What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise
Charles Babbage (1791-1871) was an English mathematician, philosopher and mechanical engineer who invented the concept of a programmable computer. From 1828 to 1839 he was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, a position whose holders have included Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking. A proponent of natural religion, he published The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837 as his personal response to The Bridgewater Treatises, a series of books on theology and science that had recently appeared. Disputing the claim that science disfavours religion, Babbage wrote 'that there exists no such fatal collision between the words of Scripture and the facts of nature'. He argues on the basis of reason and experience alone, drawing a parallel between his work on the calculating engine and God as the divine programmer of the universe. Eloquently written, and underpinned by mathematical arguments, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise is a landmark work of natural theology.
- GenresPhilosophy
252 pages, Paperback
First published October 27, 1967
About the author
Charles Babbage
110 books23 followersBritish mathematician Charles Babbage invented an analytical machine, based on similar principles to those that modern computers use.
This English philosopher and mechanical engineer originated the concept of digital programming. Some persons consider Babbage a "father" and credit him with the first that eventually led to more complex electronic designs but find all essential ideas in his engine. His varied work in other fields led to his described "preeminence" of his century.
The science museum in London displays incomplete parts of Babbage. From original plans of Babbage, people in 1991 constructed a functioning difference engine. Built to achievable tolerances in the 19th century, the success of the finished engine indicated that Babbage worked.
This English philosopher and mechanical engineer originated the concept of digital programming. Some persons consider Babbage a "father" and credit him with the first that eventually led to more complex electronic designs but find all essential ideas in his engine. His varied work in other fields led to his described "preeminence" of his century.
The science museum in London displays incomplete parts of Babbage. From original plans of Babbage, people in 1991 constructed a functioning difference engine. Built to achievable tolerances in the 19th century, the success of the finished engine indicated that Babbage worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
March 15, 2025
AN ‘UNAUTHORIZED’ ADDITION TO THE EIGHT TREATISES
Mathematician Charles Babbage wrote this book in 1837 as a response to the eight Bridgewater Treatises (and particularly the volume by William Whewell, ‘Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology’), which were funded by Francis Henry Egerton, the Earl of Bridgewater. The Bridgewater Treatises were written by eight scientists "to lend scientific support to belief in the existence of deity.” (Was Babbage perhaps miffed at not having been one of the eight scientists invited to write a Bridgewater Treatise? 1000 copies of each of the eight volumes was to be printed, and all profits were to go to the authors…!)
Babbage wrote in an introductory section, “I think it necessary to state distinctly what appears to me the relative position of the subjects in discussion. First, the truths of pure mathematics are necessary truths… Secondly, the laws of nature… depend, in many instances, on the testimony of the senses. These derive their highest confirmation from the aid of pure mathematics… Thirdly, The truths of natural religion also rest on the testimony of our external senses, but unite with that internal consciousness of intention or design which we experience in our own breast… Fourthly, Revealed religion rests on human testimony; and on that alone. Its first and greatest support arises from natural religion.”
He provides an illustration using the example of his ‘Calculating machine’ [about which he says in the Appendix, “About the year 1821, I undertook to superintend, for the Government, the construction of an engine for calculating and printing mathematical and astronomical tables”], “The first engine must be susceptible of having embodied in its mechanical structure, that more general law of which all the observed laws were but isolated portions---a law so complicated, that analysis itself… can scarcely grasp the whole question. The second engine might be of far simpler contrivance… capable of receiving the laws impressed upon it from without, but is incapable … of changing… those laws by which it acts. Which of these two engines would… give the higher proof of skill in the contriver?” (Pg. 40)
He states, “it was not the intention of the writer of the book of Genesis to assign this date [‘about six thousand years ago’] to the creation of our globe, but only to that of its most favored inhabitants… by the plainest principles of common sense… there exists no … fatal collision between the words of Scripture and the facts of nature.” (Pg. 64-65) Later, he adds, “whilst the testimony of Moses remains unimpeached, we may also be permitted to confide in the testimony of our senses.” (Pg. 71)
He argues, “it is more consistent with the attributes of the Deity to look upon miracles not as deviations from the laws assigned by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind; but as the exact fulfillment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose to exist.” (Pg. 92)
He says of Hume’s argument against miracles [i.e., ‘no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish’], “when the terms in which it is expressed are understood, [it] immediately commands our assent… The only sound way of trying the validity of this assertion is to MEASURE the numerical value of the two improbabilities… and to ascertain whether … it is possible to fulfill that condition by any finite number of witnesses.” (Pg. 122-123)
He adds, “provided we assume that independent witnesses can be found of whose testimony it can be stated that it is more probable that it is true than it is false, we can always assign a number of witnesses which will, according to Hume’s argument, prove the truth of a miracle.” (Pg. 131)
He summarizes in the chapter on ‘Future Punishments’: “Whether, then, we regard our future prospects as connected with a far higher acuteness of our present senses---or, as purified by more exalted moral feelings---or, as guided by intellectual power surpassing all we contemplate upon earth, “we equally arrive at the conclusion, that the mere employment of such enlarged faculties, in surveying our past existence, will be an ample punishment for all our errors; whilst on the other hand, if that Being who assigned to us those faculties, should turn their application from the survey of the past, to the inquiry into the present and to the search into the future, the most enduring happiness would arise from the most inexhaustible source.” (Pg. 165-166)
He concludes, “I have brought from the recesses of that science the reasonings and illustrations by which I have endeavored to embody the human conception of Almighty mind. It is for you to determine whether the trains of thought I have excited have lowered or exalted your previous notions of the power and the knowledge of the Creator.” (Pg. 172)
Not quite up to the level of the eight original Treatises, this book is still a ‘classic’ of Natural Theology.
