Why Methodological Naturalism in Empiriological Sciences?

The basis of modern empiriological sciences, such as experimental and theoretical physics and astronomy, is "naturalized epistemology," called also "methodological naturalism" or "scientific naturalism." This holds that the methods of empiriological sciences should assume that phenomena they study have only natural causes irrespective of whether supernatural agents can or do effect them. This has allowed for scientists to reproduce experiments and verify results regardless of the scientists' non-scientific beliefs. Science has relegated the Why? questions for the How? questions; final causes are no longer addressed. Because we can only know God and other non-physical realities via the physical word (Rom. 1:20), this implies that the immaterial or supernatural order affects the material or natural order.

Let us address these questions:

1. Does the supernatural affect the natural?
2. If so, why should we incorporate their effects into our physical theories?
3. How would we avoid considering "God did it" as a sufficient explanation of a natural effect?
4. How would we know an exception to a natural law due to something supernatural from an exception due to natural causes?

St. Thomas Aquinas provides an answer to questions 1 and 3 in his discussion on how the universe has a rational plan:

Accordingly that God love His own goodness is something necessary, but it does not necessarily follow from this that it should be reflected in creatures, since the divine goodness is perfect without this. Consequently although the divine goodness is the reason why creatures were originally brought into being, yet this depends on the simple will of God. Supposing, however, that God wishes to communicate His goodness to His creatures by way of likeness as far as it is possible, this is the reason why creatures are of divers kinds: although there is no necessity for this diversity being according to this or that degree of perfection, or this or that number of things. And supposing it to be God's will to establish a particular number in things, and to bestow on each thing a particular measure of perfection, this is the reason why a particular thing has such and such a form and such and such matter: and so on in like manner.

It is therefore clear that the dispensations of providence are according to a certain reason, and yet this reason presupposes the divine will.

Accordingly a twofold error is refuted by what we have said. First, there is the error of those who maintained that all things are the result of God's simple will without any reason. This is the error of the Moslem theologians in the law of the Mohammedans, as Rabbi Moses relates (Doct. Perp. iii. 25.), according to whom the sole reason why fire heats rather than chills is because God so wills. Secondly, we refute the error of those who assert that the ordering of causes proceeds from divine providence by way of necessity. Both of which are false, as is clear from what has been said.

There are certain expressions of Scripture that would seem to ascribe all things to God's simple will. But such things are said, not to remove reason from the dispensations of providence, but to show that God's will is the first principle of all things, as we have already shown. Such are the words of the Psalm cxxxiv. 6.: Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done, and of Job ix. 12: Who can say: Why dost Thou so? and of Rom. ix. 19: Who resisteth His will? Augustine likewise says (3 De Trin. iii., iv.): God's will alone is the first cause of health and sickness, reward and punishment, grace and retribution.

Accordingly if we be asked the wherefore of a particular natural effect, we can assign the reason to some proximate cause: provided, however, that we refer all things to the divine will as their first cause. Thus if it be asked: Why was the wood heated at the presence of fire? we reply: Because to heat is fire's natural action: and this, because heat is its proper accident: and this results from its proper form: and so on until we come to the divine will. Hence if we reply to the question Why was the wood made hot? by saying: Because God so willed: we shall answer rightly, if we intend to trace the question back to its first cause, but incorrectly if we intend to exclude all other causes.

—Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 97 n. 13-17

Hence in empiriological sciences "we intend to exclude all other causes," i.e., we only focus on the natural cause. But, related to the induction hypothesis, what if our repeated observations of the fire in St. Thomas's example conclude only 99.999% of the time that "to heat is fire's natural action?" What if there were another cause, one supernatural, 0.001% of the time? Would this falsify the theory that "to heat is fire's natural action?" No, it would not falsify the natural theory, for in this case it would be a miracle. Determining when a miracle occurs would answer question 4 above. St. Thomas offers some insights into what a miracle is when he says:

These works that are sometimes done by God outside the usual order assigned to things are wont to be called miracles: because we are astonished (admiramur) at a thing when we see an effect without knowing the cause. And since at times one and the same cause is known to some and unknown to others, it happens that of several who see an effect, some are astonished and some not: thus an astronomer is not astonished when he sees an eclipse of the sun, for he knows the cause; whereas one who is ignorant of this science must needs wonder, since he knows not the cause. Wherefore it is wonderful to the latter but not to the former. Accordingly a thing is wonderful simply, when its cause is hidden simply: and this is what we mean by a miracle: something, to wit, that is wonderful in itself and not only in respect of this person or that. Now God is the cause which is hidden to every man simply: for we have proved above that in this state of life no man can comprehend Him by his intellect. Therefore properly speaking miracles are works done by God outside the order usually observed in things.

Of these miracles there are various degrees and orders. The highest degree in miracles comprises those works wherein something is done by God, that nature can never do: for instance, that two bodies occupy the same place, that the sun recede or stand still, that the sea be divided and make way to passers by. Among these there is a certain order: for the greater the work done by God, and the further it is removed from the capability of nature, the greater the miracle: thus it is a greater miracle that the sun recede, than that the waters be divided.

The second degree in miracles belongs to those whereby God does something that nature can do, but not in the same order: thus it is a work of nature that an animal live, see and walk: but that an animal live after being dead, see after being blind, walk after being lame, this nature cannot do, but God does these things sometimes by a miracle. Among these miracles also, there are degrees, according as the thing done is further removed from the faculty of nature.

The third degree of miracles is when God does what is wont to be done by the operation of nature, but without the operation of the natural principles: for instance when by the power of God a man is cured of a fever that nature is able to cure; or when it rains without the operation of the principles of nature.

—Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 101

If our intellects can abstract the supernatural from the natural in an object under study, why should we worry about the supernatural? Our findings will never contradict the supernatural because God never contradicts nature, Who is the very rational Author of it. But what about question 2? Consider this: Understanding the natural order to the exclusion of the supernatural order is akin to understanding the moon with astronomy to the exclusion of mathematics. Why do that? St. Thomas, on the difference between mathematics and physics, says:

Since, therefore, the objects of mathematics are abstracted from motion according to the intellect, and since they do not include in their intelligibility sensible matter, which is a subject of motion, the mathematician can abstract them from sensible matter. And it makes no difference as far as the truth is concerned whether they are considered one way or the other. For although the objects of mathematics are not separated according to existence, the mathematicians, in abstracting them according to their understanding, do not lie, because they do not assert that these things exist apart from sensible matter (for this would be a lie). But they consider them without any consideration of sensible matter, which can be done without lying. Thus one can truly consider the white without the musical, even though they exist together in the same subject. But it would not be a true consideration if one were to assert that the white is not musical.

