tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post5182282836869294294..comments2024-03-15T19:54:18.063+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: C. S. Lewis and the Medieval ModelLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-46191017677852616892009-09-15T15:12:48.310+01:002009-09-15T15:12:48.310+01:00Dr. Arnhart,
I think this is a very excellent pos...Dr. Arnhart,<br /><br />I think this is a very excellent post. Lewis' conclusion (and your?) that choice of a cosmological model shows our "taste in universes" suggests that such models are more revealing of the human beings that hold them than of the cosmos itself. I think this to be both true and to be the position of the ancient philosophers. (Unlike some folks, I do not automatically assume these two to be the same.)<br /><br />This post also reminds me of my suggestion the other day that Milton would be helpful for you in this area. The discussion in Paradise Lost between Adam and Raphael in particular is very interesting. Raphael warns Adam against thinking he can fully comprehend the cosmos and admonishes him to be "lowlie wise," bringing to mind both the Socratic turn and the Aristotelian position in the painter Raphael's portrait. (In light of this portrait, should it be considered coincidental that Milton has Raphael rather than one of the other angels give this advice?)<br />It does seem to me that Milton is correct to suggest that strict adherence to any cosmological model borders on idolatry. <br /><br />Yet I think one should accept the prevailing model as the one that best fits the evidence. I also believe it is that most satisfying model from a Christian perspective as well--much more so than any of the ancient or medieval models. For it clearly points beyond itself while the earlier models suggest a universe so perfect as not to need anything beyond itself. (Even Aristotle's First Mover acts within rather than beyond the cosmos.)<br /><br />Yet I'm not sure that evolutionary biology does not take our eyes away from the human things as we experience them much less than does astronomy and cosmology. Why wouldn't the principle of the Socratic turn apply to prehistorical terrestrial time as well to outer space?<br /><br />On the one hand, from the perspective you present in this post, evolutionary biological would seem to be as provisional a model as any cosmological one.<br />One the other hand, however, from the perspective of modern science, evolutionary biology would seem to be far less "established" than the prevailing cosmological model.<br /><br />What neither evolutionary biology nor the standard cosmology can answer for us is the mystery of why the universe should be intelligible at all. This question fueled Einstein's wonder as much as I imagine it did the ancient philosophers. It seems to me that the need to explain this lies behind the cosmology posited by Timaeus and the Athenian. Aristotle does not seem to think it as necessary as Plato. It's not clear to me that either thought it was actually possible as a matter of scientific knowledge. Thus, while Plato took occasion to fable about the heavens, Aristotle focused on studying the earthly things.Tony Bartlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13470869510360459222noreply@blogger.com