Mixing metaphors: Science and religion or natural philosophy and theology in early modern Europe

History of Science

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 91-113

  Osler, Margaret J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007227852     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327539803600104     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. I presented earlier versions of this paper at the Conference on Jewish Responses to Early Modern Science, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, May 1995, and as the Stillman Drake Lecture at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Science, St Catharine's, Ontario, May 1996. Peter Barker, Pamela McCallum, J. J. MacIntosh, Barbara J. Shapiro, and Jan W. Wojcik all made useful suggestions for improving earlier versions of this paper. Margaret G. Cook critically read successive drafts and helped me rethink a number of issues in several lengthy discussions. Four anonymous readers for History of science made extremely helpful suggestions for improving this paper. I am grateful to them all. Fellowships from Calgary Institute for the Humanities and from the National Endowment for the Humanities each provided time for the pursuit of this research.
2. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
3. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
4. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
5. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
6. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
7. The following works include the most important studies and re-evaluations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution: I. Bernard Cohen. The Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1985); David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990); Peter Barker and Roger Ariew (eds), Revolution and continuity: Essays in the history and philosophy of early modern science (Washington, D.C., 1991); J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (eds), Renaissance and revolution: Humanists, scholars, craftsmen and natural philosophers in early modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993); H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A historiographical inquiry (Chicago, 1994); and B. J. T. Dobbs, "Newton as Final Cause and First Mover", Isis, lxxxv (1994), 633-43.
8. For incisive discussions of this and related assumptions in the traditional historiography, see Andrew Cunningham, "Getting the game right: Some plain words on the identity and invention of science", Studies in history and philosophy of science, xix (1988), 365-89; Andrew Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name: Or, Taking natural philosophy seriously", History of science, xxix (1991), 377-92; and Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, "De-centring the 'Big Picture': The origins of modern science and the modern origins of science", The British journal for the history of science, xxvi (1993), 407-32.
9. For incisive discussions of this and related assumptions in the traditional historiography, see Andrew Cunningham, "Getting the game right: Some plain words on the identity and invention of science", Studies in history and philosophy of science, xix (1988), 365-89; Andrew Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name: Or, Taking natural philosophy seriously", History of science, xxix (1991), 377-92; and Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, "De-centring the 'Big Picture': The origins of modern science and the modern origins of science", The British journal for the history of science, xxvi (1993), 407-32.
10. For incisive discussions of this and related assumptions in the traditional historiography, see Andrew Cunningham, "Getting the game right: Some plain words on the identity and invention of science", Studies in history and philosophy of science, xix (1988), 365-89; Andrew Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name: Or, Taking natural philosophy seriously", History of science, xxix (1991), 377-92; and Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, "De-centring the 'Big Picture': The origins of modern science and the modern origins of science", The British journal for the history of science, xxvi (1993), 407-32.
11. John Hedley Brooke discusses a number of other kinds of interaction between science and religion. See his article, "Religious belief and the natural sciences: Mapping the historical landscape", in Jitse van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, i: Historiography and modes of interaction (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 1-26.
12. Sydney Ross, "Scientist: The story of a word", Annals of science, xviii (1962), 65-85.
13. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
14. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
15. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
16. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
17. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
18. Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature (Princeton, N.J., 1983); Ernan McMullin, "Conceptions of science in the Scientific Revolution", in Lindberg and Westman (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (ref. 2), 27-92; Margaret J. Osler, "John Locke and the changing ideal of scientific knowledge", Journal of the history of ideas, xxxi (1970), 3-16 (reprinted in Philosophy, religion and science in the 17th and 18th centuries, ed. by John W. Yolton (Rochester, 1990), 325-38); Margaret J. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on contingency and necessity in the created world (Cambridge, 1994), chap. 4; and Jan W. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (Cambridge, 1996).
19. John Locke, An essay concerning human understanding, ed. by Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford, 1975), Book 4, chap. 12, § 10, p. 645.
20. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1026a14-15, in The complete works of Aristotle, ed. by Jonathan Barnes (2 vols, Princeton, 1984), ii, 1620.
21. Edward Grant, The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: Their religious, institutional, and intellectual contexts (Cambridge, 1996), 136. See also Roger French and Andrew Cunningham, Before science: The invention of the friars' natural philosophy (Aldershot, 1996).
22. Edward Grant, The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: Their religious, institutional, and intellectual contexts (Cambridge, 1996), 136. See also Roger French and Andrew Cunningham, Before science: The invention of the friars' natural philosophy (Aldershot, 1996).
