Amaleq13

Bede,


You wrote:
You removed any objection I might have with this significantly altered restatement of your premise. You were free and clear of all my pesky criticism. But then you had to repeat your earlier error with the following example:
You are fine with the above until you claim that the car crash was a "necessary cause" of Bob's death. As you observed, he could have died by any number of alternative means but the car crash was the actual cause. It is a mistake, however, to go beyond that to assert it was also a "necessary" cause. You seem to be confusing "actual" with "necessary". I think you could make a good case for the claim that Christianity was an actual cause but unless you can argue (and you have already admitted you cannot) that Christianity was the only possible cause, you cannot claim that it was a "necessary" cause.

Using the word "necessary" in describing a cause means that it is the only possible cause of the given result. For example, striking the heel of Achilles was a necessary cause of his death because no other cause could have obtained that result. When you say that the car crash was the necessary cause of his death, you are denying that any other cause could have accomplished the same result. Otherwise, it wouldn't qualify as "necessary".

I'm not expecting a public acknowledgement of this error or anything like that but I'm sure as hell not going to accept criticism for identifying such a blatant logical flaw in your original argument. The argument, as it was originally stated, was clearly fatally flawed. The subsequent restatemen lacks that flaw and will obtain no objection from me.

Bede

I am happy to accept Amaleq13's analysis that 'necessary' might be the wrong word and substitute 'actual'. This kind of argument on definitions is of no interest to me so I'll use whatever form that it is felt expresses my ideas best.

B

Family Man

Bede --

First, I think Amaleq adequately answered your Bob analogy. No one in his right mind would say that the car crash was the necessary cause of Bob's death. They would simply say that it was the cause of his death. To say that Christianity was a necessary cause of science implies that without Christianity science would not have existed. You can argue that Christianity was the cause, but that is not the same as saying it was a necessary cause. Some of the more questionable statements made aside (which would have probably been best ignored) the criticism was legitimate.

And it isn't clear to me what you're disagreeing with. Yeah, Christianity is pervasive, but the existence of something doesn't mean it caused everything. The central point of my disagreement with you is that you find Christianity causal, while I find it reactive. Yeah, you could say that Christians won the argument. But on the other hand, Christians simultaneously lost the argument. And as I pointed out, and you have left unchallenged, it is more likely that positions were taken for reasons unrelated to Christianity, and the positions were then conformed to the prevailing religious belief. It is utterly inadequate to say that participants in movement X were Christians, therefore movement X must have been caused by Christianity. It simply doesn't follow.

As for humanism, I threw that out as a thought, but I'd need to read up on the subject before I make any definite statements about it. The reason, however, that I throw it out is that I seem to remember that a major philosophical tenet of humanism was that the study of man and the world around him was a proper study for man, in opposition to the scholastic tradition of God-centered scholarship. Thus, if I have this right, it is not much of a leap from humanism to the scientific movement. That humanism spawned opponents to science is also not surprising because of the humanist emphasis on the ancient philosophers. I guess the lesson here is that a single movement (whether humanism was a philosophy or not is not particularly relevant) could spawn contradictory movements. However, the causal relationship needs to be clear.

Finally, tolerance. It isn't clear to me at all that I have to prove anything else but intellectual freedom (which clearly existed in France but not Italy or Spain, as Ashworth demonstrated) was necessary for the development of science. But even so, there was a great deal of difference between the systematic suppression in Spain and the sporadic persecutions in France. Nor was there the vigorous defense of the persecuted in Spain that there was in France. It was the amount of church control that is relevant here, and the Spanish monarchy worked much more closely with the Vatican than the French, who served as a rival Catholic power center ever since rival popes were set up in Avignon.

Ultimately, I think your thesis has major problems because it doesn't address the possibility that their pious statements were reactive. Earlier, you quoted a scientist as saying that he did science to glorify God. That's all very nice, but I know guys who think they glorify God when they belch. (Yeah, I'm being facetious, but you get the point I'm sure.) The idea that the biased statements of devout Christians can establish by themselves a causal relationship between Christianity and science strikes me as being extremely weak. All it really shows is a correlation, not a causal relationship. To establish your relationship, you need to show that there was elements in Christianity that directly contributed to the movement. I don't see how you can do that.

NOGO

Isn't hindshight wonderful. For a would-be historian however, it is a fatal flaw.

