NOGO

Was Christianity a necessary prerequite for the development of modern science?

This is the claim of some Christian apologists.

I have read <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm" target="_blank">Bede's Library</a>on the subject and will comment on it on my next post.

There is also
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html" target="_blank">The Warfare Of Science With Theology</a> by Andrew White

The claim is that the first modern scientists were Christians. Bede asks.

For the anti Christians desperate not to give credit for their own faith of scientism to the religion they hate, two questions must be answered. First, if the dominant world view of medieval Europe was as hostile to reason as they would like to suppose, why was it here rather than anywhere else that science arose?

I believe that the church was hostile to reason from the start, when Christians believed that the world was about to end and so the reasoning was - why bother learning anything. The move to science and to a secular society took a long time . Pretending now that the church actually favoured this transition is absurd.

Christianity is not a monolithic entity which completely overpowers a person to the point that the only thing that describes him or her is the Christian faith. The Christianity of today is very different than the Christianity of the 4th century. It is people who changed Christianity throughout the centuries. They diluted it, watered it down and placed it away where it can no longer do any harm. This is what brought science and a secular society in Europe. People freed themselves not only from the authority of kings and queens but also from the authority of the church.

One thing that characterizes the Christian faith is that it is claimed to be inspired. Official documents and creed were established at some point in time. These documents define Christianity. Any idea which came after can either be demonstrated to flow from Christian documents or it cannot.

So I ask what is the point of quoting medieval Christians? One has to establish where they got these ideas from. In other words can it be demonstrated that these ideas were derived from Chrisitian documents or creed.

What is clear is that early modern scientists were influenced by ancient Greeks. Here is a brief list of people and ideas.

Pythagoras (582-c.507 B.C.)discovered that musical intervals followed a numerical pattern. He got carried away with this discovery and believed that numbers and shapes could explain everything. He believed that the earth was a sphere because it was an ideal shape. Pythagoras influenced Euclid and Plato and then Aristotle.

Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.), a Greek astronomer who was probably first to propose a heliocentric theory of the universe.

Euclid 300 B.C., Greek mathematician whose treatment of elementary plane goemetry serves as the basis for most beginning courses on the subject. His great contribution was the use of a deductive system of proof. In the 19th cent. his work gave rise to several types non-euclidean geometry.

Archimedes 287 B.C.-212 B.C., Greek mathematician, physicist, and inventor. His interest in mathematics coincided with his affinity for actual experimentation. He was the first to apply the mathematical methods of integration to find areas and volumes of geometrical figures in anticipation of the invention of calculus in the 17th century. he determined that the value of PI is between 3 10/71 and 3 1/7. he proved the law of the lever entirely by geometry and established archimedes' principle which states that a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.

Hipparchus 2d cent. B.C., Greek astronomer; Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the universe was based largely on the conclusions of Hipparchus. In Ptolemy's Almagest, Hipparchus is credited with discovering the precession of the quinoxes, the eccentricity of the sun's apparent orbit, and certain inequalities of the moon's motions. He also made the first known comprehensive chart of the heavens.

Ptolemy 2d century CE Alexandrian astronomer and mathematician from whom we got the system which carries his name

It is also generally believed that Augustine is the one most responsible for bringing Plato's philosophy into Christianity, and Thomas Aquinas must be considered the one who was most responsible for bringing Aristotle's philosophy and physics into Christian thinking. As I said it is people who changed Christianity.

The Greeks can be credited if not of inventing mathematics but at least to be the first to make substantial mathematical discoveries. They also can be credited with the idea that mathematic can explain or model the physical world. This was well established by the time of Ptolemy who modeled the solar system with geometric shapes. Even though Ptolemy was wrong noone will deny that he attempted to model the world with mathematics. Isn't that what astronomy, physics and other sciences are all about?

Are we suprized then that people like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others studied and borrowed from ancient Greek thinkers as a basis for their science. They too tried to model the world based on mathematics.

The link is therefore firmly established between specific ideas from ancient Greece with the first modern scientists. It is also firmly estalished that Christianity itself was influenced by the Greek philosophers.

To claim that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite to modern science one has to show specific links to Christian document and creed. Bede can babble all that he wants but he has not even touched on the subject.

My main purpose here is to get other views on the subject.