23. Grant, op. cit., 137.
24. Ibid., 153-4.
25. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (3 vols, New York, 1947), Part I, qu. 75, art. 6, vol. i, p. 368.
26. William A. Wallace, "Traditional natural philosophy", in Charles B. Schmitt, Quentin Skinner, and Eckhard Kessler (eds), The Cambridge history of Renaissance philosophy (Cambridge, 1988), 202-6.
27. Ibid., 209-13.
28. See Dennis Des Chene, Physiologia: Natural philosophy in late Aristotelian and Cartesian thought (Ithaca and London, 1996), and Barry Brundell, Pierre Gassendi: From Aristotelianism to a new natural philosophy (Dordrecht, 1987).
29. See Dennis Des Chene, Physiologia: Natural philosophy in late Aristotelian and Cartesian thought (Ithaca and London, 1996), and Barry Brundell, Pierre Gassendi: From Aristotelianism to a new natural philosophy (Dordrecht, 1987).
30. Wallace, "Traditional natural philosophy" (ref. 13), 212-19. On the changing relationship between mixed mathematics and natural philosophy, see Peter Dear, Discipline and experience: The mathematical way in the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca and London, 1995).
31. Wallace, "Traditional natural philosophy" (ref. 13), 212-19. On the changing relationship between mixed mathematics and natural philosophy, see Peter Dear, Discipline and experience: The mathematical way in the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca and London, 1995).
32. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers (eds), God and nature: Historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and science (Berkeley, 1986), Introduction.
33. Separating science and religion and restricting each to its own proper domain is the aim of Ian G. Barbour, Issues in science and religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). See also John Dillenberger, Protestant thought and natural science: A historical study (Nashville and New York, 1960). Galileo adopted this view in "The letter to the Grand Duchess". See Galileo Galilei, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", translated by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N. Y., 1957), 173-216. Stephen J. Wykstra introduced the term "segregationist" to describe this view in "Should worldviews shape science? Toward and integrationist account of scientific theorizing", in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, ii: The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: An Augustinian perspective (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 124-71. While I am fully prepared to acknowledge his introduction of this term, note that I developed the terminology I use in this paper independently before I was acquainted with his work.
34. Separating science and religion and restricting each to its own proper domain is the aim of Ian G. Barbour, Issues in science and religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). See also John Dillenberger, Protestant thought and natural science: A historical study (Nashville and New York, 1960). Galileo adopted this view in "The letter to the Grand Duchess". See Galileo Galilei, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", translated by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N. Y., 1957), 173-216. Stephen J. Wykstra introduced the term "segregationist" to describe this view in "Should worldviews shape science? Toward and integrationist account of scientific theorizing", in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, ii: The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: An Augustinian perspective (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 124-71. While I am fully prepared to acknowledge his introduction of this term, note that I developed the terminology I use in this paper independently before I was acquainted with his work.
35. Separating science and religion and restricting each to its own proper domain is the aim of Ian G. Barbour, Issues in science and religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). See also John Dillenberger, Protestant thought and natural science: A historical study (Nashville and New York, 1960). Galileo adopted this view in "The letter to the Grand Duchess". See Galileo Galilei, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", translated by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N. Y., 1957), 173-216. Stephen J. Wykstra introduced the term "segregationist" to describe this view in "Should worldviews shape science? Toward and integrationist account of scientific theorizing", in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, ii: The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: An Augustinian perspective (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 124-71. While I am fully prepared to acknowledge his introduction of this term, note that I developed the terminology I use in this paper independently before I was acquainted with his work.
36. Separating science and religion and restricting each to its own proper domain is the aim of Ian G. Barbour, Issues in science and religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). See also John Dillenberger, Protestant thought and natural science: A historical study (Nashville and New York, 1960). Galileo adopted this view in "The letter to the Grand Duchess". See Galileo Galilei, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", translated by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N. Y., 1957), 173-216. Stephen J. Wykstra introduced the term "segregationist" to describe this view in "Should worldviews shape science? Toward and integrationist account of scientific theorizing", in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, ii: The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: An Augustinian perspective (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 124-71. While I am fully prepared to acknowledge his introduction of this term, note that I developed the terminology I use in this paper independently before I was acquainted with his work.
