First cause, second cause

September 16, 2006 by Dr. Mc.

OK, this one is deep. If you are not up for “deep,” please come back and join me another day.

Scientists today honor Francis Bacon, and evolutionists applaud him, because he was one of the first to strongly and logically defend that religion should not hamper science. Here is that 1606 quote from Advancement of Learning, Second Book: “..Aristotle and Plato; whereof both intermingled final causes, the one as a part of theology, and the other as a part of logic, which were the favourite studies respectively of both those persons. Not because those final causes are not true, and worthy to be inquired, being kept within their own province; but because their excursions into the limits of physical causes hath bred a vastness and solitude in that tract.”

OK, that was supposed to be an English version, but allow me to paraphrase:
“Aristotle and Plato led us astray by mixing first and second causes in their science. Religion may be true, but if we let religious explain physical phenomena, then we will never nail down things we want to understand.”

By “first cause” Bacon (and Aristotle) meant the purpose of things, and “second causes” are the cause-and-affect relations that science seeks to discover. Now let me paraphrase the next quote, only a couple of sentences later in the same text, before I give it to you word for word: ” God is the ultimate cause (first cause) of everything, but from all our experience we must assume that there is also a cause within physics (second cause) that we can detect and measure, regardless of God’s intent, and finding those causes does not negate or detract in any way from the fact that God is behind it all, because He uses His natural laws to do His will.” (So if you trust me, you can skip the next direct quote.)

“Neither doth this call in question, or derogate from divine providence, but highly confirm and exalt it. For as in civil actions he is the greater and deeper politique, that can make other men the instruments of his will and ends, and yet never acquaint them with his purpose, so as they shall do it and yet not know what they do, than he that imparteth his meaning to those he employeth; so is the wisdom of God more admirable, when nature intendeth one thing, and providence draweth forth another..”

He was attempting to persuade the believing community that it does not mean God didn’t do it, just because we find a material explanation. Many Christians today accept this to mean that religion should not be invoked to explain what science is designed to do. I have no problem with that, but what if the reverse is attempted?

Today “science” is used to explain material origins—something for which science (cause-and-affect experimentation) was not intended. Remember that when Bacon said “first cause” he meant purpose, i.e., why something began. Today when scientists say “first cause” they mean the event that led to all subsequent events, i.e., how something began, but when you are trying to explain the origin of matter and energy (physics) you automatically move into metaphysics (what exists and affects us beyond matter and energy). Today, as in Bacon’s day, we call that religion. Some scientists are trying to explain the origin of the universe—the original cause of matter and energy—without allowing a non-material explanation. This amounts to is a reversal. Science is being invoked to explain a theological issue, and God is not allowed to be a consideration. Cause-and-affect is incapable of explaining an original cause, because something (in this case, matter and energy) cannot cause itself. The answer? Matter and energy began from nothing. No observation can defend that. That does not make logical sense. That was not Bacon’s intent. To believe it requires an act of faith.

The more I read Francis Bacon, the better I like him. Sure, he had a few off-the-wall ideas, like thinking that God would use science to rid the world of sin via technology (in his Sci-Fi, New Atlantis), but in the same book he also expressed his personal conviction that God created the universe in 6 days. Funny he should be invoked to defend the separation of science and religion.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »