lpetrich

Rodney Stark's position about modern science is that it had had its origins in medieval theology / philosophy. However, medieval philosophers had been strongly influenced by the works of the likes of Plato and Aristotle, who had never even heard of Jesus Christ, let alone believed in him.

I think that such influence is reasonable to suspect, because the God of the Bible is depicted as continuously intervening, and not some lazy lawgiver who goes off somewhere and retires. And being a lazy lawgiver is a bit like being Aristotle's God, who seems content to be a cosmic mainspring.

Also, saints were celebrated for working miracles, not for understanding natural laws. St. Genevieve, for example, was celebrated for miraculously calming storms (she'd pray, and the storm would go away), rather than for predicting the weather.

Gooch's dad

I'm curious how someone could possibly reconcile scientific inquiry, which assumes a constant universe that is subject to rational inquiry, with Christianity. After all, the God of Christianity apparently interfered in the workings of the universe at many times in the past, and according to Jesus' commands to his disciples, this God will continue to allow physical laws to be violated if his believers simply pray and have faith.

If a God can willy-nilly violate the laws of physics through miracles, what is the point of trying to characterize the universe at all?

Kelly

Bede

Christian intellectuals have always recognised that miracles are rare and hence do not interfere with trying to understand the background reality. On the other hand, Christianity insists that God is NOT capricious or subject to mood swings. Consequently, they were confident (as they said over and over again) that the laws He had ordained were fixed and hence were worth finding out about.

Ipetrich makes the same mistake when he thinks that a deistic God is the only one that can allow natural laws. It is not hard to see that miracles are not taking place much at all and that they are rare. However, the constancy of natural laws does require God to maintain them in existance - otherwise chaos would result. Aristotle's prime mover did not create the world and hence it is not responcible for natural laws - it is merely keeping the universe going. Plato's demiurge did make this world but out of pre-existant chaos that was not fully subject to its will. Christians rejected both these models for an all-sovereign lawful and constant God who created a universe after his own character - that is lawful and constant.

I appreciate that much of this sounds odd compared to pop Christianity that a lot of us are used to. But we are not talking about that. Science grew out of the work of scholatics who were intellectuals with a much subtler vision of religion than hoi polloi of today (or then, for that matter).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Gooch's dad

Bede, on what basis did Christian intellectuals make this assumption? This sounds like science progressed in the West in spite of the obvious teaching of Jesus in the gospels, where he told his followers that they would be able to do all the great works (miracles) that Jesus himself performed.

On the other hand, Christianity insists that God is NOT capricious or subject to mood swings.

And how does Christianity insist this? Which bible verses support this? If you can find any such thing and shoehorn it into a justification for non-capriciousness of the Christian God, then how can you reconcile it with the obvious capriciousness of the OT God, and Jesus himself? The fig tree story is an example of a capricious nature if ever I've seen one.

Kelly

joedad

Your last sentence is central to your thesis, and appears to me to beg the question.

I see the christian deity being constructed from scientific discovery, rational thought, reason, human rights, which have been long emerging in the human record. You see these things being constructed from a christian deity because you say this deity created the universe according to its own character, which is lawful, ordered, constant, etc. Well, duh!

I'd have to get the book to see how the author documents the latter wrt science in Europe at this time, but your argument appears to presuppose what it's trying to demonstrate, and only after the fact, science being the fact.

Also, you're attempting to isolate Europe and the emergence of science proper from the rest of the human record. Do you see that as honest?

lpetrich

Bede:
Christian intellectuals have always recognised that miracles are rare and hence do not interfere with trying to understand the background reality.

That might be true of Bedianity, but it was not true of much of Xtianity -- consider what saints are celebrated for. Miracles. Lots of miracles. In fact, one cannot become a saint unless one has worked some miracles.

Consider the recent beatification (not beautification!) of Mother Teresa and the controversy over that Monica Besra miracle. If the Church considered natural-law understanding more important than miracle-working as a sainthood criterion, they would have made an issue out of her competence in medicine or whatever.

On the other hand, Christianity insists that God is NOT capricious or subject to mood swings.

That may be true of the God of Bedianity, but it is not true of the God of the Bible.

Consequently, they were confident (as they said over and over again) that the laws He had ordained were fixed and hence were worth finding out about.