37. Separating science and religion and restricting each to its own proper domain is the aim of Ian G. Barbour, Issues in science and religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966). See also John Dillenberger, Protestant thought and natural science: A historical study (Nashville and New York, 1960). Galileo adopted this view in "The letter to the Grand Duchess". See Galileo Galilei, "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", translated by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N. Y., 1957), 173-216. Stephen J. Wykstra introduced the term "segregationist" to describe this view in "Should worldviews shape science? Toward and integrationist account of scientific theorizing", in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and science, ii: The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: An Augustinian perspective (Ancaster, Ontario and Lanham, Maryland, 1996), 124-71. While I am fully prepared to acknowledge his introduction of this term, note that I developed the terminology I use in this paper independently before I was acquainted with his work.
38. John Hedley Brooke, Science and religion: Some historical perspectives (Cambridge, 1991), 42.
39. James R. Moore, The post-Darwinian controversies: A study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900 (Cambridge, 1979).
40. Francis Oakley, Omnipotence, covenant, and order: An excursion in the history of ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca and London, 1984). See also, Francis Oakley, "Christian theology and Newtonian science: The rise of the concept of the laws of nature", Church history, xxx (1961), 433-57.
41. Francis Oakley, Omnipotence, covenant, and order: An excursion in the history of ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca and London, 1984). See also, Francis Oakley, "Christian theology and Newtonian science: The rise of the concept of the laws of nature", Church history, xxx (1961), 433-57.
42. Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the scientific imagination from the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century (Princeton, N.J., 1986).
43. Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name" (ref. 3).
44. Moore, The post-Darwinian controversies (ref. 20), 326-40; Funkenstein, Theology and the scientific imagination (ref. 22), 14.
45. Moore, The post-Darwinian controversies (ref. 20), 326-40; Funkenstein, Theology and the scientific imagination (ref. 22), 14.
46. Peter Barker develops this point in detail in "Understanding change and continuity: Transmission and appropriation in sixteenth century natural philosophy", in F. Jamil Ragep and Sally P. Ragep (eds), Tradition, transmission, transformation: Proceedings of two conferences on pre-modern science held at the University of Oklahoma (Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996), 527-50.
47. John William Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science, abridged by Charles T. Sprading (New York, 1926; first published 1874); Andrew Dickson White, A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom (2 vols, New York, 1960; first published 1896). For a discursive account of these and other historiographical positions, see Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), Introduction and chap. 1.
48. John William Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science, abridged by Charles T. Sprading (New York, 1926; first published 1874); Andrew Dickson White, A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom (2 vols, New York, 1960; first published 1896). For a discursive account of these and other historiographical positions, see Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), Introduction and chap. 1.
49. John William Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science, abridged by Charles T. Sprading (New York, 1926; first published 1874); Andrew Dickson White, A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom (2 vols, New York, 1960; first published 1896). For a discursive account of these and other historiographical positions, see Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), Introduction and chap. 1.
50. Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), 33-36. See also Lindberg and Numbers (eds), God and nature (ref. 17), 1-3.
51. Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), 33-36. See also Lindberg and Numbers (eds), God and nature (ref. 17), 1-3.
52. See John William Draper, History of the intellectual development of Europe, rev. edn (2 vols, New York, 1876).
53. Ibid., 86, 113, and 116.
54. White, Warfare (ref. 26), i, Introduction; and Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), 35.
55. White, Warfare (ref. 26), i, Introduction; and Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), 35.
56. White, Warfare (ref. 26), i, Introduction.
57. Ibid., i, p. viii. Original italicized.
58. Giorgio de Santillana, The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955) and Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame, Ind., 1991).
59. Giorgio de Santillana, The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955) and Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame, Ind., 1991).
60. Richard S. Westfall, "Bellarmine, Galileo, and the clash of two world views", in Essays on the trial of Galileo (Vatican City State, 1989).
61. Pierre Duhem, To save the phenomena: An essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo, translated by Edmund Doland and Chaninah Maschler (Chicago and London, 1969; first published 1908).
62. Richard S. Westfall, "Galileo and the Jesuits" and "Patronage and the publication of the Dialogue", in Essays on the trial of Galileo (ref. 34), and Mario Biagioli, Galileo courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago and London, 1993).
63. Richard S. Westfall, "Galileo and the Jesuits" and "Patronage and the publication of the Dialogue", in Essays on the trial of Galileo (ref. 34), and Mario Biagioli, Galileo courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago and London, 1993).
64. Pietro Redondi, Galileo heretic, transl. by Raymond Rosenthal (Princeton, 1987).
65. Rivka Feldhay, Galileo and the Church: Political inquisition or critical dialogue? (Cambridge, 1995).
66. Brooke, Science and religion (ref. 19), 42-51.
67. The examples I am discussing are focused on biblical religion in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The harmony model, used for apologetic purposes, is not confined to that tradition, however. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, for example, argues that a particular branch of Islam nurtured the development of science in the medieval Muslim world. See Science and civilization in Islam (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), Introduction.
