tgamble

Is this yet another example of out of context quoteing?

If anyone knows of any sites that discusses this sort of thing, please let me know. Thanks.

NON-theist

I know that many aocial scientists have argued that science arose out of Christianity (specifically protestantism). This is related to Max Weber's thesis that Protestantism initiated independent, critical thinking that gave birth to capitalism, science, etc. I think this argument has some merit, although it in no way disproves science. After all, science could have taken some of the good aspects of Protestantism and expanded upon them to create a more flawless methodology.

Arguing that science is somehow inferior because it is indebted to Protestantism is just absurd. Sorta like saying, 'Hahah, we thought of it before you, so you can't be right!'

Joe Nobody

I've heard that the Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance authored and edited books that argue Christian theology, and reformed theology in particular, played crucial roles in the development of the scientific method. They are also said to have palyed a critical role in the amazing advances achieved by western science.

Thomas Torrance Theology in Reconstruction (1965)
Thomas Torrance Reality and Scientific Theology
Thomas Torrance "Ultimate and Penultimate Beliefs in Science" in Facets of Faith & Science, Volume 1, Historiography and Modes of interaction, ed. Jitse M. van der Meer (1996) pp 151-176.

There are a few verses in the Bible that actually encourage critical thinking and none that I can think of off the top of my head that discourage it.

Very abdsurd. The genetic fallacy comes to mind.

Joe Nobody

Bede

tgamble,

In academic history and sociology of science the old conflict with religion hypothesis is now almost universally rejected while historians like Edward Grant and sociologists like Toby Huff have been hard at work to find a better picture of how religion has influenced science.

My own thoughts are given in this <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm" target="_blank">essay</a> and might be of interest.

Yours

Bede

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

FredJ_UK

This is interesting. I don't think it's possible to deny that rationality, logic et al , start off, to some extent, as acts of faith. To say anything, you have to start with some assumptions or premises, then apply logic to arrive at some conclusion, which you then test against your perception of reality. The extent to which the results match actual experience is a measure of the "truth" of what you originally posited (the assumptions). But this does pre-suppose that logic "works", which I think you could call an act of faith. If the whole thing is consistent, then you are inclined to believe it. There is little more than you can do in coming to terms with the world than to accept that the evidence of your senses tells you something that you can accept as fact. (I think Bhuddists believe that you can't even believe this; that is, the whole physical world is a fiction).
The difference where religious faith is concerned is that there you believe something, by faith, even though you cannot connect it with real-world experience. (I suppose theists would say that their "mental commune" with God is "real-world experience", but most rationalists would deny this since it is not demonstrable or repeatable.)

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: FredJ_UK ]</p>

Bob K

The Code of Science

I. Science is the organized study of the people/things/events who/which are the natural phenomena of reality for the purpose of determining the causality among the people/things/events of reality.
Causality is the cause-and-effect relationships among the people/things/events. Causality describes which people/things/events cause other people/things/events.
Scientific knowledge is the description of the causality between/among the people/things/events who/which are the natural phenomena of reality.

II. Scientists must create operational definitions of the terms they wish to use so they can communicate effectively with themselves, with other
scientists, and with nonscientists.
Operational definitions are definitions which present the observations and/or measurements [descriptions] of the people/things/events who/which
are natural phenomena; operational definitions can be used to define complex and abstract concepts, principles and techniques. For example, children often use sentence structures of "_____ [concept/principle being defined] is when _____ [observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions of people/things/events being operationally defined]." A child may create an operational definition of love in the following way: "Love is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you ." The child's observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions of someone who loves provides an operational definition of the term love .

III. Scientists must follow the scientific method in determining the causality of people/things/events.

The Scientific Method

1. Specify the unit of study [the people/things/events to be studied].
2. Observe and/or measure the units of study to gather data.
3. Create a causal hypothesis which describes and predicts the causes of effects among the people/things/events who/which are the units of study.
4. Observe/measure more people/things/events who/which are units of study to gather additional data which can be used to confirm [verify] or deny the causal hypothesis].
4. Determine if or not the additional data confirm/verify or deny the causal hypothesis.
5. If the data confirm the causal hypothesis, then let other people know of the hypothesis and the scientific method that lead to the creation and confirmation of the hypothesis, and declare the verified/confirmed hypothesis to be a scientific law/law of nature; but if the data do not confirm the causal hypothesis, then either revise the hypothesis to fit the data, or else create a new hypothesis and follow the Scientific Method Steps 4-6.

Thus, the scientific method requires observation of the people/things/events of reality and does not allow speculation or religious dogma to be passed off as facts/truth.

IV. Scientists must list the scientific principles they have determined to be scientific principles/laws of nature, so other people can know what the scientists claim to be knowledge. Moreover, scientists must publish/present the observations and measurements of natural phenomena (units of study) by which they created and by which they confirmed/verified their causal hypotheses in order that other scientists may replicate/duplicate their observations and measurements to confirm/deny their causal hypotheses and claims of scientific principles.

Science began when Hippocrates, the Greek father of philosophy, observed a man suffering from what we now know as epilepsy and rejected the claims of priests that the cause of the victim's condition was his inability to reject demons and his consequent possession by demons. Hippocrates thought epilepsy was caused by natural causes, not supernatural or mystical causes, and he began to look for those natural causes. He created a school of thought which became known as philosophy, which was the first science from which came medicine and all other sciences. Hippocrates is still remembered for the Hippocratic oath taken by modern doctors.

Key to Hippocrates' thinking was his determination to reject the authority of priests and to observe people/things/events in the real world to learn the causality of natural phenomena. Key to the Code of Science and the scientific method is reliance upon the observation of and the experimentation with people/things/events and the rejection of any claims of scientific knowledge not based upon observation or experimentation.

When scientists are required to provide detailed descriptions of their observations and experiments, other scientists can replicate their observations and experiments and thereby confirm their claims of scientific knowledge. By this process of constant checking of claims of knowledge, the Code of Science and the scientific method produce an increasing body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge created by scientists who follow the Code of Science and the scientific method may overturn the claims of “experts” or “authorities” including priests. That has happened throughout the centuries. People must have the truth—the facts—for making rational decisions, and the Code of Science including the scientific method offers a way to discover and learn the truth/facts that is more reliable than the claims of those who refuse to observe and experiment with the real world people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena.

Boro Nut

I'm sure Galiloe will be much relieved to hear it, I must remember to ring him up and break the news. He has been shitting bricks, poor sod.

Boro Nut

Vorkosigan

I wouldn't worry about it too much, Boro. This sort of thing goes in cycles. Sooner or later it will occur to scholars that Christian theology is too incoherent, contradictory and delusional to have served as the stimulus for science, and someone will recall that the idea of lawfulness comes from Roman law, and then the historians will notice that there was no science for the first 15 centuries of Christianity in Europe, and someone will note that Orthodoxy failed to produce science, and then they'll re-examine the histories of Spain, Austria, and other nations, and then "oh yeah!" rationality will re-assert itself, and the idea will be relegated to the dustbin.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

I believe that an important stimulus to the rise of science in the Europe of 500 years ago was the rediscovery of the Greek and Roman classics from 1500-2000 years earlier.

These writings contained lots of early science -- and the large majority of their authors were at least nominal Hellenic pagans. So should we consider Hellenic paganism one of the theological causes of doing science?

Bede

Yes, absolutely. But they didn't manage lift off to what we call modern science even with such geniuses as Archimedes, Ptolemy and Galen. For that, we need the combination of Greek and Arabic learning at the universities with Latin Christianity from the twelth century onwards.

Yours

Bede

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