Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 06-09-2003, 03:44 AM

Hi Bede,

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm glad to see Vork in the thread, he's mentioned a lot of points better than I might have.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
The preservation of literacy and learning
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. We have also seen how Byzantines preserved a disproportionate amount of science and philosophy (Joel, I said Galen was a third of the surviving corpus, its actually 20% - about 2 million words). Later, the universities were set up as places for the study of law (Bologna), theology (Paris), medicine (Salerno) and science (Oxford) before branching out into other directions and each others favoured subjects.

Ok, but... This does not have any bearing on theology having a significant influence on the rise of science. To say that Oxford was set up for the study of science is also a bit disingenuous since it's contentious whether science existed in the West at this point. Natural philosophy yes, but was it science (and what is science)?

Quote:

The doctrine of the lawfulness 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 as their theology did not allow God to restrict himself in that way (a doctrine called occasionalism whereby God creates the world at each instant).

This I believe is a point in favour of Catholicism which repudiates sola scriptura. However, this doctrine is not inherently Christian as pointed out by Vork. Nor is rediscovery of concepts at all surprising (to a realist or antirealist, though the antirealist gets more stock from such rediscoveries). The question of whether discoveries led to the reformulation of theology or theology led to the discoveries is a chicken and egg scenario at best, and at worst an unprovable assertion. Secondly, as lpetrich pointed out, this idea presupposes a Bedianity and a Bedislam etc. You cannot argue that Christianity in certain flavours favoured science while arguing that the will of Allah inhibited Islamic science. It's more ironic that you draw on social constructivists for your evidence, while completely missing/ignoring "symmetry" as per Bloor's Strong Program. In other words, this inconsistency is revealing.

Quote:

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 was a major effect of the 1277 condemnations which freed scholars from the idea that the world logically HAD to be geocentric, round, of four elements, non- atomic etc. This meant that his ideas started to be tested and abandoned if they did not measure up. Christians realised that they had to examine the world as God created, not the world reason told them they would find.

I don't think I need to repeat that the initial conditions were imposed by the Church, and therefore if you want to cite this incident as a credit to the Church, then all it does is show your assymetry.

Quote:

The belief that science was a sacred duty
This features again and again in scientific writing such as Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Faraday, Boyle and others. 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 and more fitting as the creation of the divine architect.

No argument from me, since I'm not familiar with that aspect of scientists.

Quote:

What I am not saying:

- That any of this is evidence that Christianity is true;
- That Christianity never hindered science;
- That none of these factors were present anywhere else;
- That all Christians felt the same about these issues;
- That another philosophy/religion could not have done the job better (although, in fact, no other did).

Good, except that the "no other did" is a little bit contentious (again revealing your reductionist Bedianity), to say the least. What "job" are you speaking of? Methodological and metaphysical naturalism (or indeed naive realism) seems to work much better than Christianity if we're talking about the promotion of science.

Joel

Celsus · 06-09-2003, 04:54 AM

Hi Hugo,

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
On a separate issue entirely, i'm wondering if the peculiar merit of realism is that it has more place in a history of the development of science than anti- or irrealism.

Are you speaking of your realist approach to history, or that realism is necessary for science to develop?

Quote:

This is a strange case. Lindberg points out that "the interpretation of the creation account in Genesis was quite traditional and generally lacked the quantitative and hypothetical, imaginary character that dominated other aspects of theology". He laters remarks that "occasionally the literal meaning of scriptural statements conflicted directly with universally accepted scientific theories and observations. In such instances the scriptural text had to be reinterpreted", further commenting that "during the late Middle Ages broad and liberal, rather than narrow and literal, interpretations were the rule in biblical exegesis involving physical phenomena."

Actually, soon after Darwin challenged Genesis head on, Wellhausen and others were challenging the interpretation of Genesis. Christianity the institution reacted very badly (again) to both of these. Protestants stormed off to found their own universities and seminaries, and as a result, cut themselves off from the wider field of intellectual exploration. It's not surprising then, that today, Protestant philosophy and theory is intellectually crippled. Catholicism fared not a whole lot better, and even an account like Boadt's Introduction to the Old Testament with a (mostly) naturalistic approach to scholarship has a disclaimer citing Pius XII's Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943). Consequently, while outstanding as an introduction, it contains the sort of moralistic overtones that is thoroughly repudiated by just about all philosophers of science who stress the nonteleological approach.

Quote:

Clearly this is a major presupposition and one we have intentionally been arguing within. However, if you care to defend it as valid i will be happy to oppose it. For the time being, it strikes me a just another example of the convergent realism that Laudan argued so thoroughly against.

I'm reading his essay now. Thanks for recommending it. I'm also reading Feyerabend's Against Method (thanks again!). Are you aware that of late, Feyerabend seems to have retreated (ever so slightly) in his position? As quoted in Gross & Levitt's Higher Superstition:

Movements that view quantum mechanics as a turning-point in thought--and that include fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts--get aroused by the cultural component and forget predictions and technology. [my emphasis]

Feyerabend, "Atoms and Consciousness" in Common Knowledge 1, no. 1 (1992): 28-32

While I can't believe I forgot about scientific predictions in our earlier discussion, technology or applied science was a big part of my argument which you attempted to counter by lapsing into the idea of values and wellbeing. Further, his use of "fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts" is not much different from my declaring that "crackpots and charlatans" have no role in science--but you can only determine such a thing through looking at reasoning and evidence as a causal effect, something that sociologists of scientific knowledge (like Shapin) hate to do.

Joel

06-09-2003, 05:35 AM

Hi Joel,

Quote:

To say that Oxford was set up for the study of science is also a bit disingenuous since it's contentious whether science existed in the West at this point. Natural philosophy yes, but was it science (and what is science)?

Natural philosophy is certainly pre-science if not modern science. If you want to pick up on this point, be sure you also make it to all those who claim the Greeks had science. If they did, so did the Latins. I'm haapy to use science as a short hand for natural philosophy but I am clear this is not the same as modern science.

Quote:

The question of whether discoveries led to the reformulation of theology or theology led to the discoveries is a chicken and egg scenario at best, and at worst an unprovable assertion.

No, it just requires careful study. We can see these things happening in the sources in both directions.

Quote:

Secondly, as lpetrich pointed out, this idea presupposes a Bedianity and a Bedislam etc. You cannot argue that Christianity in certain flavours favoured science while arguing that the will of Allah inhibited Islamic science.

Yes I can. Consider the Islamic doctrine of occasionalism and the anti-philosophy of Al-Ghazadi. Why were these ideas successful in Islam but failed in the Latin West? They certainly knew all about them. Simply calling medieval schools of thought silly names is not an argument. If they called themselves Christians and most people agreed with them, who are you to say they were not? As I explained earlier, Christianity is fluid and changes but the central doctrines of Lateran IV and the charters of the Paris theology faculty do allow us to talk about High Middle Ages Christianity.

Quote:

I don't think I need to repeat that the initial conditions were imposed by the Church, and therefore if you want to cite this incident as a credit to the Church, then all it does is show your assymetry.

I'm not citing anything as a credit to anyone. I'm not making value judgements about science, religion or anything else. That said, I don't understand your point here.

Quote:

Good, except that the "no other did" is a little bit contentious (again revealing your reductionist Bedianity), to say the least. What "job" are you speaking of? Methodological and metaphysical naturalism (or indeed naive realism) seems to work much better than Christianity if we're talking about the promotion of science.

But neither the methodology or metaphysical naturalism are valid outside science's self re-inforcing domain. Its dead easy for you to declare what works and what doesn't with 21st century hindsight. But we are interested in what happened to people without your gift. As a philosophy, metaphysical naturalism has almost nothing going for it and is supremely useless as an explanation or ethical principle. Science is the only thing that enforces it and even here it is looking increasingly tenuous. Hence, you are asking why a philosophy we only give the time of day to because of the success of modern science, was not picked up to before to bring about modern science. That is putting the cart a couple of miles up the road from the horse.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Celsus · 06-09-2003, 06:15 AM

Hello again Bede,

I may not be able to keep up after this reply. Hopefully it will do justice to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Natural philosophy is certainly pre-science if not modern science. If you want to pick up on this point, be sure you also make it to all those who claim the Greeks had science. If they did, so did the Latins. I'm haapy to use science as a short hand for natural philosophy but I am clear this is not the same as modern science.

We are agreed then.

Quote:

No, it just requires careful study. We can see these things happening in the sources in both directions.

Ok, blame my lack of familiarity. Because I take things to be evolving and influenced one by the other, I suggest that this is inextricably tangled. So could you cite some examples perhaps?

