PHI 3882, Paper 2, Fall 2011: Comments


Science and Religion:

Science and religion are two subjects we instantly perceive as conflicting. The debate between the two has gone on for a long time, and never does it seem to end. In The Name of the Rose we see these two opposing sides in hero William of Baskerville and villain Jorge of Burgos.


As I read this, I instantly perceive a lack of precision. For how long has the debate gone on? I've noticed that students tend to write about things having existed "from the dawn of time" or at least "since the dawn of humanity" when nothing of the kind is true. It is better to give a more precise answer. That is particularly true when writing about religion, science and The Name of the Rose. When we think about the conflict between religion and science, we tend to think that it begins around the time of Galileo: after all, that was when modern science began? If there is a battle between religion and science in The Name of the Rose, then that suggests that we can find the roots of modern science long before the time of Galileo. That is worthy of note - the vague phrase "for a long time" precludes any consideration of this.


He [Aquinas] says that God cannot be xplained [sic] philosophically, and so cannot have demonstration propter quid but does have demonstration quia. Unlike a science, God cannot be understood, and so Aquinas shows this difference between science and religion by asserting that God cannot be understood, nore quantified, nor explained, yet it does not mean that he does not exist.



This is part of a discussion of the 'Five Ways', part of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. However, so far from trying to demonstrate that difference between science and religion, Aquinas intended the Summa Theologiae as an introduction to Sacra Doctrina, (what we today would call 'Theology'), which he regarded as a science, indeed, the Queen of Sciences. Aquinas can regard theology as a science because he has a different idea of what it is to be a science. For Aquinas, following Aristotle, a science is an organized body of knowledge. A science starts with a set of first principles, from which other propositions can be derived (think of Euclid's geometry). Our concept of science is fundamentally modern. That is not to say that people were not making scientific discoveries before the modern era, but they would have thought of these as contributions to natural philosophy.


There was also in some papers confusion about the role of Jorge. If the book is about science versus religion, with Jorge representing religion, then he becomes a spokesman for the religious point of view. But Jorge is a heretic - just as unorthodox as Michael, whose execution is described. Orthodoxy requires maintaining the Church's official line. It is true that for a while, some suspicion attached to some of Aquinas' ideas. Aquinas embraced the philosophy of Aristotle, who was interested in natural philosophy - discovering the workings of nature. Aquinas wanted to show that Catholics need not fear the new attempt to understand the natural world. By the time The Name of the Rose is written, it is becoming apparent that Aquinas' view is gaining ground. It is a mark of honor for Abo that he helped carry Aquinas' body down the stairs. Jorge is worried because he sees the Church accepting a point of view that he thinks is detrimental to faith. He wants to keep people from discovering Aristotle's book on Comedy not because Aristotlte's works are heretical, but because he knows that, following Aquinas, the Church has a positive attitude towards Aristotle.


So, one of the most significant shifts taking place was the move from Platonic to Aristotelian philosophy. It does help if you do not get these two great philosophers confused:

Does control necessarily have to be bad? When one thinks of control, one holds the idea that to have control means to control others so it is seen as bad. Yet, Plato holds:
That man is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or herd animal is clear. For, as we assert, nature does nothing in vain, and man alone among the animals has speech.

Thus, control is what establishes the natural order of human life; it is what makes man adhere to a morally good way of life.

The student gives the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Plato as a source for the quotation. It actually comes from Aristotle's Politics, and is cited as coming from this source in the IEP's article on Aristotle. In any case, it fails to supply the necessary link in the argument offered here. Aristotle is arguing that, by nature, we tend to organize ourselves. It does not follow that without someone giving orders, we would not be good. The sense I get is that the student thinks the essay will be more impressive with a quotation from a well-known philosopher at this point. But the quotation doesn't really fit into the essay very well, and the fact that it is attributed to the wrong author adds to the impression that it was selected without much thought.


Back to PHI 3882.