—In Physic., lib. 2 l. 3 n. 5

He says: "And it makes no difference as far as the truth is concerned whether they are considered one way or the other." Therefore, if the goal of science is to seek truth, then it would not hurt to consider natural phenomena in the light of supernatural, metaphysical, or immaterial causes. But this would be unnecessary because of what St. Augustine says in Contra Faustum, XXVI, 3: "God the creator and author of all natures, does nothing unnatural: because to each thing, that is natural which is caused by Him from whom is all measure, number and order in nature." Does this imply that a Catholic scientist can consistently practice methodological naturalism without worrying about possibly capricious supernatural influences because even supernatural beings, such as angels, have natures created rationally and according to the Divine Reason?

Yet all these arguments assume a sharp division between supernatural and natural orders. Does such a sharp division exist? Should it exist? Or would the physical empiriological sciences prosper if their formal objects were in both natural and supernatural orders?

Galileo vs. Aristotle? Science vs. Reason?

Was Galileo really opposed to all of Aristotle's science and philosophy? Is modern science opposed to reason? Let us begin with a consideration of faith and reason. In September 2006 Pope Benedict XVI—the Pope of Christian Unity—gave his famous "Regensburg lecture" at his alma mater university in Germany. He treats of the relationship between faith and reason, opening a dialogue to those religions who do not recognize Λόγος (Logos) or creative order suggestive of a reason-abiding God in the universe. He begins by reminiscing about

a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas. [...] It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole.

Then he continues with a quote from 1391 by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus on Islam which many mistake by synecdoche for the essence of his whole lecture but which the Pope of Christian Unity is using merely as an example of a disconnected faith and reason. He could have used a different example, possibly, such as by noting how one defines the phrase "Holocaust denial" most frequently as "the belief or assertion that the Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated"—equivocal by definition since one never denies something, i.e., claims its nonexistence, when he means it exists but to a lesser extent—but then he might have been accused of anti-Semitism instead of simply as pro-rationality. Reason, therefore, rarely exists separate from rational religion. The important point of his lecture is that acting reasonably is in accord with God's nature. This is not only important in "subjective" areas of life but especially in the natural sciences and mathematics, too.

"God", [Manuel II] says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..." [...] At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the λόγος". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

The Greeks, whether moderns want to admit it or not, have given us such a rich heritage, prominently: the mathematician Euclid and his Elements; Plato and his philosophy; the first physicist, Aristotle, and his Posterior Analytics, the basis of the modern scientific method of arguing through effects to the causes of things.

The ideal [of a unified science with a "progressive Aristotelianism" philosophy such as that of the Thomists and Scholastics] is that perhaps best set by Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albertus Magnus [both 13^th century], neither of whom was a slavish follower of Aristotle (as was the famous Arab commentator Averroes), but instead used the analytical techniques of their mentor to develop sciences completely unknown to the Greeks. Paradoxically, the ideal is also suggested by Galileo [†17^th century], who disagreed with many teachings proposed by the Aristotelians of his day, but who nevertheless was well acquainted with the methodology of the Posterior Analytics. Indeed, so well equipped was he that he could maintain that were Aristotle then alive and had access to the new empirical evidence he himself had made available, the philosopher would have sided with him rather than with his proclaimed disciples. Much more, of course, is here assimilated within an Aristotelian synthesis than could have been known to either Albertus, Aquinas, or Galileo, including information that has become available only in the late twentieth century.

—Fr. William A. Wallace, O.P.'s The Modeling of Nature (pg. xv)

Commenting on Aristotle's Physics II, R. Nogar—in "Toward a Physical Theory," The New Scholasticism 25 (1951), 397-438—says: "Aristotle made it very clear how the approach of the mathematician, even in considering the same reality, was an entirely different approach from that of the strictly physical scientist." This is something worth considering in the light that many scientists, e.g., Faraday, were excellent experimentalists with the slightest clue about mathematics. Have we become too blinded by the utility of mathematics in Newton's successful Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)? Returning to the Regensburg lecture, the Pope of Christian Unity continues by noting that we moderns want to forget that so much of science and technology owes its existence to Greek thought—Euclid, Plato, Aristotle, etc.—coupled also with the Church's amazing Medieval universities, funding, and support of technology's prerequisite scientific development.

Behind [dehellenized or non-Greek-based] thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian. [...] This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

The rejection of God as Λόγος (Logos) thus leads to self-limited science and reason; therefore, not only atheism—exemplified in this debate between Richard Dawkins and Hugh Hewitt—but also belief in an irrational god is the biggest opponent to reason and true science.

Truth

What is truth? Quid est veritas? (John 18:38). This is the ultimate question all scientists must pursue, but before discussing why a univocal truth no longer appears as the aim of modern universities and research institutions, let us define truth more precisely.

The Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 4), "The true and the false reside not in things, but in the intellect." [...] [T]ruth resides primarily in the intellect, and secondarily in things according as they are related to the intellect as their principle. Consequently there are various definitions of truth. Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is that whereby is made manifest that which is;" and Hilary says (De Trin. v) that "Truth makes being clear and evident" and this pertains to truth according as it is in the intellect. As to the truth of things in so far as they are related to the intellect, we have Augustine's definition (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is a supreme likeness without any unlikeness to a principle": also Anselm's definition (De Verit. xii), "Truth is rightness, perceptible by the mind alone"; for that is right which is in accordance with the principle; also Avicenna's definition (Metaph. viii, 6), "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." The definition that "Truth is the equation of thought and thing" is applicable to it under either aspect.

—St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica Iª q. 16 a. 1 s.c. & co.

