John H. Brooke - Honorary Professor of the History of Science at Lancaster University and Visiting Professor at the University of Leeds, john.brooke@theology.ox.ac.uk

The article shows how Robert Boyle's natural theology matched with his strong Christian theism. The author demonstrates how one of the founders of experimental science gave a theological interpretation to his research set, trying to banish suspicion against science from the side of religion and at the same time to provide a religious answer to atheism using natural theology. The author believes that Boyle designed a vision of the world, which, contrary to modern stereotypes, has place for both empirical and religious faith, for both mechanical universe and faith in Providence.

Keywords: natural philosophy, laws of nature, experimental science, science and religion, natural theology, theism, atheism.

At the END of the 17th century, a sermon on the fallacies of atheism was preached at St. Mary-le-Bow Church in London. This sermon was unusual, because it said that modern science does not support those who deny the existence of the world.

This article, in its original version, was presented on February 16 at St. Mary's Church, Aldermary, London, as the "Boyle Lecture of Goy G." Published in English in the collection Science and Religion in the Twenty-First Century. The Boyle Lectures, 2004 - 2013 L.: SCM Press, 2013. The editors thank the author for permission to publish the text in Russian translation.

page 12
Of god. The speaker was an excellent scientist who corresponded with Isaac Newton to keep up with the latest scientific theories. Together with Newton, he argued that the creation of the universe should be attributed to divine wisdom. This self-righteous advocate of religion was called Richard Bentley.

The scholar of antiquity, Bentley, delivered the first lecture of the famous and lengthy series that later became known as the Boyle Lectures. These lectures are so called because one of England's greatest scientists left behind the means to make them possible. Robert Boyle bequeathed a sum of 50 pounds a year "forever, or at least for a long time" to provide public lectures that would affirm the truth of the Christian faith "against notorious infidels, i.e., against atheists, theists, pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans." And as an additional condition (to which we will return later), he added that one should not descend "to any level whatsoever... differences between Christians themselves." Boyle's philanthropy wasn't just a posthumous gesture. During his lifetime (which was dedicated to reconciling science and Christianity), he financed translations of the New Testament into exotic languages and founded many Christian missions. What can we say about this man, who combined the study of natural philosophy and a strong Christian faith in his life?

Boyle was born into one of the most distinguished aristocratic families in England. He was the youngest son of Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork and-before the Civil War-Treasurer of State for Ireland. Robert might have found the fact of his birth surprising: he was the fourteenth of fifteen children. His education included three years at Eton College and a trip abroad in the company of a personal mentor. While abroad, he studied Italian to read the works of Galileo, and during a terrible thunderstorm, he experienced a religious conversion. It was like a flash of lightning that revealed to him that he wasn't ready for Doomsday. This event did not stifle his curiosity. During his time in Italy and France, Boyle is said to have been both repelled and fascinated by Catholic religious practices, which he was taught were mere superstition. He never lost interest in the stories of the paranormal and supernatural that reached him.

page 13
The life of the Boyle family, which had undergone drastic changes in the aftermath of the Civil War and the Irish Rebellion, was gradually returning to normal. From 1645 to 1655, Boyle lived on the family estate at Stolbridge, Dorset. As M. Hunter notes, the local aristocratic society was not a very suitable environment for a person inclined to work. In Boyle's own words, it was easy to "spend the whole day talking about one lady's face or another's dress, how one lord got drunk and another made fun of him, and how one gentleman's horse beat another's mare." 1
If Boyle had already experienced his religious conversion, it was during his years at Cambridge that he turned to science. In 1649, he set up a chemical laboratory where he studied the effects of fire on various chemical substances. A vapor-filled chemistry lab doesn't look like heaven to us, but Boyle thought otherwise. He wrote to his sister: "The volcano has so captivated and bewitched me that I feel as if I were in Elysium in my laboratory."2. In 1655, Boyle moved to Oxford, where he immediately joined the scientific circle formed by John Wilkins, headmaster of Wadham College.

