In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE THOMIST A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY EDITORS: THE DoMINICAN FATHERS oF THE PROVINCE oF ST. JosEPH Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington 17, D. C. VoL. XIX APRIL, 1956 No.2 NEWTONIAN ANTINOMIES AGAINST THE PRIMA VIA T HE proof of God's existence from motion in the universe, as originally proposed by Aristotle 1 and as later presented by St. Thomas,2 was intended to be understood by physical scientists. The terms in which it was couched were technical terms with clearly defined meanings, and their application was straightforward and rigorous. Yet the proof, for all its technical elegance, no longer convinces the scientific mind. By and large, its terminology is unintelligible to modern scientists , and as a consequence the argument is now commonly :rejected as having no scientific importance or validity. There are many possible explanations for this enigma, most of them reducible to the patent equivocation in the use of the word " science " through the past three centuries. Prior to the ' Physics, Book Vll. 2 Summa Theologiae, I, q. ~. a. 3. 151 152 W. A. WALLACE seventeenth century, science .was commonly understood as a body of certain and evident knowledge known to be true through causes. Physical or natural science was further considered as having two maip. parts: a fundamental or generalized part, dealing with the common features of natural things presupposed to other studies, and a specialized part in which detailed investigation was made of the various types of natural things. The Galilean~Newtonian revolution drastically affected this understanding; it placed the accent on intensive specialized investigation, minimized the search for causes, and in its place substituted~ methodology based largely mi. mathematical· correlations .3 From that time· until the present day, the meaning of the term " science " has still not crystallized, but the prevailing modern opinion places the emphasis on specialized investigation using a uniform postulational procedure that engenders only probable kno\vledge. Thus' c'ausality, certitude and truth are no longer the hallmark o..f science. Moreover, there is no fundamental or generalized study of physical reality prior to detailed experimental work. Such considerations, if they are thought of at all, are usually relegated to the broad field of philosophy, and they are not regarded as essential to the intellectual equipment of the scientist. The prima via, or the proof of God's existence from motion, is refractory to the modern mind· simply because it is based upon these fundamental, generalized concepts that are no longer considered a. part of science and hence are not taught to scientists. And the situation is further complicated by the fact that modern specialized terminology frequently employs the same terms as pre-Galilean science, but with more restricted meanings than these terms enjoyed in the traditional funda- , I mental understanding. Thus the modem- scientist finds considerable ambiguity in the classical .statement of the demonstration , and this constitutes an almost insurmountable barrier to his acceptance of its conclusion. 8 E. F. Caldin, "Science and the Map of Knowledge," Blackfriara, XXXVI (1955) • /)68-569. NEWTONIAN ANTINOMIES AGAINST THE " PRIMA VIA " 153 Yet there is a ray of hope for one who would reinstate the prima via to its rightful place as a classical scientific demonstration . Oddly enough, this springs from the very man whose genius distracted later generations from becoming interested in the fundamental science of nature that rigorously establishes the demonstration, namely, Sir Isaac Newton. Being at the beginning of a new line of thought, Newton appreciated the terminology of his predecessors and properly formulated his own contribution so as not to be misunderstood by his contemporaries . But, as frequently happens, the scientists who are now most indebted to Newton are generally unacquainted with his original works, and thus have lost contact with this valuable part of his writings. They miss the point of the very title of his main contribution, the :fJ1athematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, possibly because they are unaware of any other principles with which Newton might be contrasting the ones he there proposes. Even worse, in some instances they misrepresent his teachings, and use their own misconceptions to argue against the premises of the prima via. This situation has given rise to the...

pdf

Share