Quote:

Yes I can. Consider the Islamic doctrine of occasionalism and the anti-philosophy of Al-Ghazadi. Why were these ideas successful in Islam but failed in the Latin West? They certainly knew all about them. Simply calling medieval schools of thought silly names is not an argument. If they called themselves Christians and most people agreed with them, who are you to say they were not? As I explained earlier, Christianity is fluid and changes but the central doctrines of Lateran IV and the charters of the Paris theology faculty do allow us to talk about High Middle Ages Christianity.

Could you cite a reference on Al-Ghazadi before I make a response? Thanks. As for the rest, see below.

Quote:

I'm not citing anything as a credit to anyone. I'm not making value judgements about science, religion or anything else. That said, I don't understand your point here.

Well roughly, your defense of Islam would probably be applicable if you want to take the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) approach. I'm saying that the very arguments you constantly have to defend yourself against here on the forum are the ones you make against Islam. That is a Bloorian assymmetry. Now I disagree with his Strong Program, but then, you are essentially taking an SSK approach, so I level the charge that you should be more consistent.

Quote:

But neither the methodology or metaphysical naturalism are valid outside science's self re-inforcing domain. Its dead easy for you to declare what works and what doesn't with 21st century hindsight. But we are interested in what happened to people without your gift. As a philosophy, metaphysical naturalism has almost nothing going for it and is supremely useless as an explanation or ethical principle. Science is the only thing that enforces it and even here it is looking increasingly tenuous. Hence, you are asking why a philosophy we only give the time of day to because of the success of modern science, was not picked up to before to bring about modern science. That is putting the cart a couple of miles up the road from the horse.

It will be ironic indeed to defend metaphysical naturalism here, since I don't buy it either--here you are reading too much into what I said. But consider the most prominent champions of science (specifically contra Creationism) of late: Dawkins, Ruse, Sagan, Kitcher, Dennett, Mayr, Gould, Wilson, etc. All of them are either metaphysical naturalists or realists of some stripe (of course an exception like Ernan McMullin as a realist and Catholic is notable). Where are the other Christian champions of science? Gerald Schroeder? Alvin Plantinga? Arthur Peacocke? Hugh Ross? The IDists? As their critics rightly point out, all of them (perhaps with the exception of Peacocke) undermine what science stands for, because science itself has been evolving (and here the sociological argument against admitting reasoning and evidence as a causal factor is important) and rooting out their tired arguments ever since Paley. Meanwhile, I suspect that their teleological approaches would be just as distasteful to SSK proponents. So in today's climate, my point stands that the best proponents of science (who was not awed in watching Sagan's Cosmos?

) are the realists and metaphysical/methodological naturalists.

Joel

Hugo Holbling · 06-09-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
Are you speaking of your realist approach to history, or that realism is necessary for science to develop?

Quite clearly i was wondering about the latter.

Quote:

Are you aware that of late, Feyerabend seems to have retreated (ever so slightly) in his position?

Hmm. Feyerabend is dead, so that was impressive - even for him. Assuming you knew that, Feyerabend's thought evolved over the course of his life like anyone else's, beginning as a Popperian after all. In his Philosophical Papers he presents easily the strongest arguments you'll find against instrumentalism and for realism (although of course not in the simplistic form we generally see here). Moreover, he was just as critical of relativism on many occasions, particularly in his Three Dialogues On Knowledge. Even so, we still regularly see ridiculous mischaracterisations like this one from people who have quite obviously only read one work.

lpetrich · 06-09-2003, 09:39 AM

Also, Bede has yet to discuss the following aspects of the more traditional forms of Xtianity.

Biblical literalism. That is almost too obvious to be worth mentioning.

Miracle-mongering. Saints do not become officially-recognized saints by recognizing and utilizing the lawfulness of nature, but by working miracles. Where are the Benjamin-Franklin-like saints? Consider the controversy over Mother Teresa's alleged stomach-cancer miracle and consider how lame it is in comparison to many of the miracles that some medieval saints had allegedly worked.

God being inscrutable to man. That's an age-old theological premise, expressed in slogans like "a finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite", "God takes up where reason leaves off", and "man does not presume to judge God" -- and the story of the Tower of Babel, where people try to reach God by building a tall tower, only for God to stop the project by making them speak a lot of different languages.

The allegedly fallen nature of the material world. Many early medieval saints and monks had demonstrated their love for the soul by showing contempt for their bodies, by letting their bodies get very filthy.