So, I have two questions
was Christianity a necessary prerequisite for modern science?
and why did modern science appear in Europe first?

NOGO

William of Ockham was one of those who tried to draw a line under unrestrained rational conjecture with his famous razor. But the atheist may be disappointed to hear that he seemed to think that God was about all you needed in terms of ultimate explanations. William said that we cannot assume that God did things the way we think he ought to as he can do whatever he likes. Therefore the only way to find out what God has actually done is to go out and look. In other words you need to do experiments. Unfortunately this idea did not immediately take hold but Aristotle had, at least, been tipped out of his throne. Modern science really began when he had been chased out of the building too but that had to wait for a while longer.

Wow! From "God can do whatever he wants" to the scientific method in one easy step. To think that it took 4000 years to figure that one out.

"Therefore the only way to find out what God has actually done is to go out and look."

This however has nothing to so with Christian doctrine which claims that people were inspired by God directly. Christians turn to the bible to find out what God has done or is Bede unaware of this.

Bede uses this sophism
Ockham said (if he said it?) "the only way to find out what God has actually done is to go out and look."
Ockham is a Christian
therefore Christianity favoured science.

Is it so hard to believe that even though a person is a Christian he can have ideas outside his faith and sometimes even in opposition to it. Actually, looking at western society today it is obvious that this is exactly what happened and did happened often.

"Modern science really began when he had been chased out of the building"

Yes, he, Aristotle and Christianity with him.


Geocentric versus Heliocentric
The Greek philosopher, ~Aristarchus of Samos, had suggested a model of the Solar System with the sun in the centre in 250BC but no one took very much notice. Instead the Greek's refined Aristotle's idea of placing the Earth in the centre with ~Ptolemy of Alexandria its most learned exponent. It was this model that was picked up by medieval cosmologists.

Why did it take so long for Europe to look at this again?
The Ptolemaic system was picked up probably because it was less threatening to the Christian faith as we shall discover below.

Two more myths need dispelling at this point. The first is that people in the Middle Ages thought that the earth was flat. As explained here, they undoubtedly did not and thought that the earth was a globe around which the sun and planets revolved. Columbus faced trouble going west not because his sailor's thought they would sail off the edge of the world but because they rightly thought that the distance between Europe and the East Indies was much greater than Columbus did. Imagine the trouble he would have been in if the Americas had not been there to land on!

Columbus fell upon some very smart and well informed sailors. Let's say that sailors of 1492 knew the size of the earth as Bede suggests. So what would you do, a) refuse to travel, b) take more food for a longer trip c) neither. These very smart and well informed sailors picked c) and one has to wonder why? Perhaps Bede is wrong. Perhaps while intellectuals played with the merits of Ptolemy's model of the world, ordinary people believed that the earth was flat.

What Bede does not say here is that the belief that the earth was a sphere comes to us from the Greeks and the Christians churches tried their best to kill this idea. I suppose that Bede has never heard of the Flat Earth Society who based their beliefs on the bible..


The other myth is that medieval cosmologists placed the Earth in the centre of the universe because they thought this was a measure of its importance. In fact the opposite is true and they saw the fallen and dirty Earth belonged below while the heavens were the realm of perfection and light. Removing the Earth from the centre seemed to exalt it rather than marginalize it. The so called Copernican fallacy is a modern invention that replaces the alleged claim that the earth was the centre of the universe because it was important with the equally daft idea that because the Earth is not so positioned, it does not matter.

"Fallen and dirty Earth"
Others apologists will argue that Christianity did not denigrate nature which led people to study it. Which is it?
One thing is being overlooked here. The Bible!
In the Bible the earth is the centre of focus of God's creation. The sun and moon are there for one reason only, so that we can tell the passage of the seasons. The stars are little lights whose only purpose is to shine light upon the earth. With heaven above and hell below, the earth is the place where things happen. Below is sheol where nothing really happens. Above is God and his angels who just sit around looking down on humanity. The fact is that the bible describes human affairs as the centre of creation. If the earth is an ordinary planet around an ordinary star at the edge of an ordinary galaxy then the idea that human affairs being important simply no longer jives.

That is why Tycho Brahe offered a solution which had all the geometry of the Copernican system but placed the earth back at the centre. Funny, why was Copernicus' model called heresy and not Tycho's?

