Time&Eternity

Time in the Formulation of Scientific Theory 129
sulted in damage to the environment. The threat to a nature that is understood
mechanically by human beings ruling over it is more likely a consequence
of the dissolution of the synthesis of science and theology that still
existed in Newton. 45
Natural scientific, as well as theological work, takes place in a social reality.
The historian John Brooke describes what this means for Newton’s
work. On the one hand, Brooke points to the sociopolitical interpretative
potential of Newton’s ideas; 46 and, on the other hand, he examines the
merging of science and theology in Newton’s thinking. 47 He contradicts the
idea that, by the end of the seventeenth century, a so-called scientific revolution
caused the development of modern science, with a sharp division between
philosophy and theology on the one side and natural science on the
other. Indeed, Newton’s century saw an increasing differentiation between
theology and science, but scientific findings were still being presented in
theological terminology, and divine characteristics were still being explained
in physical terms. 48 Brooke elucidates this by using Newton as an example:
Newton was concerned with explaining natural phenomena as mechanical
processes as well as expressions of divine will. He rejected the alternative to
the latter, namely that the cause of an event is inherent to physical matter.
His thinking therefore adopted an ambiguity that could lead to both theistic
and deistic interpretations. 49 In his laws, Newton saw proof of the constant
presence of God; however, these laws could just as easily apply to the
notion of an absent clockmaker. 50 In this ambiguity, Newton’s theology also
bears the seed of its own destruction: Against Newton’s will, God becomes a
“god of the gaps,” who is finally dethroned by Pierre de Laplace. The fact
that Newton thought the Trinitarian dogma was irrelevant 51 is consistent
with the premises portrayed here. As he matured, his Arian conviction grew
until he became convinced that true religion and world peace would be
possible only when the doctrine of the Trinity was eradicated. 52 Correspondingly,
Newton also did not develop a Christology that could have
influenced his religious-philosophical thoughts in Principia and Opticks. 53
The observation of societal and philosophical interconnections raises
the difficult question of what actually caused what. Did the sociopolitical
climate influence natural philosophy or did science influence politics? Did
Newton’s image of God leave its mark on mechanics or did mechanics
shape his image of God? Brooke makes a plea for the latter alternative:
Newton created a God for himself according to his own understanding 54 —
“[t]he rationalism characteristic of his scientific work was not so much
deflected as reflected in his biblical studies.” 55 At the same time, Brooke concedes
that theology influenced the concept of space and also fundamentally
shaped the content of the concepts of law and force. 56 In any case, one