Paste your essay in here…Science and Religion Midterm (10% of grade)
Name:
DUE DATE: February 16
1. Considering our reading of Plato’s Timaeus and our various discussions of Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, what are some ways in which the creation commentaries in (a) Augustine, (b) Philo, (c) Genesis Rabbah, and (d) the Corpus Hermeticum text are shaped by Greek philosophy? Give at least one or two examples for each text. What might this inclusion of Greek thought into Jewish and Christian theology suggest about religion and its relation to either/or culture, philosophy, and science? [4 points]
Greek Philosopher Plato is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of our time; his thought experiments brought about platonic as well as neoplatonic philosophy. One aspect of society heavily influenced by platonic philosophy is religion. Jewish and Christian theology have traces of plato interwoven throughout their doctrines, and analyses of those doctrines reference him as well. Timaeus by Plato is a dialogue detailing his views about creation, humans and the world. In typical socratic fashion, Plato begins by asking readers a question: “Was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? Or created, and had it a beginning?” (Timaeus 27d). And with that, he also goes on to answer, formulating ideas to later be emulated, as well as argued against, by Augustine and Philo. These very same ideas will go on to make an appearance in Genesis Rabbah and the Corpus Hermeticum.
A common theme in these texts is how humans and the gender hierarchy were created, where men are consistently ranked superior to women. In Timaeus, Plato discusses God’s creation of humans. The superior human was called man. If a man lived righteously, he would be reincarnated as a man again, whereas if he didn’t live honorably as deemed by God, he would be punished by being reincarnated as a woman. Emulating this misogyny is On The Creation by Philo who says the creation of woman led to “iniquities and transgressions” and caused men to “[exchange] their previously immortal and happy existence for one which is mortal and full of misfortune” (On the Creation 152). Again, women are clearly viewed as the lesser of the two types of human. In Philo’s opinion, women bring misfortune and immorality. We see misogynistic writing in the Genesis Rabbah as well. The creation of women is described negatively compared to men. Women are described as being formed from man and in no way equal. Women had to be made from a particular part of man-not the mouth or the ears, for example-so as to avoid negative traits like being a chatterer or an eavesdropper. A rib, a hidden part of Adam’s body, is where women spawn from so that, like a rib, they may be modest and hidden.
An intriguing idea of Plato’s is the Theory of Forms, which describes the distinction between the visible and intelligible realms. In the visible realm-earth-we can perceive things with our senses. We can look at things and characterize them as beautiful. But in the intelligible realm-heaven-is where true beauty lies. The true form of beauty is rooted in the intelligible realm and thus we can not understand it. Only that which lies in the visible realm, the sensible beauty, can be known to us. This is similar to the emanations found in the Corpus Hermeticum describing the descension from God (which Plato would call The One). The One is the most intelligible Form, the highest of them all. As one descends down from God, away from the celestial man and the planets, he is descending away from the intelligible world and God.
In Confession’s by Augustine, we see this emanation progression again, and Plato’s strange concept of time also pondered by Augustine. Plato believes Time was created simultaneously with “the beginning” when God “resolved to have a moving image of eternity” (Timaeus, 37d). Augustine believes time to be an image, not existing as a number at all. Despite their different perceptions of time, both philosophers can agree that time did not exist before creation. Since Augustine technically does not consider time to exist even after creation, he believes emanation is less a continuous process but rather an interrupted pathway that leads to a personal connection with God, which Plato thinks is unattainable because we can’t get to that intelligible world that is on the level God resides.