68. Robert K. Merton, Science, technology, and society in seventeenth-century England (New York, 1970; first published 1938), 81.
69. Ibid., chap. 5.
70. Ibid., 134-5.
71. "The sociologist is not a Defender of the Faith, religious or scientific. When he has uncovered the sentiments crystallized in religious values and the cultural orientation which governs their expression, when he has determined the extent to which this led men toward or away from scientific pursuits or perhaps influenced them not at all, then his task is, in its initial outlines, complete." Ibid., 55-56.
72. Christopher Hill, "Puritanism, capitalism and the Scientific Revolution", in Charles Webster (ed.), The intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century (London, 1974), 243-53, p. 244 (first published in Past and present, xxix (1964), 88-97).
73. Christopher Hill, "Puritanism, capitalism and the Scientific Revolution", in Charles Webster (ed.), The intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century (London, 1974), 243-53, p. 244 (first published in Past and present, xxix (1964), 88-97).
74. Ibid., 245.
75. Charles Webster, The Great Instauration: Science, medicine and reform, 1626-1660 (London, 1975).
76. R. Hooykaas, "Science and Reformation", in I. Bernard Cohen (ed.), Puritanism and the rise of modern science: The Merton Thesis (New Brunswick and London, 1990), 189-99, p. 190 (first published in Journal of world history, iii (1956), 109-39).
77. R. Hooykaas, "Science and Reformation", in I. Bernard Cohen (ed.), Puritanism and the rise of modern science: The Merton Thesis (New Brunswick and London, 1990), 189-99, p. 190 (first published in Journal of world history, iii (1956), 109-39).
78. Ibid., 191.
79. Margaret C. Jacob, The cultural meaning of the Scientific Revolution (New York, 1988), 73.
80. On Jesuit science, see J. L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, 1982), 93-106; Rivka Feldhay, "Knowledge and salvation in Jesuit culture". Science in context, i (1987), 195-213; and Dear, Discipline and experience (ref. 16), passim.
81. On Jesuit science, see J. L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, 1982), 93- 106; Rivka Feldhay, "Knowledge and salvation in Jesuit culture". Science in context, i (1987), 195-213; and Dear, Discipline and experience (ref. 16), passim.
82. On Jesuit science, see J. L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, 1982), 93- 106; Rivka Feldhay, "Knowledge and salvation in Jesuit culture". Science in context, i (1987), 195-213; and Dear, Discipline and experience (ref. 16), passim.
83. See Peter Barker, "The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus", in Margaret J. Osler (ed.), The canonical imperative: Rethinking the Scientific Revolution (forthcoming). See also Sachiko Kusukawa, The transformation of natural philosophy: The case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge, 1995).
84. See Peter Barker, "The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus", in Margaret J. Osler (ed.), The canonical imperative: Rethinking the Scientific Revolution (forthcoming). See also Sachiko Kusukawa, The transformation of natural philosophy: The case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge, 1995).
85. The interconnectedness of the study of astronomy and the understanding of God's handiwork is a constant theme in Kepler's writings. See, for example, Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican astronomy, transl. by Charles Glenn Wallis, in Great books of the Western World (Chicago, 1952), xvi, 841-1004.
86. The interconnectedness of the study of astronomy and the understanding of God's handiwork is a constant theme in Kepler's writings. See, for example, Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican astronomy, transl. by Charles Glenn Wallis, in Great books of the Western World (Chicago, 1952), xvi, 841-1004.
87. J. V. Field, Kepler's geometrical cosmology (Chicago, 1988), 49.
88. Robert Boyle, The usefulness of experimental natural philosophy, The excellency of theology, A discourse of things above reason, Some considerations about the reconcileableness of reason and religion, A free inquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature, A disquisition about the final causes of natural things, and The Christian virtuoso, all in Robert Boyle, The works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, ed. by Thomas Birch, rev. edn (6 vols, London, 1772).
89. Isaac Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections, and colours of light, 4th edn (London, 1730; reprinted New York, 1952), 369-70.
90. B. J. T. Dobbs, The Janus faces of genius: The role of alchemy in Newton 's thought (Cambridge, 1991), 18.
91. Richard S. Westfall, Science and religion in seventeenth-century England (New Haven, 1958), 24.
92. Ibid., 219-20.
93. Duhem, To save the phenomena (ref. 35), 106.
94. Pierre Duhem, Essays in the history and philosophy of science, transl. and ed. by Roger Ariew and Peter Barker (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 1996), p. x.