"basic geometry" ? Basic to whom?
A vast majority of North Americans and Europeans could not reproduce what Eratosthenes did over 2200 years ago. Even with Geometry and Algebra being thought in schools to all these people, I doubt that most can give an estimate of the earth's circumference based on their own measurements and without any modern equipment.

In fact Bede I do not believe that you can come up with a better estimate from your own measurements and without any modern equipment. How would you do it? How do you estimate the distance from London to Liverpool? By Walking?

Eratosthenes was 15 per cent off (from memory).
I do not know where you got the idea that he walk but I am waiting for your method.

His method also assumes that the sun's rays are parallel.
Obvious! isn't it?

Nowhere else in the world was enough math known to do what Eratosthenes did.

The question still remains. Why ancient "Pagan" Greece and not ancient Israel?

You are avoind this question.

Note: Guestimate and luck have nothing to do with Eratosthenes' work. Only you and your bias want to impose this on him. To uphold your absurd point of view that CHristianity is necessary for science you must put down all that ancient Greeks have done. But nobody who knows anything about science will buy this nonsense.

Bede

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NOGO

"basic geometry" ? Basic to whom?

Basic to Euclid who many years before Erato started walking.

I know. Sad isn't it?

They could if they were willing to walk a few hundred miles.

That's how Erato did it. You tie your feet together with a one metre shring and count out paces.

Assumes, Nogo, doesn't prove.

China, Greece, Asia Minor, India, Japan, Korea and Egypt where Erato lived.

While Erato was doing his measuring Israel was under Greek domination IIRC. Anyway, refer to Familyman's post above on sufficient causes.

B

gregor

I am trying to posit a well-constructed argument to support the position that Xianity was a NECESSARY prerequisite to the advancement of science (if it's not necessary, it's just along for the ride). Would such an argument look something like:

1. Xianity as a belief system (for purposes of this argument) believes in a Tri-O God, a trinity, Jesus as the son of God, inherently sinful man, and eternal punishment without grace.

2. Xianity from 800 CE to 1800 CE used the elements identified in definition 1, above, to promote rational thinking, experimentation, and natural investigation because ________________.

3. Other religious belief systems of the time did not support rational thinking, experimentation, and investigation because ___________ and they don't have the elements of 1, above.

4. Scientific discovery would not have progressed as rapidly in the west as it did without Xianity.


Unless you can tie definition 1 to argument 2, what does Xianity (as opposed to Judaism) have to do with it. I posit that it is nothing about the particular brand of religion the west had, it was a combination of factors independent of religion that encouraged scientific progress.

I'll go further and assert that any belief system asserting (i) that the physical laws describing the universe can be suspended at the whim of a deity and (ii) that accurate descriptions of the world are found in a 2,500 year old book would stifle scientific progress. Xianty fits this description.

Amaleq13

I don't think this assertion is necessarily true because a Believer could easily make an exception for divine intervention but otherwise consider the universe amenable to scientific study. I think this assertion would only prevent them from believing they could use science to study alleged miracles.

Vorkosigan

This statement is obviously trivially true -- so were hermetic, astrological, and occult disciplines, heretical religious stances (Newton) and so on. I think you have to show that religion was more than simply just the way that these thinkers rationalized their explorations of the world to themselves and others.

I think, though, what you haven't really dealt with is the failure of other Christian areas of the world to come up with science. Christianity was but one factor out of many, and more important for its negative rather than positive stimulus. The key point of science is that it was western, and is a historical accident based on numerous one-off events. The unimportance of Christianity to science is shown by modern science -- while it still embraces logic, mathematics, empirical approaches -- it has divested itself of any Christianity, but still chugs along just fine. Clearly, the evidence of the last two hundred years is that Christianity is not relevant as a factor in the scientific enterprise, although it may provide cognitive resources that enable curious types to rationalize their exploration of the world around them.

Vorkosigan

Family Man

In addition to what Amaleq says, it actually didn't stifle it. Worked against it, yes, but it clearly didn't stifle it.

Bede

I'm away for a few days but here's something to chew on over the weekend.

The problem of comprehansion here is that we are finding it hard to get into the minds of ultra devout early modern thinkers. For them, religion was not just a bag one could reach into for justification or rationalisation. It was rather the ground of their being. Science today has authority because it is a success and being so successful we don't need to ask why this is so. Writers like Sagan and Dennett can simply state the axioms of science and work of them. There is no need for any metaphysical foundation, which is a stroke of luck because, as Hugo has demonstrated here over and over again science has got nowt. Vork's post shows he cannot conceive of science except as a thing in itself.

