Celsus

Sorry. I misinterpreted you again when you wrote that the author's bias was "irrelevant."
And where did I ever imply that you were supporting Christianity or proposing that it was beneficial for science or suchlike? I merely stated that that article you linked was terrible, and tried to give reasons why. I believe it is you who is reading too much into things.
Yes, I see, so it was redundant, but it was an attempt to answer Bede: i.e. elaborating on my statement on Biblical intepretation and Christian history.

As for Shapin and Schaffer (oops spelled wrongly earlier), I presume you've read Leviathan and the Air Pump? What did you think?

Joel

Bede

Joel says:

"(1) That the opposition to pagan beliefs is firstly not understood as an intolerant witchhunt that it really was, nor recognises that science was as much a casualty (it was the Arabs who preserved much of the Greek works for us), (2) that the parallels between the myths of the Bible and the very well-attested Babylonian/Sumerian myths are brushed aside (by coincidence, I just posted on this matter in the E/C forum prior to reading that essay) and that (3) the Judeo-Christian theology was responsible for all this."

Now I don't want to defend Jaki or any creationists but I fear you have got mixed up here. Points 1) and 2) are easily dealt with.

1) The end of paganism.

This process, that lasted for hundreds and years, was slow gradual and only occasionally became a 'witch hunt' in the sense that pagans occasionally persecuted pagans. But, this is besides the point anyway as it has nothing to do with science. As I said on another thread <flame deleted - liv>:

"A point that is often missed is that the Greek works that survive are those that Christians choose to preserve for us. Hence they give a very skewed view of what Greek thought was actually like. For instance, the medical works of Galen make up a full third of the entire surviving classical Greek corpus. Add Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and the mathematical works and we find that Christians were by far the most keen on copying scientific and medical writings. The papyri from Egypt and epigraphical evidence show that this was not the cencern of most Greeks.

In other words, we think Greeks were a rational lot because Christians were interested in their rational thought. Hence, the preponderance of Greek science in the surviving corpus tells us that the Christians who preserved it were very interested in science - not that the classical Greeks were. Oddly, Stoicism, the Greek philosophy that comes closed to Christianity is severely under represented as is Epicurianism and Cynicism. And yet these three schools rejected much of reason and science, concentrating instead on ethical issues.

We are left with the strong impression that it was Christians who appreciated Greek science a whole lot more than the Greeks did."

Ipetrich made the same mistake you do. These texts were NOT only preserved by Arabs. Everything that survives in the original Greek - huge and disproportionate amounts of science, philosophy and medicine - was copied by Christians. Personally. I'd have liked them to have spent more effort on drama and history but no, these Christians wanted science and not frivilous subjects like that. Defeated on this point, Ipetrich proceeded to get palimsests wrong too. Unattested pagan works palimpsested with Christians works are very rare and make up only a fraction of works surviving. Here's what I wrote
here which is all about the survival of pagan literature and you might find interesting.

"Palimpsests are another interesting case. The ruinous cost of parchment combined with its ability to withstand centuries of wear and tear meant that it was frequently reused. The old writing was scrapped off and the new written over the top. However, the process left faint images of the original text which later scholars have been able to read. Some important pagan works have been accidentally preserved in this way such as part of Cicero's De Republica and the recently rediscovered Archimedes palimpsest. There is no evidence that the monks doing the scrapping were deliberately targeting pagan texts although we may sometimes find their priorities unfortunate. The text they were scrapping off had, itself, been transcribed by earlier Christians and a perusal of a manuscript catalogue (such as the British Library's on-line) shows that in most cases the underlying material on a palimpsest is Christian as well. One of the earliest known bibles, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, had the sermons of Ephraemus written over the top of it."

So, in short, science was not a casualty of the empire turning Christian.

2) Creation parallels

That the creation myths are from a common origin is as clear as day. Consequently it is the differences between them that are interesting. It's like we know Shakespere got King Lear from Geoffrey of Monmouth. But the bard turns a morality fable with a happy ending into the greatest tradgedy of the human condition. Likewise, the priestly writer of Genesis 1 moulds the Babylonian myths of conflicting gods and chaos being formed into base matter by brute force into a story of divine omnipotence creating without tears and with the end result undoubedly 'good'.