95. Ibid., p. xi.
96. See Pierre Duhem, The aim and structure of physical theory, transl. by Phillip Wiener (Princeton, 1954).
97. Galileo Galilei, "Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine Grand Duchess of Tuscany", in Drake, Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (ref. 18), 175-216, p. 186.
98. Barbour, Issues (ref. 18), 3-4.
99. Ibid., 54.
100. Ibid., 50.
101. Pierre Gassendi, Disquisitio metaphysica seu dubitationes et instantiae adversus Renati Cartesii metaphysicam et responsa, ed. and into French by Bernard Rochot (Paris, 1962), 396-9, in Pierre Gassendi, Opera omnia (6 vols, Lyon, 1658; facsimile reprint, Stuttgart- Bad Canstatt, 1964), iii, 359.
102. Pierre Gassendi, Disquisitio metaphysica seu dubitationes et instantiae adversus Renati Cartesii metaphysicam et responsa, ed. and into French by Bernard Rochot (Paris, 1962), 396-9, in Pierre Gassendi, Opera omnia (6 vols, Lyon, 1658; facsimile reprint, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, 1964), iii, 359.
103. In Boyle, Works (ref. 55), v, 392-444.
104. On the role of final causes in early modern natural philosophy, see Margaret J. Osler, "From immanent natures to nature as artifice: The reinterpretation of final causes in seventeenth-century natural philosophy", The monist, lxxix (1996), 388-407.
105. For a conceptual argument against the segregationist view, see Wykstra, "Should worldviews shape science?" (ref. 18).
106. See Wykstra, "Should worldviews shape science?" for a philosophical analysis of various kinds of interactions between theology and scientific theory.
107. Oakley, Omnipotence, covenant, and order (ref. 21), and Funkenstein, Theology and the scientific imagination (ref. 22).
108. Oakley, Omnipotence, covenant, and order (ref. 21), and Funkenstein, Theology and the scientific imagination (ref. 22).
109. Barker, "Understanding change and continuity" (ref. 25), 547.
110. Prime examples are the incorporation of Aristotelian natural philosophy into medieval theology and the development of the higher criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. See W. Neil, "The criticism and theological use of the Bible, 1700-1950", in S. L. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge history of the Bible (3 vols, Cambridge, 1963), iii, 238-93.
111. Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name" (ref. 3), 388.
112. J. J. Macintosh, "Robert Boyle on Epicurean atheism and atomism", in Margaret J. Osler (ed.), Atoms, pneuma, and tranquillity: Epicurean and Stoic themes in European thought (Cambridge, 1991), 197-219.
113. See Keith Hutchison, "Supernaturalism and the mechanical philosophy". History of science, xxi (1983), 297-333.
114. See, for example, John Henry, "Henry More versus Robert Boyle: The spirit of nature and the nature of Providence", in Sarah Hutton (ed.), Henry More (1624-1687): Tercentenary studies (Dordrecht, 1990), 55-76, and Margaret J. Osler, "Triangulating Divine Will: Henry More, Robert Boyle, and René Descartes on God's relationship to the Creation", in Marialuisa Baldi (ed.), "Mind senior to the world": Stoicismo e origenismo nella filosofia platonica del Seicento inglese (Milan, 1996), 75-88.
115. See, for example, John Henry, "Henry More versus Robert Boyle: The spirit of nature and the nature of Providence", in Sarah Hutton (ed.), Henry More (1624-1687): Tercentenary studies (Dordrecht, 1990), 55-76, and Margaret J. Osler, "Triangulating Divine Will: Henry More, Robert Boyle, and René Descartes on God's relationship to the Creation", in Marialuisa Baldi (ed.), "Mind senior to the world": Stoicismo e origenismo nella filosofia platonica del Seicento inglese (Milan, 1996), 75-88.
116. Richard H. Popkin, The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, rev. and expanded edn (Berkeley, 1979; first published 1960); Henry van Leeuwen, The problem of certainty in English thought 1630-1680 (The Hague, 1963); and Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England (ref. 6).
117. Richard H. Popkin, The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, rev. and expanded edn (Berkeley, 1979; first published 1960); Henry van Leeuwen, The problem of certainty in English thought 1630-1680 (The Hague, 1963); and Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England (ref. 6).
