joedad

In this thread of Bede's he asserted that christianity was necessary for the rise of modern secular science in Europe. There were, obviously, other influences, but perhaps Bede's assertion is not so far off the mark.

In my view, christian monotheism greatly simplified the practice of religion. No longer were there deities and spirits for all occasions and all things, deities that needed to be venerated, and which, if we are willing to admit, took time and resources away from other pursuits. All soteriology aside, the existence of a single deity could now account for everything, and most importantly, everything physical.

Additionally, this one remaining deity remained a rather indescribable entity, which provided lots of metaphysical wiggle room.

Is it possible that this characteristic of christianity did indeed have an effect on the emergence of modern secular science? In pagan circles, monotheism certainly had to be viewed as a radical, rather leftist style religious practice. But after centuries of persecution by christians against pagans, effectively removing pagan influence from the pursuit of religion generally, modern secular science had a chance to emerge.

All I'm really saying is that christian Europe demonstrated the ability to free itself from beliefs concernng the existence of countless and varied deities. Having done this, and considering the entire human religious experience, is it really that much of a surprise that Europeans were ultimately able to add one more deity to that list?

Family Man

I don't doubt that Christianity had an effect; it was simply too pervasive at the time not to. And clearly science did develop, so religion certainly wasn't fatal (or even necessarily hostile) to it. My critique of Bede's position basically falls into three categories.

1. The relationship is more complicated than he is willing to point out. In some ways, Christianity may have been helpful. But there is a clear degree of discomfort between religious beliefs and scientific theories. One of the things I learned from the Numbers/Lindberg book is that some religionists rejoiced at some twentieth century developments -- relativism, quantum theory, and the Big Bang -- because they felt that the uncertainty in these theories gave more room for God that the old mechanistic theories. (Why this should be, I don't know, for I don't consider God of the Gap arguments to be persuasive). In short, in some ways Christianity may have helped, but it other ways it certainly hurt.

2. It isn't clear to me that it was religion moulding science as much as it appears that science was moulding religion. There were theologies developed that were friendly to science, but only after the power of science had become apparent. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, very common in historical circles. For example, did Henry Ward Beecher preach about the virtues of the wealthy because that's what Christian theology lead him to, or did he preach it because his parishioners were rich? We have the same problem here. Did Christian theology lead to science, or did science cause Christians to reorder their theology?

3. How do we know that Christianity was required at all? If man had certain knowledge that there was no god, wouldn't his natural curiosity had lead to science anyway. I see no clear reason to assume a supernaturalist religion such as Christianity to be a necessary requirement for the development of a naturalistic science.

In other words, when Bede says that the conflict between science and religion is greatly overstated by some, I have to agree. When he says that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite, I'm far more skeptical.

Toto

Perhaps Christianity led to the emergence of modern science because many Christians do not take their religion very seriously? The multiple warring sects of Christianity probably aided that point of view.

Certainly monotheism is not unique to Christianity. And if you think that Christian monotheism led to science by clearing away the clutter of multiple deities, you still have to explain the Christian doctrines that involve angels and demons, and the multiple saints who are venerated.

Bede

I'm pretty sure science is not going to go all the way under a polytheistic worldview (most Greek thinkers were either atheists or monotheists) but hadn't previously considered this angle. I suppose its probably true although I'd like to be more positive!

To family man: We can see that theology was not (initially) molded by science because Robert Boyle, say, was saying pretty much the same thing at the end of the 'scientific revolution' that Cuthbert Tunstall, say, was saying at the beginning of it. Theology doesn't start to change for science's sake until well into the eighteenth century with the natural theology of William Paley and friends. At that point, as science breaks out and becomes a free standing secular subject, theology does start to adjust to the new kid on the block.

As an aside on the mythical conflict, I've just had a review accepted by an academic journal. The editor had one suggestion - at the beginning I reherse the fact that the historical conflict thesis is bunkum. He suggests removing this passage as it is too obvious to be worth mentioning.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

joedad

But the "scientific" water and the "religious" water are both being drawn from the same well, and always have been. That well is the society that is expressing these behaviors.

The point which I failed to make clear and which I think you've overlooked is that this European piece of that larger human society had progressed to the point where, religiously and behaviorally speaking, it had concluded that there weren't thousands of deities, but rather only one, and it was quite a fuzzy one at that. Such a development owes neither to science nor religion alone, but rather to both and more. Bede would have us believe that it owes to religion alone, and in his case to a particular wavelength in that religious spectrum.

Modern secular science was the next logical step and not a surprising development considering how far this society had come with respect to deities. From a standpoint of human history and religious beliefs, it appears clear that christian monotheism was literally a step the underlying society had taken toward secularism and atheism.

NOGO

I do not believe that the number of Gods increase the time spent on religion.

The Catholic church replaced all those Gods with saints.

I tend to believe that Christians have spent far more time and energy on their faith than pagans did on theirs.

The evidence for this can be seen in the fact that Christians converted all of Europe and tried to convert all the world. That certainly takes time and energy.

Family Man

Joedad --
I'm not sure that they were mining from the same vein. In fact, I personally think that is one of the reasons that science and religion was often seen as compatible -- much of science does not have theological consequences. Where there was theological conflict -- say with heliocentrism, mechanism, or evolution -- we do see conflict. I am very wary of attempting to equate religion and science or the notion of replacing the former with the latter. Religion can't be replaced science -- it can only be replaced by non-religious philosophies. Science is an influence, of course, but it is inadequate as a complete philosophy.

Bede, I'm don't think it follows that, because the same thing was said at the beginning and end of the scientific revolution, that they weren't influenced by secular thinking. You'd have to say that they weren't influenced by secular thinking from the start. In other words, there was a major change of thinking that led to the scientific revolution -- what caused it? It can't simply be assumed that it was Christian theology. It has to be shown that it could only have been Christian theology. I haven't seen such a demonstration yet.

gregor

If the debates on this topic have taught anything, it is that the answer is unknowable.

For every Jesuit conducting research, there is a St. Augstine saying studying the scientific world is foolishness. For every Diminutive Dennis (working on the calendar), there is a Francis Bacon who is persecuted for lack of orthodoxy. Those who take a position on either side (assistance versus hindrance) each have insurmountable hurdles.

mike_decock

I'm in the same camp here.

I think the conflict theory has been exagerrated. I think Christianity was, for the most part, indifferent about science. So indifferent that they ignored it for centuries.

I also don't think you can claim that "modern science" was so unique without downplaying how advanced ancient Greek science really was. They were just a hair short of an industrial revolution 2,000 years ago. If Heron had combined his steam powered toy with Ctesibius' piston pump, we probably would have had steam cars, trains and mills by the second century. Heron's mechanical designs weren't matched for some 1,500 years. All this in a highly polytheistic culture.

-Mike...

Bede

Where does Augustine say this please?

How was Francis Bacon persecuted?

B