So Genesis 1 makes clear the God did create the world and it was good. Both these ideas were essential to overcoming the Babylonian belief in chaos being the basic stuff and the Greeks belief in arbitrary fate.

Your third point is interesting and has yet to recieve an answer. But it deserves serious investigation and that is what I'm doing!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Celsus

Thanks for your reply Bede. I see that the conventional wisdom may well be wrong--but at the same time, it's not the last word either. I'm also wary of people filling gaps in the history with their pet theories, whether it's Gibbons or yourself. For example, your page argues largely from silence with respect to the Library of Alexandria. How strong epistemologically is such an argument? And so what then do you make of Doherty's thesis (sorry had to ask )? As for point (2), I believe I was refering to J, not P so I'm not sure what your point has to do with the dismissal by the author of the link of the Gilgamesh epic. Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that the P structure in Genesis 1 is very much a liturgical device, and with ritualistic allusions.

As for the point (3), what are your thoughts? Is it really that theology was responsible for the rise of science?

Joel

BioBeing

It was a comment on your use of the word “scholarly”. An unreferenced essay on a page dedicated to Christian apologetics does not, on first glance, strike me as scholarly. In the above quote, you characterize it as an “introduction of their theses”, which I am happy to accept.

Because, it seems to me (on reading the article you linked to), the Merton theory is that science arose as a by-product of christianity, not a direct result. The Duhem-Jaki theory suggest there was a definite cause-effect relationship.

So, are we to believe then that Bede and yourself do not subscribe to the Duhem-Jaki thesis? If so, why did you post a link that largely seemed to support their position (about 23 out of 28 pages, when copied into MSWord are explaining the D-J theory. Less than 5 are on Merton.)? If you do not buy the D-J theory, and are thus not actually giving me that link to support your argument, why I should I spend time critiquing it?

No I wouldn’t. To claim that “science didn’t take off in China, therefore it must be due to christianity” is a fallacy. I’m not denying that science took off in a Christian culture. I’m trying to examine if, as you link suggests, Christianity was required for science. Christianity may have been more flexible, and thus not have been as much of a hinderance as the other cultures, but that does not necesarily mean that Christianity is the only conceivable human culture in which science would have prospered. If Europe had become secular instead of Christian, would science have progressed faster or slower? Neither you nor I can answer that question because we do not have the control experiment.

Following quotes from your linked article:

This was my point about christian sects having founded the Universities. The people who attended these learning establishments were of course the only ones who got a formal education. Thus my question earlier – were these institutions formed with the forethought to become places of scientific learning, or was that outcome a coincidence? Did christain theology have to then change to accommodate the new scientific ideas?

The question is not if they are incompatible, it is did christianity hinder science. My point was partly that science arose despite religion (as well as of because of it).

And remarkable truths require remarkable evidences

Now, isn’t this what I was, in part, saying?

Even this does not prove that theology promoted science. Merely that the same people did both. As I mentioned earlier - was that simply not a function of the times, that one could not get any education unless it was a church one?

So Christian culture prior to the middle ages had been backwards. Does that not suggest that christianity, at that time hindered science? Who is to say that science would have flourished sooner had christianity not become so dominant?

Could these works not have been junked by a secular scientist, working purely on the basis of observation? It is not pointed out exactly which aspects of these works were junked by christian theologians, and with what were they replaced?

This may explain why science did not get off the gorund in Islamic cultures, but it does not prove that Christianity alone was responsible for the growth of science.

Now I really should just stop right here.

A very broad generalization, is it not? The article mentions 219 proposition blasted by a certain Bishop, but does not provide me with details. I do not have access to the Duhem book mentioned. So I am left wondering what is being talked about.

But again – why does theology have to battle pagan beliefs? Why could not a secular system do it, perhaps more effectively?

