FDWLD 201

1. FDWLD 201 Scientific Revolution and The Enlightenment

2. Hamlet and Modern Science • As with the rest of his plays, Shakespeare wrote Hamlet at what we might call the dawn of the modern world, represented particularly by the ascent of the modern scientific world view and its ways of knowing. (“Science,” from the L. sciens, “knowing”) • How is Hamlet in particular a play about what we know, how we know it, and whether we can trust that knowledge? (Think particularly about how the characters “gather intelligence.”) • How do we know things today? Are we very different or very much like Hamlet in that way? • How does the play represent those who think versus those who act? “Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio.”

3. Perfect v. imperfect (Baroque period)[baroque = imperfect pearl; rococo = rocaille(Fr., shell/pebble) + baroque]

4. The medieval cosmos • Aristotelian-Ptolemaic • Sublunary realm is imperfect v. perfect empyrean realm • Man may be only human, but anthropocentric earth is at the center of it all.

5. Thomistic synthesis • St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) • The church was thoroughly scientific. • Dante (1265 – 1321)

6. Problems • Julian calendar • 365 & ¼ days • Off by 11 minutes • 3 days every 4 centuries • 12 days by 1582 • Priestly authority historically tied to predictability of calendar—cosmos, seasons—and associated ritual celebrations, especially those dealing with fertility.

7. The beginning of the end of the universe as they knew it • The Aristotelian model was untidy. • The Church invited the brilliant Polish monk Copernicus to resolve problems. • But he, like other new scientists, were Renaissance men • Platonists, who sought idealistic perfection • Mystics, who believed in hidden intelligibility • Alchemists, who assumed substantive oneness • Dreamers, who valued the imagination

8. Nicolai Copernicus (1473 – 1543) • Motivated by Platonism, he believed in the perfection of motion& spheres, etc. • Used the accepted method of philosophical deduction: what would be the best way? • Yielded potentially heretical conclusions, because • Psalms 104:1-5 • Joshua 10:12-14 • De RevolutionibusOrbiumCoelestium(1543) • A very safe, hypothetical stance • Avoided heresy • Take away: It is hypotheticallypossible that earth is not at the center.

9. Tycho Brahe (1546 – 1601) • Danish nobleman • Not as deferential as Copernicus • Prodigious astronomical observations and calculations • Incipient science interested in amassing data through observations • Supernova of 1572 • Great comet of 1577 • Parallax problems in both • Take away: There are imperfections in the model, imperfections in the planetary, empyrean realm that, according to Aristotle, were supposed to be perfect.

10. Giordano Bruno (1548 – 1600) • Proposed a “Universe”— • L. “turned [in every direction] into one”—it’s all one place, not two separate realms! • Universal law, not different laws for different realms • —that was, moreover, “infinite.” • Take away: Nothing special about earth • (Oh! And, BTW, Jesus, being perfect, can’t be made of corruptible flesh, as Bible says—oops!) • Now, it’s one thing to question the model, but another to question the authority • Honored guest at his own auto-da-fe

11. Ancient & Medieval Cosmos • Described four elements, each with motion according to their natures • Proposed elaborate model of geocentric cosmos • Completely synthesized science and religion • Used synthesized science and religion in medieval masterpiece • Aristotle • Dante Alighieri • Nicolai Copernicus • Ptolemy • Thomas Aquinas

12. Renaissance (& Modern) Cosmos • Hypothesized heliocentric cosmos • Detailed changing phenomena in heretofore unchanging crystalline spheres • Proposed an infinite universe, with one law to rule them all • Dante Alighieri • Giordano Bruno • Nicolai Copernicus • Thomas Aquinas • TychoBrahe

13. One Day the Universe ChangedJohannes Kepler (1571 – 1630) • Mathematical perfection in 3 laws • The path of the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses) • An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time. (The Law of Equal Areas) • The ratio of the squares of the orbits of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their major axis. (The Law of Harmonies) • Take away: Reality isn’t predicted by the church’s medieval model (but still evidence of perfect creator) • Fusion of Christianity, Platonism, New Science

14. Astronomia nova (1609) • “If anyone is so weak that he cannot believe Copernicus without thinking himself impious and who damns whatever philosophical opinions he pleases, I advise him to mind his own business and to stay at home and fertilize his own garden . . . He is serving God no less than the astronomer to whom God has granted the privilege of seeing more clearly with the eyes of the mind.” • Johannes Kepler • Intelligible understanding= superior knowledge • “Higher” piety belongs to those who understand higher principles (i.e., mathematically demonstrable cosmos/science) That is, just because you can’t see what the mathematicians see doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

15. Weird Science: Optics--The Science of What You See, or Think You See

16. Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) • Effectively dismantles Aristotelian cosmos • The ThomisticSynthesis becomes false and useless • How do we deal with scripture? • Literal or figurative? • Augustine’s LAME levels of reading the scriptures guided medieval interpretation • Varied interpretations OK, so long as authority of church is unquestioned. • Symbiosis of Reformation & Scientific Revolution • The authority of Church was under siege from various sides. • Council of Trent (1545 – 1563): • re-Tren[t]-chment

17. Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) • Renaissance man, Florentine, genius • Turned navigational telescopes on heavens • Earliest telescopes, early 1600’s • Before publishing, cleverly sought protection of Cosimo de Medici • Jupiter’s moons (named them after de Medicis) & Saturn’s rings • Sunspots in revolving sun • Lunar craters, mountains • Reflected light of other planets throughout phases • Supports Copernicus with actual observations • Copernicus’ work no longer merely hypothetical “what if”