Wilkins played a major role in the founding of the Royal Society of Science, which celebrated its 350th anniversary in 2010. Boyle also played a role, participating in meetings, serving on the board, nominating candidates, and allocating funds whenever possible. This was necessary, since in the early years the society, called "royal", did not yet receive cash from the crown. In 1668, Boyle moved from Oxford to London, where he remained unmarried for the rest of his life with his sister Catherine.

All of Boyle's meticulous biographers have consistently pointed out the strength of his religious beliefs. Why, then, despite the approval of others, did he turn down the offer to become an Anglican priest? To this question, he had a meaningful answer. Defending the idea of combining Christianity and science was more effective as long as he remained a layman.

Hunter M. 1. Robert Boyle (1627 - 91): A Suitable Case for Treatment?//British for the History of Science. 1999. Vol. 32. P. 261.

Hunter M. 2. Robert Boyle (1627 - 91). P. 262.

page 14
As a clergyman, Boyle risked a cynical retort: "He's supposed to say that, isn't he?" Boyle was therefore, in his own words, content to be "a priest in the temple of nature."

In the scientific world, Boyle enjoyed a reputation as a progressive man, because he was a proponent of a mechanistic philosophy of nature that challenged Aristotle's ideas about the properties of substances. An unsophisticated reader, judging by the title of his book, "The Sceptical Chemist," might have thought that the author was probably purging chemistry of alchemy. Boyle is best known for discovering the law that got his name - the law of inverse proportionality between the pressure and volume of an ideal gas at a constant temperature.

However, this is not to say that such ideas about Boyle are perfect. Boyle's Law was not formulated by Boyle himself. He just made a table with the pressure data and the corresponding volume data. He was not so much interested in the ideal gas as in the real one. He explained chemical reactions mechanically, assuming that hierarchies of particles or "corpuscles" of matter are destroyed and reunited in various ways. Why is an acid an acid? Aristotelicus would say, " Because it has a form of acidity." Boyle wasn't the only seventeenth-century chemist who wanted more. Perhaps the particles that make up the acid are in a certain movement or have sharp edges that are responsible for the corrosive effect? If you put acid on your tongue, it feels like small daggers are being driven into it - and this experience is not so easy to do!

At the same time, it is very easy to exaggerate the importance of Boyle's mechanistic explanations. In his Universe, there was a place for many non-material objects, among which the first place was occupied by the human mind. Boyle tells us that for a long time he did not believe the stories about the philosopher's stone that the alchemists were looking for; however, he gradually became, to use the expression of L. Princip, an"inspired adept"3. His skepticism in the Sceptical Chemist was directed not against the idea of transmutation of metals, but against the prevailing pre-modern ideas.-

Principe L. 3. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and his Alchemical Quest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

page 15
the nature of fire, claiming to identify the elementary particles that make up bodies.

Indeed, there were chemists who abandoned their alchemical dreams, but Boyle had a broader horizon. He even believed that if the Philosopher's stone could be found, it might be able to attract spirits, and hoped that they would be angelic spirits, not demonic ones. His interest in spirits was combined with another interest that he devoted his entire life to-the refutation of atheism.

Boyle was concerned about the integrity of his experiments, which might compromise his piety; however, as he once noted, to defeat an atheist, the supernatural needed only one scientific proof. When one of the characters in the dialogue he wrote suggests that "it doesn't look like the air and fluid parts of the world were left behind by spirits" and adds that "it doesn't look like there were few spirits or there were few hierarchies of spirits, as is commonly believed," we return to the world we lost.4 And if the past to which Boyle belonged is so alien to us, is there any point in reviving it? One might even ask whether the intellectual legacy he left behind is of any significance today.

Obstacles to Boyle's "Resurrection"

There is no doubt that the era in which Boyle lived is very different from our own. In the world we had lost, scientific truths could still be confirmed by the words of St. John the Baptist. The Scriptures. Boyle's contemporary Henry More declared Moses to be the first atomist. Such views are echoed today by attempts by some Muslim authors to detect in the Qur'an the anticipation of certain scientific discoveries; however, this approach is not supported by sane Muslim scholars.

