The Enlightenment and Scientific Discovery - Literature review Example

The Enlightenment and Scientific Discovery The Enlightenments relation to scientific discovery and progress is far more fraught with problems than it might originally appear. Introduction Enlightenment or the Age of Enlightenment is commonly referred to the 18th century philosophical, artistic and scientific movement in which both Europe and American individuals contributed. The contributions ranged from philosophical discourses to scientific developments and even new social approaches to forming governments. It is seen by Richards (1972) as well as Gascoigne (2003) as one of the founding movements which created western civilisation as we know it today. While scientific discovery was an essential part of the process by which the age of enlightenment progressed, there were some difficulties in reconciling scientific knowledge with the social and religious approaches which were prevalent at the time. There are several reasons for this disconnection since reason had already been established as the intellectual force which guides human endeavour but the same reasoning abilities were causing conflicts between scientists and thinkers as to the best approach to be taken to scientific discovery (Gascoigne, 2003). This dilemma is explained by Newton-Smith (2001) who says: “In the seventeenth century, scientific discovery was the central problem of what we would now call scientific methodology, the study of scientific method. In the twentieth century, we find a complete contrast: the first two major schools of professional philosophy of science (the logical positivists and the Popperians both contented that discovery has no place at all in the logic or methodology of science (Newton-Smith, 2001, Pg. 84)”. Thus the essential conflict between the enlightenment and scientific discovery comes from the very idea of what science is supposed to be. When logical thought is applied to a problem discovery becomes irrelevant since thought experiments become more important than discoveries made by individuals who may not give correlating causes or influences for their particular discoveries. For example, American writers took the ideas and concepts which were long held as sacred before the 18th century and applied their own thoughts to them in order to come up with better solutions to what they were faced with. The Americans The revolutionary inspired writings of Thomas Paine as well as the calm suggestions of Benjamin Franklin do not intend to discover something but both simply give their thoughts as facts. They came to their social and scientific conclusions through thought experiments which were then created into real experiments. In the case of Franklin, by himself and in the case of Thomas Paine, by the American public that engaged in a revolt against King George. It would be difficult to see how scientific discovery might have helped Thomas Paine create his pamphlet since it was only his reasoning ability and his insight into what was happening in America which caused him to suggest a new course of action for the American people. Benjamin Franklin also saw changes which were taking place around him and reacted by putting his thought into the situation which led him to his axiom in economics where he equated savings with earnings without showing how he discovered this to be economic fact (Branham, 1998). However, this process of presenting facts without the required scientific proof lasted only during the revolutionary period since the thinkers who came after them were very focused on creating order by giving evidence how disorder led to problems for society (Brinkley et. al., 2006). Revolutionary Writings This creates some inconsistencies when we examine the ideas presented by Paine since he is quite supportive of a person who is seeking his/her freedom and is looking for ways in which the American people can overthrow authority of the crown. However, he does not give any scientific means to discovering a new form of government in Common Sense neither does he suggest that all forms of government should be done away with. In a similar manner, Franklin guides us to a new social system under which helping the weak and the poor is important but people are told not to ask for help but help themselves (Brinkley et. al., 2006). Such ideas form the basis of the American enlightenment yet they do not consider scientific discovery to be an essential element of what they are proposing. In such a context, the writings of the enlightened revolutionaries and the founding fathers of America are quite different from the America which came about as a result of the enlightenment. Slavery remained present throughout the enlightenment and even though there were many who opposed it, it continued to have strong supporters in Southern America (Larkin, 2005). There was no real scientific approach taken to discover how slavery was harming America until a civil war had to take place between the free and the slave states to give a political answer to the slavery issue rather than a scientific one. Essentially, while scientific discovery was important to some thinkers in America, it was not their overriding concern during the age of enlightenment. For example, Branham (1998) notes that the American literature coming from the end of the 18th century, gives us ideas and words which are influenced more by