Atomism: The Intersection of Philosophy and Science
Before atomism assumed its place as a fundamental scientific construct in the seventeenth-century, it had functioned as a philosophy with moral and ethical dimensions for centuries. If science is to be a cornerstone of classical Christian education, it is vital that we be familiar with the history and theological implications of atomism.
What is Atomism?
Most sources assert that atomistic philosophy began with Leucippus of Miletus in the 5th century BCE. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests that atomism may have originated with Mochus of Sidon, a Phoenician living at the time of the Trojan Wars and, if correct, this means that atomism originated in the 12th or 13th century BCE. Whatever the time of its precise origin, Leucippus’ commitment to the philosophy is established and it was his student, Democritus (“The Laughing Philosopher,” 460-370 BCE), who typically receives credit for more fully developing the philosophy.
According to Democritus, the universe is composed of only two things: atoms and void. The major tenets of Democritean atomism are as follows:
All matter is composed of atoms and atoms are indivisible. In fact, the term atom comes from the Greek a-tomon meaning uncuttable. Furthermore, atoms come in a variety of shapes and sizes and are in constant motion.
Every point in space is either absolutely empty (void) or absolutely full.
The only agents of causation are the mechanical forces that either bring atoms together or separate them. This feature of atomism is a characteristic of mechanical determinism. In general, determinism, which comes in forms other than mechanical, states that all events are the result of previous events. In mechanical determinism, all events have a mechanical cause. Succinctly, the motion of any atom is the product of a prior collision with another atom.
Atoms aggregate in various ways to form the objects making up the visible world. Leucippus and Democritus believed that “sensations and thoughts are alterations of the body” that “take place by the impact of images from outside. Neither occurs to anyone without the impact of an image.” Thus, a ball rolling across the floor can be observed because the ball sets in motion atoms that ultimately reach the observer’s eyes. When a collection of atoms falls apart, the object ceases to be (dies).
The Problems with Democritean Atomism
Because Democritean atomism attempts to explain everything observed as a product of atoms in motion, it is considered both materialistic and reductionist. Materialism maintains that any observation can be explained solely in terms of matter and the laws of nature. Consequently, materialism- and atomism by extension- makes no provision for special creation, the soul or purpose in life. And, because Democritean atomism uses a single cause, the motion of atoms, to explain a plethora of observations, it is reductionist. According to Lawrence M. Principe, “Democritus is not merely saying that there are atoms; he is saying that there are only atoms and that everything in the universe can be explained by the motion of matter.”
Origins of Epicurean Atomism
History records that Epicurus (341-271 BCE) was introduced to Democritean atomism by Nausiphanes, a student of Democritus. Epicurus was not a natural philosopher, but a moral philosopher who viewed atomism as a means to achieving tranquility. Benjamin D. Wiker summarizes the relationship between Epicurean philosophy and atomism as follows:
Epicureanism is, then, a way of life seeking a universe to support it. Epicurus employs the atomistic materialism of Democritus, not because he has empirical evidence that it is true but because it fits his ethical goal of freedom from disturbance.
Life, Pain and Death According to Epicurus
Epicurus believed that anxiety was the primary obstacle to happiness so the objective of his philosophical system was a happy, tranquil life characterized by peace and freedom from fear. The basics of Epicureanism can be found in Epicurus’ Tetrapharmakos (Greek for four-part cure):
Don't fear god;
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get;
What is terrible is easy to endure.
Death and the possibility of divine judgment are tremendous sources of anxiety, yet Epicurus says not to worry about these things. Epicurean atomism remedies the fear of death by asserting that everything- including the soul- is made of atoms and disintegrates at death. And, if the soul disintegrates along with the body at death, then the fear of death and divine judgment is baseless. In Epicurus’ own words, “Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.”
Despite eliminating the afterlife, Epicurus makes it clear in the first line that gods exist. However, according to Epicurus, the gods are composed of atoms like ordinary men with one notable difference; the atoms making up the gods never disintegrate so the gods never die.
With no role to play in the non-existent afterlife of man, what, if any, role do the gods play in the lives of men? According to Epicurus, the gods play no role at all in the daily affairs of men. The gods are the epitome of tranquility and the only way for them to maintain their tranquility is to be totally indifferent to the affairs of men. If they cared about men, they’d forfeit their tranquility. Therefore, since the gods are indifferent to men, men needn’t be fearful of the gods.
Ethically, the Epicurean system is predicated upon the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Pain disrupts tranquility and when Epicurus writes, “What is terrible is easy to endure,” he is addressing pain and man’s fear of it.
Epicurus identified two types of pain: unavoidable and avoidable. Unavoidable pain is caused by disease or injury. According to his Tetrapharmakos, “Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.” For example, the extreme pain associated with a broken limb lasts for a very brief time so it can be endured. On the other hand, the intensity of long duration pain- chronic pain- is easily endured and the pleasures of life will ultimately exceed it.
It was Epicurus’ assertion, however, that most pains are self-inflicted and, thus, avoidable. All too often human pain is a product of either overindulgence or overexertion. Although now synonymous with hedonism, Epicureanism was initially ascetic in practice. The man who writes, “To whom a little is not enough, nothing is enough. Give me a barley-cake and water, and I am ready to vie even with Zeus in happiness." also writes “What is good is easy to get.”
The overt atheism of atomism coupled with the hedonistic excesses of some Epicureans following the death of Epicurus would make atomism distasteful to Christians for centuries.
A Christian Response to Epicurean Atomism
Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:18
The possible meanings of the Greek word translated conversed range from to meet, to converse, to encounter in a hostile sense and even to fight. It is not only possible, but probable, that this was an intense exchange because Paul was proclaiming a radical message that conflicted with Epicureanism in every respect. As he “preached unto them Jesus,” Paul may have included words akin to those recorded in John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Indeed, the Epicureans would have considered a god who cared enough to intervene in the affairs of man a “strange god.” And an Epicurean would consider Paul a “babbler” for preaching that the son of that god forfeited his own tranquility to come to earth, suffer and ultimately die. Would the response to the resurrection have been any different?
Somewhere around 60 A.D. the Apostle Paul encountered materialistic philosophers who denied the existence of a loving God, denied the afterlife, and taught that life was devoid of meaning and purpose. His response was to preach Jesus and the resurrection to his opponents.
Approximately twenty centuries have elapsed since Paul encountered the Epicureans of Acts 17:18 and materialistic philosophy saturates thought now more than ever. Shouldn’t our response be similar to the Apostle Paul’s? Shouldn’t we winsomely and articulately share Jesus with today’s Epicureans?