Dislike of secular learning. That's more of an off-an-on thing than something universal, but it has happened. The earlier Xtians had had a lot of contempt for Hellenic paganism, something which got in the way of transmitting a lot of pagan-era writings.

06-10-2003, 03:42 AM

Hello again Joel,

"I may not be able to keep up after this reply. Hopefully it will do justice to the discussion."

No problem. Slowing down is sometimes necessary.

"Ok, blame my lack of familiarity. Because I take things to be evolving and influenced one by the other, I suggest that this is inextricably tangled. So could you cite some examples perhaps?"

Theology affecting science would be the Christian rejection of the eternal world of Aristotle or their insistance on the possibility of other worlds (although they didn't thing they actually existed). Science effecting theology would be rejecting a flat earthand considering, with the 12th century William of Conches, that the creation accounts were allegories.

"Could you cite a reference on Al-Ghazadi before I make a response? Thanks. As for the rest, see below."

Whoops, that was Al-Ghazali. Do a google search and you'll get loads which will do for the moment.

"Well roughly, your defense of Islam would probably be applicable if you want to take the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) approach. I'm saying that the very arguments you constantly have to defend yourself against here on the forum are the ones you make against Islam. That is a Bloorian assymmetry. Now I disagree with his Strong Program, but then, you are essentially taking an SSK approach, so I level the charge that you should be more consistent."

I think I'm quite consistent in identifying why science did not take off in Islam and collapsed after 1300 or so. These are facts that historians can try and explain. Those, like Toby Huff, do so using religio-cultural arguments which examine differences between Islam and the West in the thirteenth century when the initiative decisively shifted. OK, so the Mongols are a pretty good answer too, but not the only one and certainly don't help with the Mahgreb and Spain.

"Where are the other Christian champions of science? Gerald Schroeder? Alvin Plantinga? Arthur Peacocke? Hugh Ross? The IDists? As their critics rightly point out, all of them (perhaps with the exception of Peacocke) undermine what science stands for, because science itself has been evolving (and here the sociological argument against admitting reasoning and evidence as a causal factor is important) and rooting out their tired arguments ever since Paley."

Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Russell Stanard, Robert Pennock, Stephen Barr, Ian Barbour and Colin Russell spring to mind. Science does evolve but of course it roots out arguments it doesn't like not just because they are tired.

"Meanwhile, I suspect that their teleological approaches would be just as distasteful to SSK proponents. So in today's climate, my point stands that the best proponents of science (who was not awed in watching Sagan's Cosmos?

) are the realists and metaphysical/methodological naturalists."

They are certainly the best at promoting the myth of science that many want to believe. That's hardly surprising as it is always the true believers who make the best propagandists.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan · 06-10-2003, 05:17 AM

Be back tomorrow. I have finals this week. New chairman, so politicking is intense and I don't want to miss out on any of the spoils! So little time to spare for my net addiction.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 06-10-2003, 07:49 PM

it was important. The alternative (which at least one person on this thread has done) is list everything you can think of and then think you've explained something. Clearly you haven't.

No shit. Nor was I attempting to eexplain either.I was taking a run a the complexity of the issue.

Clearly, both these points are untenable. Christian is extremely fluid and has, as Vork said, been able to adapt itself many times. Quite why changing your mind in the face of new evidence and situations is a virtue for a scientist but not for a theologian escapes me.

Because, scientistschange their minds when confronted with evidence and argument, theology changes to serve whatever cause of power it is serving at the moment. Theology is an ideology of power, Bede, and only that.

An ability to change is a good thing even if Christians have often found it hard to cope with. We could say that Eastern orthodox churches failed to help science while being able to point to reasons why Latin Christianity did so help.

What are the crucial differences in your view? It looks here like you've reconfigured your position on the fly to account for the massive problems caused by the non-western Christian churches. You seem to be confirming my observation that the issue is the fact that the church was western, not Christian.

As for the second point, Vork attacked himself with his list of 15 possible causes for science. Indeed, he gave the impression he'd willingly credit anything apart from Christianity.

<yawn> Christianity, if indeed a factor, was one among many.

If any of these factors was necessary for science but lacking in Russia, for instance, then we don't need to dispose of the notion of Christianity also being necessary. We can all agree it isn't sufficient.

