Spiritualism - Lesson #2

Spiritualism - Lesson #2

History of Western Thought pt. 1

A useful question to ask might be: "what is science?" and "did science have a beginning?" There is no agreed answer to both but Clagett for example offered a definition of science as: "the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena" (The Social Relations of Science, London, 1967) - without any reference to gods. But even that definition omits so much that others might want to include under that heading. In the ancient world description led to speculation which Hippocrates and his medical colleagues rejected in their work. These pioneering medical practitioners conducted detailed observations (and post mortems) to enable them to map symptoms and so offer patients a fairly reliable prognosis – again minus any reference to the supernatural.
But did science have a beginning? Aristotle maintained that science began with Thales of Miletus who almost certainly built on the work of others before him e.g. the Babylonians etc. However, what was new with Thales was making a break with the past in his discovery of nature. In other words instead of attributing natural phenomena to the whims of the gods Thales understood natural phenomena to have a cause and effect. That is how he began to interpret such things as lightning and earthquakes all very crudely but marking a clear departure from the past. Thales, and others of his era, were making a distinction between the natural and the supernatural. This did not mean these early philosophers were atheists far from it. Indeed, Thales is reported to have said that: "all things are full of gods." Nevertheless people were beginning to question their long held beliefs. And it's interesting that the Atomists held a similar view that everything is composed of tiny atoms colliding together in the void to form shapes; shapes which may exist for a while before disintegrating again to form new shapes – all from tiny, indivisible atoms. Even the soul, it was believed, was made up of tiny rounded atoms which somehow got squeezed in between other atoms as they banged together in the void. All by accident? That's not clear. And even today there are some who look back to the Atomists as people who made a giant leap forward in understanding reality. However, one thing the ancients were sure of was the untrustworthiness of the senses. For example take a sheet of paper which is white with black writing on it. But when I turn away (or maybe switch off the light) do these qualities of whiteness and blackness still exist? The answer was a resounding "no." All that exists is the form of the paper and nothing more. We might disagree with that explanation but these ideas are still being debated in philosophical circles.
But did this method of observation settle for all time the question of "facts" and their reliability over faith? Not at all. Socrates, who was a towering figure in ancient philosophy, rejected the Ionian speculations of nature as useless. Why? Because they could only observe events not explain them. Yet despite this, said Socrates, they state their conclusions with confidence, expressing as truth what they could not possibly know themselves. Socrates was not interested in what could not be proved. In later centuries Voltaire (1694-1778) said something similar. Voltaire, rebelling against accepted traditions, maintained that certainty was absurd. That apart from a few certainties in mathematics and logic just about every theory in history has been revisited at some point – and that "fact" is little more than a working hypothesis. Even the great David Hume echoed this in his observations on the natural world. Hume's point is that, just because the sun rose in the sky today does not mean it will do so again tomorrow i.e. there is no rational basis for informing cause and effect. These idea are important to bear in mind when modern scientists set forward complicated arguments to support a particular point whether it be global warming or the genetic modification of food etc. As Descartes so astutely commented many years ago – keep your arguments simple, building them up slowly, otherwise you will end up talking nonsense! Socrates, therefore, turned his enquiries inward to the make-up of man and the ends for which humankind lives i.e. what is valuable as opposed to a mere means to an end. Socrates concluded that happiness was a desirable aim and a common end to all. But what exactly is happiness – pleasure, success, honour, fame or wisdom etc? Socrates found the answer in what he called the "perfection of the soul" i.e. personal morality rather than natural speculations which add nothing to life. This is very close to the Christian approach to life. And because it is Socrates has been acclaimed as a pre-Christ Christian. Socrates may have been among the first to realise that the spiritual and material are not in conflict but that both find their true meaning in the contemplation of God.

Rev Derek Marsh BA (hons) DHT