"Removing the Earth from the centre seemed to exalt it rather than marginalize it."

Nonesense! If so then why did the churches object. Why was Galileo prohibited from speaking publicly or teaching the heliocentric system? Why were Kepler and his teacher Maestlin prohibited from speaking publicly about their beliefs that the earth was just another planet.

Placing the earth around the sun does not place it in the "heavens" as Bede seems to imply. The heavens were by definition anything outside the earth no matter where the earth is. Even if the earth is in the centre of the solar system it is still in space. Placing the earth in solar orbit makes the earth one of several insgnificant little planets of the sun. This is what some religious minds could not accept.

What Bede has demonstrated here is the reliance on the biblical flat earth concept.

"In fact the opposite is true and they saw the fallen and dirty Earth belonged below while the heavens were the realm of perfection and light. "

Bede implies that placing the earth in orbit around the sun somehow removed it from "below" and placed it in "Heaven". This is "flat Earth" thinking which comes from the Bible. The earth is in space even in Ptolemy's system.

Perhaps ... dare I think ... that Christians in those days did not see that the Ptolemaic system placed the earth in space and assumed that it was in agreement with the Bible.


The Polish parson ~Nicolaus Copernicus first published his idea of a heliocentric model during 1543 in ~The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in which he suggested that the earth orbited the sun. Exactly why he thought this remains a mystery and he was clearly afraid of academic ridicule. Because, like Ptolemy, he insisted on circular orbits, his heliocentric model was no more accurate than the geocentric one. It also conflicted with obvious empirical evidence such as the lack of stellar parallax (the stars do not appear to move relative to the Earth as it orbits the sun). The only advantage of his model was it seemed to be simpler.


"his heliocentric model was no more accurate than the geocentric one"

Rubbish! Bede will have us believe that Copernicus just arbitrarily moved the sun to the centre for no particular reason and that is all he did.

"Exactly why he thought this remains a mystery "

I marvel at this statement. Let's see why Copernicus put the sun in the centre.

Copernicus did not start with the Ptolemaic system and made a patch as Bede is implying. He started from scratch and based his approach on first principles. He based his model on emperical data with some of his own observations and built the solar system from the ground up.

To understand the differences between the Ptolemaic system and Copernican system we must first understand the basis for the Ptolemaic system. The Ptolemaic system is based on the principle that everything rotates around the earth in a 24 hour period including the stars. What Ptolemy did was to start with the basic 24 hour circle around the earth and for each planet adapted it to account for observed anomalies. For example Venus can only be observed close to the sun and regularly changes direction. To obtain this kind of result just think of the game Spirograph. Actually Ptolemy used even more awkward techniques but "Spirograph" gives a good idea of what is going on. Ptolemy used dozens of circles to model planet orbits but keep in mind that the basic circle is the 24 hour rotation around the earth. These 24 hour nested circles are often depicted in diagrams but keep in mind that Ptolemy's orbits are much more complex.

The first thing Copernicus did was to realize that the 24 hour rotation was that of the observer. This is so obvious to us today that it is difficult to see what the fuss was about but back then this was a major obstacle. People argued that if the earth rotated on itself it would fly apart. To this Copernicus countered that if the earth did not rotate then the whole universe must rotate in which case the stars must be moving at incredible speeds in order to orbit the earth in 24 hours and this would certainly make them fly apart.

Copernicus then removed this 24 hour rotation from every planet orbit. The resultant orbits were all centered on the sun. What were secondary movements of the planets under Ptolemy became the primary orbits in the Copernican system. Where is the mystery? Perhaps Bede can explain to us what is mysterious about this. Copernicus determined that every planet including Mercury and Venus can be mathematically shown to orbit a common point. This had never been done before.

Truth be told that Copernicus did some spirographing himself because even after they have been freed from the 24 hour rotation, planet orbits still did not match observations. How do you use spirograph to draw an approximate ellipse? It was Kepler who got rid of the spirograph approach and computed the real ellipse but he could not have done this if Copernicus had not shown the way. The ellipses are not the final answer either because planets do attrack one another as well and deform the ellipses.

To the parallax issue Copernicus argued that the stars were much father then previously thought. He argued that the universe is huge compared to the distance from the earth to the sun; in fact the universe appeared infinite. (Right on!) One of the reasons that the universe was thought to be small was that the stars had to rotated around the earth in 24 hours, so it was thought that they cannot be very far. With the Copernican system the stars can be as far as you want because they have been freed from the 24 hour revolution around the earth.

