claims that matter has been gifted with active powers and the co-operation between God and matter in the production of natural phenomena. Although Boyle frequently mentioned ‘laws of nature’ in his Notion of Nature he denies the connection between the nature of matter and the laws of nature. The laws of motion are solely dependent on God’s will, they are expressions of this divine will. And since a law is nothing more than “a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior” [Boyle, 1996, p.24], the maintenance of those laws needs God’s constant intervention, since he settled such laws or rules of local motion among the parts of the universal matter that, by his ordinary and preserving concourse, the several parts of the universe, thus once completed, should be able to maintain the great construction. [Boyle, 1996, 39] By quotes of Christian Virtuoso I Anstey shows that if God’s assistance would cease, the collisions between matter would still occur, since they have the causal efficacy to transmit motion to one another and to change direction, but the great construction would fall apart in chaos, because “God established the lines of motion” [Boyle, 1996, p.75]. The inanimate bodies in nature can transfer their motion, persevere in moving and change direction, but since they are inanimate they do not have the knowledge to sustain the laws of motion without God’s interference. It is because God continuously wills the constructed universe, that it is maintained.

30

One of the keys to Boyle’s concurrentist position is his notion of divine concourse, a running together in causation. Struan Jacobs wrote that sometimes Boyle uses concourse to refer to God’s potential to exercise power: God at any time might interpose to suspend or alter the ordinary course of nature. So the world as we know it, persists only on condition of God’s permission, his ‘concourse’. [Jacobs, 1994, p.381] However Jacobs continues that after giving his permission or consent, God stays outside the natural world, as a passive spectator. Anstey disagrees for different reasons. First, Boyle was part of a tradition which used terms like concourse as concurrence in causation. Secondly, Jacobs quotes to support a consent-interpretation are not convincing and Anstey’s further contextual situation of the quotes shows that they support a causationinterpretation. Finally, Jacobs claims that the tendencies of matter ‘exist immanently in, and are not divinely imposed on bodies’ [Jacobs, 1994, p.375], which is inconsistent with Boyle’s position. In Notion of Nature Boyle more than once states that it was God who imposed the laws of nature on matter. For Jacobs the matter obeys the laws of motion, but again this is inconsistent with Boyle’s view that inanimate matter does not possess the capacities to obey laws, since the laws of motion are dependent on the will of God and do not come from the nature of matter.

2.5

Conclusion

In the first two sections we have described two possible interpretations for Boyle’s ideas about nature and causation. According to McGuire’s [1972] occasionalist interpretation all causal efficacy in Boyle’s works has to be ascribed to God, while Shanahan[1988] claimed a concurrentist reading, in which Boyle proposes a causality in which both God and the matter are efficacious, since matter has the possibility to transfer motion from one body onto another, but this power, given by God, has to be maintained by God. In the third section we took a closer look to one of Boyle’s more philosophical works, A free enquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature, where numerous quotes can be found to disagree with a position where God’s role is minimized without lapsing into occasionalism. In the fourth section we followed Peter Anstey’s [2000] refinement of Shanahan’s concurrentism, by showing that not only the transfer of motion is a causal capacity of matter, but also the 31

maintaining of motion and the change in direction. We further showed that the concurrence is a real causal concurrence, and not a semi-deistic concurrence as Jacobs [1994] proposed. Thus, not only does Boyle ascribe the capacity to transfer motion from one body to another to matter, he also writes that matter has the means to maintain that motion and to change the direction of the motion, and this capacities are not mere matter of divine consent but they are causal capacities.

32

Conclusion In the first chapter I have shown that Robert Boyle’s physico-theological program can be placed in a more genera framework in which early modern science developed as a re-reading of the two books, nature and scripture, because of changing methodology in reading the Bible. Because of the allegorical implosion a new meaning for the natural world needed to be found. For Robert Boyle this nature can teach us about God and his divine will. However this narrative does not allow one to claim that voluntarism was a direct causal factor in the rise of empirical science. I hope to have shown that voluntarism does not entail empirical sciences. Secondly one also should be careful by considering Robert Boyle’s natural phisophy as the epitome of Protestant influence. As we have shown with Anstey’s arguments [2000], there is a remarkable lack of references to reformist authors in Boyle’s works and his theological influences are situated elsewhere. In the second chapter a more closer investigation was made on Robert Boyle’s ideas on the relationship between God and nature. Two main interpretations were presented, occasionalism and concurrentism. By referring to Boyle’s A free enquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature to test both interpretations with Boyle’s actual claims, I hope to have clarified that a concurrentist interpretation is best suited to deal with Boyle’s position. God created the universe, settled the laws of motion and is needed to maintain the order, although bodies in nature have the capacity to transfer motion from one to another. By using Anstey’s article [2000], this concurrentist interpretation was be refined and further argued for.