Boyle's world was a world that had just ceased to be located at the center of the universe: John Wilkins was one of the first active proponents of the Copernican theory in England. By our standards, it was a young world - only a few millennia old. Humanity had inhabited the Earth from its very beginning, and references to the created world referred to a world in which God's creatures were preserved in their original forms.

Principe L. 4. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and his Alchemical Quest. P. 310.

page 16
The threat of mass extinction was a distant future, and the public debate about Darwin's theory of evolution was still about two hundred years away. And since Darwin's theory threatened the "from divine design" argument, as it was formulated in the seventeenth century, we cannot ignore the famous words of R. Dawkins that any philosophy of nature created before Darwin is worthless.

Boyle belonged to his own time, as evidenced by the chauvinism of his will. Muslims and Jews are put on a par with atheists, and even just theists, and are declared enemies. In this article, I do not seek to ennoble Boyle by separating him from his contemporary scientific and religious context. For example, his assumption that matter is completely passive and subject to non-material influences is in sharp contrast to the modern view of active, self-organizing matter. His idea of the universe as a clockwork mechanism, elaborated in detail in the more familiar writings of Newton, did not survive the revolutions in twentieth-century physics. At the same time, in his work and fate, one can find some worthy similarities with our time.

Today we often talk about the "new atheism", the most famous proselyte of which is R. Dawkins. In Boyle's time, too, there was a new atheism associated with the revival of the atomistic philosophy of Epicurus and Lucretius. Today, we are facing a threat from religious fundamentalists. In England in the mid-17th century. Boyle opposed Protestant fanatics who were in "direct contact" with God. It annoyed him that they gave the false impression that Christianity and philosophy were incompatible. Despite the fact that today science and technology occupy almost the most important place in human life, we often hear about doubts about the authority of scientific knowledge. And this doubt is very similar to the doubt that Boyle and his contemporaries faced when they argued for the practical utility of science.

There are other parallels. The generally accepted neo-Darwinian view of evolution contradicts the beliefs of those who believe in a God who created the world and all its parts in accordance with a specific design. At the same time, the target causes were already in danger when Boyle took up his pen. The attack was carried out from two directions: from the Epicurean idea that the world is a random product of interaction.-

page 17
interaction of atoms, and from the side of Descartes ' philosophy. Descartes ' challenge lay in the persistence with which, apparently based on certain theological premises, he argued that it was impossible for man to understand God's intentions by looking at his creation. We'll see later how Boyle responded to both of these challenges.

Boyle deserves a voice, because his case illustrates a point that the modern world sometimes forgets: Christian theology had the means to support, legitimize, and in some cases motivate thorough research into nature. If Boyle contributed to an enduring scientific tradition, in a certain sense his legacy is also enduring. M. Hunter, one of the most authoritative researchers of Boyle's work, says: "it is no exaggeration to consider Boyle the founder of experimental science in the modern sense of the word"5. And if Hunter is right (and I think he is) to see" tremendous depth " in Boyle's thinking about the relationship of science to religion, then the above obstacles should not stop us.

Boyle and the advancement of experimental science

It is sometimes said that without Christianity there would be no modern science. The doctrine of creation became a prerequisite for the idea that nature has order and can be known through the God-given human mind. Of course, the more we learn about scientific practices in other cultures (especially the achievements of the medieval Arab world), the more difficult it is to talk about any exclusive role of Christianity.

At the same time, the question remains, which was recently considered in the works of P. Garrison and S. Gaukroger: why did a permanent scientific culture arise only in the West? Science also existed in other cultures, but according to the "rise and fall" scheme6. On the contrary, the scientific movement in seventeenth-century Europe was already unstoppable from a certain point on. There are many reasons for this-

Hunter M. 5. Robert Boyle (1627 - 91). P. 263.

Gaukroger S. 6. The Emergence of a Scientific Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

page 18
go, and they are complex. But among them is the following circumstance: the Judeo-Christian tradition had the means to legitimize a modest experimental science. In the early seventeenth century, Francis Bacon used some of them. Thanks to Boyle, we will be able to see how Christianity and scientific virtuosity were intertwined with each other.