Finally there was another very notable difference with the Ptolemaic system. Planets were seen to change direction abruptly. Ptolemy accounted for this with complex spirographs combinations of circles. Copernicus had one important advantage over Ptolemy. Since the earth (the observer) moved, it was much easier to account for this strange behaviour. For example the orbit of Mars would be seen to stop, retrogress when the earth passed it on its way around the sun, stop again and then continue its original west to east movement relative to the fixed stars. With the heliocentric approach many things just fell into place.

Copernicus studied under Domenico Maria Novara then professor of mathematics and astronomy at the university of Bologna. Under his influence Copernicus became a convert to the Pythagorean belief that the universe is a geometrical and harmonious creation. Here again we see the direct link with ancient Greek ideas and mathematics. Specifically the idea that mathematics can be used to understand the physical universe.

But although things just seemed to fall into place Copernicus had no proof and thus preferred to remain silent rather than start the kind of battle which was later taken up by Galileo on his behalf.


More and better observations slowly chipped away at the Ptolemaic model and ~Tycho Brahe suggested that the planets orbited the sun which in turn moved around the Earth. This met with much approval and was what the intellectual classes widely believed when Galileo came onto the scene.

One has to know that Tycho proposed this model as a last minute addition to a book he published in 1588. Kepler said this of Tycho's model "an obvious step from Copernicus" which really upset his master.

Tycho wanted to keep all the benefits of the heliocentric model while removing the objection of having something other than the earth at the centre. This model was not based on more and better observations it was created solely for the purpose of putting the earth back in the centre.

Tycho's model did not help "chip" away at the Ptolemaic model. Rather is was a side step which led nowhere. Although at some point in time Kepler defended his master's model it was out of solidarity rather than scientific merit. The truth is that Kepler ignored Tycho's model in his work preferring to based his models on the Copernican system.

The embattled church jumped on Tycho's model as one which explained everything but left the earth at the centre.


But ~Johannes Kepler had already improved the model further by using a Copernican system with elliptical orbits. As his writings make clear, he had been inspired by his faith to figure out a perfect system as he knew God would not tolerate the inaccuracy that still plagued the other models. It is likely that in time Kepler's model would have been accepted by the academic community after some debate and science would have moved on. But a monstrous clash of egos and the Reformation made such a peaceful transition impossible.

Total nonsense!
First, Kepler improved the Copernican model using Tycho's data which he inherited after his death. Bede just finished saying that it was Tycho's model which was "much approved by the intellectual classes". Now we see that Kepler did not consider Tycho's model for an instant and this despite the fact that elliptical orbits work equally well with Tycho's model as they do with the Copernican model.

What actually happened had nothing to do with faith.
Kepler's first idea was this. As he was teaching one day he had an "inspiration". He realized that there were six planets (all that was known at the time) and therefore five spaces between them, which matched the number of geometrical solids (from Pythagoras) ie five. Kepler believed that he had stumbled across the secret of the universe and that God had selected him to reveal it to the world. This "magic thought" approach is perfectly in line with religious belief.

The only problem is that the 5 solids model did not match the then known orbits. Bede claims that it was the discrepancy between the model and known orbits which Kepler called "a gift from God". If Kepler ever said that, he was a twit. The discrpancy is there because the 5 solid model is a dumb idea and has nothing to do with God. If God really wanted to help Kepler He would have kept him away from the five solids and "magical" thinking. Note that this model had one redeeming quality; it was based on the Copernican system. "Mysterium Cosmographicum" was in fact the first Copernican treatise to be published since the "De revolutionibus" itself. Clearly Kepler had accepted the Pythagorean idea that geometry and mathematics can explain the universe. It should be noted here that even after Kepler formulated his three laws of planetary motion he still held on to the 5 solids model.

It was Tycho Brahe who had accumulated a lifetime of data about the orbits which gave Kepler the help that he needed to get to his three laws. Tycho did two things. First he told Kepler that models should be based on data and not force the data to comply to the model as Kepler was trying to do with the 5 solids model. Here are his words "Do not build up abstract speculations concerning the system of the world, but rather first lay a solid foundation in observations, and then by ascending from them, strive to come at the cause of things." Second when Tycho died Kepler took his place and therefore had access to Tycho's data which he had jealously guarded all his life.

