Posted on 12/19/2004 5:19:27 PM PST by bondserv
Summary: In an attempt to account for the origin of modern science, I will argue that the Judeo-Christian world view played a crucial role in this birth. I will cite four lines of evidence to support this hypothesis and respond to objections at the appropriate places.
Acknowledgement: Several points in the following essays are indebted to Stanley Jaki's, "Science and Creation: From eternal cycles to an oscillating universe."
Points of clarification:
1. It was not my intention that this article would convince those highly skeptical of this hypothesis (for those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still). Instead, I intend to simply clarify why it is that one might rationally think the Judeo-Christian world view was important, even crucial, in the birth of science.
2. I am not claiming that Christianity was sufficient for the birth of science. Other important ingredients stemmed from Greek philosophy and mathematics and various technical achievements associated with building and designing things.
3. I am not claiming that one must be a Christian to be a "good scientist." My focus is on history. The current relationship between Christianity and Science can be addressed in another article.
--snip--
Whenever one is educated about history, some paradigm is usually assumed to interpret all the facts in the context of a coherent pattern. As a student of the public schools and public universities, I was taught about the history of science in the light of the notion that there has always been warfare between science and Christianity.
The warfare myth is very popular and very powerful. It is popular because it seems to be substantiated today. We often hear certain scientists making metaphysical claims such as "the Universe is all that exists." We also hear religious leaders making scientific claims such as "evolution is not true." It's as if the religious leaders think they have the authority to make scientific judgments and scientific leaders think they have the authority to make religious/metaphysical judgments. The warfare myth is clearly supported by these dynamics, as it is if there are two opposing camps firing back at each other.
The myth is also very powerful. As one who is both a Christian and a scientist, I can see this from both sides. As a Christian, there are many fellow Christians who look upon my science with suspicion. How can I be a Christian yet believe in evolution? How can I be a Christian yet focus so much attention on something that doesn't seem directly related to the faith? As a scientist, there are many fellow scientists who look upon my Christianity with suspicion. How can I be a scientist yet believe Jesus bodily rose from the dead? How can I be a scientist yet focus too much attention on things that depend on faith? As many Christians who are scientists will tell you, they are often caught between a rock and a hard place.
So what is a Christian scientist (not to be confused with the religion of Christian Science) to do? Unfortunately, many opt for a perspective that tacitly reinforces the warfare myth. They buy into the warfare myth in the sense that science and Christianity are two camps that have little to say to each other. That is, they may not take part in the warfare, but they buy peace simply by cutting off meaningful dialog between the two camps. It's a mindset that basically says, "Look, since we can't talk to each other without fighting, let's not talk to each other." Thus, the Christian scientist often leads two lives - as a scientist, she is little more than a moral Naturalist and as a Christian, she keeps her science to herself.
My strategy is obviously to talk to you long enough for you to utter one opinion, value judgement, or concept not produced by "experimentation", which I'll then jump on, and you'll then defend by either linking it to some experiment or other (this is a rare tactic in my experience), or pleading "axiom, axiom". Then I'll say where do you get your axioms and you'll say axioms are those things you couldn't think without and I'll point out that apparently, then, all knowledge comes via experimentation except for, well, the knowledge that doesn't, and that knowledge apparently comes by thinking about thinking.
Then I'll call you "Plato" and you'll sarcastically feign hurt to say my opinion doesn't matter to you.
It's like rehearsing the first five moves of elementary chess openings. Do we have to?
> utter one opinion, value judgement, or concept not produced by "experimentation", which I'll then jump on
An opinion or a judgement is not "knowledge."
You are thinking about thinking now.
Plato.
Wow. You're kinda lame.
Do you have an actual point, or are you jsut here to practice your strawman skills in preparation for helping Hillary in '08?
Even the evolutionary apologists note that Hitler believed that the Aryan race was descended from Adam and Eve, but everyone else evolved.
The Aryan was an exalted spiritual being: "The Aryan hero is on this planet the most complete incarnation of God and of the Spirit."(57) Jews, as well as other inferior races, were characterized as "animal- men" who must someday be eliminated by genetic selection, sterilization, deportations, forced labor, and even "direct liquidation." The elimination of the "animal-man" made possible the coming of the "higher new man."(58 )
If you take the time to read through the article, the author touches on all of your issues.
Science arose not *because* of the influence of Christianity, but *despite* it.
I will try this again.
"In an attempt to account for the origin of modern science, I will argue that the Judeo-Christian world view played a crucial role in this birth."
You continue to misrepresent what the man is saying. He is delineating modern science from science.
And as Fester Chugabrew pointed out:
"You must have missed the part where the author writes: 'I am not claiming that Christianity was sufficient for the birth of science.'"
You will discover that the good Dr. goes through the history of science explaining why Christianity played a pivotal role in advancing mankind into the realm of modern science.
In between, you're telling us there is no knowledge other than what is derived from "experimentation". (Most people grow out of frat-house empiricism, but it's always an amusing logical set-piece on a cold, dull day.)
"Lame"? Wow. Strong refutation.
You lost the argument, are too little nuanced to know it.
> He is delineating modern science from science.
There is no fundamental difference. Science is science. The only real variants of "science" are "junk science" and "pseudo-science." What Archimedes and Eratosthenes and Heron did was every bit as modern as science done today except for the fact that they did not have the database and mechanical tools we have. Had the likes of them been listend to in ancient Greece, or had the early Christians been more interested in them than in Plato and Aristotle, we'd likely be a thousand, two thousand years more advanced.
So you believe that opinion = fact?
Again... wow. Truly stunning, your mind is.
Your opinion differs from the good Dr.'s as well as everyone who uses the term "modern science".
> the problem wasn't that the Christians didn't cling to Aristotle enough, but that they clinged to him too much.
Indeed. No wisdom came automatically from Christianity.
> Your opinion differs from the good Dr.'s as well as everyone who uses the term "modern science".
Ok, then please define "modern" science as distinct from "science."
A. No.
B. But that's not relevant.
How did you come to know that I believe that opinion equals fact?
We have been discussing whether or not knowledge can come from pure thought or whether experiment and observation is required. You keep bringing up "opinion" instead of "fact."
One does not need observational data to have "value judgments" or "opinions." but without that data, real knowledge, which I would *hope* we could agree is fact-based, is not possible. Without observational data, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is a question with nonsense answers.
You faield to define the difference between "science" and "modern science."
Taliesan is running rings around you.
Here's an opinion based on observational data:
It is amusing.
Here's a value judgement without any observational data:
Men evolved from slime.
> Men evolved from slime.
Amazing the leaps the Cretionist mind can make...
Here's one possible distinction:
Modern science has been divided into the hard sciences like physics and the soft sciences like psychology. Psychology involves hard science (neurology, for example) but is primarily theoretical with non-neutral philosophical presuppositions. Physics is generally immune to worldviews. Therefore some of the softer aspects of science (evolution, for example) have been removed from the soft category and placed by fiat into the hard category in order that it gain wider acceptance. Such a move is clearly anti-scientific and has happened only in modern times. So much of that goes on in modern science that we now employ the term "junk science."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.