托马斯-伯内特《地球论》中的反卷积论、自然天意和奇迹。

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE British Journal for the History of Science Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0007087422000462
Thomas Rossetter
{"title":"托马斯-伯内特《地球论》中的反卷积论、自然天意和奇迹。","authors":"Thomas Rossetter","doi":"10.1017/S0007087422000462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In his <i>Telluris Theoria Sacra</i> and its English translation <i>The Theory of the Earth</i> (1681-90), the English clergyman and schoolmaster Thomas Burnet (<i>c.</i>1635-1715) constructed a geological history from the Creation to the Final Consummation, positing predominantly natural causes to explain biblical events and their effects on the Earth and life on it. Burnet's insistence on appealing primarily to natural rather than miraculous causes has been interpreted both by his contemporaries and by some historians as an essentially Cartesian principle. On this reading, Burnet adhered to a Cartesian style of explanation in which there was no place for miracles. In this paper, I propose a different interpretation. Burnet's commitment to natural over miraculous causes, I argue, was grounded in an anti-voluntarist theology which he inherited from the Cambridge Platonists and Latitudinarians. This anti-voluntarism, moreover, also dictated the kind of miracles to which he did appeal. This reading of Burnet contrasts with the view that he was simply following Cartesian principles. First, Descartes had espoused a radical form of theological voluntarism. Second, Burnet's and Descartes's views of providence were based on distinct attributes of God, and these attributes had quite different implications regarding the place of miracles in the providential order.</p>","PeriodicalId":46655,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-voluntarism, natural providence and miracles in Thomas Burnet's <i>Theory of the Earth</i>.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Rossetter\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0007087422000462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In his <i>Telluris Theoria Sacra</i> and its English translation <i>The Theory of the Earth</i> (1681-90), the English clergyman and schoolmaster Thomas Burnet (<i>c.</i>1635-1715) constructed a geological history from the Creation to the Final Consummation, positing predominantly natural causes to explain biblical events and their effects on the Earth and life on it. Burnet's insistence on appealing primarily to natural rather than miraculous causes has been interpreted both by his contemporaries and by some historians as an essentially Cartesian principle. On this reading, Burnet adhered to a Cartesian style of explanation in which there was no place for miracles. In this paper, I propose a different interpretation. Burnet's commitment to natural over miraculous causes, I argue, was grounded in an anti-voluntarist theology which he inherited from the Cambridge Platonists and Latitudinarians. This anti-voluntarism, moreover, also dictated the kind of miracles to which he did appeal. This reading of Burnet contrasts with the view that he was simply following Cartesian principles. First, Descartes had espoused a radical form of theological voluntarism. Second, Burnet's and Descartes's views of providence were based on distinct attributes of God, and these attributes had quite different implications regarding the place of miracles in the providential order.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal for the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087422000462\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087422000462","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国牧师兼校长托马斯-伯内特(Thomas Burnet,约 1635-1715 年)在他的《Telluris Theoria Sacra》及其英译本《地球论》(1681-90 年)中,构建了一部从创世到最后终结的地质史,主要以自然原因来解释圣经事件及其对地球和地球上生命的影响。伯内特坚持主要诉诸自然原因而非奇迹原因,这被他同时代的人和一些历史学家解释为本质上的笛卡尔原则。按照这种解读,伯纳坚持的是笛卡尔式的解释风格,其中没有奇迹的位置。在本文中,我提出了不同的解释。我认为,伯纳特对自然原因而非奇迹原因的承诺,是基于他从剑桥柏拉图派和纬度派那里继承的反卷积派神学。此外,这种反神迹论也决定了他所诉求的神迹类型。对伯纳的这种解读与认为他只是遵循笛卡尔原则的观点形成了鲜明对比。首先,笛卡尔信奉的是一种激进的神学唯意志论。其次,伯内和笛卡尔对天意的看法是基于上帝的不同属性,而这些属性对神迹在天意秩序中的地位有着截然不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Anti-voluntarism, natural providence and miracles in Thomas Burnet's Theory of the Earth.

In his Telluris Theoria Sacra and its English translation The Theory of the Earth (1681-90), the English clergyman and schoolmaster Thomas Burnet (c.1635-1715) constructed a geological history from the Creation to the Final Consummation, positing predominantly natural causes to explain biblical events and their effects on the Earth and life on it. Burnet's insistence on appealing primarily to natural rather than miraculous causes has been interpreted both by his contemporaries and by some historians as an essentially Cartesian principle. On this reading, Burnet adhered to a Cartesian style of explanation in which there was no place for miracles. In this paper, I propose a different interpretation. Burnet's commitment to natural over miraculous causes, I argue, was grounded in an anti-voluntarist theology which he inherited from the Cambridge Platonists and Latitudinarians. This anti-voluntarism, moreover, also dictated the kind of miracles to which he did appeal. This reading of Burnet contrasts with the view that he was simply following Cartesian principles. First, Descartes had espoused a radical form of theological voluntarism. Second, Burnet's and Descartes's views of providence were based on distinct attributes of God, and these attributes had quite different implications regarding the place of miracles in the providential order.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This leading international journal publishes scholarly papers and review articles on all aspects of the history of science. History of science is interpreted widely to include medicine, technology and social studies of science. BJHS papers make important and lively contributions to scholarship and the journal has been an essential library resource for more than thirty years. It is also used extensively by historians and scholars in related fields. A substantial book review section is a central feature. There are four issues a year, comprising an annual volume of over 600 pages. Published for the British Society for the History of Science
期刊最新文献
How the Glaishers pictured snowflakes. Essay review: technopolitics, development and the residues of the South African state. Proxies and partial connections in an anthropologist's archive. Charting the hybrid architectural style of quantum theory. The politics of medical expertise and substance control: WHO consultants for addiction rehabilitation and pharmacy education in Thailand and India during the Cold War.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1