If our intellect conforms to reality, then one says this is truth. To find truth, then, we need to apply our intellects to understand everything; this is research. But if truth resides in the intellect, does not this imply a plurality of truths, one for each scientist's understanding of a thing? Does not this imply a relativism of truth? How can scientists, then, come to a consensus—not democratically by majority rule, however—about the truth of, say, a hydrogen atom? Here is this objection, viz., to the fact that the truth is in the intellect:

[W]hatever is true, is true by reason of truth. If, then, truth is only in the intellect, nothing will be true except in so far as it is understood. But this is the error of the ancient philosophers, who said that whatever seems to be true is so. Consequently mutual contradictories seem to be true as seen by different persons at the same time.

—ibid. Iª q. 16 a. 1 arg. 2

To which St. Thomas replies by invoking the divine intellect, the intellect of God who is Truth Itself (John 14:6):

The ancient philosophers held that the species of natural things did not proceed from any intellect, but were produced by chance. But as they saw that truth implies relation to intellect, they were compelled to base the truth of things on their relation to our intellect. From this, conclusions result that are inadmissible, and which the Philosopher refutes (Metaph. iv, 5ff.). Such, however, do not follow, if we say that the truth of things consists in their relation to the divine intellect.

—ibid. Iª q. 16 a. 1 ad 2

We can see that if "natural things did not proceed from any intellect, but were produced by chance" as the atheistic Darwinists think, then truth is only relative to each particular person's understanding of a natural thing. There would be no scientific consensus nor understanding. Science would be doomed. Yet there is hope.

As said above (Article 1), truth is found in the intellect according as it apprehends a thing as it is; and in things according as they have being conformable to an intellect. This is to the greatest degree found in God. For His being is not only conformed to His intellect, but it is the very act of His intellect; and His act of understanding is the measure and cause of every other being and of every other intellect, and He Himself is His own existence and act of understanding. Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.

—ibid. Iª q. 16 a. 5 co.

Therefore, in order to avoid a cacophony of truths, we must "say that the truth of things consists in their relation to the divine intellect." This is why theology, the study of God, is the supreme science (ibid. Iª q. 1 a. 5 s. c.) with metaphysics and the other sciences being her handmaidens. So why does absolute truth no longer appear as the aim of modern universities and research institutions? The simple reasons are that most (1) deny the Ultimate Truth, God; (2) conceive academic freedom as an aimless free-inquiry; and (3) unquestioningly uphold as dogma the relativism of truth. "For to seek the truth [and understanding today] [...] [is] to follow flying game," as Aristotle says in Metaphysics IV, 5, 1009^b40. It does not have to be this way.

The Modeling of Nature

For more information: Philosophy of Nature

Science Without Wisdom

For more information: Institute for Advanced Physics

Dysfunctional Democracy

A democracy is a "rule by the people" (δῆμος "people" and κράτος "rule") which, allegedly according to Alexander Tytler, goes through the following cycle:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage

St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Aristotle's Politics III, 8 in In Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Lib. III, lect. 5-6., says:

[Pol. III, 6-10: The names of the perverted constitutions.]
[...] They are as follows: The perversion of kingship is called tyranny; the perversion of aristocracy, oligarchy (which means: power of the few); finally democracy (meaning; power of the people, or rather the vulgar mass) is the perversion of that polity in which the many dominate but on the basis of at least one virtue, viz., military bravery. Hence, Aristotle concludes, tyranny is the dominion of one man aiming at his own interest; oligarchy is the dominion of a few aiming at the interest of the rich; democracy is the dominion of many aiming at the interest of the poor. None of these constitutions takes thought for the common good [...]

[Ibid. 8; 1279b 34-1280a 6: The criterion of number is not adequate.]
[After closer examination of these definitions] it appears that, in the case of democracy the large number of the holders of power is an accidental circumstance; and likewise, in the case of oligarchy the small number is merely accidental. For it is nothing but a fact that everywhere there are more poor than rich people. The above mentioned names, therefore, owe their origin [not to a universally valid reason but] simply to a fact which happens to be true in most of the cases. Since, however, a specific differentiation cannot be obtained on the basis of what is merely accidental, it follows that, per se, the distinction between oligarchies and democracies cannot be made in virtue of the larger or smaller number of the rulers. Rather their specific difference results from the difference between poverty and riches. If a regime is ordained to the increase of the possessions of the rich, its very species is determined by this end and it is for this reason that it differs specifically from a regime whose end is liberty, which regime is democracy. Hence, wherever the rich hold political power, no matter whether they are many or few, there will be oligarchy; and wherever the poor hold this power, there will be democracy; and that the latter are many and the former few is nothing but an accidental circumstance. For only a few have riches yet all partake of liberty. This is why both classes fight each other. The few want to dominate for the sake of their possessions and the many want to prevail upon the few since they believe that, by the criterion of liberty, they have just as good a right to political power as the rich.

"Democracy is the dominion of many aiming at the interest of the poor" which does not take "thought for the common good" and "whose end is liberty." What is liberty? If it is freedom from tyranny, then democracy is a self-defeating constitution since it seeks to defeat precisely what it is.

"The criterion of number" is indeed inadequate. Why should, e.g., a 49% to 51% vote on something, say, abortion, determine if it is lawful or true? It could have been a 48% to 52% or even a 10% to 90% vote. The rule by the majority is very arbitrary and implicitly assumes a relativism of truth, i.e., that there is no absolute truth or moral law.

No wonder Pope John Paul II spoke out over 56 times against the war in Iraq, whose goal has been to impose democracy, an intrinsically dysfunctional form of government, on a country not susceptible to it.

Reason & Faith: Double-Truths?