Tycho took interest in accurate instrumentation and thus his data was more precise than Copernicus'. It was while working on Tycho's data and following his insistance that theory must be based on emprical data that Kepler came up with the elliptical model. He had in effect changed from the "magical" or "inspired" thought process to using emperical data to formulate a mathematical model.

One would think that after discovering elliptical orbits that Kepler would have abandoned the 5 solids model. Nope! Kepler tried to salvage his first theory by moving the elliptical orbits to fit within the 5 solids by thickeing the containing spheres. So much for Bede's contention that kepler abandoned the 5 solids model because it was not perfect enough for God.

To what degree did his faith encourage him? I do not know but it was not a necessary element to do science, no more than it is today.

It has been suggested that Kepler's "creative discontent" originated from the deep psychic damage he sustained as a neglected child. As with Freud, Kepler developed a number of physical illnesses compounded by neurotic symptoms. He became alienated at an early age and sought refuge first in religion (he wanted to be a minister), later in the mystical, mathematical teachings of the ancient Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists.

Note that even Kepler's teacher Michael Maestlin who introduced him to the Copernican system, was prohibited by the Lutheran church to discuss it publicly.

Kepler had a bout with the Lutheran church and in 1612 was excommunicated. He tried in vain to get the decision reversed. So this very devout Christian stayed out of the church for the rest of his life, on principle.

Kepler was also an adept of astrology. People often quote some early remarks to the effect that astrologers only get it right by luck and that astrology is the foolish daughter of astronomy, but this may simply reflect his disappointment with his early experience. He also called himself a Lutheran astrologer who threw out the chaff and kept the grain (1598). It is also argued that he practiced astrology to get some extra cash, however, this does not explain why he drew up many horoscopes for himself. He also wrote on the "more certain foundations of astrology" in which he states that astrological prediction is based on 1) physical causes, 2) metaphysical or psychological causes, and 3) signs. SIGNS??? This is the man of science speaking!!!

I am not trying to denigrate Kepler. He was a great astronomer and mathematician and certainly a genius. However his meddling with astrology shows us that the transition to pure science was, back then, still very much "in the making". It may also point to the fact that his reliance on religion, astrology and perhaps also his science were based on a traumatic and loveless childhood.

To be Continued ...

NOGO

Galileo
He supported Copernicus rather than Kepler so his model was not any better than Ptolemy's and perhaps eclipsed by Tycho Brahe's.

Rubbish! The Copernican model was much better than Ptolemy's model. It correctly placed the sun at the centre and removed the apparent movement of the planets and indeed all the celestial bodies around the earth as I explained above. Kepler accepted this new model and built upon it. Galileo reserved judgement on the new system until he found direct evidence for it. This came with the discovery of four moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus. When Galileo saw through his telescope that a mini solar system existed in Jupiter and its moons he became convinced that Copernicus was right. This was proof that there was at least one other centre of revolution other than the earth. The phases of Venus provided yet another proof that another centre of rotation was the sun. Galileo observed that Venus like our moon showed all the phases as it rotated around the sun.

It is possible that Galileo never read Kepler book on the elliptical orbits but even if he did, Galileo at the time was more interested in earthly things like pendulum and falling objects. It is also possible that he saw Kepler as a competitor and did not wish to help his fame. When he got interested in the telescope his interest in astronomy picked up but only as an observer and thinker. He never got into it like Kepler, Tycho and others. Unlike Copernicus who declined to do to battle for his new science Galileo met the challenge head on.

Tycho Brahe's model did not eclipse Copernicus' model. The Copernican model has circular orbits which are at least approximatively correct. Tycho Brahe's model is dead wrong. It says that the earth does not move and the sun and stars orbits the earth every 24 hours. This model was only accepted by people who were very uncomfortable with the earth losing the central focus of creation. It also had the added advantage of not getting you in trouble with the church.

Apart from improvements of the telescope and astronimical observations, Galileo experimented with falling objects. He first constructed a clock based on the pendulum which he then used to time falling objects. He discovered that the distance was proportional to the time squared.
d = K t2
This was a forerunner of the law of gravitation by Newton. where K = g = 32 ft/sec/sec for earth's gravitational field.