Mathematician Charles Babbage wrote this book in 1837 as a response to the eight Bridgewater Treatises (and particularly the volume by William Whewell, ‘Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology’), which were funded by Francis Henry Egerton, the Earl of Bridgewater. The Bridgewater Treatises were written by eight scientists "to lend scientific support to belief in the existence of deity.” (Was Babbage perhaps miffed at not having been one of the eight scientists invited to write a Bridgewater Treatise? 1000 copies of each of the eight volumes was to be printed, and all profits were to go to the authors…!)
Babbage wrote in an introductory section, “I think it necessary to state distinctly what appears to me the relative position of the subjects in discussion. First, the truths of pure mathematics are necessary truths… Secondly, the laws of nature… depend, in many instances, on the testimony of the senses. These derive their highest confirmation from the aid of pure mathematics… Thirdly, The truths of natural religion also rest on the testimony of our external senses, but unite with that internal consciousness of intention or design which we experience in our own breast… Fourthly, Revealed religion rests on human testimony; and on that alone. Its first and greatest support arises from natural religion.”
He provides an illustration using the example of his ‘Calculating machine’ [about which he says in the Appendix, “About the year 1821, I undertook to superintend, for the Government, the construction of an engine for calculating and printing mathematical and astronomical tables”], “The first engine must be susceptible of having embodied in its mechanical structure, that more general law of which all the observed laws were but isolated portions---a law so complicated, that analysis itself… can scarcely grasp the whole question. The second engine might be of far simpler contrivance… capable of receiving the laws impressed upon it from without, but is incapable … of changing… those laws by which it acts. Which of these two engines would… give the higher proof of skill in the contriver?” (Pg. 40)
He states, “it was not the intention of the writer of the book of Genesis to assign this date [‘about six thousand years ago’] to the creation of our globe, but only to that of its most favored inhabitants… by the plainest principles of common sense… there exists no … fatal collision between the words of Scripture and the facts of nature.” (Pg. 64-65) Later, he adds, “whilst the testimony of Moses remains unimpeached, we may also be permitted to confide in the testimony of our senses.” (Pg. 71)
He argues, “it is more consistent with the attributes of the Deity to look upon miracles not as deviations from the laws assigned by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind; but as the exact fulfillment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose to exist.” (Pg. 92)
He says of Hume’s argument against miracles [i.e., ‘no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish’], “when the terms in which it is expressed are understood, [it] immediately commands our assent… The only sound way of trying the validity of this assertion is to MEASURE the numerical value of the two improbabilities… and to ascertain whether … it is possible to fulfill that condition by any finite number of witnesses.” (Pg. 122-123)
He adds, “provided we assume that independent witnesses can be found of whose testimony it can be stated that it is more probable that it is true than it is false, we can always assign a number of witnesses which will, according to Hume’s argument, prove the truth of a miracle.” (Pg. 131)
He summarizes in the chapter on ‘Future Punishments’: “Whether, then, we regard our future prospects as connected with a far higher acuteness of our present senses---or, as purified by more exalted moral feelings---or, as guided by intellectual power surpassing all we contemplate upon earth, “we equally arrive at the conclusion, that the mere employment of such enlarged faculties, in surveying our past existence, will be an ample punishment for all our errors; whilst on the other hand, if that Being who assigned to us those faculties, should turn their application from the survey of the past, to the inquiry into the present and to the search into the future, the most enduring happiness would arise from the most inexhaustible source.” (Pg. 165-166)
He concludes, “I have brought from the recesses of that science the reasonings and illustrations by which I have endeavored to embody the human conception of Almighty mind. It is for you to determine whether the trains of thought I have excited have lowered or exalted your previous notions of the power and the knowledge of the Creator.” (Pg. 172)
Not quite up to the level of the eight original Treatises, this book is still a ‘classic’ of Natural Theology.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review