The Unknowable and Evolution
Can science and religion settle their quarrel without either claiming knowledge it cannot possess? In 1862, Spencer made that limit the starting point for a single law of development reaching from nebulae to governments.
Spencer argues that scientific explanation and theology both terminate at an Unknowable: science reaches force, space, and ultimate cause, while religion reaches the same boundary by another route. Against both materialist certainty and theological revelation, he claims that knowledge begins with what can be observed—the persistence and redistribution of force, and the movement from the loose and uniform towards the concentrated, various, and interlocked. Development eventually reverses into dissolution. One formula governs the whole.
- evolution
- epistemology
- cosmology
- force
- causality
- differentiation
- integration
- heterogeneity
- complexity
- dissolution
- physics
- astronomy
- geology
- biology
- social evolution
- sociology
- metaphysics
- the unknowable
Enter a dialogue
- The universe is self-existent, self-created or made from outside, you say, and none can truly be conceived. Who does that defeat, the believer or the atheist?
- Theologians said 'a God understood would be no God at all', and you count them allies. Is that religion yielding to science, or finding its own truth?
- Press any scientific explanation far enough, you say, and it ends in something inconceivable, such as space, force or first cause. Should a scientist stop demanding certainty?
- Leaves shiver, branches sway, ripples form where a current meets the river bed. You call rhythm universal. Is that a law or just what we notice?
- If the universe alternates forever between gathering into order and falling apart, you say, what does progress in our stretch of it amount to?