{"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。
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.
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