No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Nature and Natural Theology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2024
Extract
Those who consider theology worth talking about, form perhaps a very small minority in the country; but at least, apart from Marxists, or humanists at our older Universities, very few of them would still maintain that it has finally been disposed of by science. Against the background threat of total destruction, modem efforts are preferably directed to integrating what has been inherited; so it is the relation rather than the conflict of science and religion which now provides the usual theme in public lectures on those subjects. Two recent publications may exemplify this contrast of styles between old and new.
There is little to show that the greater part of Professor Price’s Eddington memorial lecture was not written thirty or more years ago. Its argument begins with the claim that ‘the materialistic conception of human personality ... is accepted nowadays, almost as a matter of course, by the majority of Western educated people’. Though there is a disagreement as to the exact form materiahsm takes (Epiphenomenalism, Behaviourism, Marxism are suggested ways), it is at least certain, according to science, that ‘mental processes are inseparable from bodily ones’. Since theism, our natural knowledge of God exclusive of particular revelation (though Professor Price’s scope is wider, the essential point lies here), depends on some direct awareness of him, unmediated by the senses, it is thoroughly discredited in a scientific age. But a ray of hope shone through the general gloom on the day ‘when the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 by a brilliant group of Cambridge men’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1954 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Some aspects of the conflict between Science and Religion. By H. H. Price (C.U.P.; 3/‐). Christianity in an Age of Science. By C. A. Coulson (O.U.P.; 5/‐).
2 Summa Theologica 1a, 1, 7 ad 1.
3 A. N. Whitehead, The Concept of Nature. (1920.) p. 36.
4 Like so much of the best and worst in modern thought, it is Kantian in inspiration, but became known at the beginning of the century through the writings of Henri Poincaré. For its simplest form, cf. Kant and Aquinas, G. Ardley (1950).
5 For a good account cf. E. F, Caldin's Power and Limits of Science (1949).
6 op. cit., p. 45.
7 Though knowledge for St Thomas meant the identity of knower and known, man (it is a measure of his distance from the angels) could only bring this about by activity (his intellectus agens).
8 Professor Coulson maintains that quantum mechanics supports this by showing the impossibility of distinguishing between the observer and what he observes. Despite the commonness of this opinion, it would seen that the principle of complementarity speaks simply of the logical impossibility of applying simultaneously two different descriptions of a particular system: it has nothing to do with the human observer. And to say, as he does on page 28, that this throws light on the doctrine of the Incarnation, is absurd.
9 ‘Omnia cognoscentia cognoscunt implicite Deum in quolibet cognito’. De Veritate, 22. 2 ad 1.