33

Bibliography [Anstey, 2000a] Anstey, P. (2000a). The Christian Virtuoso and the Reformers: Are there Reformation Roots to Boyle’s Natural Philosophy? Lucas: An Evangelical History Review, (27&28). [Anstey, 2000b] Anstey, P. (2000b). The philosophy of Robert Boyle. Routledge. [Anstey and Hunter, 2008] Anstey, P. and Hunter, M. (2008). Robert Boyle’s Designe about Natural History. Early Science and Medicine, (13):83–126. [Ben-Chaim, 1990] Ben-Chaim, M. (1990). Social Mobility and Scientific Change: Stephen Gray’s Contribution to Electrical Research. The British Journal for the History of Science, 23(1). [Blair, 1992] Blair, A. (1992). Humanist methods in natural philosophy: the commonplace book. The journal for the history of ideas, 53(4):541–551. [Boyle, 1663] Boyle, R. (1663). Essay containing a requisite digression concerning those, that would exclude the deity from intermeddling with matter. In Stewart, M. A., editor, Selected philosophical papers of Robert Boyle. Manchester University Press. [Boyle, 1675] Boyle, R. (1675). Some physic-theological considerations about the possibility of resurrection. In Stewart, M. A., editor, Selected philosophical papers of Robert Boyle. Manchester University Press. [Boyle, 1996] Boyle, R. (1675 (1996)). A free enquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature. In Hunter, M. and Davis, E. B., editors, Robert Boyle: A free enquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature. Cambridge University Press. [Burton, 1994] Burton, J. D. (1994). Crimson Missionaries: The Robert Boyle Legacy and Harvard College. The New England Quarterly, 67:132–140. 34

[Dear, 1990] Dear, P. (1990). Miracles, Experiments, and the Ordinary Course of Nature. Isis, 91(4). [Desmond, 1989] Desmond, M. C. (1989). Occult Powers and Hypotheses: Cartesian Natural Philosophy under Louis XIV, pages 1–9. Oxford University Press. [Gaukroger, 1998] Gaukroger, S. (1998). Justification, Truth, and the Development of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29(1). [Gaukroger, 2005] Gaukroger, S. (2005). Science, religion and modernity. Critical Quaterly, 47(4). [Gaukroger, 2006] Gaukroger, S. (2006). The emergence of a scientific culture. Science and the shaping of modernicty 1210-1685. Oxford University Press. [Gaukroger, minga] Gaukroger, S. (forthcominga). Science and the Shaping of Modernity: The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility, 1680-1750, chapter The Construction of a New World Picture. Oxford University Press. [Gaukroger, mingb] Gaukroger, S. (forthcomingb). Science and the Shaping of Modernity: The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility, 1680-1750, chapter Historical Understanding and the Human Condition. Oxford University Press. [Harrison, 1998] Harrison, P. (1998). The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of natural science. Cambridge University Press. [Harrison, 2002] Harrison, P. (2002). Voluntarism and early modern science. History of Science, 40(1). [Hunter, 1990] Hunter, M. (1990). Alchemy, magic and moralism in the thought of Robert Boyle. The British journal for the history of science, 23(4):387–410. [Hunter, 1995] Hunter, M. (1995). How Boyle became a scientist. History of science, 33:59–103. [Hunter, 1999] Hunter, M. (1999). Robert Boyle (1627-91): a suitable case for treatment? The British journal for the history of science, 32(3):261–275. [Hunter, 2009] Hunter, M. (2009). Boyle: Between God and Science. Yale University Press.

35

[Hunter and David, 1996] Hunter, M. and David, E. B. (1996). The making of Robert Boyle’s ‘Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Receiv’d Notion of Nature’(1686). Early Science and Medicine, 1(2):204–271. [Jacobs, 1994] Jacobs, S. (1994). Laws of nature, corpuscles, and concourse: nonoccasionalist tendencies in the natural philosophy of Robert Boyle. Journal of Philosophical Research, 19:373–393. [McGuire, 1972] McGuire, J. (1972). Boyle’s conception of nature. Journal of the History of Ideas, 33(4). [Osler, 1996] Osler, M. J. (1996). From immanent natures to nature as artifice: the reinterpretation of final causes in seventeenth-century natural philosophy. The Monist, 79:388– 407. [Osler, 1997] Osler, M. J. (1997). Mixing metaphors: science and religion or natural philosophy and theology in early modern Europe. History of science, 35:91–113. [Oster, 1993] Oster, M. (1993). Biography, culture and science: the formative years of Robert Boyle. History of science, 31:177–225. [Shanahan, 1988] Shanahan, T. (1988). God and Nature in the thought of Robert Boyle. Journal of the history of philosophy, 26(4):547–569. [Shapin, 1991] Shapin, S. (1991). “A scholar and a gentleman”: the problematic identity of the scientific practitioner in early modern England. History of Science, 29:279–327. [Shapin and Thackray, 1974] Shapin, S. and Thackray, A. (1974). Prosopography as a research tool in history of science: the British scientific community 1700-1900. History of Science, 12:1–28. [Stewart, 1979] Stewart, M. A. (1979). Selected philosophical papers of Robert Boyle. Manchester University Press.

36