2. Describe the influence of Aristotle’s philosophy in Medieval thought (Islamic, Jewish, and Christian). What are two or three ways Aristotle’s approach to science is markedly different from the Platonic and Neo-Platonic tradition (e.g., Plato, Plotinus)? Respectively, how do (a) al-Ghazali, (b) Averroes, (b) Maimonides, and (d) Aquinas articulate their view of the relationship between religion and philosophy and/or science? [4 points]
Aristotle’s “4 Causes”, as well as his ideas about the nature of things are among the concepts pulled from greek philosophy by religions like christianity, Judaism and Islam. Aristotle’s 4 causes answer the simple question: Why? To ask why something happens, is to ask for its cause. Aristotle described causes concerning motion or change, formal causes, efficient causes and final cause. Most importantly to religion here, is final cause, which is God. Creation was necessary, therefore it cannot but exist, thus it must have a cause-the final cause being God. Aristotle also voiced his opinion about the nature of things. He said things exist by either nature or other causes. Nature is something composed of unaltered earth; Animals, plants, earth, fire…etc., were not produced (something like a table made of wood), therefore do not have a cause. However, looking broader, the earth itself was originally unaltered, as was the cosmos. The final cause for the creation of these things is God.
Aristotle and Plato differ in that, while Aristotle experiments in the physical world, Plato relies mainly on thought experiments. In this way, Aristotle explains his theories based more on logic and reason while Plato references his Theory of Forms; The nonphysical-heaven-is more real than the physical-earth. Furthermore, Aristotle goes about his experiments deductively, beginning with a theory and through experimentation arrives at a conclusion. By contrast, Plato’s method is one of inductive reasoning. He makes observations and formulates a conclusion based on said observations. Both philosophers influenced medieval thought, especially the writings of Aquinas, Maimonides, Al-Ghazali and Averroes.
Following Aristotle’s method of syllogism, Aquinas attributes everything in the world that exists to have been caused by God. Aquinas believes God causes the cause in cause and effect. Science exists, and in fact is the cause for many things, but the final cause is the divine creator. In Aquinas’ opinion philosophical thought helps explain why science doesn’t have to discredit the idea of a creator.
The Guide of the Perplexed, written by Moses Maimonides, sets out to explain Jewish law and how it is rational. This mingling of religion with rationality speaks to how he views science and religion. He is a devout Jew himself, so he is looking for a way to follow science as well as his religion. He goes about it in a way so as not to upset anyone, and his writing is purposefully confusing to weed out the common man who would not understand his purpose; The purpose is to stress the importance of logic and rationality but that those attributes are not omitted in worship. Like fellow philosopher Averroes, he is rational and realizes God is not necessarily all powerful, and science needs to come into play to fill in where he is limited.
Al-Ghazali differs from the aforementioned two men, in that he disagrees with much of Aristotle's views. He believes the world is eternal, that the forms present on earth are not unbeknownst to God. It is not the ascension that will form a union with God, but Sufi Mysticism. Though Al-Ghazali has these disagreements, he still does support scientific endeavors. He just has a more theocentric view of science. God has the ultimate control, and he brought about the circumstances the universe operates under. It is from him that we have physics and math. The laws of nature are perfect and elegant and explained by these sciences because that is how he wants it to be.
Like Al-Ghazali, Averroes attributes God as the cause for everything, and believes empiricism is not always certain. Of course, math and physics are proven, but they are subject to change because God has the final power.
3. Given our readings and discussions of Copernicus and Galileo, what were the religious motivations and/or influences behind their scientific work, particularly in relation to their proclamation of a heliocentric universe? And what were the reasons why they were criticized by their contemporaries? [2 points]
Contrary to what their scientific undertakings led the public to assume, both Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus were devoutly religious. Neither man had the intention to discredit any scripture. In fact, both tried to explain that heliocentrism even provided a better view of the earth from a religious viewpoint.
One reason being the association of the sun with God. Placing the sun or the idea of God in the center of the universe is more honorable than placing ourselves in the center and saying we are more central to the cosmos than God. Copernicus was met with immediate rejection of his idea because he was thought to be “dethroning” christianity.
Galileo’s invention of the telescope actually showed with the senses the placement of earth. Though Galileo praised God for the beautiful cosmos he saw through his telescope, he still debunked geocentrism and provided evidence to do so. This went against the church and school teachings and was met with resistance. In this time period, the church was central to everything. Most importantly, it played a role in government. Galileo was going against the Pope, which was disrespectful and punishable by law since the pope had so much influence.