Averroes, the prominent Islamic philosopher who said "I necessarily conclude through reason that the intellect is one in number; but I firmly hold the opposite through faith," thought that scientific truths are completely separate from and can even contradict truths not based on human reason, such as truths divinely revealed. This would seem to give science more academic freedom, being apparently unencumbered by seemingly unnecessary religious dogma. But the Islamic philosophy's decoupling of reason from religion and upholding a "double-truth" is a false philosophy with dangerous, irrational consequences, e.g., radical fundamentalism. However, science and the Catholic faith are compatible, as St. Thomas Aquinas's writings, the basis of Catholic philosophy, establish. In his De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas ("On the Unity of the Intellect Against the Averroists"), the thirteenth-century St. Thomas refutes Averroes's denial of the individuality of the human intellect:

Just as all men naturally desire to know the truth [Aristotle, Metaphysics I, 1, 980a], so there is inherent in men a natural desire to avoid errors, and refute them when they are able to do so. Now among other errors, the error that seems especially inappropriate is the one concerning that very intellect through which we are meant by nature to avoid errors and know the truth. For a long time now there has been spreading among many people an error concerning the intellect, arising from the words of Averroes. He tries to assert that the intellect that Aristotle calls the possible intellect [Aristotle, De Anima III, 4, 429a 18-24], but that he himself calls by the unsuitable name "material," is a substance separate in its being from the body and not united to it in some way as its form, and furthermore that this possible intellect is one for all men. Against these views we have already written many things in the past [e.g., Summa Theologiae I, q. 76, a. 1 & 2]. But because the boldness of those who err has not ceased to strive against the truth, we will try again to write something against this same error to refute it clearly. It is not now our intention to show that the above-mentioned position is erroneous in this, that it is opposed to the truth of the Christian Faith. For this can easily enough become evident to everyone. For if we deny to men a diversity of the intellect, which alone among the parts of the soul seems to be incorruptible and immortal, it follows that after death nothing of the souls of men would remain except that single substance of intellect; and so the recompense of rewards and punishments and also their diversity would be destroyed. However, we intend to show that the above-mentioned position is no less against the principles of philosophy than against the teachings of Faith. And because, so they say, the words of the Latins on this subject have no savor for some persons, but these men say that they follow the words of the Peripatetics, whose books on this subject they have never seen, except those of Aristotle who was the founder of the Peripatetic Sect; we shall show first that the above-mentioned position is entirely opposed to his words and meaning.

—De unitate intellectus, pr.

Nowhere can the Catholic faith contradict true science or vice versa, even though there have been many accusations: (1) that of the Galileo affair, which was due to the fact that, unlike Copernicus, Galileo asserted his theory as absolutely true and not simply as a scientific theory subject to possible error, or (2) that the Church disapproves of the scientific theory of biological evolution, which is untrue; for according to Denzinger's 1911 edition of his collection of Catholic dogma, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, the First Vatican Council states:

1797 [The impossibility of opposition between faith and reason]. But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason. Therefore, "every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be altogether false" [Lateran Council V, see n. 738]. 1798 Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing "knowledge falsely so called" [1 Tim. 6:20], "lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit" [cf. Col. 2:8; can. 2]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth. 1799 [The mutual assistance of faith and reason, and the just freedom of science]. And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, nor does it despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from "God, the Lord of knowledge" [1 Samuel 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it (the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith.

Before a scientist might judge this as the Church's apparently being threatened by science and desperately trying to keep it "in its place," note what St. Thomas Aquinas says:

[T]he argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest.

—Summa Theologica Iª q. 1 a. 8 ad 2

It would seem this is untrue because correct interpretation of divine revelation is difficult and subject to human error and speculation. But that human reason is subject to error is precisely the point; authority based on human reason is like building a house on sand. Compared to divine authority—authority based on the solid foundation of something most perfect, powerful, and immutable, i.e., absolute truth itself—human reason is unstable, changing, fleeting, and restrained by time. Therefore, "the argument from authority based on divine revelation is [indeed] the strongest;" and consequently science, with its roots in a true philosophy (i.e., Scholastic Thomism) that does not contradict divine revelation nor human reason but strives to understand a single absolute truth, is even stronger. This is true science.

Periodic Table of Elements is All? No.

Giordano Bruno, a pantheist and materialist sometimes erroneously categorized with Galileo, said: "Matter is not without its forms, but contains them all; and since it carries what is wrapped up in itself, it is in truth all nature and the mother of all the living." (C. Gutberlet). Is this true? Is matter "all nature and the mother of all the living?" Is life—even human life—ultimately dependent upon matter? It seems so because without matter what would life or physical things be? Nothing? Is matter the principle and cause of everything as the atomists thought?

Of the first philosophers, then, most thought the principles which were of the nature of matter were the only principles of all things. That of which all things that are consist, the first from which they come to be, the last into which they are resolved (the substance remaining, but changing in its modifications), this they say is the element and this the principle of things, and therefore they think nothing is either generated or destroyed, since this sort of entity is always conserved, as we say Socrates neither comes to be absolutely when he comes to be beautiful or musical, nor ceases to be when loses these characteristics, because the substratum, Socrates himself remains. Just so they say nothing else comes to be or ceases to be; for there must be some entity—either one or more than one—from which all other things come to be, it being conserved.

[...]

From these facts one might think that the only cause is the so-called material cause; but as men thus advanced, the very facts opened the way for them and joined in forcing them to investigate the subject.

—Aristotle's Metaphysics 983^b8-18, 984^a17-20

Are we not more advanced today than those who thought that there are only material causes, e.g., the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire? After all, today we have over a hundred elements on the periodic table. Yet, are we not "men thus advanced" so we can more fully "investigate the subject?" Or do we think all the seemingly eternal elements on the periodic table are the principles and causes of everything? If this is true, then the efficient cause¹ of this blog is not me but the matter that makes me up; the material cause² is a hard disk magnetized in a certain way somewhere; the formal cause³, the words, are, e.g., light coming from your computer screen in a certain way; and the final cause⁴ does not exist since I apparently direct this blog to no definite end. From this it follows that everything is merely due to the random motion of atoms.

[E]ven though finished products were not in existence from eternity, we might be inclined to think that matter had to exist from eternity. For everything that has being subsequent to non-being, is changed from non-being to being. Therefore if created things, such as heaven and earth and the like, did not exist from eternity, but began to be after they had not been, we must admit that they were changed from non-being to being. But all change and motion have some sort of subject; for motion is the act of a thing existing in potency. However, the subject of the change whereby a thing is brought into existence, is not the thing itself that is produced, because this thing is the terminus of the motion, and the terminus and subject of motion are not the same. Rather, the subject of the change is that from which the thing is produced, and this is called matter. Accordingly, if things are brought into being after a state of non-being, it seems that matter had to exist prior to them. And if this matter is, in turn, produced subsequent to a period of non-existence, it had to come from some other, pre-existing matter. But infinite procession along these lines is impossible. Therefore we must eventually come to eternal matter, which was not produced subsequent to a period of non-existence.

