Time&Eternity

Time in the Formulation of Scientific Theory 133
Newton’s God is a poor clockmaker, for this God is constantly having to intervene
and correct creation. On the contrary, Leibniz’s God, from the beginning,
put into motion the interplay of the natural forces according to “le
bel ordre preétabli,” 83 so that miracles effected by God are not mandated by
a nature needing correction, but rather can be understood solely as acts of
grace.
The least reconciled issues are the differences in the question of the sensorium
Dei. While Leibniz steadfastly defines sensorium as a perceptive organ
and, for this reason, accuses Clarke and Newton of misunderstanding
space as the sensory organ of God, Clarke explains over and over that Newton
is concerned only with an analogous use of the concepts: space (and,
correspondingly, also time) are only like sensory organs. Instead, the omnipresent
God perceives all things “by his immediate presence to them, in
all space wherever they are, without the intervention or assistance of any organ
or medium whatsoever.” 84
To the accusation of making God look like an inferior craftsman, Clarke
replies that God is more than just a mechanic. Precisely the assertion that
God is the source and the constant preserver does justice to God’s true
greatness and prevents God’s expulsion from the world; “’tis not a diminution,
but the true glory of his workmanship, that nothing is done without
his continual government and inspection.” 85 At the end of this initial round
of discussions, two features of the debate have already crystallized that will
be reinforced over the course of the correspondence. First, the reader, who
hopes for an intensive illumination of the phenomenon of absolute time,
tends to be disappointed, because the discussion revolves primarily around
space. It must be noted, however, that what is said about space also applies
to time. 86 Second, different conceptions of divine action come to light. The
contributions of the two adversaries to the discussion of this question are
extensive and deal repeatedly with the role of God’s intervention in natural
occurrences in relation to divine perfection. I believe that physical, cosmological,
or philosophical theses are not really the issue here, but rather that
the core of the debate centers on a difference in theological outlook. An interpretation
wishing to do justice to the character of the correspondence
must devote great attention to the theological premises. A key to understanding
lies in the consideration of what each author considers significant
with regard to God’s perfection. While Newton and Clarke each predominantly
focus on the power of God, 87 Leibniz always argues from the standpoint
of God’s wisdom. 88
The power of Newton’s and Clarke’s God is expressed especially in divine
omnipresence. 89 This connection of power, eternity, and omnipresence