Writing a Thesis: Are Elements Still Elements? Why It Matters

Join me while I hide out and write 60+ pages about elements.

I’m back! And I’m so happy. The Spring semester was busy. I teach online science and theology courses at three Catholic institutions, Seton Hall University, Holy Apostles College & Seminary, and Belmont Abbey College. The adjunct’s freelancing lot in academia means that I piece together a teaching schedule without benefits or job security, but my only responsibility is to develop courses in learning management systems and teach students, which I dearly love to do. In total, I taught five courses and, because a woman can never have enough degrees, took two courses toward a second master’s degree in systematic philosophy. I started this degree in the Fall of 2022 and plowed through. My big, crazy, wonderful family means offspring spring in all directions all the time, so all together life is chaotic and great. This summer? It’s going to be even busier. For one, I will write a thesis as the final requirement for my philosophy degree.

I decided to make the thesis project fun. At my supportive husband’s urging, I am zooming off in style to a mysterious location where I will invest seven days alone with my laptop to write with full focus and, hopefully, graduate this summer. Pressure’s on! The thesis must be written this week. I am teaching five courses again and have every week packed with speaking engagements, events, and trips with family. I won’t have time later. To help me focus during this intense week, I want to log the thesis in real time because I find the writing process fascinating. No matter how much I plan, research, think, pray, (scream), and outline, I never end 100% where I expect. Articulating ideas in writing makes me see things like never before. So, I am going to write about that here — the writing experience.

My thesis is titled, "Are the Elements Still Elements? Why It Matters." In my isolation, I will enthusiastically embark this week on a comparison of the classical elements (CE) as Aristotle and Aquinas understood them (earth, water, air, fire) with the modern elements (ME) on the periodic table, to answer the question whether the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion still applies, and if so, how.

Why does it matter? If the two views of elements are compatible, and I think they are with some modifications and expansions that do not disrupt what is essential to Aristotelian natural philosophy, then formal and final causality are included in our assessment of nature down to the smallest particles. I need to get into elementary particles and how they are different from elements, but my focus is on the elements of the periodic table. Once the foundation is laid, we can move into the theology of creation, one that also accommodates some of the mechanistic views of modern science. AT philosophers and theologians are not fond of mechanism, but I think it has a place as well. I certainly won’t solve all the problems, but I’ll count it as success if I can pull the veil back even a little.

All of this is just a fancier way of saying what I've been saying for a decade: Science is the study of the handiwork of God.

I plan to post daily while I am hiding and writing this week, not what I am writing, as that will be published later, but what I am thinking and doing as I write. This Substack is intended to engage atheists, so atheists be warned. If I am successful, then you must admit the existence of God because of science. How’s that for a teaser? But seriously, whether you agree with me or not, my goal is to make sense. I don’t see the point of scholarship unless it is something people want to (and can) read. Me = not the supercilious esoteric type. If I love what I write, and God knows I love atoms, then it should be readable, and you should come to love it in your own way too. Reading should never waste your time.

My purpose, then, is twofold. Not only do I challenge myself to rethink everything I thought I knew about elements, but I also challenge myself to write in a way that is clear and compelling for anyone, the scientist, the philosopher, the believer, the atheist, and whoever wants to know more and is willing to learn a little chemistry, physics, philosophy, and theology. It is tricky. Basic equipage is necessary to build the case, but the descriptions must be delivered without boring you to death. Can I write explanations of hylomorphism and substance that will benefit skilled philosophers, even as they hold me to accuracy? Can I write about textbook 101 science lessons in a way that educated scientists will see things anew? Will non-scientists get excited about confronting new language and ideas? All of us are entering the story of nature somewhere between the extremes of utter ignorance and absolute omniscience, so it is good to take inventory before synthesizing ideas together. First principles give life to new ideas.

There are always unexpected turns. The writing process promises to be frustrating and rewarding. I hope you'll follow along and be part of this project with me. Invite friends. You can leave a comment or message me directly if you have suggestions, ideas, objections, advice, whatever. Time to break it down!