[...]

The arguments just reviewed do not compel us to postulate the eternity of matter, for the production of things in their totality cannot properly be called change. In no change is the subject of the change produced by the change, for the reason rightly alleged by the objector, namely, that the subject of change and the terminus of the change are not identical. Consequently, since the total production of things by God, which is known as creation, extends to all the reality that is found in a thing, production of this kind cannot properly verify the idea of change, even though the things created are brought into existence subsequently to non-existence. Being that succeeds to non-being does not suffice to constitute real change, unless we suppose that a subject is first in a state of privation, and later under its proper form. Hence "this" is found coming after "that" in certain things in which motion or change do not really occur, as when we say that day turns into night. Accordingly, even though the world began to exist after having not existed, this is not necessarily the result of some change. In fact, it is the result of creation, which is not a true change, but is rather a certain relation of the created thing, as a being that is dependent on the Creator for its existence and that connotes succession to previous non-existence. In every change there must be something that remains the same although it undergoes alteration in its manner of being, in the sense that at first it is under one extreme and subsequently under another. In creation this does not take place in objective reality, but only in our imagination. That is, we imagine that one and the same thing previously did not exist, and later existed. And so creation can be called change, because it has some resemblance to change.

—St. Thomas Aquinas's Compendium theologiæ, lib. 1 cap. 99

Therefore, matter cannot be "all nature and the mother of all the living" because matter is not eternal, time is a part of nature, and only something eternal can be the cause of time; how could something bound to time cause time?

The efficient cause of this blog is not the matter that makes me up; it is me. The material cause, sure, is the hard disk on which there are bits representing the characters that make up the blog. The formal cause of this blog is not matter but the words or characters themselves; if the words or characters were different, one would have a different blog.

Now, non-eternal things have a creator. Thus if something uncreated created matter, then that "something" would be "the mother of all the living," but not "all nature" because a creator cannot logically be its creation. This "something" is God, the final cause, I hope, of this blog.

Notes

¹²³⁴The four causes of Aristotle were the efficient cause, the force, instrument, or agency by which a thing is produced; the formal [HOBBES Decameron ii. 15 Another they call the Formal Cause, or simply the form or essence of the thing caused: as when they say, Four equal Angles and four equal Sides are the Cause of a Square Figure.]; the material, the elements or matter from which it is produced; the final, the purpose or end for which it is produced [final cause: a term introduced into philosophical language by the schoolmen as a transl. of Aristotle's fourth cause, τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα or τέλος, the end or purpose for which a thing is done, viewed as the cause of the act; esp. applied in Natural Theology to the design, purpose, or end of the arrangements of the universe.]. The First Cause, the original cause or Creator of the Universe; secondary causes, those derived from a primary or first cause.

—Oxford English Dictionary

Philosophy ≠ Metaphysics or Ontology

Many modern scientists misconceive philosophy as being just metaphysics or ontology. Philosophy is not metaphysics nor ontology; metaphysics and ontology are a part of philosophy. This is the proper division of the sciences:

PHILOSOPHY

1. Speculative Sciences
   
   1. Natural Sciences
   2. Mathematics
   3. Metaphysics
2. Practical Sciences
   
   1. Art
   2. Prudence

Instead of this hierarchy of the sciences, Christian von Wolff (1679-1754) proposed his own. He inverted the proper division of the sciences by identifying metaphysics (ontology) as philosophy itself and placing it first:

METAPHYSICS

1. General Metaphysics (Ontology)
2. Special Metaphysics
   
   1. Metaphysics of Bodies
   2. Metaphysics of Spirits
      
      1. of Created Spirits
      2. of Uncreated Spirits

Resulting from this erroneous division of the sciences is the modern separation of natural (now conceived as "naturalistic") and philosophical (now conceived as "ontological") sciences. Humans by nature start with imperfect sense knowledge and gradually build up to more perfect knowledge, not the other way around as Wolff would suggest. Why? Cf. Romans 1:20, which says that we must first start with sense knowledge—from the physical world, God's creation—before proceeding to knowledge further from the senses—such as God Himself. St. Paul does not say, as Wolff would: "[T]he creation of the world from the invisible things of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things unmade." Rather, he says:

[T]he invisible things of him [e.g., His ontology] from the creation of the world are clearly seen [i.e., with our imperfect knowledge from the senses], being understood by the things that are made [e.g., the physical world].

Extraterrestrials and Artificial Intelligence

Catholicism allows for extraterrestrial intelligent life as this interview with Fr. Funes, the director of the Vatican Observatory, shows:

LOR: Can the Church’s interest in the study of the universe be explained by the fact that astronomy is the only science that has to do with the infinite and therefore with God?

FUNES: To be precise, the universe is not infinite. It is very big, but finite, because it has an age: about 14 billion years, given our most recent findings. And if it has an age, this means that it also has a limit in space. The universe was born in a determined moment and from then is continually expanding.

[...]

LOR: But Genesis speaks of the earth, of animals, of man and of woman. Does this exclude the possibility of the existence of other worlds or living beings in the universe?

FUNES: From my judgment this possibility exists. Astronomers hold that the universe was formed by 100 billion galaxies, each of them is composed of 100 billion stars. Many of these, or almost all, could have some planets. How could it not be left out that life developed elsewhere? There is a branch of astronomy, astrobiology, that precisely studies this aspect and has made much progress in recent years. Examining the light spectrums that come from stars and planets, soon it will be possible to single out elements of their atmosphere—the so-called biomakers—and understand if conditions exist for the birth and development of life. For the rest, life forms could exist in theory, even without oxygen or hydrogen.

LOR: Are we referring also to similar beings to us or more evolved ones?

FUNES: It is possible. Until now we have had no proof. But certainly in a universe so big this hypothesis cannot be excluded.

LOR: And this would not be a problem for our faith?

FUNES: I believe no. As a multiplicity of creatures exist on earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by God. This does not contrast with our faith because we cannot put limits on the creative freedom of God. To say it with Saint Francis, if we consider earthly creatures as “brother” and “sister,” why cannot we also speak of an “extraterrestrial brother?” It would therefore be a part of creation.

