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
- At what point should a person stop demanding certainty, if science and religion both meet the Unknowable?
- Your formula moves from the uniform to the heterogeneous, but why call that movement progress rather than mere change?
- What would a person have to surrender to accept that ultimate cause cannot be conceived, only acknowledged?
- How can evolution be told apart from dissolution when both belong to the same cycle of change?