Before that success (measured best by when natural theology started to try and use it as an argument for God in the eighteenth century), there was no reason to follow a road that led that way. And most did not. Instead, some had a metaphysical background that took the place of the success and science and meant it made sense.

The elements of this background were are follows:

The world was the creation of an omnimax God who was known to be lawful.

This was essential because it gave men a reason to expect certain things in the world even if they were not apparent. One was order and another was elegance. The world was not the creation of Hume's amateur god having a first crack at it or a pre-existant thing that ran according to no particular rules. Because they knew this, Cop and Keplar knew that the world system was more elegant than the one they had inherited. They knew it absolutely and devoted decades of their lives to finding it. When Kepler found his first plan didn't work he rejected it because his God simply would not have cut the corners necessary. And the system had to be elegent and worthy of its creator. Not for Kepler (and Copernicus in his dreams) the endless ad hoc equants and epuicycles that Ptolomy was happy to use just to get the numbers right.

The world ran by secondary causes

This was Christian doctrine that Islam lacked. Christians said that God had ordained the laws of nature and he would stick by them (excepting miracles but Kuhn's analysis of normal science has explained why a few anomalies need not be a problem). These laws were secondary as opposed to the primary cause of God himself. In Islam God's work was more direct - he refashioned the world each instant according to his will. This is called occasionalism and became more accepted as the Islam civilisation of the Caliph's reeled under the hammer blows of pagan Mongols, Christian Iberians and Islamic, but nomadic Turks. Unless God is acting through secondary causes everything is just God's will - you can't predict events without putting him to the test.

The world was matter

Here the neo-Platonists largely came unstuck. While Christians populated the work with spirits and demons, they were not running the show. Furthermore, good Christians could not get involved with them. But to neo-Platonists and their renaissance successors like Bruno the world was an organic whole which could not be explained piecemeal. This made their 'science' mind numbingly complicated as to understand anything you had to understand everything. The huge tombs of symbols, glyphs and calculations by Bruno and Agrippa got them nowhere, just as Plotinus's organic world could give no help to those trying to actually predict anything. But most Christians saw the world as matter and not an organic whole. Hence, they could take pieces of it out of context without fearing that mystical links with the rest of the universe would render their discoveries void.

God is free

Apart from a logical contradiction, God could do anything. His creation was his and hence how he had done it was not something that could be determined in advance. Aristotle got this wrong and was soundly condemned in 1277 for it. He said the uncreated world had to follow the rational laws he set out. As there was no mind behind it there was no room for creativity. Christians, like Roger Bacon, Grosseteste, Boyle and Bacon said no. To understand the world you must examine it. Aristotle did a lot of observation but it was to categorise rather than test.

God has purposes

The world is teleological. When you see something you know there is a reason behind it. Aristotle got this bit right, up to a point. The blind chaos of the stoics, the scepticism of Al-Ghazadi and Hume have no place here. There are reasons for everything (which evolution has nicely explained for biology but before that it was because God created bodies that people believed all the bits had a reason). Because God created the world and saw that it was good, the world mattered - it was important. It wasn't just reorganised chaos (or nothing as Peter Atkins says) but a holy artifact that orthodox Christians, unlike Gnostics, had to engage with.

The world is mathematical

The neo-platonist were right here but in a way that made the maths far too hard. When Kepler put Robert Fludd in his place he explained the difference between a world that can be described by maths and one where number has deep mystical significance. Alas, the neo-Platonists never figured this out.

Time is linear

Much of the orient never accepted the idea that the world has a beginning and is moving forward through time once and for all. For Christians the converse first manifested itself in the idea of history being a movement between different eras. Familyman identified the humanists and we see this firstly with Petrarch in the West. This gave rise to the idea that progress was possible and provided, most famously to Francis Bacon and thence the Royal Society a further motivation for studying nature.

By no means am I claiming that all these assumptions are unique to Christianity. Chances are that none of them are and Judaism probably has all of them. I expect if Judaism was an evangelising religion and had converted Rome then science would have come along roughly when it did. But a metaphysical system, that really only a religion could provide, was a necessary cause of science. It didn't have to be Christianity. But it was.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason