Bede

Vork,

I have answered your points ages ago and get rather bored of doing so over and over again.

On the church impeding science, I said in the last thread:

I am not willing to type all this out the whole time but as you posted on that thread, I assume you had read it. The conflict hypothesis is dead. Period. There were isolated cases where the church and science argued but in general the church did not impede science.

On China, here's what Needham said about the lack of the realivant metaphysical system that Christianity provided in Europe:

Needham is on my side, Vork.

Your point about Newton wasting his brilliance is completely anachronistic. Has it not occured to you that, in his own time, only because Newton was the kind of guy who wrote so much on theology was he the kind of guy who could produce such great science. That is my point. Without Christianity (or another religion doing the same job) you wouldn't have science and so you wouldn't be moaning that Newton spent too much time on Christianity.

I apprecaite you can list a whole load of factors that may or may not have had an effect. That's child's play. What you have not done, and I have, is set out why a particular factor, demonstrably lacking in the other candidate civilisations, was able to produce results. You have not backed up your assertins with scholarship or with reference to the way that your factors effected particular individuals. I have done all these things. Perhaps you can do the same - it would make an interesting debate.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: The h-word is outlawed now.

Goliath

Could you please point out where you have proven this?

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Goliath

joedad

Okay. You realize, of course, that wrt your larger claim, you are concluding that the influence of the deity waned because of the influence of the deity.

What you are seeing at this time in human history is greater reliance on, and acceptance of, the scientific method. I don't know how you'd go about quantifying the degree to which the scientific method gained some kind of critical mass, but that's what you'd have to do for your thesis to hold water, and then relate that back to belief in the religious Jesus character.

Anyhoo, I figured I'd go back through your posts and see where you distinguished science from modern science. It's not a pretty picture, Bede. You start out not talking about modern science but about science. You say and you quote in your OP:Your second post:And later:Finally, half way through this thread you state:Why didn't you say you were talking only about modern science right up front, as it's obvious, and as others have pointed out, that your Jesus character could not possibly have influenced some of the science that occurred earlier?

But even having said that you go on to state to Vork:Unless you chew your argument finer, I don't see it going anywhere. It's not a can of worms. You simply need to talk about science or modern science or the scientific method, and do it right up front.

I have Stark's book coming BTW. I will be interested to see whether he explains himself on this point, and also whether he connects it all back to a Jesus.

Nomad

Umm... is anyone on this thread (besides Bede) going to actually read the book mentioned in the OP, and then comment on it?

Nomad

Toto

Hi Nomad - the book is new. Bede started this thread before he read the book, but I expect others will get copies and read it. Have you read it?

Bede

joedad,

I have explained what I mean by science before on these boards. I have also been consistant in explaining that Greeks etc did not have science. Sorry if this can be confusing but I do get fed up with repeating myself. However, Stark does cover this point in detail in his book.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

gregor

The arguments in favor of Xian fostering of science have problems.

First, there's the "no true scotsman" error. It can be found by attributing some action to "true Xian scholars". Hence, if you held to dogma or persecuted someone for a scientific belief, you either weren't a true Xian or weren't a true scholar.

Second, moving the goal posts. It can be found in saying "science" isn't science until we say its science. Thus, Archimedes cannot be considered a scientist, despite his tremendous strides in mathematics, technology, and etc. because we say its not science.

Finally, those supporting the thesis loose the entire argument when they say:

"Christianity (or another religion doing the same job)"

That really wraps up this thread then, doesn't it. It basically turns the argument into "Any belief system that is endemic to western Europe encouraged the growth of science." No one has ever demonstrated a series of unique arguments that Xianity, as opposed to another belief system, was the catalyst. How monotheism, as opposed to polytheism, made a difference is surely impossible to prove.

How fixity of natural laws (setting aside intercessory prayer, of course) sprange from Xianity within, rather than being imposed upon Xianity from without, has not be satisfactorially proven.

Finally, I welcome anyone's suggestion on a good biography of Roger Bacon. I've only read around the edges for Rog. I am curious about the papacy's rejection of his requests to repair calendrical errors for 318 years, the bases for his imprisonment for apparently encouraging scientific inquiry, and etc.

Thanks

joedad

Where? Just one place will suffice. I honestly can't recall your ever having made the distinction before.Where? I would be very interested to hear this explanation. This is central to my last post, and would have made it unnecessary possibly.Well, wherever it is I want to read it, even if it's at your link. The only reason for my post is because I can't recall your having done this before. Maybe Toto or someone else has the info.Decent. I'll be looking for this when the book eventually comes in. Meanwhile, how about a link?

Nomad

I'm afraid that science is not even close to my strong suit, so in the past I have tended to avoid books like this. That said, I have ordered one called Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr, and I am looking forward to reading it.

My question on the thread had been prompted by an apparent unwillingness of the members to agree that they would actually read the book that was the subject of Bede's OP, and that puzzled me. We all begin with our prejudices, of course, but one learns by examining the arguments of those who may well have a different view, and has the evidence to support some of their claims. At that point we can then decide if the evidence and arguments are persuasive enough to have us change our minds, or if they contain flaws that make them unconvincing. A refusal to even consider the arguments, however, appears close minded, and that is troubling.

Peace,

Nomad

Bede

I never said this. I am fully aware that Christians disagree and take different things from their faith. Slavery/anti-slavery is a case in point. I have not made the no true Scotsman error because I have never said "Ah, but they weren't real Christians." It is Ipetrich who has been saying this but from the other direction.

As I have said before, it is universally accepted by historians of science that the discipline we cal science did not exist in ancient Greece, Islam or even the Middle Ages. That is why we all talk about the scientific revolution which is when modern science was supposedly born.

This is not what I said. I said that any belief system that had the special characteristics that Christianity had could have done the same job.

From the last thread:

Given you posted on that thread I thought you might have read this.

More disappointment, I'm afraid. This is yet another myth. There is no evidence he was imprisoned for apparently encouraging scientific enquiry and precious little evidence he was imprisoned at all. Try the introduction to David Lindberg Roger Bacon and the Origins of "Perspectiva" in the Middle Ages.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: joedad, hard to find much with the search engine sulking. Try the OP to this thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=67077