18. Galileo’s contest with the Church • Cardinal Bellarmine • Galileo forbidden from “holding or defending” his position as true. • Gallileo’s ‘friend,’ Pope Urban II (MaffeoBarberini) • Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World (1632) • Salviati, Sagredo, Simplicio (modeled on Barberini) • Convicted not for heresy, but for “grave suspicion of heresy” • House arrest for remainder of life

19. House arrest • Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences (1638) • Falling bodies • Inertia • Projectiles • Motion not the result of Aristotelian teleological animation, i.e., things behave in certain ways because it’s in their nature • All are quantifiable, disenchanted, impersonal forces • Profound paradigm shift from qualitative to quantitative evaluation • Foundation of Cartesian worldview, Newtonian mechanics, gravity, and, ultimately, relativity • Take away: Copernicus and the gang were right. • “The scriptures teach us how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go.” • Leave to scriptures and The Church what they do best, and to science, what it does best. • The scriptures are not to be taken literally —at least not as a scientific or technical manualwhen it comes to scientific questions.

20. FDWLD 201 The Enlightenment c. 1650 – c. 1800

21. Reading review • What is Bodin’s (1530 – 1596) conservative thesis in Six Books of the Commonwealth (1576)? • Family models basic political unit; fathers, like kings, divinely appointed to rule • What is Locke’s 1632 – 1704) radical point in Second Treatise on Government (1690)? • Social Contract: governments to protect rights or be“renegotiated”; once party to contract, cannot return to nature • What is Condorcet’s (1743 – 1794) hopeful thought in The Progress of the Human Mind (1795)? • Humankind will progress continually because of science • What kind of Enlightenment characteristic does Wilberforce (1759 – 1833) display in his “Abolition Speech” (1789)? • The Haves must make provision for/care for the Have-Nots An Enlightenment Salon

22. Discourse on Method (1637) • Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) • Thinking modeled on certainty of mathematics, to eliminate random elements • Begin with simplest notion, what is beyond doubt; otherwise, doubt everything; find that which is indubitable. • Even if I’m being deceived, I’m thinking. Cogito ergo sum. • Accept as true only that which is obviously so. (Be skeptical.) • Reduce all complex propositions to simple ones. (Divide thoughts and conquer them.) • Arrange all propositions from most simple to most complex. (Arrange thoughts logically.) • Rehearse logical connections between propositions until truth of whole is intuitive, indubitable. (Think deeply, carefully, clearly about your thinking.) • Something doesn’t come from nothing. Ideas are something. I have an idea of perfection. Neither I nor any other human is perfect. The idea of perfection must come from a perfect being—God. God wouldn’t deceive, so the world as we perceive it is real.

24. Agree or Disagree? • The effect of the Scientific Revolution is that, ever since, science and religion have been at odds—and that is a bad thing. • The kind of thinking that arose during the Enlightenment was a good thing, despite its effect on religious thought.

25. Outcomes—good or bad? • What are some of the negative effects of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment? • What are some of the positive effects? • Has the net effect been positive or negative? Has there been “progress”?

26. Issues • What about the authority of scripture, or the authority of authority generally? • E.g., Psalms 104, Joshua 10 • Literal or figurative? • What happens when there is no one universally accepted authority? Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still Upon Gibeon (1816) John Martin (1789 – 1854)

27. For example . . . • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670)

28. Issues • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670)

29. Issues • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670)

30. Issues • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670)

31. Issues • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670)

32. Issues • What about theism? • Pascal’s Wager (1670) Whether God exists or not, it is better to believe that he does (and to act accordingly). But is this how God wants us to approach him?

33. Theism: A defense using Enlightenment mechanism Paley’s Watch (1802)

34. Theism: An equally enlightened response • Hume’s Infant, Inferior, or Superannuated Deity (1779) • But, just how important is rationality in religion anyways? • If it’s important, does this kind of thinking pose problems? • If it’s not important, are we comfortable with embracing irrationality? Why is irrationality OK in this part of life and not others?

35. And the Social Contract: Two Enlightenment Views • Are we “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights” or are our rights the result of a social contract, or both?

36. What place for God?More Enlightenment Schizophrenia • Did Enlightenment thinkers “hand God his hat and show him the door”? • Perhaps not: Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) • Existence of God as “necessary postulate” for ethical behavior • But, again, is this how we ought to view God?

37. The double-edged promise of the Enlightenment • Even so, do science and reason over promise? • E.g., Laplace’s (1749 – 1827) Enlightenment prediction about place, motion, and predictability in the universe? Is God just the ultimate scientist? Or is the modern Heisenberg (1901 -1976) right? • Does exalting reason, order, technical and engineering ability lead to good or bad results?

38. In the final analysis Could one have happened . . . without the other? Yet, is there danger once the genie is out of the bottle? Can we put the toothpaste back in the tube?

39. Clicker time • I wish we had never gone through the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, because both were pretty hard on God and religious belief, and those things are important to me. • I wish we had never gone through the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment because science and so-called intellectuals have done horrible things in the world. • I don’t really have an opinion or care about the role of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment in the rise of western civilization. • I understand the role of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment and the absolutely pivotal, necessary contributions they have made to western culture as we know it today. • I am a big fan of all things produced by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment because, without them, the world would be a pretty sucky place, and we wouldn’t enjoy any of the technology that makes life comfortable, like Sims, Facebook, and Angry Birds.