Adora

What exactly does the "etc" encompass? Because you never really replied to my explanation of the Mayan maths & science for one. I also challange your use of the word "science" so loosely.

Bede

Adora, your example was exceptionally poor, not backed up by any references and simply stated the Maya had a good calander. That's not science. If they had a theory that explained how the planets went around the sun that they tested empirically, then I'd be interested, but their cosmology was not scientific.

Same goes for whoever mentioned Aristarchos. Yes, he said the earth might go around the sun. But he had no evidence for this, he didn't supply a way to test his hypothesis and all his fellow pagans thought the idea was silly anyway. It's not science to sit around and speculate, even if your specualtion is proven right two thousand years later. Nor is it science to gather the names of all the plants that grow near you, nor is it science to figure out how long the year is. Nor is pure maths science. All these things can lead to science and in Western Europe you could argue they helped do just that. But science is more than these things - it is what started to be practiced in seventeenth century Europe. As I've said, this isn't controversial and I'm not going to argue about it.

Gregor, given you have read nothing Copernicus or Keplar wrote, and have read no scholarship on either of them, you can think what you like. It'll be wrong and I'll pardon you for being wrong. But do try and think a bit outside the box.

Anyway, I note that all the best people who posted and moderated have gone off somewhere more interesting, or are about to. So if you'll excuse me, I'll go join them.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Goliath

Bede,

You still have not pointed to a proof of the claim "Without Christianity (or another religion doing the same job) you wouldn't have science." Without this claim, the rest of your arguments in this thread would seem to crumble.

So, are you going to give a proof, or will you concede?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vorkosigan

Such proof is not forthcoming, Goliath, because no such case can be made. Eventually the pendulum will swing back; it will occur to someone that Christianity and science are fundamentally in conflict, which is why the majority of scientists are not Christians, that the majority of Christian areas of the world never discovered science, and the things identified by Bede earlier in the thread, the lawfulness of nature, etc, are all innate to humans through evolution rather than Christianity, and that to see Christianity as causitive is to mistake an effect (the constant reconfiguration of theology in light of factual knowledge and social change) for a cause. The real reasons science grew up in the nations of the West were due to a series of historical accidents that occurred after the 12th century, from the rise of Europe as a global power, to the importation of ideas and technology from China, to the fragmented political situation, and including, of course, the monumental failure of Christianity as a guide to ethics, history, and the nature of reality.

The irony of Bede's reponses is how poor they are. Consider:

No kidding. It is precisely because Newton had a lively mind that he explored the world around him, both his theological and his physical worlds. But the time and energy he spent on theology and religious history was almost completely wasted; if only he had spent it working on something concrete and useful.....

...and more importantly religion was not the cause of Newton's desire to explore his world. Newton got that in his genes from his primate forebearers. Rather, religion was the way Newton and the others who had thought about the world represented their activities to themselves and others in their society. This was a vital rationalization program all had engage in, since the new Mechanistic philosophy was so threatening to religion (as all recognized), and much ink was spilled reconfiguring both God and science so they could live with each other, a crucial activity for Newton, a heretic and alchemist (and possibly homosexual to boot) with an obsessive interest in the occult and prophecy. Even today science has to be constantly buffered in the same way, in case the unwashed masses realize that their world has no gods. This process of reconfiguring theology to meet social change is normal and nature, but it is not causitive in the sense that Bede means.

When? January? I am currently busy with projects that will take me through the beginning of January. However, mid-January might be a good time. What should be the statement at issue be? Something like:

...Christianity was a significant factor in the rise of science...

but that is too vague. Let's nail it down some.

Vorkosigan

Goliath

Vork,

Sadly, I suspect you're right. The least that Bede could do is be grown-up enough to concede defeat.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Nomad

I believe that this claim is the main thesis of the book that Bede has recommended. He has asked others to read it, and then let us know what they think of it.

Are you going to read the book or not?

Nomad

Goliath

No. At least not until Bede actually summarizes the arguments therein, or (gods forbid) actually think on his own and produce a proof right here.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Toto

I do not think that this claim is the main thesis of the book Bede has mentioned. He has yet to finish reading it himself or actually recommend it.

But I might be wrong.

I am under the impression that the 2nd chapter of the book claims that Christianity or Christian theology of the middle ages was the proximate cause of the scientific revolution, but not that it was a necessary cause in all possible worlds that might have existed. And it is not clear what part of Christian theology was necessary - presumably not the Nicene creed.

Several people on this thread have indicated they will read it. We can wait for one of them to report back as to whether the book proves its case or is worth reading.

mike_decock

[ModHat] Goliath, disparaging Bede in this manner doesn't contribute to this discussion. He's got an uphill battle to fight against popular opinion on Christianity vs. Science. There's no need to abandon civility in a disagreement or a request for a summary of his arguments. [/ModHat]

Thanks,

-Mike...

Nomad

Goliath had asked Bede to provide a proof that without Christianity, we would not have had science. From the OP Bede quotes the book as saying:

In this chapter, I argue not only that there is no inherent conflict between science and religion, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. (emphasis in the original)...

If it is not the main thesis, then it is certainly an important part of the book. This is what prompted me to ask Goliath if he was going to read it. Apparently he is not.

Well, I don't know about "all possible worlds" since that is pretty much an intellectual chimera, but as for all the types of worlds we have ever had, only one seems to have produced science, and the worldview that dominated it was Christian. In his posts Bede suggests that a Jewish worldview might have produced a similar result, and this strikes me as plausible, but untestable.

If the rebuttal is that science may have arisen in a hypothetical society that human beings have never created, I see no way to test such a theory. Theories typically have to work with what we can observe and test, and the fact remains that science as we understand it has happened once. This historical anomily is worth examining to see what causal factors lay behind it, and among those factors we would begin with what was unique to the period in question.

Alternative theories are welcome, of course, but thus far I haven't seen any being offered. Moreover, I have not seen a detailed critique of Stark's own thesis, and I do believe that this is what Bede was looking to see.

Good. I am also curious to know if Stark's book has been submitted to any academic journals, and what sort of reviews have been found there.

Nomad