Boyle, like Bacon before him, spoke of God as the author of two books: the Bible and the book of his Creation. Accordingly, man was instructed to study both the Scriptures and the Book of nature. Since these books have the same author, there can be no contradiction between them. As Galileo argued, the knowledge gained from the study of nature can help in the interpretation of the Bible. Boyle makes the same point: "God has given us the knowledge of the Book of creation, which encourages faith and is necessary for understanding the book of scripture." 7
Today, we take the use of experimental methods in science for granted. But that was not the case in Boyle's time. It has often been argued that the empirical study of nature shows excessive arrogance, and it is better to rely on the authority of Aristotle or philosophize in the quiet of the office. In addition, there were at least three other problems. If someone claimed that they conducted an experiment that refutes the dominant view, then why should they be believed, as well as that their experiment was conducted correctly, and that they interpreted the data correctly? It would certainly have helped if the experimenter had been a trustworthy gentleman (the aristocrat Robert Boyle undoubtedly had this advantage).

It follows that the mechanism of confirmation of scientific knowledge had moral and social dimensions. Reliable witnesses to the experiment were not always available, and when they did appear, it could be considered a great success. The problem was indeed complex: to automatically reject reports of strange physical phenomena was to encourage a mindset that could cast doubt on the evidence of biblical miracles.

When Boyle spoke favourably of experimental philosophy, it was not about a philosophy based on the ABM.-

Harrison P. 7. The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. P. 136.

page 19
stom observation. As Bacon also pointed out, nature must be invaded in order to reveal its secrets. Boyle's chemical experiments show that he fully agreed with Bacon's program. For example, with the help of a sequence of operations developed by himself, he not only decomposed saltpeter, but also returned it to its original state. This may not sound very inspiring, but his experiment was an important event in the long history of distinguishing between nature and art.

Before Boyle's experiments, it was believed that a natural object has integrity due to a certain homogeneous "shape" that cannot be reproduced artificially. In Boyle's mechanistic chemistry, this became possible. I deliberately use the word "mechanistic" because the seventeenth-century breakdown of the distinction between nature and art has a broader context. When the universe was compared to a machine, it was assumed that it was a work of art, the product of a divine master. As a contemporary of Boyle wrote, all things are artificial, for "nature itself is nothing but the art of God." 8
Now, perhaps, we are beginning to understand why Boyle considered himself a " Christian virtuoso." One of his favorite techniques was to compare the universe with the clock of the Cathedral in Strasbourg. Perhaps this analogy is controversial: how does God operate in a universe that functions like a clock? For Boyle, however, this analogy played an important heuristic role. It created a space for both science and religion.

The task of the scientist was to investigate the mechanism of nature, its gears, wheels and springs. Boyle talked about the" springs " of air, and even suggested that air might be made up of microscopic springs that cause pressure to increase when air is compressed. But the clockwork analogy also left room for religious belief, since clocks are created for a specific purpose. Machines don't come into being on their own. And this doesn't just preserve the space for religious belief: the most complex mechanism of creation necessarily requires it. For example, a human device-

Brooke J. H., Cantor G. 8. Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science and Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. P. 323.

page 20
being an extremely fine piece of work, it is a sign of divine wisdom.

The connection that Boyle draws between his Christianity and his science is deep and multifaceted. Setting boundaries for a natural theology based on scientific knowledge, he argues that the perfect natural philosopher is best able to understand divine creativity. To do this, you need to look closely into the recesses of nature, which, in turn, requires knowledge of anatomy, optics, mechanics and chemistry.9 Chemistry, in particular, helps to realize Bacon's dream: it promises to improve the world and restore the dominion over nature that was lost after the fall.

This promise of a better world was tempting - if science could be used to make things easier for people. In this regard, Boyle shows by example how chemistry can be applied in medicine. He had his own chemical tinctures, which he trusted more than any doctor. Moreover, it is said that every morning, when he awoke from sleep, he first learned the direction of the wind, and then took the appropriate antidote. Therefore, Robert North reports, if the wind changed direction frequently, Mr. Boyle would get drunk. 10
Boyle and the Revival of Natural Theology

Today, from time to time, we see attempts to revive natural theology. Returning to Boyle, we can see why arguments from "nature to God" are so appealing. Boyle never believed in the independence of rational theology. Scripture plays a key role in discovering the truth about God and his intentions for humanity, one of which is that we should have dominion over nature and be responsible for it.11 In Boyle, natural and explicit theology are closely intertwined. But, as we have seen, one of his goals was to protect science from suspicion on the part of religion.