However, natural laws were apparently made to be broken.

Ipetrich makes the same mistake when he thinks that a deistic God is the only one that can allow natural laws. It is not hard to see that miracles are not taking place much at all and that they are rare.

This making the Bedian God very close to the Deist God.

However, miracles were apparently common enough in centuries past for the Bible's writers and for saint biographers to write about them. And also for numerous other historians to do so. Richard Carrier has some nice discussions of pagan miracles.

However, the constancy of natural laws does require God to maintain them in existance - otherwise chaos would result.

I don't see how that is supposed to be the case. But then again, I am not a Bedian.

Aristotle's prime mover did not create the world and hence it is not responcible for natural laws - it is merely keeping the universe going.

As the First Cause; it was Aristotle who had invented the First-Cause argument.

Plato's demiurge did make this world but out of pre-existant chaos that was not fully subject to its will.

However, Plato's Demiurge gives form to formless matter -- form that can include natural laws.

I appreciate that much of this sounds odd compared to pop Christianity that a lot of us are used to. But we are not talking about that. Science grew out of the work of scholatics who were intellectuals with a much subtler vision of religion than hoi polloi of today (or then, for that matter).

But "pop Christianity" is essentially most of it, saints and miracles and Bible-banging and all. Which is why I use the term "Bedianity" for what Bede is pushing.

CX

I think it would serve the purposes of discussion better if neutral terms were used rather than those derived from the personalities on the forum.

Thanks

CX - BC&H Moderator

Bede

Gentlemen,

1) The Catholic tradition (and we are talking about medieval Catholics) does not depend on the bible alone but on the twin pillars of the Bible and tradition handed down through the church. The bible is only to be interpreted through that tradition. It is no use saying that isn't True Christianity as that is what medieval scholastics believed and we are talking about medieval scholastics. Your experience of modern American evangelicals is useless in trying to understand intellectual Christianity of the Middle Ages.

2) I find the term Bedianity grossly offensive. It also personalises the argument and should not be used.

3) Historians of Science (rightly) accept that modern science did not arise anywhere other than Western Europe. It did not exist in Greece, Rome, China or Islam. As Edward Grant writes: "It is indisputable that modern science emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else." Historians who disagree with this place the genesis of science as late as the 19th century because only then did it become a secular activity. This is a given and if you disagree go and read some basic textbooks.

4) Some proof texts actually quoted by the scholastics and later: Psalm 119:89-90, Wisdom 11:20.

5) Thinkers were clearly motivated by their religion: as Bonaventure wrote the purpose of natural philosophy was so that "God may be honoured". Charles Webster writes "It would be perverse to deny the religious motivation in the numerous cases where this was made explicit by the scientists themselves, often with painful emphasis."

6) Remember most of what you thought you knew about the history of science and Christianity is false. The church didn't support the flat earth, it didn't prevent human dissection, no scientist was attacked for scientifc views before Galileo and none afterwards either. The Dark Ages were not caused by Rome turning Christian and didn't happen anyway. The Middle Ages were an age when reason was enthroned and revered. The Renaissance was not anything but a logical continuation of the Middle Ages. Copernicus was not placed under any pressure at all. No one was ever executed over science. The church did not deliberately impede science. These matters are simply not up for debate among modern historians. The entire conflict hypothesis is built on nineteenth century lies and misunderstanding the case Galileo.

I do understand that the rationalist myth is a powerful one. There is also a belief that you can't give an inch to Christianity and the idea that it helped foster rationalism's greatest triumph is unthinkable. But tough. It happened and the greatest test for the rationalist is to look beyond their prejudices and accept truth however unpleasant. Most Christians learnt this a long time ago and its about time you did too.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

mike_decock

I started reading Thomas Paine's The Age Of Reason after reading most of this thread. I was surprised to see that as early as 1794, Thomas Paine was claiming that "porters and partisans of the Christian system, as if dreading the result, incessantly opposed, and not only rejected the sciences, but persecuted the professors". That seems to go against your claim that developed in the nineteenth century.

Was the conflict hypothesis a new concept to Paine and his contemporaries or is it evident in any earlier writings?

-Mike...

joedad

Bede,

Minor quibble, maybe minor.Are you making a distinction between "science" and "modern science?" If so, please explain that difference so that I can better understand your argument and then focus on your main points.