Galileo first formulated the scientific method as we know it today in his book "Il Saggiatore" (The Assayer). In it he emphasizes to need to observe and experiment and the steps of the modern scientific method. As an example a Jesuit attempted to prove a an excellent point with a very bad example. He had argued that a projectile is heated by friction with the air as it travels from one place to another. As an exsample he used a fanciful story of how the ancient Babylonians cooked their eggs by swiftly swhirling them over their heads in slings. Galileo was on the wrong side of this arguement but one cannot help but notice not only his wit and power of argumentation but also his application of the scientific menthod. Here are his own wrods.


It is true that Galileo lacked tact which earned him more enemies than friends. He also asked and got help from Kepler but never reciprocated. Some would call him an opportunist and user of men. He was that but he was also a man who made a significant contribution in the advancement of science.


Be that as it may, he published, in 1630, with papal permission, a book called ~A Dialogue Concerning Two Principal Systems of the World which was more what we would term 'popular science' than an academic text. In it he parodied the Pope, Urban VII, as being a fool which was an insult that no self respecting Renaissance prince could bear. Galileo already had plenty of enemies in academia who resented his fame, influence and condescending style and when abandoned by the Pope he ran out of friends. He was summoned to Rome and arrested by the Inquisition. Clearly, it was impossible to bring a man to trial for making the Pope look foolish so a trumped up charge was manufactured using a spurious undertaking that Galileo was supposed to have given not to teach Copernicus's theory. In addition, the Protestant reformers had accused Catholicism of straying too far from the Bible. The relaxed reading that had prevailed among academics in the Middle Ages was therefore unfortunately no longer in fashion in Rome.

"he parodied the Pope, Urban VII, as being a fool"
What Bede states as a matter of fact is no more than an opinion. Here are the facts.
The book was submitted to the Pope for approval, that is, a licence to print. The Pope received him in audience and again endorsed the idea of a dialogue on astronomy provided that the subject remained hypothetical. The Pope changed the title because he felt that "Dialogue on the ebb and flow of the sea" emphasized physical proof. (Galileo wrongly believed that sea tides were proof that the earth moved) Father Niccolo Riccardi and other people within the church read it and asked for modifications because they felt that it was too pro-Copernican and not enough hypothetical. To make a long story short, after many delays and plenty of pressure applied by Galileo through some friends of his the permission to print was granted.

The book was a dialogue carried on by three characters, Salviati (Galileo himself), Sagredo, an impartial listerner and Simplicio, a diehard Aristotelian. Simplicio is of course thrashed in every argument. Finally Salviati brings forth the argument of the tides. Simplicio's response is essentially that God being infinite and all powerfull could have thought of many ways of moving water within a vessel without moving the vessel and one should not limit God to one's fancy.

This last response seems to be taken from a conversation that Galileo had with the Pope himself and sometimes using his exact words. Galileo's enemies were quick to point this out to the Pope and suggested to him that HE was Simplicio in the book.

However this is highly doubtful. Galileo was not in this battle against this one man which he knew and befriended years ago as Maffeo Barberini. His battle was to have the Copernican system accepted by the Church. It is not credible that Galileo wrote this book for the simple purpose of making fun of the Pope. The book was submitted for review and the initial intent of Father Riccardi was to go through it page by page.

What probably happened is that Galileo wanted to give the Pope the final say in his book but placed in the mouth of Simplicio it came across as a bad joke. Galileo had been told not to defend nor teach the Copernican system but he could treat it as an hypothesis. The book certainly followed the letter of the agreement but not its intent.

There is no doubt that Urban VIII was offended by the book but to conclude that this is the sole reason for Galileo's arrest is not credible considering that the Copernican world view was banned by the Catholic Church until 1835 more than a century after it had been accepted by almost everyone except some diehard Protestan groups.

It is obvious that Bede is trying to exonerate the Catholic church and make Galileo look bad because he has an ax to grind.

Conclusion and the Contribution of Christianity
Christianity had an important impact on every step of the road to modern science. Let me now summarise exactly what they were:

The preservation of literacy in the Dark Ages
Because it is a literary religion based on sacred texts and informed by the writings of the early church fathers, Christianity was exclusively responsible for the preservation of literacy and learning after the fall of the Western Empire. This meant not only that the Latin classics were preserved but also that their were sufficient men of learning to take Greek thought forward when it was rediscovered.

