When Aquinas sought for a unification of faith and reason in thirteenth century Christian
thought he believed he was opening up the minds of Christians, in a sense strengthening the
basis of his religion. The Church leaders of his day knew better and many condemned his
writings. To little avail, however, because reason was the thought of the day and no amount of
dogmatism was going to keep it out. Because Aquinas could not believe that it was possible for
reason to contradict revelation, he could not see the danger in it. But it was not contradiction
that led to the downfall of the schoolmen, it was their endless and futile harangues, and the
irrelevance of their ideas in the newly developing western world, that led Descartes in the
seventeenth century to attempt to cleanse his religion of these useless arguments. Like Thomas
before him Descartes did not believe that reason could contradict revelation and thus he believed
that what he was attempting to do was the right thing to do as a Christian. The
Church fathers of
his day knew better and many condemned his writings.
There is no other way to approach Descartes thought. It is Christianity first and science second
that he was trying to further in his revolt against scholasticism. But it was more than a simple
revolt. It was an attempt to keep his Catholic beliefs from being overcome by the force of the
new scientific natural laws. This is true in spite of the fact that he never considered for a
moment that there was any conflict between science, reason, and revelation. Any other point of
view will miss important and relevant points in Descartes philosophy. At the same time we can
say without contradicting what I just stated, that Descartes represents both a culmination of the
past, the very scholastic philosophy he condemned, and the seeds of the future, the assimilation
of natural law into western culture. His approach to knowledge was to lead philosophy into new
realms, realms that he would never have thought possible.
What I want to stress is that though Descartes search for indubitable truth had more to do with
three centuries of scholastic wrangling than it had to do with the furthering of science, his
method formed a cornerstone of both modern science and modern philosophy. That although he
complained that Galileo was spending too much time looking at individual events and not
enough analyzing the reasoning behind them, he was still the first philosopher to reject the
Greek approach of searching for the explanation of things in their reason for being. Though he
never gave Galileo credit for this advance in thinking, his method parallels Galileo. While
Galileo found his path to truth through conjecture and experimentation, and Descartes through
pure reasoning, both followed Galileo's lead and started from the beginning, to efficient causes.
Descartes faulted Galileo for not searching reasoning to determine why such laws as he
discovered should hold.