How about "unimportant?" by comparison to demand from nascent modern capitalism, competing countries and princedoms, rising incomes, trade and influence with the rest of the world, observations of progress etc, etc.

My initial thoughts are that we need to actually look at Latin Christianity rather than elsewhere to find out if it might have been a cause of modern science.

Nice try. Other examples will remain powerful counterexamples whether or not you wish to think about them.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 06-11-2003, 05:11 AM

So I see we've already reached a consensus in this thread that religion --- even Christianity --- is not ipso facto a hindrance to science, I see.

Quite so. It is possible to name areas where "Christianity" was a help. Yet what does one mean by Christianity? Many orders of monks were involved in artisanal and craft activities that were important aids to intellectual and social growth. Is this "Christianity?"

many people, religion is a source of ethical exploration, and science without ethics is inhuman.

I don't need religion to formulate ethics for science. For that matter, religion is as often inhuman as science is.

No, this blanket statement ignores the drive of many people towards their own theology to explain their intuitions.

But Gurdur, this statement does not explore why people have such a drive. And the answer is because someone, somewhere, making that political tool called culture, taught them to turn to theology for answers. The power of the Church, naturally, benefits from such a problem-solving strategy.

As far as anyone knows, Dr.Mengele was a realist of sorts.

Yes. So? He killed because he was evil. People who rub cowshit in wounds, or explode firecrackers to ward of germs -- as hospitals here did -- kill because they have no commitment toward gaining reliable and useful knowledge of reality. Big difference. One is individually evil, the other inherently evil.

But then, realism has been known to kill too --- because there is no "realist" source of definitive ethics.

There is no source of definitive ethics anywhere in irrealism or realism, so the issue is moot. Realism kills in error, irrealism because it cannot help it, evil people of either slant do so because they are ethically impaired. No relationship at all.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 09:39 AM	#56
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Also, Bede has yet to discuss the following aspects of the more traditional forms of Xtianity. Biblical literalism. That is almost too obvious to be worth mentioning. Miracle-mongering. Saints do not become officially-recognized saints by recognizing and utilizing the lawfulness of nature, but by working miracles. Where are the Benjamin-Franklin-like saints? Consider the controversy over Mother Teresa's alleged stomach-cancer miracle and consider how lame it is in comparison to many of the miracles that some medieval saints had allegedly worked. God being inscrutable to man. That's an age-old theological premise, expressed in slogans like "a finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite", "God takes up where reason leaves off", and "man does not presume to judge God" -- and the story of the Tower of Babel, where people try to reach God by building a tall tower, only for God to stop the project by making them speak a lot of different languages. The allegedly fallen nature of the material world. Many early medieval saints and monks had demonstrated their love for the soul by showing contempt for their bodies, by letting their bodies get very filthy. Dislike of secular learning. That's more of an off-an-on thing than something universal, but it has happened. The earlier Xtians had had a lot of contempt for Hellenic paganism, something which got in the way of transmitting a lot of pagan-era writings.

06-10-2003, 03:42 AM	#57
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Hello again Joel, "I may not be able to keep up after this reply. Hopefully it will do justice to the discussion." No problem. Slowing down is sometimes necessary. "Ok, blame my lack of familiarity. Because I take things to be evolving and influenced one by the other, I suggest that this is inextricably tangled. So could you cite some examples perhaps?" Theology affecting science would be the Christian rejection of the eternal world of Aristotle or their insistance on the possibility of other worlds (although they didn't thing they actually existed). Science effecting theology would be rejecting a flat earthand considering, with the 12th century William of Conches, that the creation accounts were allegories. "Could you cite a reference on Al-Ghazadi before I make a response? Thanks. As for the rest, see below." Whoops, that was Al-Ghazali. Do a google search and you'll get loads which will do for the moment. "Well roughly, your defense of Islam would probably be applicable if you want to take the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) approach. I'm saying that the very arguments you constantly have to defend yourself against here on the forum are the ones you make against Islam. That is a Bloorian assymmetry. Now I disagree with his Strong Program, but then, you are essentially taking an SSK approach, so I level the charge that you should be more consistent." I think I'm quite consistent in identifying why science did not take off in Islam and collapsed after 1300 or so. These are facts that historians can try and explain. Those, like Toby Huff, do so using religio-cultural arguments which examine differences between Islam and the West in the thirteenth century when the initiative decisively shifted. OK, so the Mongols are a pretty good answer too, but not the only one and certainly don't help with the Mahgreb and Spain. "Where are the other Christian champions of science? Gerald Schroeder? Alvin Plantinga? Arthur Peacocke? Hugh Ross? The IDists? As their critics rightly point out, all of them (perhaps with the exception of Peacocke) undermine what science stands for, because science itself has been evolving (and here the sociological argument against admitting reasoning and evidence as a causal factor is important) and rooting out their tired arguments ever since Paley." Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Russell Stanard, Robert Pennock, Stephen Barr, Ian Barbour and Colin Russell spring to mind. Science does evolve but of course it roots out arguments it doesn't like not just because they are tired. "Meanwhile, I suspect that their teleological approaches would be just as distasteful to SSK proponents. So in today's climate, my point stands that the best proponents of science (who was not awed in watching Sagan's Cosmos? ) are the realists and metaphysical/methodological naturalists." They are certainly the best at promoting the myth of science that many want to believe. That's hardly surprising as it is always the true believers who make the best propagandists. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

