Svetla Slaveva-Griffin
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195377194
- eISBN:
- 9780199869572
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377194.003.0002
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Ancient Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Philosophy
This chapter examines the relationship between Plotinus’ concept of the origin of multiplicity as “separation from the One” (apostasis) and Plato’s presentation of the Demiurge’s composition of the ...
More
This chapter examines the relationship between Plotinus’ concept of the origin of multiplicity as “separation from the One” (apostasis) and Plato’s presentation of the Demiurge’s composition of the universe (systasis) in the Timaeus. The two terms characterize the “top-down” approach in Ennead VI.6 and the “bottom-up” approach in the Timaeus. The two works achieve the same goal—the explanation of the universe—with the same means—according to number—but from opposite starting points. The missing conceptual link between the two approaches, the chapter discovers, is found in Numenius’ concept of the Three Gods, ordering the universe: the Father, the Maker, and the Creation. The characteristics of Numenius’ First God convey the dichotomy between rest, as being and stability, and motion, as change, in the first principle. The explicit paradox of ontological stability (stasis) and innate motion (symphytos kinêsis) in Numenius’ First God is implicitly present in Plotinus’ explanation of the origin of the universe as “separation.” This chapter concludes that Plotinus induces the concept of multiplicity as a measurement of the ontological distance from the One. It also opens the possibility for stronger Neopythagorean influences.Less
This chapter examines the relationship between Plotinus’ concept of the origin of multiplicity as “separation from the One” (apostasis) and Plato’s presentation of the Demiurge’s composition of the universe (systasis) in the Timaeus. The two terms characterize the “top-down” approach in Ennead VI.6 and the “bottom-up” approach in the Timaeus. The two works achieve the same goal—the explanation of the universe—with the same means—according to number—but from opposite starting points. The missing conceptual link between the two approaches, the chapter discovers, is found in Numenius’ concept of the Three Gods, ordering the universe: the Father, the Maker, and the Creation. The characteristics of Numenius’ First God convey the dichotomy between rest, as being and stability, and motion, as change, in the first principle. The explicit paradox of ontological stability (stasis) and innate motion (symphytos kinêsis) in Numenius’ First God is implicitly present in Plotinus’ explanation of the origin of the universe as “separation.” This chapter concludes that Plotinus induces the concept of multiplicity as a measurement of the ontological distance from the One. It also opens the possibility for stronger Neopythagorean influences.
Paul F. Lurquin and Linda Stone
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195315387
- eISBN:
- 9780199785674
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315387.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Religion and Society
Intelligent Design (ID) thinking and older style creationism argue that evolution by natural selection is an incorrect theory. This book demonstrates that in doing so, neocreationism (Intelligent ...
More
Intelligent Design (ID) thinking and older style creationism argue that evolution by natural selection is an incorrect theory. This book demonstrates that in doing so, neocreationism (Intelligent Design) and classical creationism misinterpret the meaning of scientific theories. This is because these religious doctrines imply teleology and purpose in the natural world, which are not analyzable scientifically. In addition, the concept of “irreducible complexity” often invoked by ID proponents is based on a flawed interpretation of scientific data. It also demonstrates that evolutionary thinking in the sciences is a powerful tool that can be used in the study of the origin of the universe, the origin of life and its diversification, and human evolution. Creationism and ID do not belong in the realm of science and have contributed nothing to its advancement. Further, attempts to force the teaching of creationism and ID in schools can only weaken a science curriculum which already leaves much to be desired.Less
Intelligent Design (ID) thinking and older style creationism argue that evolution by natural selection is an incorrect theory. This book demonstrates that in doing so, neocreationism (Intelligent Design) and classical creationism misinterpret the meaning of scientific theories. This is because these religious doctrines imply teleology and purpose in the natural world, which are not analyzable scientifically. In addition, the concept of “irreducible complexity” often invoked by ID proponents is based on a flawed interpretation of scientific data. It also demonstrates that evolutionary thinking in the sciences is a powerful tool that can be used in the study of the origin of the universe, the origin of life and its diversification, and human evolution. Creationism and ID do not belong in the realm of science and have contributed nothing to its advancement. Further, attempts to force the teaching of creationism and ID in schools can only weaken a science curriculum which already leaves much to be desired.
Matthew Stanley
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780226164878
- eISBN:
- 9780226164908
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226164908.003.0004
- Subject:
- History, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine
One of the most contentious issues with which the emerging naturalism had to grapple was the question of what, if anything, was beyond science’s grasp. Both naturalists and theists accused each other ...
More
One of the most contentious issues with which the emerging naturalism had to grapple was the question of what, if anything, was beyond science’s grasp. Both naturalists and theists accused each other of making unsupportable claims of absolute knowledge about the world, and of intellectual arrogance. However, in practice, both sides agreed quite closely about the limits of scientific investigation and knowledge, and tied the establishment of those limits to their naturalistic or theistic worldview. One important example was the question of the origin of the universe. Surprisingly, human ignorance of this question was justified in very similar terms by both groups. Maxwell and Huxley undertook sophisticated analyses of the limits of science - Huxley through his articulation of agnosticism, Maxwell through his work on scientific models. The limits of science question was not solely a rhetorical debate, and appeared in important ways in scientific practice.Less
One of the most contentious issues with which the emerging naturalism had to grapple was the question of what, if anything, was beyond science’s grasp. Both naturalists and theists accused each other of making unsupportable claims of absolute knowledge about the world, and of intellectual arrogance. However, in practice, both sides agreed quite closely about the limits of scientific investigation and knowledge, and tied the establishment of those limits to their naturalistic or theistic worldview. One important example was the question of the origin of the universe. Surprisingly, human ignorance of this question was justified in very similar terms by both groups. Maxwell and Huxley undertook sophisticated analyses of the limits of science - Huxley through his articulation of agnosticism, Maxwell through his work on scientific models. The limits of science question was not solely a rhetorical debate, and appeared in important ways in scientific practice.
Massimiliano Di Ventra
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- June 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780198825623
- eISBN:
- 9780191864605
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198825623.003.0017
- Subject:
- Physics, History of Physics, Theoretical, Computational, and Statistical Physics
This chapter warns against a bad form of “religion” that may be called Scientism. It shows that the abuse of the scientific method in context that are not addressable via experimental means leads to ...
More
This chapter warns against a bad form of “religion” that may be called Scientism. It shows that the abuse of the scientific method in context that are not addressable via experimental means leads to contradictions, inaccuracies, and logical fallacies.Less
This chapter warns against a bad form of “religion” that may be called Scientism. It shows that the abuse of the scientific method in context that are not addressable via experimental means leads to contradictions, inaccuracies, and logical fallacies.