Sounds good but is it revelant? If Christianity did not exist would literacy have disappeared in Europe? I doubt it. The same people who preserved literacy and the classics as Christians would have preserved them as non-Christian.
The only way that this point can be made relevant is to show what in Christianity made people act in a way that they would otherwise not have acted.


The doctrine of the lawfulness of of nature
As they believed in a law abiding creator God, even before the rediscovery of Greek thought, twelfth century Christians felt they could investigate the natural world for secondary causes rather than put everything down to fate (like the ancients) or the will of Allah (like Moslems). Although we see a respect for the powers of reason by Arab scholars they did not seem to make the step of looking for universal laws of nature.

I don't know if this was a slip by Bede ... "law abiding creator" I doubt that Yhaweh was law abiding. The gist here is that since the God of the Bible gave man laws then Christians were motivated in discovering laws of nature. This is a rather shaky arguement in my opinion.

Yahweh's laws are commandments for humans to follow. They are often arbitrary and certainly not based on human nature. Nature's laws are based om the nature of matter and space.

None of Yahweh's laws were based on mathematics. We got this idea from Pythagoras who first realized that musical intervals can be explained arithmetically. This idea that numbers can explain everything gave rise to numerology which still exists today but it also had an important repercussion on scientific thought throughtout history.

The need to examine the real world rather than rely on pure reason
Christians insisted that God could have created the world any way he like and so Aristotle's insistence that the world was the way it was because it had to be was successfully challenged. This meant that his ideas started to be tested and abandoned if they did not measure up.

Nonesense! These statements are completely out of touch with reality.
The Church based itself on the story of Joshua who ordered the sun to stand still in order to maintain against all evidence that the earth did not move. I mean not only the Catholic church but also all branches of the Protestant Church, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican denounced the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture. Here is a sample.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
"To say that the assumption that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no such risk whatever. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without travelling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures."

Martin Luther:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Melanchthon
"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere (ie the stars) nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
and also ... "the earth can be nowhere if not in the centre of the universe."
.

For an example of where "God can do anything he wants" can take you, see Geocentricity modern style <a href="http://www.geocentricity.com." target="_blank">www.geocentricity.com.</a> These people believe that even the stars which are millions of light years away rotate around the earth every 24 hours. It is claimed that the Bible teaches Geocentricity.


The belief that science was a sacred duty
This is not so much covered in this essay, but features again and again in scientific writing. The early modern scientists were inspired by their faith to make their discoveries and saw studying the creation of God as a form of worship. This led to a respect for nature and the attempt to find simple, economical solutions to problems. Hence Copernicus felt he could propose a heliocentric model for no better reason that it seemed more elegant.


Nonsense!
We are talking about an era where people mixed God into everything. You thanked God in the morning, at each meal, and before going to bed. Marriage was mixed with God and religion and so was having children, raising children, work, politics, and of course death.

When writing you started by stating that what follows will not in any way speak against the Holy Scriptures. You also had to be careful of what you said for fear of either being called a witch or offending the holy church with incorrect thoughts. To remedy that, one had to ensure that all intentions were correctly placed in the context of almighty God.

This "evidence", ie statements of faith in scientific writing, is therefore not worth very much. In the 16th century these statements were part of the decor.

No scientist today would mix his religious beliefs with his science in scientific papers. They probably do not feel the need to justify their love of science to their religious masters. It can also be said that the "peer pressure" today is in the opposite direction.

Hence Copernicus felt he could propose a heliocentric model for no better reason that it seemed more elegant.

Isn't it amazing how Bede can tell not only how Copernicus felt but also why he felt that way.
Really!
Copernicus felt that he lived in a modern and free society where anyone can proposed anything that he wanted just because he liked it without having his lifetime work considered heretical. A free society where liberal exchange of ideas can be made without having to have them preapproved by big brother.

Unfortunately that is not the society in which Copernicus lived nor is it the society that the Christian church ever professed to build.

lpetrich

I've tried to make some of these points in a S&S thread, but Bede seems to have run off and hidden somewhere.