06-10-2003, 05:17 AM	#58
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Be back tomorrow. I have finals this week. New chairman, so politicking is intense and I don't want to miss out on any of the spoils! So little time to spare for my net addiction. Vorkosigan

06-10-2003, 07:49 PM	#59
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	it was important. The alternative (which at least one person on this thread has done) is list everything you can think of and then think you've explained something. Clearly you haven't. No shit. Nor was I attempting to eexplain either.I was taking a run a the complexity of the issue. Clearly, both these points are untenable. Christian is extremely fluid and has, as Vork said, been able to adapt itself many times. Quite why changing your mind in the face of new evidence and situations is a virtue for a scientist but not for a theologian escapes me. Because, scientistschange their minds when confronted with evidence and argument, theology changes to serve whatever cause of power it is serving at the moment. Theology is an ideology of power, Bede, and only that. An ability to change is a good thing even if Christians have often found it hard to cope with. We could say that Eastern orthodox churches failed to help science while being able to point to reasons why Latin Christianity did so help. What are the crucial differences in your view? It looks here like you've reconfigured your position on the fly to account for the massive problems caused by the non-western Christian churches. You seem to be confirming my observation that the issue is the fact that the church was western, not Christian. As for the second point, Vork attacked himself with his list of 15 possible causes for science. Indeed, he gave the impression he'd willingly credit anything apart from Christianity. <yawn> Christianity, if indeed a factor, was one among many. If any of these factors was necessary for science but lacking in Russia, for instance, then we don't need to dispose of the notion of Christianity also being necessary. We can all agree it isn't sufficient. How about "unimportant?" by comparison to demand from nascent modern capitalism, competing countries and princedoms, rising incomes, trade and influence with the rest of the world, observations of progress etc, etc. My initial thoughts are that we need to actually look at Latin Christianity rather than elsewhere to find out if it might have been a cause of modern science. Nice try. Other examples will remain powerful counterexamples whether or not you wish to think about them. Vorkosigan

06-11-2003, 05:11 AM	#60
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	*So I see we've already reached a consensus in this thread that religion --- even Christianity --- is not ipso facto* a hindrance to science, I see. Quite so. It is possible to name areas where "Christianity" was a help. Yet what does one mean by Christianity? Many orders of monks were involved in artisanal and craft activities that were important aids to intellectual and social growth. Is this "Christianity?" many people, religion is a source of ethical exploration, and science without ethics is inhuman. I don't need religion to formulate ethics for science. For that matter, religion is as often inhuman as science is. No, this blanket statement ignores the drive of many people towards their own theology to explain their intuitions. But Gurdur, this statement does not explore why people have such a drive. And the answer is because someone, somewhere, making that political tool called culture, taught them to turn to theology for answers. The power of the Church, naturally, benefits from such a problem-solving strategy. As far as anyone knows, Dr.Mengele was a realist of sorts. Yes. So? He killed because he was evil. People who rub cowshit in wounds, or explode firecrackers to ward of germs -- as hospitals here did -- kill because they have no commitment toward gaining reliable and useful knowledge of reality. Big difference. One is individually evil, the other inherently evil. But then, realism has been known to kill too --- because there is no "realist" source of definitive ethics.** There is no source of definitive ethics anywhere in irrealism or realism, so the issue is moot. Realism kills in error, irrealism because it cannot help it, evil people of either slant do so because they are ethically impaired. No relationship at all. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.