political motives and the developing social changes rather than science or the act of discovery. Instead of seeking change and new ideas, post revolution literature and scientific thought was focused on the notion of stability and continuity. Enlightenment, Religion and Europe This idea was also connected with religion since even though religion was downplayed in terms of being enlightened, it remained important for some leading individuals of the age. As discussed by Hooker (1996), the image of god and the idea of god controlling the universe remained important understandings of the age of enlightenment. Rempel (2008) further elucidates by saying that, “It was an age of reason based on faith, not an age of faith based on reason. The enlightenment spiritualized the principle of religious authority, humanized theological systems, and emancipated individuals from physical coercion (Rempel, 2008, Pg. 1)”. The connection of faith and ideas remained important and quite relevant during the enlightenment. As reported by Duffy (2008), “Most of the thinkers of Scientific Revolution were devout Christians who believed their work supported a belief in God, but in a new way — it showed the inherent order and logic of universe, which like a well-designed machine implied a wise creator. They believed the study of nature led to a better appreciation of Gods work (Duffy, 2008, Pg. 1)”. Thus scientific discoveries still had to be brought in line with what religious dogma had taught society. Even though rebellion against that dogma, using scientific evidence, was certainly on the horizon as more discoveries were made regarding the nature of the world and the developments which humans had gone through (Rempel, 2008). The Enlightenment can be credited with dislodging the ecclesiastical establishment from the control of science, culture and intellectual development more than the Reformation or the Renaissance but some thinkers still considered logic, reason and even faith to be important than simple scientific discovery (Hooker, 1996). Religion with Science What the enlightenment actually did by way of helping science was opening doors beyond theological tradition which made it possible for future thinkers to develop our modern culture where science dominates religious thought. Diderot himself said that if he was forbidden from speaking on government and on religion he would have nothing to say (Rempel, 2008). For him and many like him, these matters were far more important than physics, chemistry or mechanics which were more the domain of artists and architects rather than natural philosophers of the time. When we understand that faith becomes important to scientists of the time such as Descartes who are trying to show how science and religion are in agreement, it becomes difficult to reconcile their ideas with thinkers such as Diderot, dHolbach and some of the the encyclopedists who believed that all religious dogma was nothing more than absurd ideas. For example, LeMettrie and dHolbach were determinists who were quite consistent in their writings. On the other hand, thinkers such as Voltaire completely disagreed with them and said they had a different dogmatism which was their own creation (Rempel, 2008). Diderot also insisted on the free play of reason yet his religious beliefs would have certainly been seen as unpopular at the time since he was a self confessed pagan. His faith revolved around pantheism since he was not a pure atheist or even a materialist (Richards, 1972). As reported by Rempel (2008), “He was humanistic, secular, modern and scientific. He expected from his method a regeneration of mankind (Rempel, 2008, Pg. 1)”. It is easy to see how some scientists believing in what the church was telling them while others pushing for the discovery of new truths would have difficulties coming to terms with what they are supposed to make of the new rules they had discovered about the world. Deism Undoubtedly, compromises were found in many situations for example, deism in England during the Enlightenment focused on an impersonal god, coming back to a natural religion and an appreciation of the common morality which was supposed to be present in all beings (Gascoigne, 2003). As noted by Rempel (2008) Deism was simply a logical outcome of the scientific inquiry, having a rational faith in humanity, as well as the study of comparative religion which was important during the age of enlightenment. In this compromise, all religions would be reduced to the orders of worshipping God and having a commonsensical moral code founded on ethics which formed the universal natural religion. However, such ideas as many other ideas during the age of enlightenment, were attacked by many other thinkers. David Hume presented his arguments against this scientific approach to religion and argued against the assumption that every person would be guided by the rules given by reason. According to Hume, a study about the nature of man shows that people do not have an identical set of motives. In fact, they have confusions about their impulses which do not produce an ordered system but barely controlled chaos (Rempel, 2008). Religion or Not As discussed by Hume, human passion, desperation, hope and even fear is the root of religion rather than love or other more positive experiences. Religions are therefore convenient for social organisation but because they are based in