—L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper

What really seems to fascinate both scientists and laymen is whether different physical matter can give rise to life as we know it on earth. Could organisms be silicon-based instead of carbon-based? But one bases this fascination on an implicit erroneous assumption: that matter is the origin of everything, even non-physical things like a soul and intellect of an intelligent life-form. That physical matter is all there is is the materialist's position. But how could an intellect, an intellectual soul, depend on something corruptible like physical matter? It does not because the soul of an intelligent being is one, incorruptible, and immortal (cf. Summa Theologica Iª q. 76 a. 6).

St. Thomas Aquinas took up the question of intelligent extraterrestrials, too:

Aquinas took an interest in the question of whether there were intelligent material beings other than humans in the universe, both as a philosopher and as a theologian. As a philosopher he sought to understand the order of the universe and this entails ascertaining what beings are in the universe. As a theologian he sought knowledge of created beings insofar as it leads to a greater understanding, admiration, and love of the creator, and also insofar as it frees one from superstitious beliefs which pose an obstacle to faith in God. Although Aquinas was unable to approach the question of the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life from the scientific perspective of our day, he does raise some generally overlooked philosophical questions regarding the status of such beings. His theological reflections are helpful for addressing the frequently voiced claim that the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would spell the end of Christianity. Aquinas's position is that it is possible that ETs of a certain sort exist, but improbable that they do.

[...]

Aquinas calls to our attention that one sort of ET that could exist is a separated intelligence joined to body as its mover. He himself thinks that there are intelligences of this sort which move the heavenly bodies. As for the other sort of ET which would consist of a separated substance united to a body as its form, Aquinas points that it is extremely unlikely that a pure intelligence be united to a body as its form, since the pure intelligence in no way profits from its union to the body. However, an intellectual substance of the rational sort is suitably united to a body since an intelligence of this sort can only acquire its ideas through sense experience.

Aquinas points out that the sort of body the composite being must have is specified to some extent by the requirements of the intellectual substance that is united to it. The body cannot be a simple body such as air or iron, because sense organs require a balance of elements, and indeed, a most subtle blend of elements; otherwise the being will lack a good sense of touch and well-functioning internal senses that provide reason with the starting points it needs for forming ideas. Aquinas further points out that rational beings need not have fingers, hands, and feet as humans do; he holds that even humans would still be human without them.

Aquinas does not favor the idea that other human-type beings exist because he thinks that the human soul represents the very lowest type of intelligence, whereas the human body represents the very highest material body. However, he does remain open to the possibility.

From a theological standpoint, Aquinas explains that there is no reason for concern here because it is not the task of Scripture to classify the beings in the universe. Since Aquinas does not think that there in fact are other human-type beings, he has little reason to investigate any apparent conflicts between their existence and scriptural statements. His examination of whether many Incarnations are possible is useful for theological discussions of ET existence.

Aquinas explicitly denies that it is probable that other human-type bodies exist, for the reason noted above. There are two other probable arguments that can be drawn from Aquinas, one against and one in favor of the existence of other human-like creatures. On the one hand, the human species would reflect God's goodness in a special way by being unique, while on the other hand, it is befitting to God's goodness that he create more of better creatures. Aquinas leans in the direction of the former view, but realizes that the latter could in fact be the case. And by doing so, he gives us an example of the circumspection that this matter demands.

—The Thomist, 65, 2, April 2001, 239-258

Whether there can be non-human life with human-like intellects in the first place is another question.

Having shown that a certain intellectual substance—the human soul—is united to a body as its form, we must now inquire whether any intellectual substance is united to any other body as its form.

[...]

[I]f an intellectual substance is united as form to one of the simple bodies, it will either be endowed with an intellect only, or will have other powers such as those that belong to the sensitive or to the nutritive part, as in man. In the first case, there would be no point in its being united to a body. For every corporeal form has some operation proper to itself which is exercised through the body; whereas the intellect has no operation pertaining to the body, except by way of moving it; because understanding is not an operation that can be exercised through any bodily organ, and, for the same reason, neither is the act of the will. The movements of the elements, moreover, are derived from natural movers, namely, from generators; the elements do not move themselves. Hence, the mere possession of movement on their part does not imply that they are animated. But, if the intellectual substance, hypothetically united to an element or a part of an element, is endowed with other psychic parts, then, since these parts are parts of certain organs, a diversity of organs will necessarily be found in the body of the element. But this is incompatible with its simplicity. An intellectual substance, therefore, cannot possibly be united as form to an element or to a part thereof.

There is also the fact that the nearer a body is to prime matter, the less noble it is, being more in potentiality and less in complete act. The elements, however, are nearer than mixed bodies to prime matter, since they are the proximate matter of mixed bodies. Hence, the bodies of the elements are less noble in their specific nature than mixed bodies. Since, then, the nobler form belongs to the nobler body, it is impossible that the noblest form, namely, the intellective soul, should be united to bodies of the elements.

—Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 2 cap. 90 n. 1,4-5

This definitely goes against a materialist conception of the world and would seem to render true, self-conscious, reasoning artificial intelligence (AI) impossible. Is it?

Intelligence, Physics, and Humanness

One common argument that human life begins at conception is that an embryo has a human intellective or rational soul (viz., an immaterial part or "mind") that will continue maturing its whole life. Why would being inside or outside of the womb change a person's innate ability to reason and exercise an intellect? Why would a baby born two months prematurely, for example, be able to think while another baby still in his mother's womb after seven months apparently does not?

Probably the most interesting conversation I had at the UA's JFA exhibit was with an ex-nurse of an abortionist. [...] She thought it is a human's intellect and ability to understand that differentiates a human from an animal. She talked about her stay with Buddhists and how they told her that a mocking bird could repeat their chants but would not understand the words. Humans, however, would understand. The ex-nurse could not tell, however, when a human embryo first begins to understand and hence when the embryo is a human. I asked if the ability to understand is genetic, and I think she agreed. Then I commented that if it is genetic, that would make a fertilized egg a human being. She denied that one can know that for sure. She seemed to view viability outside the womb as the determining factor for humanness.