The article is very strong on saying this – Christianity stripped away the stupid pagan beliefs. It does not state how Christianity did so, nor even which beliefs it did really remove. It does not address how a non-christian world view could have similarly stripped these views away. And it does not address that Christian theology may very well have, in place of stunting pagan beliefs, have imposed some of its own stunting beliefs. [Such as a literal view of Genesis, alluded to here, which we are still battling to this day].

So while parts of the theology helped, other parts hindered. Again – that was my point…

Ahhh – now this quote just smacks of scholarly work! If he looks like a puritan he must have been a puritan.

Puritans approved of science – Anglicans, by inference, did not. Since the majority of the country was Anglican, think how much MORE progress could have been made if they were all Puritans… Thus, ANGLICAN theology hindered science. If the country were 100% Anglican, what would the outcome have been?

I rest my case.

I know a full response to this one essay could probably get someone a PhD in Philosophy, so I do not claim to have done anymore than dent the surface. However, I do claim that they have not present remarkable evidence to suggest that Christianity was "absolutely required" for the rise of science in the western world.

Hugo Holbling

That's right. I had hoped to introduce some of the other ideas that are out there, competing with the conflict hypothesis. Since i couldn't find any Linberg, that was the best i could do. On that note, i found this, which gives a much better understanding of what i suppose would be considered the scholarly orthodoxy. I hope you'll offer a critique of it instead, although i'll comment on your points in any case since you were good enough to make them.

I just explained that. You don't have to bother at all, but you did.

Not necessarily. A more charitable reading would suggest that i was keen to learn your opinion of how to explain this distinction. I didn't make the specific claim you site.

Well there you go.

It's hard to imagine how such an experiment could be carried out in principle.

Bede could answer both questions better, but a good example of the former would be Philipp Melanchthon's reform of the German Protestant Universities. The answer to the second is that theology influenced and was influenced by new ideas, as Lindberg points out in his studies (cf. Science and Theology in the Middle Ages, for example). Look at Lombard, Basil, Ambrose, etc. Once again, Bede will be likely be able to give a more detailed answer, unless you want me to hit the books. (That depends, i suppose, on whether you want to stick with this essay or move to Lindberg.)

Not necessarily. The point you appear to be missing and which Bede and i have made several times is that the contribution was methodological. Jaki overstates it (or does he - see later) while Merton perhaps does not go far enough.

Again, the point is methodological, although i wonder if some form of realist foundationalism is a necessary condition for the development of science in any climate, secular or religious? This is another point entirely but directly relevant to your ideas - what do you think? To clarify: the crux of Jaki's argument is that Christianity provided the methodological foundations that led to science, and moreover that these were not available elsewhere. I don't see how we can know anything at all about whether a secular culture would arrive at them earlier or later, but what i am interested in is question the presupposition that science can only come about from this direction. What say you?

Perhaps, but i doubt that this realist approach came about empirically. You may already know that one of the principle criticisms of realism is its ostensibly metaphysical claims, which again leads to my question posted above.

Again, the point is methodological. Sorry to keep asserting it, but this really is the gist of it.

I'm happy to oblige you. The reference is to the Condemnation of 1277, made by the Bishop of Paris and his colleagues. You can find some information (dare i say "scholarly") on it here. The interesting thing about this episode which, on the face of it, seems to be a paradigm case of theology directly impeding science, is when it is discussed by Grant and Lindberg and shown to be considerably more complex, the latter suggesting:

Once again, the interaction is too complex to be taken in by the conflict hypothesis.

This is a question i would like to pose to you, and have done above. Could a secular system have posited the required metaphysical assumptions? (I'm not saying it couldn't, but it doesn't appear as likely.) If not, are said assumptions really necessary at all? I'm not sure which way the philosophy of science moves on this question, but it's something i'd like to discuss.

Again - ad nauseum - that's what i'm asking you. Jaki is very strong in his assertion that only Christianity provided the required methodological assumptions. That may be so, but not for the reasons he supposed.

