James C. Maxwell on Science and Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Agree or disagree with Maxwell (this is the Maxwell with physics equations named after him)? Comments? How about the part where he says it is unwise to interpret Scripture in the light of an uncertain scientific theory? If science had a more certain and complete theory (as parts of Maxwell's theory now is...), would that then be fine? And if not why? And the part about interpreting "light"...are we incorrect in interpreting it according to our current scientific theories? We usually think of "light" as the physical light we see around us and not necessarily only in the terms Maxwell gives.

How about thoughts on the quotation that follows Maxwell's?

(Maxwell replies to a Bishop's Question)

"With respect to your second question, there is a statement printed in most commentaries that the fact of light being created before the sun is in striking agreement with the last results of science (I quote from memory).

I have often wished to ascertain the date of the original appearance of this statement, as this would be the only way of finding what “last result of science” it referred to. It is certainly older than the time when any notions of the undulatory theory became prevalent among men of science or commentators.

If it were necessary to provide an interpretation of the text in accordance with the science of 1876 (which may not agree with that of 1896), it would be very tempting to [394] say that the light of the first day means the all-embracing aether, the vehicle of radiation, and not actual light, whether from the sun or from any other source.

But I cannot suppose that this was the very idea meant to be conveyed by the original author of the book to those for whom he was writing. He tells us of a previous darkness. Both light and darkness imply a being who can see if there is light, but not if it is dark, and the words are always understood so. That light and darkness are terms relative to the creature only is recognised in Ps. cxxxix. 12.

As a mere matter of conjectural cosmogony, however, we naturally suppose those things most primeval which we find least subject to change.

Now the aether or material substance which fills all the interspace between world and world, without a gap or flaw of 1/100000 inch anywhere, and which probably penetrates through all grosser matters is the largest, most uniform and apparently most permanent object we know, and we are therefore inclined to suppose that it existed before the formation of the systems of gross matter which now exist within it, just as we suppose the sea older than the individual fishes in it.

But I should be very sorry if an interpretation founded on a most conjectural scientific hypothesis were to get fastened to the text in Genesis, even if by so doing it got rid of the old statement of the commentators which has long ceased to be intelligible. The rate of change of scientific hypothesis is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretations, so that if an interpretation is founded on such an hypothesis, it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

At the same time I think that each individual man should do all he can to impress his own mind with the extent, the order, and the unity of the universe, and should carry these ideas with him as he reads such passages as the 1st Chap. of the Ep. to Colossians (see Lightfoot on Colossians, p. 182), just as enlarged conceptions of the extent [395] and unity of the world of life may be of service to us in reading Psalm viii.; Heb. ii. 6, etc. Believe me, yours faithfully,

J. CLERK MAXWELL" (p. 191 from here)

The reference to Lightfoot can be found on p.4 of here.

"The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function of the Word in the creation and government of the world. This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the beginning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells the plenitude of Deity.

This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word in the natural order of things is always emphasized in the writings of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial function in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very much into the background. Though in the creed common to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the Being ‘through whom all things were created,’ yet in reality this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our thoughts.

And the loss is serious. How much our theological conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a moment’s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and the developments of history, if they habitually connected them with the operations of the same Divine Word who is the centre of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way, may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’ which results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of reverence and research...linking our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs."



For more on Maxwell's views, I found this resource. According to here, the quotation by Maxwell in this post shows....

"Thus Maxwell penetratingly criticizes the misuse of partial scientific knowledge to interpret scripture, let alone to shore up faith by supposed harmonization with the latest science. He has no need of scientific `proofs' of Christianity. Instead, his expressed concern is that ill-judged linking of specific scientific theories with religion will be an impediment to the growth of science. And his emphasis, in relating science and faith, is in science's enhancement of our wonder at the glory of creation. Certainly a much more enduring theme than the aether, which has long since been discarded!"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top