All of us have been raised in modern society, which is dominated by one particular school of thought. We have been taught from our youth that the world is composed of invisible bodies, called “atoms”, which explain the behaviors of all natural objects we see, feel, tasks, hear and smell. This worldview is so pervasive that few, if any, can even think of an alternative. Yet, for most of world history, this worldview was never held by wise men.
Let’s be clear: The existence of atoms is not a scientific fact. The existence of atoms is a theory used to explain what is observed in the natural world. It is, however, only one possible explanation. Aristotle, for example, did not use the theory of atoms to explain the material world, but taught that four elements — earth, water, air and fire — possess certain qualities and motions and that the mixture of these elements in the material world can explain all of the phenomena we observe. Most importantly, he taught that these four elements were given their qualities by “Nature” (i.e., God), and that this is the reason why things are the way they are: they were made to be so.
Modern scientists refuse to acknolwedge the power and will of a Creator in their theories because their worldview holds that anything that can be explained materially, without any reference to immaterial influences, should be explained so. This is called “Naturalism” or “Materialism” and is a philosophical position baseed on assumptions that are not “scientific” but philosophical. Many Christians feel unfortable listening to materialists because they do not have God in their thoughts. There are serious negative consequences of such a world view, particularly when we consider morality. Modern science has no moral philosophy to offer.
So, how would Aristotle, or St. Thomas Aquinas explain natural phenomena?
Well, let’s begin with the basics. Aristotle taught that the four elements have proper places in nature, based on their qualities. “Earth” is dry, cold and heavy. “Fire” is dry, hot and light. “Fire” rises away from the center of the world and “Earth” falls toward it. “Water” is moist, cold and heavy relative to “Fire”, but light relative to “Earth”. “Air” is light relative to “Earth” and “Water”, but heavy relative to “Fire”. Thus, the four elements have proper places in nature:
- Fire
- Air
- Water
- Earth
When these elements are in their proper place, they may be said to be “at rest”. When these elements are not in their proper place, they naturally move toward their places, and this motion is responsible for the activity that occurs in the natural world.
In the world around us, we observe a seemingly infinite number of material objects and, if we focus on their individual qualities, we may find the variety overwhelming. Wise men, however, choose to focus not on the unique properties of material things, but on their common properties, by which they may be divided into certain classes. When we learn of the qualities of the classes of things, we understand the characteristics of all the individual members of each class. This is an efficient and useful kind of knowledge. The trivial knowledge of individuals is impossible to collect and is, therefore, larely useless.
The individual material objects we see, whether stones, metals, celestial bodies, plants, or animals, are composed of mixtures of the four elements and are constantly in “motion”. By “motion” we do not simply mean movement from one place to another, but any kind of change. Some objects may appear to be unchanging, but they are changing in some way and to some degree. All natural objects are in motion in this sense because they are composed of mixtures of the four elements, which are seeking to move to their natural places.
Modern scientists like to speak of objects in the natural world as if they are unchanging things. This is an overly simplistic view of things and a fault of modern science. Scientists speak, for example, of a “man”, but deny that a developing fetus is a “man”. If a developing human fetus is not a “man”, then what is it? Is a newborn child a “man”? a toddler? a teenager? a young man? an old man? a dead man? What, exactly, makes a man “man”? And, how are we to understand “man” in these different states of life? Moreover, if a man has only one arm, or cannot see, or is metally handicapped, is he still “man”? How do we determine what is “normal” when we observe individuals
Ancient natural philosophy has an easy explanation of the complexity in nature, but modern science does not. Modern science relies on oversimplification, often reducing objects and circumstances to unnatural laboratory conditions which do not accurately represent the complexity of “real life”. Ancient philosophy does not seek to explain what is observed in an artificial environment, but what exists in nature, as it does so.
But what about atoms? Haven’t scientists proven that atoms exist?
The answer is, “No.”
But what about the “atomic” bomb? Don’t “nuclear” weapons and “nuclear” energy prove that atoms exist?
The answer is, “No.”
Good scientists will refer to teaching about atoms as “atomic theory”. A theory is, by definition, not an observable, scientific fact. A theory is an explanation for observed facts, an attempt to explain the cause of the effects we can perceive. The problem with theories is that there are almost always a number theories that can explain what is observed, that is, the “facts” or “data”. If two different theories can explain the data, they are both, as far as the evidence is concerned, acceptable.
Scientists may set up criteria that they believe recommends one theory as “better” than another, but these are not necessary. One such criterion is “Occam’s Razor”, which argues that “The principle that in explaining anything no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.” ((Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Occam’s razor (n.),” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4132404086.)) Another criterion is “consensus”, which means “agreement on some particular theory or approach” ((Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality (University of Chicago Press, 2021), 308)), where a theory is said to be better because it is held by most or all “scientists”. These are reasonable suggestions for determining which of a number of possible theories is best, but they are not necessary or true.
Atomic theory is an attempt to explain what is observed and it is best to consider a few examples to show that, while it may be helpful, it is not necessary.
Let’s consider the rusting of iron. When water and oxygen are mixed in the presence of iron, the iron is changed and a small amount of heat is given off. If we ask, “What is the cause of this change?” a materialist may explain the phenomenon as follows:
“Iron is first oxidized to iron (II) ions by oxygen. In the second step, the iron (II) ions are further oxidized and combine with water and oxygen gas to produce a hydrated form of iron (III) oxide known as rust.” ((https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/22%3A_Oxidation-Reduction_Reactions/22.05%3A_Corrosion))
This explanation, of course, is theory. It is not false, but it is also not necessarily true.
The phenomenon may also be explained with Aristotelean natural philosophy as follows:
Iron, which is composed of a mixture of the elements (predominantly Earth), reacts with a liquid which is predominantly Water, and air, which is predominantly Air. This mixture causes a change, producing what is called “rust” and releasing some Fire.
This, the materialist might argue, is simply a description of the event, which does not explain why the change occurs. The philosopher will respond by saying that the change occurs because of the Nature of the elements as they are mixed together in the substances.
The materialist will argue that this explanation does not go far enough, but the philosopher will argue that it is sufficient for the end of such an investigation, which is man’s happiness. The philosopher will argue that further investigation will not lead to any certainty and, therefore, is unwise. The materialist will argue that this knowledge is the end of investigation and here the philosophical disagreement between the two is revealed.
But what about atoms? Again, doesn’t the atom bomb or the nuclear power plant prove the existence of atoms?
The answer is, “No.”
If we were to ask what happens in a so-called “nuclear reaction”, a scientist might respond as follows:
”