9. Science and Religious Belief 1600 - 1900: A Selection of Primary Sources/Ed. Goodman D. C. John Wright in association with the Open University Press, 1973. P. 126.

Hall M.B. 10. Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. P. 18 - 19.

11. Science and Religious Belief 1600 - 1900. P. 116 - 17.

page 21
There were, of course, other challenges to which Boyle responded, and which have modern analogues. One of these challenges was the threat of a division of Christianity. In the late ' 40s of the seventeenth century, the spread of Puritan sects became such that Boyle counted "no less than 200 different opinions on the tenets of religion"12. The problem was that theological controversies led to disastrous consequences. Moving to London, Boyle warned, was almost like losing your faith. There is an opinion that this is still the case!

Boyle developed a dual strategy to counter this threat. He emphasized that in Christian teaching, for example, in the dogma of the Trinity, there are elements that "transcend reason." Accordingly, it is unacceptable to talk about such incomprehensible things as the nature of God. But on the other hand, reasoning could help restore a fundamental belief in the existence and wisdom of God, which could be achieved through the study of his plan embodied in nature.

Another was the threat posed by the free-thinking scoffers who had been immortalized by Restoration comedies with racy titles like: "The merry milkmaid of Islington", "Love lost in the dark", "Political prostitute, or the vain cuckold". They could be encountered in London, which Boyle described as "the city of freethinkers." In 1675, a good image of such a scoffer was presented in the "City Goldfinch". A cafe regular who claims to be familiar with the works of Thomas Hobbes, he laughs at spirits and claims that "there are no angels except those who wear skirts" 13. It was necessary to give an answer to practical (and theoretical) atheism. Boyle strongly argued that only those who do not study nature can be atheists. As the great naturalist John Ray wrote, people of even small mental abilities can perceive the wonders of nature that testify to divine wisdom.

In his critical work on the history of natural theology, D. Kantor emphasizes one of the key rhetorical functions of natural theology.-

Rattansi P.M. 12. The Social Interpretation of Science in the Seventeenth Century//Science and Society 1600-1900/Ed. Peter Mathias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. P. 21.

Principe L. 13. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and his Alchemical Quest. P. 203.

page 22
part of the argument that comes from the workings of nature: convince those whose faith may be shaken 14. Here, too, Boyle provides an excellent illustration. He wanted to find solid grounds for faith, to keep people of faith from falling away, and also to bring people of non-religious faith out of a state of stupor.

However, Boyle's reason for appreciating natural theology was different: he was completely fascinated by the knowledge of the world that science provided. The modern revival of natural theology is due in part to the discovery of anthropic coincidences, the idea that the universe is perfectly adapted to life.15 In Boyle's time, a whole new world was discovered, visible only through a microscope. With a genuine sense of wonder, Boyle admired God's ability to breathe life into a tiny creature. The fly's eye, whose famous image was featured in Robert Hooke's Micrography, was for Boyle "a far more amazing masterpiece than the body of the Sun." 16 The giant flea, whose image is also featured in Micrography, may evoke different feelings, but some believed that its bite played a role in the general household nature. After all, the poor used it as a cheap method of bloodletting instead of a ruinous visit to the doctor!

In response to Cartesian criticism of objective causes, Boyle recognized that there are inanimate objects that do not bear witness to the wisdom of God. He also recognized that many of God's intentions are beyond human comprehension. But who in their right mind would deny that the eye was created for the sake of sight? Other parts of the human body, such as the valves of the veins, may once have seemed useless, but their function also became clear after William Harvey's discovery of the circulatory system.

We immediately have objections: how then to deal with eye diseases? But for Boyle, they are proof of the care with which a healthy eye was created. It wasn't an easy answer to give: Boyle himself had poor eyesight and spent most of his life using the services of a secretary. But what can I say

Brooke J.H., Cantor G. 14. Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science and Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. P. 196 - 7.

