{"id":3239,"date":"2013-07-08T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2013-07-08T00:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/?p=3239"},"modified":"2013-07-07T21:44:06","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T09:44:06","slug":"samuel-clarke-on-arguing-a-priori","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/samuel-clarke-on-arguing-a-priori\/","title":{"rendered":"Samuel Clarke on arguing a priori"},"content":{"rendered":"

Juan Gomez writes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my two previous posts I explored Butler\u2019s preferred methodology in the Analogy<\/em> and the Sermons<\/em>. We first looked at bishop Halifax\u2019s description<\/a> of Butler\u2019s work and then we reviewed the latter\u2019s<\/a> own methodological statements. Both Butler and Halifax describe two methods used in arguing for the existence and attributes of God: a posteriori<\/em> and a priori<\/em>. They identify the latter of these methods with the work of Samuel Clarke<\/a>. Since we have already discussed at some length Butler\u2019s methodology, I want to spend this post analysing the comments Clarke (one of the leading Newtonians of the first decades of the eighteenth century) makes regarding his use of the a priori<\/em> method.<\/p>\n

Clarke was sympathetic to the experimental method as practised by Newton and he was especially interested in the application of mathematics to metaphysics, which is the project carried out in his Boyle lectures, A Demonstration of the being and attributes of God<\/em> (1704) and A discourse concerning the unchangeable obligations of natural religion<\/em> (1705). In the text of the lectures themselves there is not much regarding methodology, other than Clarke stating that his method is \u201cas near to Mathematical as the nature of such a Discourse would allow.\u201d However, subsequent editions of the discourse included Clarke\u2019s replies to objections where in his answers to the sixth and seventh letters he explains in more detail his use of the a priori<\/em> method. In the former he briefly explains why he prefers it by contrasting it with the a posteriori<\/em> method:<\/p>\n

    The Proof a posteriori<\/em> is level<\/em> to All<\/em> Mens Capacities: Because there is an endless gradation<\/em> of wise and useful<\/em> ph\u00e6nomena of Nature, from the most obvious<\/em> to the most abstruse<\/em>; which afford (at least moral<\/em> and reasonable<\/em>) Proof of the Being of God, to the several Capacities of All unprejudiced<\/em> Men\u2026 The Proof a priori<\/em>, is (I fully believe) strictly demonstrative<\/em>; but (like numberless Mathematical Demonstrations<\/em>,) capable of being understood by only a few attentive Minds<\/em>; because \u2019tis of Use<\/em>, only against Learned and Metaphysical Difficulties<\/em>\u2026<\/ol>\n

    So on one hand the a posteriori<\/em> proof is accessible to more people, but it provides only reasonable (not demonstrable) proof; on the other, the a priori<\/em> way of arguing provides demonstrative proof, but it is only reserved for a few minds engaged in metaphysical disputations. Clarke prefers the a priori<\/em> method in this case (i.e. in natural theology) because it can provide him with demonstrative proof of the attributes of God. However, this method is not meant to be in direct opposition to the a posteriori<\/em> method, but rather complement it. This is what Clarke mentions in his preface to the Discourse<\/em>:<\/p>\n

      The Honourable Robert Boyle, Esq<\/em>; was a Person no less zealously solicitous for the propagation of true Religion, and the practice of Piety and Virtue; than diligent and successful in improving Experimental Philosophy, and in inlarging our Knowledge of Nature. And it was his settled Opinion, that the advancement and increase of Natural Knowledge, would always be of Service to the Cause and Interest of true Religion, in opposition to Atheists and Unbelievers of all sorts\u2026 In pursuance of which End I endeavoured, in my former Discourse [the Demonstration], to strengthen and confirm the Arguments which prove to us the Being and Attributes of God<\/em>, partly by metaphysical Reasoning, and partly from the Discoveries (principally those that have been late made) in Natural Philosophy.<\/ol>\n

      Clarke believes that both ways of arguing complement each other and both prove the attributes of God. In his Answer to the Seventh Letter Clarke justifies in more detail his use of the a priori<\/em> method. Clarke believes that an a priori<\/em> argument is necessary to carry further what the a posteriori<\/em> argument proves. He recognizes that the latter \u201cought always to be distinctly insisted upon,\u201d but the a priori<\/em> argument is useful to answer objections against the attributes of God at a metaphysical level. Further, Clarke explains that the a posteriori<\/em> argument by itself cannot prove the eternity, infinity and unity of God:<\/p>\n

        The Temporary<\/em> ph\u00e6nomena of nature, prove indeed demonstrably a posteriori<\/em>, that there is<\/em>, and has been from the beginning of those ph\u00e6nomena<\/em>, a Being of Power and Wisdom sufficient<\/em> to produce and preserve those ph\u00e6nomena. But that This First Cause<\/em> has existed from Eternity<\/em>, and shall exist to Eternity<\/em>, cannot be proved from those Temporary ph\u00e6nomena<\/em>; but must be demonstrated from the intrinsick Nature of Necessary-Existence<\/em>.<\/ol>\n

        In a similar vein, Clarke comments that from the observation of the ph\u00e6nomena of nature we can only prove that there is a Being with sufficient power and wisdom, but not that such being is absolutely infinite and universal. What I want to point out here is that the two methods in consideration should be interpreted as complementary and not as opposed to each other. However, Clarke\u2019s a priori<\/em> arguments regarding the attributes of God were widely criticized, even from those who shared his Newtonianism and admired the mathematical method that Newton successfully applied in his natural philosophy. One of these critics is Joseph Butler, and in my next post I will examine the discussion between this two figures regarding the attribute of infinity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Juan Gomez writes… In my two previous posts I explored Butler\u2019s preferred methodology in the Analogy and the Sermons. We first looked at bishop Halifax\u2019s description of Butler\u2019s work and then we reviewed the latter\u2019s own methodological statements. Both Butler […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[4403,16400,16401,4425],"class_list":["post-3239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-a-priori","tag-butler","tag-clarke","tag-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3239","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3239"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3239\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}