WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT
PEOPLE CALL RATIONALISM
IS A PHILOSOPHICAL
ENTERPRISE WHICH HAS COMMONLY
HAD TWO ALMOST,
BUT NOT ENTIRELY,
PARALLEL SETS OF MOTIVATIONS.
ON THE ONE HAND,
THERE IS AN ENTIRELY
LEGITIMATE AND
FASCINATING DESIRE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO
MAKE THEIR THEORIES,
WHETHER THEORIES IN PHYSICS
OR THEORIES IN POLITICS
OR THEORIES IN OTHER BRANCHES
OF INTELLECTUAL AND PRACTICAL
ENTERPRISES, PEOPLE
HAVE THIS IMPULSE
TO MAKE THEIR THEORIES
AS ELEGANT AS POSSIBLE.
AND IN MANY CASES,
THEY'VE CHOSEN
TO UNDERTAKE THE
TASK OF MAKING THEM
ESSENTIALLY
MATHEMATICAL IN FORM.
GALILEO HAD THIS FAMOUS REMARK
ABOUT HOW THE BOOK OF NATURE
WAS WRITTEN IN
MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLISM.
AND MATHEMATICIANS
WERE THE PEOPLE
WHO COULD THEREFORE DECIPHER
THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH NATURE
SPEAKS TO US.
AND THIS WAS AN APPROACH
WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME
BOTH SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL.
SCIENTIFIC IN THAT IT LED ON,
THROUGH THE HANDS OF ISAAC
NEWTON, TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE KINDS OF MECHANICS
THAT WE ALL LEARN
AT HIGH SCHOOL.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME
RELIGIOUS, BECAUSE THE IDEA
THAT NATURE IS A BOOK IN WHICH
WE CAN READ THE WILL OF GOD
WITH THE SAME KIND
OF COGENCY THAT WE
FIND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
TRANSMITTED THROUGH SCRIPTURE.
THE IDEA THAT RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS ARE GROUNDED
AT THE SAME TIME IN
THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE
AND THE BOOK OF NATURE,
THIS WAS AN IDEA
WHICH WAS VERY POWERFUL
IN THE 17TH CENTURY,
AND WHICH PLAYED A LARGE
PART IN LEADING PEOPLE
INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MODERN SCIENCE.
MODERN SCIENCE TO BEGIN
WITH WAS IN NO WAY THOUGHT
OF AS IN CONFLICT WITH RELIGION.
IT WAS THOUGHT OF AS THE
EXPRESSION AND THE DEVELOPMENT
AND WORKING OUT OF
A PARTICULAR KIND
OF RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW.
NAMELY, THE VIEW THAT
IN STUDYING IN NATURE,
ONE IS STUDYING THE
MIND OF GOD AS EXPRESSED
THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF
NATURE, WHICH GALILEO THOUGHT
WAS MATHEMATICS.
NOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT
SCIENTISTS, PARTICULARLY
PHYSICAL SCIENTISTS, HAVE
BEEN INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING
THEIR THEORIES IN
MATHEMATICAL FORM,
THEY HAVE TO BEEN, FROM THE
PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF VIEW,
RATIONALISTS.
BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, ONE HAS TO SEE
THAT THIS KIND OF
RATIONALISM HAS ALWAYS HAD,
AND I THINK TO SOME
EXTENT STILL DOES
HAVE, THE DUAL MOTIVATION
OF ON THE ONE HAND
WANTING TO PRODUCE
INTELLECTUALLY
ELEGANT AND POWERFUL METHODS
OF CALCULATING AND EXPLAINING
THINGS, AND ON THE
OTHER HAND, SHOWING US
SOMETHING ABOUT THE
WAY THE WORLD WORKS,
THE WAY PHYSICAL
NATURE, AND HUMAN NATURE
POSSIBLY WORK, WHICH
HAS A SORT OF MORE
EDIFYING, RELIGIOUS BASIS.
SO THAT IN READING PHILOSOPHERS
WHO TAKE THE RATIONALIST TURN,
I ALWAYS FIND MYSELF HAVING
TO KEEP TWO THOUGHTS IN PLAY
AT THE SAME TIME,
BECAUSE ALL THE ARGUMENTS
THEY PRODUCE SEEM
TO ME TO BE TENDING
TO MOVE IN THESE TWO
PARALLEL DIRECTIONS.
LEIBNIZ, FOR INSTANCE,
IN THE SECOND HALF
OF THE 17TH CENTURY, SEEKING
TO DEVELOP THE CALCULUS,
AND INDEED INVENTING THE KIND
OF TERMINOLOGY WHICH WE ALL USE,
WHICH WE ALL LEARN TO USE
WHEN WE STUDY CALCULUS
IN MATHEMATICS CLASSES
IN SCHOOL-- LEIBNIZ,
ON THE ONE HAND, BEING
INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING
THE INFINITESIMAL CALCULUS
AS A MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT,
THE MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENT
WHICH WE ALL STILL USE.
BUT ON THE OTHER
HAND, DOING THIS
BECAUSE HE WAS
CONVINCED THAT IT MUST
BE POSSIBLE FOR HUMAN
BEINGS TO FIGURE OUT
GOD'S REASONS FOR HAVING MADE
THE WORLD THE WAY HE DID.
SO THAT THERE'S THE
RELIGIOUS CONVICTION
THAT THE WORLD IS
GOD'S CREATION AND WE
MUST BE ABLE TO GIVE A
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT
TO EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS MADE THIS
WAY RATHER THAN SOME OTHER.
AND ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE'S THE INSTRUMENTAL VIEW,
THE VIEW THAT INTELLECTUALLY
POWERFUL THEORIES ARE BETTER
OFF FOR BEING EXPRESSED IN THE
FORM OF ELEGANT MATHEMATICS.