McGrath A. A. 15. Fine-Tuned Universe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

16. Science and Religious Belief 1600 - 1900. P. 111.

page 23
then about eyes that are not naturally developed, such as the eyes of a mole? No problem: nature created the mole to live underground. Boyle points out the many levels of perfection of visual organs in animals, and this only confirms that God wants biological diversity.

The real problem is that in the post-Darwinian universe, the eye is the result of evolution, not divine art. Can we get Boyle through the Dawkins barrier? .. and yet. There are certain similarities between Darwin and Boyle. When Darwin defines what he means by "nature," he says: "These are the laws established by God to govern the universe."17. But for Boyle, too, the most exalted knowledge of God was the understanding that the material world that he had created and ordered now functions according to the "laws" of motion. For Boyle, as for most of his followers in natural theology, there can be no" laws " of nature without a Legislator. Boyle's God (and as far as this aspect is concerned, so is Newton's God) I could change my laws if I wanted to. Boyle was far-sighted enough to know that the only way to speak of "laws" in this case was in a figurative sense. Indeed, matter is not intelligent enough to know what the law is or how to obey it. 18 Yet for both Boyle and Darwin in the 1850s, the order of nature was established by the Deity. For Boyle, science was possible only because laws were supported by the conserving power of God, and for Darwin, because they were the unchanging elements of an evolving universe. But even for Darwin, laws were not without purpose: they made possible the emergence of higher animals, which he once described as the highest good imaginable. 19
I now turn to the final part of my essay, where I intend to show that there were insights in Boyle's philosophy that still deserve attention today; in other words, his legacy remains significant.

Richards R.J. 17. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and its Moral Purpose//The Cambridge Companion to the "Origin of Species"/Ed. Richards R. J. and M. Ruse. 2009. P. 61.

18. Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle/Ed. Stewart M.A. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979. P. 181.

Richards R. J. 19. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and its Moral Purpose. P. 256 - 74.

page 24
Boyle's Insights from yesterday and Today

When Boyle and his followers attempted to restore teleology and the idea of divine design, they did not escape criticism. Thus, the deist Anthony Collins (XVIII century) stated that no one doubted the existence of God until it was proved in the framework of Boyle's lectures. Collins was right about some things 20. However, this hardly applies to Boyle himself - his approach to evidence was more subtle.

In a lengthy unpublished manuscript on atheism, Boyle devoted many pages to explaining why one should not expect proof of the existence of God. 21 For open-minded people, a Creator God is the best explanation for why the world exists at all, and why it is ordered rather than chaotic. But the best explanation is not proof. Boyle's terminology here is rather curious. A knowledge of nature can give an idea of divine attributes, can "lead to a conclusion" or "convince" that God exists, or " put " such a belief in the human mind. But this is not the same as proof that would make an atheist believe.

Boyle was equally interested in the psychology of religious belief and its logic, and this is perhaps another important aspect of his legacy. When he said that the wisdom of God is imprinted in nature, he wanted his readers to be convinced of this "affectively" 22 that is, emotionally, as much as rationally. "Most atheists "(Boyle does not say" all") have such" affects "(even" corrupt minds") that they are prejudiced against the evidence. But there is another obstacle. Boyle writes: "The complexity of theoretical research concerning the contemplation of divine attributes makes most atheists and freethinkers unsuitable for this kind of research."23
Boyle had little doubt of his own abilities, and he was seriously interested in the reasons why they were so important to him.

Brooke J.H., Cantor G. 20. Reconstructing Nature. P. 198.

Macintosh J.J. 21. Boyle on Atheism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. P. 70 - 170.

Davis E.B. 22. "Parcere nominibus": Boyle, Hooke and the Rhetorical Interpretation of Descartes//Robert Boyle Reconsidered/Ed. Hunter M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 162.