In fact, science and mathematics were being used in work on Genesis back in Ambrose's day. There were and are different forms of theology, just as there were and are different forms of science; you cannot go from a particular to the general here, particularly in anachronistic fashion.

Perhaps i'll say some more tomorrow, but that will have to suffice for today (although it would be nice to see what you make of Lindberg - i can suggest some books to look into, if you wish). I hope you understand that what was "absolutely required" were certain methodological presuppositions that were very much enjoined upon by Christianity; that is the point, stripped of all Jaki's exuberance. I am skeptical of this assumption but it's a very interesting question and one that needs alot more thought. If you want to refute it there is no need to concern yourself at all with the trappings; if we can drop them, we may be able to turn what has been an ill-natured thread into a excellent and valuable discussion.

BioBeing

I will look into that Lindberg paper you linked to (as well as Bede's paper). I am obviously not an adept in this area as are yourself and Bede, but, perhaps if nothing other than for my own education, I will continue on My thoughts are telling me that the conflict hypothesis is not valid - Christianity and the entire development of the Western world are way too intertwined for that scenario. And while I certainly see your point that the methodology was put in place by certain of the christian sect, I am wary of any (untestable?) claims that Christainity was the ONLY possible way forward.

I'll do some reading and thinking, and see if we can get that good discussion going

BioBeing

From the RAE article
And from the Condemnation of 1277 paper
Again, since I do not have access to these texts, I must go simply on what is presented here. But this second quote hardly seems to support the firsts idea that Tempier "blasted these anti-scientific concepts of antiquity". The Church (since Tempier was obviously not the only one doing this) was certainly not doing this with the intention of fowarding science: "By condemning these articles, Tempier endorsed God's absolute power to do whatever he wills" and "It should be emphasized that Tempier's theses express positions that cannot be maintained in light of revealed truth" (where the "revealed truth" is no doubt the Bible and Church Orthodoxy). What we have is a systematic (methodological, if you like) suppression of any view that opposed the Church. The myths of the Pagans were to be replaced with the Myths of the Christians, and not with scientific facts.

I do not yet see the connection to how this made modern science possible, but I'll keep digging. Was it simply that Aristotle's works were on Tempier's list (I'm not clear if there were specifically yet)? And that a systematic banning of that work freed the minds of the Christians? [And thus that it was impossible for humans to break free of Aristotle by any other means?] One must wonder what Tempier thinks about his list now if that is the case!

Anyway - that's as far as I've got tonight.

Hugo Holbling

That isn't what's being claimed (or rather, investigated). Look at Bede's essay again:

Thus: Christianity was a specific factor, not the only possible factor. From a methodological point-of-view, i am interested in whether the set of foundational beliefs found in Christianity are a necessary condition for the rise of science. No-one is making the ahistorical claim you site.

I suggest you dig in the direction of Grant, or Lindberg's paper referenced in my previous post. In simple terms, following the condemnation any idea whatsoever could be considered provided it was done so loquendo naturaliter (meaning - but not exactly translating to - much the same as we do when we say "speaking hypothetically) and not held as an ontological assertion.

I hope so.

Bede

Joel,

I don't think I am arguing from silence. We have Ammianus Marcellinus, the pagan historian, describing the temple in about 360AD explicitly saying there was no library there. That, combined with the lack of mention of any library when the temple was sacked seems pretty conclusive.

Doherty's thesis is interesting but ultimately unconvincing. He relies too much on unusual interpretation of language and alleged interpolations. I do neither of those things in my Alexandria work.

As you say, the arthor is too conservative in his biblical reading. Oddly, Jaki is ultra liberal in this as he things it doesn't matter if the bible is all false as long as it comes from God. He is also scathing about creationists. After all that, he still presents theological rather than historical solutions which won't convince unless you also buy into the rest of his thomist theology.

I'll address that below....

Yours

Bede

Bede's LIbrary - faith and reason

Bede

Joel/BioBeing

Now we seem to be making some progress on debunking the conflict scenario, let me explain briefly what I think a positive Christian contribution to science might look like (adapted from here):

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

Yours

Bede

Bede’s Library – faith and reason