Monotheism and the laws of physics

I read a while ago an interesting hypothesis, and it went something like this:

Without a society intimately acquainted with the idea of monotheism, people would not have started studying the laws of physics.

The argument was essentially, in a polytheistic society people would not believe in any universal laws. If Zeus were to declare that no particle may travel beyond the speed of light, there would be nothing stopping Aphrodite from creating horneons that travel at 1.3c. The physical universe is not bound by absolute laws, but rather is an expression resulting from the compromise of many different systems.

But in monotheism, the universe is viewed differently. It is viewed as the expression of a single system based on a single set of rules laid down by a single entity. No conflict means that these laws are consistant, and only if they are consistant would they be worth investigating.

That is the argument. A few points, if I may:

1) I get what the argument is saying, and agree that it is plausible. I'm not 100% sold on it though

2) Studying the laws of physics is a distinct statment from studying sciences. It is possible to pursue biology, chemistry, engineering, even physics like mechanics, without investigating the existance or properties of universal laws.

3) The idea that there are physical laws is not necessarily an inevitable conclusion. Indeed, there is no proof that the laws of physics as we know them are in fact universal. We operated without the idea for a long time quite successfully. The idea of universal laws has been helpful in the sciences but then so have computers - doesn't mean each and every possible science-minded society is guaranteed to discover them.

4) Atheist scientists would not believe in a polytheism, but the way they see the universe would still have been shaped by a society that does. Freedom from the belief does not guarantee freedom from the bias.

Discuss.

Without people who were affected with OCD's at some level, we wouldn't have had any scientists.

This kind of thing is always interesting, but I don't know how meaningful it is, because you're coming up with explanations for history, rather than setting out a theory that can be tested.

Suppose the laws of physics had been developed in a polytheistic culture. Today we'd be reading about how polytheism was conducive to science, because in monotheism everything is in the hands of a dictatorial god, and you don't get the quizzing and competition of ideas that is vital to science.

First off, I'm going to disagree that the other sciences the OP mentions lack a reliance upon physical laws. Just for an example: Simply trying to understand how and why a steam engine works, so one can better design later engines for efficiency, safety and durability is going to require a grounding of the laws of Thermodynamics. In particular, conservation of matter and energy in systems is absolutely vital, and then becomes useful in biology and chemistry as well.

Whether the idea of universal laws would come without monotheistic thinking, I can't say. I wouldn't care to wager much against it, though.

Odd, the Greeks seem to make some excellent early strides under a polytheistic belief system. I believe the Mayans and Chinese can also be pointed to for early success. At least a few of our principle laws of science date back to the Greeks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

The argument was essentially, in a polytheistic society people would not believe in any universal laws. If Zeus were to declare that no particle may travel beyond the speed of light, there would be nothing stopping Aphrodite from creating horneons that travel at 1.3c. The physical universe is not bound by absolute laws, but rather is an expression resulting from the compromise of many different systems.

---

I'm fairly sure the Greeks didn't actually think that way, though. Instead, they believed that their gods were as constrained by universal principles as mortals. Gods were still subject to fate, for example; and their respective powers and dominions were fairly well-defined.

In other words, Aphrodite wouldn't be able to allow particles to travel faster than light, because that would be Hermes' turf as god of swiftness. So even if the laws of nature are controlled by a bunch of different gods, each law is arbitrated by a single god, and thus would be just as consistent as under monotheism.

Quote:

---

But in monotheism, the universe is viewed differently. It is viewed as the expression of a single system based on a single set of rules laid down by a single entity. No conflict means that these laws are consistant, and only if they are consistant would they be worth investigating.

---

Actually I believe this very point was a big source of conflict at the dawn of the Scientific Revolution. The church didn't accept the idea of universally consistent physical laws, because that would leave no room for miracles. After all, what is a miracle if not a violation of physical law? Monotheism doesn't necessarily imply consistent physical laws any more than polytheism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by terrifel

The church didn't accept the idea of universally consistent physical laws, because that would leave no room for miracles. After all, what is a miracle if not a violation of physical law?