Consider medicine. Especially the "medicine" that Jesus Christ had been described as practicing. Much of it was driving out demons -- some of which he had talked to. Which makes Jesus Christ an exorcist.

And at least one of his cures was just plain sorcery (Mark 7:33-35 - NIV):
By comparison, despite the Hellenic paganism of his famous Oath, Hippocrates was remarkably rational. He noted that epilepsy is called the disease of the Gods because nobody really knows what causes it. And it's interesting that medicine continues to have a Hippocratic Oath instead of a Christic Oath.

Answerer

This is stupid, the main requirement for understanding science should be a rational mind, not just some religious plaything.

Bede

Hi Nogo,

No I didn't run off, I just got fed up with bashing my head against a brick wall.

While I am flattered you have written so much against my article, simply shouting "rubbish!" and then running through nineteenth century mythology will not do. Please could you let me know which works of modern scholarship you have read on pre modern and early modern science so that I can have some indicition of if a dialogue would be worthwhile. Sadly, your work shows all the signs of being written from White, Draper and other sources you can find on the internet.

You make so many mistakes I fear you probably haven't read very much at all. You are wrong about the flat earth (see "Inventing the Flat Earth" JB Russell), wrong to say Copernicus's model gave better results than the geocentric alternative (see any book on early modern cosmology), wrong to say that moving the earth from the centre was not exalting it (see "The Scientific Revolution" by Steven Shapen), wrong about science not being seen as a sacred duty (see bios of Kepler, Boyle and many others), wrong that everyone in that period were observant Christians (see "Religion and the Decline of Magic" by Keith Thomas). In fact, you mention not a single source in your work, a part from a totally discredited nineteenth century mythmaker. Here is the doyen of the History of Science in Britain, Colin Russell, on Draper and White:

“Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”

But your biggest problem is you are a fundie in atheist clothing. You assume that Christianity means and must always mean a literal reading of the Bible and nothing else. This is a shallow and false view believed only by fundamentalist protestants and bigotted atheists. Christianity is much bigger than that and quite capable of bringing in outside thought and traditions as it has done through out history.

So, I actually agree with what you are saying. That the historically rare beast, ultra biblically literalist, fundamentalist Christianity has done nothing for science at all. But that is a strawman you have effectively demolished. You are not only ignorant about the history of science, you are utterly ignorant of Christianity too. Like so many North Americans, you think that the way you do things is the way that everyone does.

If you are interested in history of science (and perhaps you actually are) you need to undo the twisted hatred of Christianity in your gut, take a few deep breathes and realise that what you thought was true probably isn't. Then maybe we will have something to talk about.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

One nit in an otherwise effective rant:

The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapen

It's <a href="http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter11/source353.html" target="_blank">"Shapin."</a>

Vork

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Butters

Posted by Bede,

Exactly what myths, perhaps you could give us a list!

Vorkosigan

Of course, it slipped Bede's mind that "the Doyen of History of Science in Britain," Colin Russell, is also Past President, Chairman, Vice President
of Christians in Science and is a deeply committed Christian. Hardly an unbiased source on Christianity and Science.

But don't worry, it was still a good rant. I rather enjoyed the way you worked in that extra dig at Americans too.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork,

Thanks for the complement, but I'm intrigued by your attitude. Russell is Professor Emeritus at the Open University (a totally secular institution) and widely respected in the field. Yes, he is a Christian and yes, he is interested in the interaction between Christianity and science. He is also a trained chemist. So, are you saying that as he is a Christian, he cannot do good scholarship? Or are you simply saying he is, like you and I, biased? The first attitude is ridiculous and the second so obvious it doesn't even need stating. Certainly, I have rarely, if ever, seen a contemporary scholar's religion brought up as to why we should or should not trust their scholarship (at least, outside these boards). I have no idea of the religious beliefs of most of the people I read, and neither do I really care. If their bias cannot be detected from their work, it does not matter much.

Anyway, as Lindberg, Numbers (who is a non-theist) and others have echoed Russell's comments on White and Draper, I don't think that particular point is very controversial.

As for mis-spelling Shapin, that was unforgivable. ;(

Butters, <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html" target="_blank">This</a> is a good start. Lindberg's religious proclavities remain a mystery to me, but Numbers is a non-theist. I might also add the flat earth and lightening conductors as other anti-Christian myths of science.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>