As St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 2 cap. 87 tit., "the human soul is brought into being through the creative action of God," not through the biological processes of procreation, which are instrumental causes, but as its efficient cause. In ibid., lib. 2 cap. 88 n. 3, Aquinas presents the argument of those who think the intellect arises from something genetic and not from an intellective or rational soul:

Moreover, as Aristotle [erroneously] teaches in the De generatione animalium [II, 3], the fetus is an animal before becoming a man. But, during the time in which the fetus is an animal and not a man, it has a sensitive [i.e., pertaining to the senses] and not an intellective soul; and, just as in other animals, this sensitive soul in indubitably produced by the active power of the semen. And yet that same sensitive soul is potentially intellective, just as that animal is potentially a rational animal; and the notion that the supervening intellective soul is substantially distinct from the sensitive one has been refuted already. It therefore seems that the substance of the intellective soul is derived from a power in the semen. [Viz., it is genetic.]

He countered this argument in Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 2 cap. 86 n. 4-5 and ibid., lib. 2 cap. 89 n. 3, saying:

[...] the intellective soul is the most perfect of souls and its power the highest [and] its proper perfectible subject is a body having many different organs through which its multifarious operations can be carried out; and that is why the soul cannot possibly be actually present in the semen separated from the body [...] The intellect, which is the proper and principal power of the intellective soul, is not the act of any part of the body, and therefore it cannot be divided accidentally as a result of the body's being divided [as through cell division]. Nor, then, can the intellective soul be so divided.

[...]

Hence, from the hypothesis that the human soul is brought into being through the active power in the semen it follows that its being depends upon matter, as with other material forms. But the contrary of this has already been proved. The intellective soul, therefore, is in no way produced through the transmission of the semen.

[...]

And the hypothesis of the soul's presence in the semen from the beginning would entail the further consequence that animal generation takes place solely by way of partition, as with annulose animals, where two are produced from one. For, if the semen were possessed of a soul at the moment of its separation, it would then already be endowed with a substantial form. But in every case substantial generation precedes the substantial form; it never comes after it; and if any changes follow in the wake of the substantial form, they concern not the being but the well-being of the thing generated. Thus, the engendering of the animal would be completed with the mere alienation of the semen; and all subsequent changes would have no bearing upon the process of generation.

But this theory would be even more ridiculous if applied to the rational soul. For, first, the soul cannot possibly be divided as the body is, so as to be present in the separated semen; and second, it would follow that in all extra-copulative emissions of semen, without conception taking place, rational souls would nevertheless be multiplied.

Since the human soul includes the intellect, it follows that "the intellect is intrinsically independent from an organ" (XVII. of the 24 Thomistic Theses); therefore, it is not genetic. We know this, for example, because people with only one brain hemisphere still have a human intellect. But is there no relation between the brain and intellect? No, because there is a relation between body and soul even though the human soul does not depend on the body ("a human soul is incorruptible and immortal" and "subsists through itself," XV. of the 24 Thomistic Theses), just like form does not depend upon a specific matter; if it did and if the human soul is a human's form, a man, e.g., with a non-human body—i.e., with a different matter—would no longer be a man, a contradiction of our assumption that we are talking about a man.

Since the "intellect, which is the proper and principal power of the intellective soul, is not the act of any part of the body;" the brain is not the cause of thoughts, which are objects of the intellect; the brain, being a sense organ, is only instrumental to them. The soul is the cause of thoughts. But what if the intellect is the act of every and/or all parts of body? Could theories of holism and non-separability in physics disprove this, or are they based on false philosophies? No, they are most likely false philosophies because an intellective soul's "proper perfectible subject is a body having many different organs through which its multifarious operations can be carried out."

Also, from the definition of soul as an "immaterial part," the body cannot equal the soul. But why is there a soul in the first place? Asking this question is like asking: Why should I believe in anything non-physical pertaining to me? Thoughts, e.g., are non-physical; and undoubtedly they do pertain to you. We cannot escape the reality of non-physical entities such as thoughts, souls, angels, etc.; viz., there is a supernatural order.

Then what makes a human zygote a human, or possibly more specifically, a human scientist or physicist? That God created his soul and infused it into his body at conception.

False Philosophies ☯ Ruin Science

What is wrong with these philosophies?

Evil is good because without evil there would be no good. Similarly, good is evil because without good there would be no evil. Therefore, evil is good, and good is evil. Consequently, if God exists, God as the supreme good is also God of the supreme evil, and worshippers of God worship both good and evil or neither good nor evil at all. Why prefer good to evil instead of evil to good if they are really the same?

Arbitrarily substituting "good" for "truth" and "evil" for "falsity" yields an equivalent argument with which many modern scientists might agree:

Falsity is truth because without falsity there would be no truth. Similarly, truth is falsity because without truth there would be no falsity. Therefore, falsity is truth, and truth is falsity. Consequently, if God exists, God as the supreme truth is also God of the supreme falsity, and worshippers of God worship both truth and falsity or neither truth nor falsity at all. Why prefer truth to falsity instead of falsity to truth if they are really the same?

Here is another:

God's command "Thou shalt not steal" (Exod. 20:13) is meaningless since if, for example, I steal my neighbor's thing, I am not really stealing but rather giving him the gift of an anti-thing. If I give him the thing instead, then I am stealing his anti-thing.

All these arguments proceed from the atheistic philosophy of the relativism of truth, namely that everything obtains its meaning solely from an interdependence on everything else rather than from a dependence ultimately on God. "Good," "truth," and "thing" do not depend for their existence upon "evil," "falsity," or "anti-thing," respectively, because good is a lack of evil, falsity is a lack of truth, and "anti-thing" is the lack of "thing" (cf. Einstein's professor). What kind of physics, for example, do we have if it be based on such a false, yin-yang–like philosophy as relativism? What does it profit us to question why, e.g., good does not depend on evil? Yes, there are such things as futile questions (cf. Job 38), for example: Why does 2 + 2 = 4? Therefore, we must submit ourselves, before we lead ourselves astray, to the guiding principles of the truest philosophy: Scholasticism.

Scholasticism in Empiriological Sciences

From footnote †7 on pg. 24 of St. Thomas Aquinas's Division and methods of the sciences, a commentary on Boethius's De Trinitate II., translator Armand Maurer mentions these articles relating Scholasticism to empiriological sciences like modern physics.