118. Richard H. Popkin, The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, rev. and expanded edn (Berkeley, 1979; first published 1960); Henry van Leeuwen, The problem of certainty in English thought 1630-1680 (The Hague, 1963); and Shapiro, Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England (ref. 6).
119. Cunningham, "How the Principia got its name" (ref. 3), 386-9.
120. Eugene M. Klaaren, Religious origins of modern science: Belief in creation in seventeenth-century thought (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977), chaps. 4, 5, 6. "While it is a truism that the rise of modern natural science occurred within Christendom, I have sought to show in the broadest sense that belief in creation constituted a definitive context within which the basic questions of major figures in the advent of the new science were raised, pursued, and developed. Systematically, the principals who gave shape to the new science ... took for granted an orientation to God as Creator, His relation to creation, structure in creation at large, and the human creature's special place in creation" (p. 186). See also Margaret J. Osler, "The intellectual sources of Robert Boyle's philosophy of nature: Gassendi's voluntarism and Boyle's physico-theological project", in Richard Kroll, Richard Ashcraft, and Perez Zagorin (eds), Philosophy, science, and religion in England, 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 1992), 178-98.
121. Eugene M. Klaaren, Religious origins of modern science: Belief in creation in seventeenth- century thought (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977), chaps. 4, 5, 6. "While it is a truism that the rise of modern natural science occurred within Christendom, I have sought to show in the broadest sense that belief in creation constituted a definitive context within which the basic questions of major figures in the advent of the new science were raised, pursued, and developed. Systematically, the principals who gave shape to the new science ... took for granted an orientation to God as Creator, His relation to creation, structure in creation at large, and the human creature's special place in creation" (p. 186). See also Margaret J. Osler, "The intellectual sources of Robert Boyle's philosophy of nature: Gassendi's voluntarism and Boyle's physico-theological project", in Richard Kroll, Richard Ashcraft, and Perez Zagorin (eds), Philosophy, science, and religion in England, 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 1992), 178-98.
122. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (ref. 6). See also Jan W. Wojcik, "The theological context of Boyle's Things above reason", in Michael Hunter (ed.), Robert Boyle reconsidered (Cambridge, 1994), 139-55.
123. Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the limits of reason (ref. 6). See also Jan W. Wojcik, "The theological context of Boyle's Things above reason", in Michael Hunter (ed.), Robert Boyle reconsidered (Cambridge, 1994), 139-55.
124. Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy (ref. 6).
125. Daniel Garber, Descartes'metaphysical physics (Chicago, 1992), 117-20.
126. Aant Elzinga, On a research program in early modern physics (New York, 1972), 73-80.
127. Richard S. Westfall, Force in Newton's physics: The science of dynamics in the seventeenth century (New York. 1971), chap. 4.
128. Elzinga, On a research program (ref. 85), 80
129. Joella Yoder, Unrolling time: Christiaan Huygens and the mathematization of nature (Cambridge, 1988), 172-3.
130. Ibid., 172, and Alan Gabbey, "Huygens and mechanics", in H. J. M. Bos, M. J. S. Rudwick, H. A. M. Snelders, and R. P. W. Visser (eds), Studies on Christiaan Huygens: Invited papers from the Symposium on the Life and Work of Christiaan Huygens, Amsterdam, 22-25 August 1979 (Lisse, 1980), 166-99, p. 185.
131. Ibid., 172, and Alan Gabbey, "Huygens and mechanics", in H. J. M. Bos, M. J. S. Rudwick, H. A. M. Snelders, and R. P. W. Visser (eds), Studies on Christiaan Huygens: Invited papers from the Symposium on the Life and Work of Christiaan Huygens, Amsterdam, 22-25 August 1979 (Lisse, 1980), 166-99, p. 185.
132. Dobbs, Janus faces (ref. 57), chaps. 4-7.
133. Isaac Newton, Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World, transl. by Andrew Motte in 1729 and revised by Florian Cajori (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1934), 400.
134. See, for example, Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672, in The correspondence of Isaac Newton, ed. by H. W. Turnbull, J. P. Scott, A. R. Hall, and Laura Tilling (7 vols, Cambridge, 1959-77), i, 187.
135. See Osler, Divine Will and the mechanical philosophy (ref. 6), chap. 10.
136. See articles by S. F. Mason, H. F. Kearney, Christopher Hill, and Theodore Rabb in Webster (ed.), The intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century (ref. 45).
137. Elizabeth Gasking, "Why was Mendel's work ignored?", Journal of the history of ideas, xx (1959), 60-84.