In his A defence of free-thinking in mathematics. In answer to a pamphlet of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, intituled, Geometry no friend to infidelity , George Berkeley challenges what he considers the idolatry of Isaac Newton that he finds in some of his contemporaries. He admires Newton’s genius, but refuses to bow. Along the way, he becomes an early sociologist of science:
“In my opinion the greatest men have their Prejudices. Men learn the elements of Science from others: And every learner hath a deference more or less to authority, especially the young learners, few of that kind caring to dwell long upon Principles, but inclining rather to take them upon trust: And things early admitted by repetition become familiar: And this familiarity at length passeth for Evidence. Now to me it seems, there are certain points tacitly admitted by Mathematicians, which are neither evident nor true. And such points or principles ever mixing with their reasonings do lead them into paradoxes and perplexities . . . . And if by vertue of some latent errour in his principles a man be drawn into fallacious reasonings, it is nothing strange that he should take them for true: And, nevertheless, if, when urged by perplexities and uncouth consequences, and driven to arts and shifts, he should entertain some doubt thereof, it is no more than one may naturally suppose, might befall a great genius grappling with an insuperable difficulty.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Science
Continue reading related articles

Corruption of Science
The world’s most interesting man, Matthew B. Crawford, offers a brilliant and chilling diagnosis of “How Science Has Been Corrupted” at UnHerd . The hinge of his analysis is the “dissonance between our idealised image of science, on the one hand, and the work ‘science’ is called to do in…

Evolution 2.0
Perry Marshall’s Evolution 2.0 is a devastating critique of Evolution 1.0, the neo-Darwinian theory Marshall summarizes in the equation, “Random mutation + natural selection + time = Evolution.” His critique focuses primarily on the “random mutation” factor. Scientists have experimented on fruit flies for decades. By causing mutations through radiation,…

Clapping Trees
Do trees clap their hands at the coming of the Lord? (Isaiah 55:2). Do they really ? We instinctively think not, and quickly classify such passages as literary personifications or anthropomorphic metaphors. Perhaps, writes Mark Harris in an essay in Knowing Creation , we’re too hasty. What’s the alternative? One,…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.