human sentiment, they cannot be validated through a scientific approach. Therefore, to consider any set of rules as a rational or even natural religion becomes a contradiction. In these terms, Hume simply brushes aside any positive idea which comes from the rationalist philosophy during the age of enlightenment. Going by Hume, the natural rights of man, the self-evident truths and even the universal laws of morality can all be ignored since they are not based in a rational approach (Rempel, 2008). Considering that Hume was a sceptic and therefore he might have considered everything to be doubtful, we find that Voltaire also had problems with the ideas he supported the most. For instance while he supported religious tolerance, he was disdainful of religion itself since blind faith was not acceptable to him without reasonable evidence. He was ruthless when it came to attacking theological sophism and that prevented him from understanding or even appreciating Catholicism (Duffy, 2008). In essence, he made sure that the generation around him became aware of the power of intellect but as a thinker, he was quite aware of the limitations of reason (Rempel, 2008). At the time, these limitations could only be explained through faith and belief which individuals such as Voltaire, Diderot, and dAlembert did not agree with. Reasoning and rational thought was the only tool available to the masters of the enlightenment since they considered it to be the one measure which separated them from animals. Voltaire agreed with the idea of the first cause but he could not satisfy Diderot or Hume and many others who did not believe in religious links to creation or human existence. This made Voltaire into a new philosopher as a humanist and as described by Rempel (2008), “Voltaire accepted the classical ideal of the brotherhood of man and the universal morality of man. He was essentially a humanist--the greatest humanist of the Enlightenment. He had not the depth of David Hume or Immanuel Kant, but they could not have done his work. Voltaire had only one absolute value: the human race (Rempel, 2008, Pg. 1)”. In fact, when it comes to the enlightenment, religion may be more important than scientific discovery since the thinkers and philosophers of the time had an urgent need to humanise religion. Even individuals such as Pascal who are known today for scientific discoveries during the age of enlightenment were focused on religious ideas since Pascal used analytical logic to prove original sin since that would explain the dual nature of human beings (Rempel, 2008). This and other problems such as a the nature of evil, were never explained by Voltaire or any other humanist thinker of the enlightenment which meant that scientific discovery had to take a back seat where more important matters such as the very nature of man were being debated (Hooker, 1996). Even Voltaire had to accept the ideas given by Pascal since the logic and analysis done by Pascal were quite acceptable to him. However, as an agnostic he could not reconcile his religious beliefs with what he believed to be absolute truths coming from a natural religion with rational thought (Rempel, 2008). Conclusion The primary conclusion which comes from examining the relationship between scientific discovery and the age of enlightenment is that the thinkers of the time were trying to do what we would today consider to be impossible. They were trying to place faith into a package which would fit their idea of what science is and what rational thinking would produce. Undoubtedly, they were brilliant individuals who were quite positive in their approach to scientific discovery as well as their appreciation of religion but their aim might have been too high. It is impossible to refute science except by scientific means but religion can be refuted in more than one ways. There is science, there is philosophy and even other religions can provide arguments which go against one religious dictate or another. By trying to humanise religion, it is entirely possible that the thinkers of the age created more problems for themselves than they solved and it might have been better for the course of human development if they had focused on obtaining more scientific truths rather than searching for the rules of a natural religion which also remained easily compatible with scientific discoveries and their own philosophies. Word Count: 2,556 Works Cited Branham, A. 1998, ‘ Enlightenment in American Literature: Shedding Light on Faith and Reason’, The English Journal, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 54-59. Brinkley, A. et. al. 2006. The American Journey. McGraw-Hill. Duffy, S. 2008, ‘The Enlightenment’, [Online] Available at: http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/enlightenment.html Gascoigne, J. 2003, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment, Cambridge University Press. Hooker, R. 1996, ‘The European Enlightenment’, [Online] Available at: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/ENLIGHT.HTM Larkin, E. 2005. Thomas Paine and the Literature of Revolution. Cambridge University Press. Newton-Smith, W. 2001, A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell. Rempel, G. 2008, ‘The Age of Enlightenment’, [Online] Available at: http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html Richards, J. 1972, Diderots Dilemma, Exposition Press. Read More