Macintosh J.J. 23. Boyle on Atheism. P. 49.

page 25
some people have a religious faith, while others do not. In one manuscript, he gave at least nine "reasons for disbelief." 24 I will not enumerate them all, but it should be noted that among them we find, for example, "a love of independence" and "a vain sense of self-admiration"; Boyle also mentions the" obvious "and" understandable " nature of these objections, meaning, as it seems to me, that the diabolical arguments they sound more convincing. After all, Boyle sees another reason for disbelief in the " damaged principles of philosophy." And here you can find another epiphany of his: how we respond to well-founded arguments depends on our own assumptions.

In a recent study of the relationship between religion and natural science in the 19th and 20th centuries, the American historian Fr. Gregory comes to a conclusion from which very important conclusions can be drawn. He's writing: "Over the last two centuries, in almost all cases of interaction between religion and natural science, differences of opinion have been due to different assumptions ... that were introduced into the discussion by its participants."25 Indeed, there may be general agreement that there is scientific evidence. But their cultural significance is quite different. It is very rare (if ever) to draw metaphysical or theological conclusions from scientific theories. You have to give Boyle credit for understanding that. We who live in a post-enlightenment world may not share his belief that immorality is the main cause of unbelief; but Boyle was also fully aware that the response to natural theology depends entirely on what someone brings to the discussion.26
In the first volume of his Scientific Theology trilogy, A. McGrath, discussing the possibility of natural theology, questioned the permissibility of using the keyword "natural". McGrath makes an accurate observation: the word "natural" itself is saturated with so many meanings, and also so culturally loaded, that

Macintosh J.J. 24. Boyle on Atheism. P. 162 - 3.

Gregory F. 25. Intersections of Physical Science and Western Religion in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries // The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 5/Ed. Nye M. J. Cambridge, 2003. P. 53.

26. Science and Religious Belief 1600 - 1900. P. 125 - 6.

page 26
There is hardly any solid foundation on which "natural" theology can be built. In some respects, Boyle would agree with this reasoning. Since then, however, the concept of "natural" has become even more controversial - due to human intervention. Science played a key role here. Think, for example, about our biotechnologies, about genetic engineering, changing, improving a person and even setting a goal to give him immortality.

The irony is that ambitious dreams of extending human life were part of an alchemical tradition in which Boyle was very interested. Moreover, Boyle was fully aware of the ambiguity of the words " natural "and" nature": he even wanted to stop using them altogether. This meant finding replacements for all the usual cases. Instead of referring to the "nature" of the body, Boyle used the term "essence." If the word "nature "was used in the sense of" world "or" universe, " then he preferred to use these words themselves. If by "nature" we mean the established order of things, then why not say so?

At the same time, the word "nature" was especially difficult to combine with Christianity. There was a general notion of " nature "as a subject capable of doing this or that: Aristotle's natural philosophy said that"nature is afraid of emptiness." But, Boyle protested, "nature" cannot be an agent, a kind of person with definite intentions. It is in this context that the word "nature" should be replaced with the word "God" in order to emphasize the difference between the Creator and his creation. The amazing word "de-deification" has sometimes been used to describe the expulsion of false gods from the world - a kind of purification of creation in order to make mechanistic science possible. Of course, the word "nature" did not go out of use after Boyle's criticism, but at least he realized the problem and raised the alarm.

Conclusion

I'm not saying that we should go back to Boyle for a better understanding of the world. Those who today turn to the theory of "intelligent design" to fill in the gaps in the neo-Darwinian picture of evolution, in my opinion, are seriously mistaken.

page 27
There is much in Boyle's moralizing that would sound sanctimonious to a modern man. Most of his scientific achievements were eclipsed by Newton. His legacy, however, is far more substantial than the fifty pounds a year Boyle bequeathed to organize the lectures that bear his name. His promotion of the experimental method had far-reaching consequences. And there was something in Boyle's work that many will say we have sadly lost: an enduring sense of the wonder of nature and the ability to pass that feeling on to future generations. Boyle bequeathed us a vision of the world that is contrary to modern stereotypes, in which there is a place for both empirical science and religious faith, a place for a mechanistic universe and for a belief in providence. He had a special gift for finding concepts that overcome the opposite point of view, both in the theory of matter and in theology. 27 He considered himself a peacemaker, and that is why the lectures that bear his name should not touch on the contradictions between Christians. The desire to mediate wherever possible was a trait of his personality that he was well aware of: "I like to speak about people correctly, and about things as I see fit," because "the hostile and insulting tone of writing is not appropriate for a philosopher and a Christian."28 This is a worthy legacy, and the example of a generous peacemaker has never been more necessary than today.

Translated from English by Alexey Appolonov

Bibliography

Boyle R. The Works of Robert Boyle/Ed. Michael Hunter and EdwardB. Davis. 14 vols. London: Pickering and Chatto, 1999 - 2000.

Brooke J. H. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Brooke J. H. "Laws impressed on Matter by the Creator?" The Origin and the Question of Religion//The Cambridge Companion to the "Origin of Species"/Eds. Robert J. Richards and Michael Ruse. Cambridge University Press, 2009. P. 256 - 74.

Davis E.B. 27. "Parcere nominibus": Boyle, Hooke and the Rhetorical Interpretation of Descartes. P. 157 - 75. Wojcik J. Robert Boyle and the Limits of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Davis E.B. 28. "Parcere nominibus": Boyle, Hooke and the Rhetorical Interpretation of Descartes. P. 166.

page 28
Brooke J. H. Should the Word Nature be Eliminated?//Ed. James D. Proctor. Envisioning Nature, Science & Religion. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2009. P. 312 - 36.

Brooke, J.H., Cantor G. Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science and Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Cantor G. Boyling Over: A Commentary// British Journal for the History of Science. 1999. Vol. 32. 1999. P. 315 - 24.

Davis E.B. "Parcere nominibus": Boyle, Hooke and the Rhetorical Interpretation of Descartes//Michael Hunter (ed.). Robert Boyle Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. P. 157 - 75.

Gaukroger S. The Emergence of a Scientific Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Goodman D. C. (ed.). Science and Religious Belief 1600 - 1900: A Selection of Primary Sources. John Wright in association with the Open University Press, 1973.

Gregory F. Intersections of Physical Science and Western Religion in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries //Mary Jo Nye (ed.). The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 5. 2003. P. 36 - 53.

Hall M.B. Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Harrison P. The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Harrison P. The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hooykaas R. Robert Boyle: A Study in Science and Christian Belief/Foreword by John Hedley Brooke and Michael Hunter. Lanham: University Press of America, 1997.

Hunter M. Alchemy, Magic and Moralism in the Thought of Robert Boyle // British Journal for the History of Science. 1990. Vol. 23. P. 387 - 410.

Hunter M. (ed.). Robert Boyle Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

HunterM. (ed.). Robert Boyle by his Friends and Himself. London: Pickering, 1994.

Hunter M. Robert Boyle (1627 - 91): A Suitable Case for Treatment?//British Journal for the History of Science. 1999. Vol. 32. P. 261 - 75.

Hunter M. Boyle: Between God and Science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009.

Kenny Ch. Theology and Natural Philosophy in Late Seventeenth Century and Early- Eighteenth-Century Britain. PhD Dissertation, University of Leeds, 1996.

Macintosh J.J. Boyle on Atheism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.

McGrath A. A Scientific Theology: Vol. 1 Nature. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.

McGrath A.A. Fine-Tuned Universe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Osier M. J. Whose Ends? Teleology in Early Modern Natural Philosophy//John Hedley Brooke, Margaret Osier and Jitse M. Van der Meer (eds.). Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. P. 151 - 68.

Polkinghorne J. Beyond Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Principe L. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and his Alchemical Quest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Rattansi P.M. The Social Interpretation of Science in the Seventeenth Century//Peter Mathias (ed.). Science and Society 1600 - 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. P. 1 - 32.

page 29
Richards R.J. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and its Moral Purpose//Robert J. Richards and Michael Ruse (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the "Origin of Species". Cambridge University Press, 2009. P. 256 - 74.

Shapin S.A. Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Shapin S., Schaffer S. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Stewart M.A. (ed.). Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979.

Ward K. The Big Questions in Science and Religion. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2008.

Wojcik J. Robert Boyle and the Limits of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

page 30

Permanent link to this publication: