55
current in European scientific circles, but its representatives undoubtedly enjoyed
considerable popularity.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the criticism of materialism was passionate
and widespread when Secchi discussed the subject of faith and science, forming the
backdrop to almost all of his reflections. With regard to materialism and its interpretations, it is worth mentioning the peculiar reading that Fredrich Engels (1820–1895)
gave of Secchi’s work L’unità delle forze fisiche (1864, second edition 1874). Engels
believed that Secchi’s vision demonstrated the plausibility of the idea of an eternal
and self-sufficient nature, the basis of nature’s dialectical materialism. It is true that
starting from the equivalence between mechanical energy and caloric energy, and
observing the close correspondence between chemistry and light radiation, Secchi
had affirmed the reducibility of radiation and electricity to motion. Likewise, in
Secchi’s opinion, the atomic structure of matter, based on attractive and repulsive
interactions, showed that every form of energy could be reduced to motion. He
writes in the Preface of his first edition (Secchi 1864: 9):
The great discovery that currently concerns all men of science, and illustrates our time, is
the mechanical theory of heat, for which this agent is reduced to a simple mode of movement. The purpose of this work is to present the basis of this theory and to extend its applications to imponderable forces [light and magnetism] and to all other physical forces.
Secchi’s program of proposing a unified theory of motion that included all physical forces is seen by Engels as a theoretical framework able to justify that the energies of matter are, by themselves, forces capable of sustaining the physical cosmos
and determining its evolution in time. In Engels’ Dialectic of Nature Angelo Secchi
earns 11 different citations; among scientists, only Darwin, Newton, and von
Helmholtz are cited more often. Engels quotes Secchi more frequently than Galileo.
The German philosopher mistakenly believed that he could attribute to Secchi
the idea of the indestructibility of motion and matter, thus affirming the eternal dialectical cycle of nature. The epistemological correctness with which Secchi does not
mix the transcendent First Cause with the secondary causes, and does not invoke
any mechanical interventions by God Creator to allow the universe to function, is
taken instead by Engels as a confirmation of the irrelevance of the hypothesis of
“God” and, therefore, a proof of his nonexistence. Engels joked about this (Engels
1967: 214–215):
God is nowhere treated worse than in the pages of scientists who believe in him... Father
Secchi bows Him [the Creator] out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but nonetheless categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative
act as regards the primordial nebula.
Actually, Secchi is very clear on this point: reducing the whole structure and energy
of the cosmos down to motion does not mean that matter is sufficient, by itself, to
understand the physical universe. When matter is separated from intelligence and
intentionality, from a principle of creation, then it remains insufficient in itself. The
reference to a Creator, which Engels considers only a useless appendix, is instead
for Secchi something substantial, the ultimate reason for the understanding of the
cosmos, and the origin of all things.
3 Between Science and Religion: Angelo Secchi and his Time
current in European scientific circles, but its representatives undoubtedly enjoyed
considerable popularity.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the criticism of materialism was passionate
and widespread when Secchi discussed the subject of faith and science, forming the
backdrop to almost all of his reflections. With regard to materialism and its interpretations, it is worth mentioning the peculiar reading that Fredrich Engels (1820–1895)
gave of Secchi’s work L’unità delle forze fisiche (1864, second edition 1874). Engels
believed that Secchi’s vision demonstrated the plausibility of the idea of an eternal
and self-sufficient nature, the basis of nature’s dialectical materialism. It is true that
starting from the equivalence between mechanical energy and caloric energy, and
observing the close correspondence between chemistry and light radiation, Secchi
had affirmed the reducibility of radiation and electricity to motion. Likewise, in
Secchi’s opinion, the atomic structure of matter, based on attractive and repulsive
interactions, showed that every form of energy could be reduced to motion. He
writes in the Preface of his first edition (Secchi 1864: 9):
The great discovery that currently concerns all men of science, and illustrates our time, is
the mechanical theory of heat, for which this agent is reduced to a simple mode of movement. The purpose of this work is to present the basis of this theory and to extend its applications to imponderable forces [light and magnetism] and to all other physical forces.
Secchi’s program of proposing a unified theory of motion that included all physical forces is seen by Engels as a theoretical framework able to justify that the energies of matter are, by themselves, forces capable of sustaining the physical cosmos
and determining its evolution in time. In Engels’ Dialectic of Nature Angelo Secchi
earns 11 different citations; among scientists, only Darwin, Newton, and von
Helmholtz are cited more often. Engels quotes Secchi more frequently than Galileo.
The German philosopher mistakenly believed that he could attribute to Secchi
the idea of the indestructibility of motion and matter, thus affirming the eternal dialectical cycle of nature. The epistemological correctness with which Secchi does not
mix the transcendent First Cause with the secondary causes, and does not invoke
any mechanical interventions by God Creator to allow the universe to function, is
taken instead by Engels as a confirmation of the irrelevance of the hypothesis of
“God” and, therefore, a proof of his nonexistence. Engels joked about this (Engels
1967: 214–215):
God is nowhere treated worse than in the pages of scientists who believe in him... Father
Secchi bows Him [the Creator] out of the solar system altogether, with all canonical honours it is true, but nonetheless categorically for all that, and he only allows Him a creative
act as regards the primordial nebula.
Actually, Secchi is very clear on this point: reducing the whole structure and energy
of the cosmos down to motion does not mean that matter is sufficient, by itself, to
understand the physical universe. When matter is separated from intelligence and
intentionality, from a principle of creation, then it remains insufficient in itself. The
reference to a Creator, which Engels considers only a useless appendix, is instead
for Secchi something substantial, the ultimate reason for the understanding of the
cosmos, and the origin of all things.
3 Between Science and Religion: Angelo Secchi and his Time