---

These two sentences, while just fine in isolation, are uneasy bedfellows. If there be no consistent physical laws, what is there to violate in the event of a miracle? You may disbelieve that Christ walked upon the water; but it would be silly to argue that those who believe in such things do so because they think any Tom, Dick or Harry might perhaps walk on the water at any time for no real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Richard ffoulkes

These two sentences, while just fine in isolation, are uneasy bedfellows. If there be no consistent physical laws, what is there to violate in the event of a miracle? You may disbelieve that Christ walked upon the water; but it would be silly to argue that those who believe in such things do so because they think any Tom, Dick or Harry might perhaps walk on the water at any time for no real reason.

---

Yes and no; rather, they think any Tom, Dick, or Harry might walk on the water at any time, if God wills it.

My point is that this attitude wouldn't necessarily have presented any more of a problem for polytheism than for monotheism. For example, the ancient Greeks also believed that Orion could walk on water; but this didn't mean they were any more likely than a Christian to try the trick themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by terrifel

Yes and no; rather, they think any Tom, Dick, or Harry might walk on the water at any time, if God wills it.

My point is that this attitude wouldn't necessarily have presented any more of a problem for polytheism than for monotheism. For example, the ancient Greeks also believed that Orion could walk on water; but this didn't mean they were any more likely than a Christian to try the trick themselves.

---

If that's your point then good luck to you, and I don't necessarily disagree; but the sentences I quoted and discussed didn't address this, nor does your reply contradict what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Richard ffoulkes

If that's your point then good luck to you, and I don't necessarily disagree; but the sentences I quoted and discussed didn't address this, nor does your reply contradict what I said.

---

In that case, I misunderstand your original objection. The OP suggests that in monotheism, "no conflict means that these laws are consistent, and only if they are consistant would they be worth investigating." But if those laws are broken by divine fiat, they are not consistent, regardless of whether one god or many are performing miracles.

Good discussion, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

First off, I'm going to disagree that the other sciences the OP mentions lack a reliance upon physical laws. Just for an example: Simply trying to understand how and why a steam engine works, so one can better design later engines for efficiency, safety and durability is going to require a grounding of the laws of Thermodynamics. In particular, conservation of matter and energy in systems is absolutely vital, and then becomes useful in biology and chemistry as well.

---

It's possible to observe that, for example, heat seems to always flow with a temperature gradient without extrapolating it into a universal law.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by terrifel

Actually I believe this very point was a big source of conflict at the dawn of the Scientific Revolution. The church didn't accept the idea of universally consistent physical laws, because that would leave no room for miracles. After all, what is a miracle if not a violation of physical law? Monotheism doesn't necessarily imply consistent physical laws any more than polytheism.

---

I believe that is somewhat correct - a Newtonian, mechanical universe was a large part of the disagreement as it left no room for a) free will b) God changing his mind or c) miracles that violate the laws of physics. But a miracle need not be a violation of physics - a grown man walking on water and water => wine are physically possible, just not typical, and a universe governed by physical laws but with inherent uncertainties still gives room for God to do his thang.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

If Zeus were to declare that no particle may travel beyond the speed of light, there would be nothing stopping Aphrodite from creating horneons that travel at 1.3c.

---

Sure there would be. For one thing, Zeus was sovereign. By Homer's time, Zeus's power was conceived of as being greater than Aphrodite's, or that of any other Olympian's.

For another thing, though Zeus outstripped his fellows, his power was not illimitable, nor was he considered to have existed for an infinite amount of time. Put another way, the universe itself had rules that Zeus could not contravene; these were expressed in the form of the Fates. The notion of there being limits beyond anyone's control fits better with a polytheism than a monotheism.

Thirdly, I don't think the ancient Hebrews thought of their God as being either unique in his class or infinite in his power; just the mightiest of his class.