The growth in modern times of empiriological science, as distinct from philosophy in its formal object and method, renders impossible a physical theory that would be applicable in a univocal way to both. Such a theory, which denies the distinction between philosophical and empiriological analysis, has been proposed by R. Nogar, "Toward a Physical Theory," The New Scholasticism 25 (1951), 397-438.

J. Weisheipl proposes a return to St. Thomas and St. Albert for "a unifying physical theory" that would include both the philosophy of nature and the empirical or experimental sciences. For Weisheipl these constitute one specific discipline, both materially and formally. However, he regards the sciences employing mathematical principles as really distinct from natural philosophy. See J. Weisheipl, The Development of Physical Theory in the Middle Ages; "The Relationship of Medieval Natural Philosophy to Modern Science: The Contribution of Thomas Aquinas to Its Understanding," in Science. Medicine and the Universities 1200-1550. Essays in Honor of Pearl Kibre (= Manuscripta 20 [1976]), pp. 181-196; idem, Introduction to The Dignity of Science. Studies in the Philosophy of Science Presented to William Humbert Kane OP (= The Thomist 24 [1961]).

In the same spirit, see C. De Koninck, "The Unity and Diversity of Natural Science," in The Philosophy of Physics, ed. V. E. Smith, pp. 5-24; W. A. Wallace, "St. Thomas's Conception of Natural Philosophy and its Method," in Studi Tomistici. La philosophie de la nature de saint Thomas d'Aquin, ed. L. Elders, pp. 7-27; idem, Causality and Scientific Explanation.

For further discussions of this topic, see E. McMullin, "Philosophies of Nature," The New Scholasticism 43 (1969), 29-74; J. Compton, "Reinventing the Philosophy of Nature," The Review of Metaphysics 33 (1979), 3-28; E. McMullin, "Compton on the Philosophy of Nature," ibid., pp. 29-58; idem, "Is There a Philosophy of Nature?" Proceedings of the International Congress of Philosophy, Vienna, 1968, 4: 295-305.

This is what the Society of Scholastics and the Institute of Advanced Physics seek to promote. See also the Society of Scholastic's Constitution, the 24 Thomistic Theses, and especially the works on which I have commented here.To discuss these articles, post your comments here.

Grand Unified Theory?

There is a correct division of the speculative sciences into physical, mathematical, and metaphysical ones; as Boethius says in his De Trinitate II.:

There are three divisions of speculative science: Natural science¹ deals with motion² and is not abstract³ (ἀνυπεξαίρετος), for it is concerned with the forms⁴ of bodies along with matter⁵, which forms cannot be separated in reality from their bodies. These bodies are in motion (earth, for example, tending downward and fire tending upward), and the form that is joined with the matter takes on its movement. Mathematics does not deal with motion and it is not abstract, for it inquires into the forms of bodies apart from matter and therefore apart from motion, which forms, however, since they exist in matter, cannot be separated from bodies. Theology⁶ does not deal with motion and it is abstract and separable, for the divine substance is without either matter or motion. ¹The terms natural science, physics, and natural philosophy are synonymous. ²Motion means not only movement but also change. ³To abstract means "to consider something separately." ⁴Form is "the essential nature of a species or thing." (New Oxford American Dictionary). ⁵Click here for the difference between form and matter. ⁶Theology here means metaphysics.

Today, however, there is much more division than Boethius envisions. Even within physics, e.g., there is disunity between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Between physics and its subfield, astronomy, there is a culture war, and between physics and biology there is an even greater disunity. A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory of Everything (ToE) will only be possible if we adopt a "Grand Unified Philosophy." The Society of Scholastics is its proponent:

As modern science has lighted the darkest corners of the discernible universe, the lack of a complete philosophy adequate to synthesize all the empirical results has cloven every field of human knowledge one from the other. Now, each science is autonomous, submitting all reality to its own judgment, and admitting no conclusions outside itself. Every science is an empire and every scientist a tyrant—there is no longer wisdom, only wise men.

—The Origin of the Society of Scholastics

Still applicable today is St. Thomas Aquinas's statement (De ente et essentia, pr.; cf. De Cœlo 1, 5, 271^b8-13): Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine. ("A small error in principle is a big error in conclusion."). Thus if our premises, postulates, or axioms are wrong; so will be our conclusions. Can you imagine what would happen to Euclidean geometry if we submitted all its axioms to the same sort of free skeptical inquiry that characterizes today's misguided academic freedom? We would more often than not be groping in the dark and obtain a geometry with false conclusions. So with science itself we must place our faith in one, true system of philosophy that serves as the axiom from which we can draw error-free conclusions and clearly communicate our results to others. As St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Thelogica Iª q. 1 a. 8 co.: "sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences."

One system of science alone, amidst the incessant endeavors of the many systems through four centuries to investigate the inmost mysteries of reality, has been able to stand without modification in its fundamental tenets, and this is the system of Scholastic Thomism. Today its stability and breadth is such that it serves as an excellent basis and principle of unification for all the results of scientific speculation reached by the various particular sciences of modern times. We are convinced, and in this we feel confident we are not mistaken, that all who have the courage to pursue his philosophy to the bottom and follow its logical conclusions will agree with us that concerning the analysis of the activity and processes of the mind, concerning the inner nature of body, living being and man, concerning the foundations of speculative science and ethical philosophy, no other man has ever thought and written with the power of Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, whilst it is true that our philosophy is intimately associated with the name of Thomas, we wish it to be understood that we do not regard the Thomistic philosophy either as an ideal which one must not attempt to surpass or as a boundary which sets limits to personal activity in thought; but our position is that we regard it as a mark no less of prudence than of modesty to make use of his teaching as a starting-point from which we may go further afield in original speculations and as a constant standard of reference. This we feel called upon to say in reply to those, whether opponents or friends, who may feel tempted to ask if it is our intention to lead back the modern mind to the outlook of the Middle Ages. There is no question of retracing our steps back to bygone centuries. But respect for tradition is no indication of servility of mind but rather one of elementary prudence; respect for a doctrine whose merits have been personally ascertained and verified is no mark of a blind devotee, but of a dutiful disciple of truth.

—Adapted from Cardinal Mercier's Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy