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.
Wow. What a clear example of ideology trumping reason.
Even evolutionists refer to hard sciences vs. soft sciences. I don't suspect you knew that.
> I don't suspect you knew that.
You suspect a lot of things that aren't so, and don't suspect a lot of things that are.
So... what exactly is not "hard science" about geology?
If you understand the difference between hard and soft sciences, you understand what makes them so. Do you understand the difference?
| If so, give me an example of a soft science besides psychology and evolution. |
>>So... what exactly is not "hard science" about geology?
You didn't answer the question.
>give me an example of a soft science besides psychology and evolution.
A: Evolution is not a "soft science." it is the end result of a number of hard sciences including chemistry and geology.
B: Poli-Sci
During the 130 years from 1600 - 1730 more new scientific discoveries occurred than in all of the previous years of mankind. Built on the backs of these men our modern industrial, medical, technological, communication, transportation and space exploration have enabled mankind to live in a completely different world than previously.
I don't consider geology a soft science but geology is not the same thing as evolution. I remember one of my geology teachers telling the class that certain aspects of geology, such as the relative ages of the layers, are speculative. Of course they are for many reasons, the least of which is their vastly increasing age over the 20th century, going from millions to billions in a few short years. This means their dates are estimated. Estimation does not fall in the realm of hard science.
You've shifted your position. First, you said no knowledge is possible without experimentation -- now, you've broadened the source of knowledge to include "observational data". That is a huge shift. You may not recognize it.
You've also excluded "value judgements" from the category "real knowledge". I assume by "value judgements" you mean such things as "it is bad to steal" and "I should keep my promises".
If knowledge does not include such things, then you're simply defining knowledge as you go, in a logical circle -- or, you simply modify the possible sources of "real knowledge" so that it eventually gets so big it is a synonym for "living".
The truth is, you have a logical problem created by the absolute nature of the epistemological ground you staked out: NO KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT BY EXPERIMENTATION. It only requires ONE INSTANCE of you using knowledge -- OR THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY CALLED KNOWLEDGE -- one instance to demonstrate you don't really think that way.
I'm not asking you to say that evolution is false or Christianity is true or science is not wonderful or opinion is the same as fact or Plato was a good guy or Aristotle a schmuk or broccolli is grand or any of the other irrelevant things you want to transmute the issue into.
NOBODY has ever been able to defend the notion that the human mind is a tabula rasa. There is always an axiom at the bottom, which simply is there, and cannot be derived, from experimentation or any thing else.
I'm so, so sorry.
> First, you said no knowledge is possible without experimentation
Let's jsut check on that:
You said: You think the only valid knowledge is what is produced by experimentation.
I replied: Anything else is unsubstantiated guesswork.
The position holds, and so far without valid counter by yourself.
> "it is bad to steal" and "I should keep my promises".
While *generally* good ideas, those are not "facts." A "fact" in the case of the former would be "If I were to steal, the consequences could be X."
> you're simply defining knowledge as you go, in a logical circle
Incorrect. Knowledge is simply "known fact."
> geology is not the same thing as evolution.
Geology provides adequate evidence of evolution.
> Estimation does not fall in the realm of hard science.
Yes, it does. All measurements are estimations. Look at charts of data from the hardest science you can find, and you'll see error bars.
This is a tautology!
This is all over your head. Regards.
Ah, I get it now. You're a liberal arts major. Probably philosophy, or some such other arcane and basically useless course. Always looking to make the simple and straightforward more complex than needed.
Go ahead and believe that opinions are "knowledge." Heck, go ahead and believe that Ren & Stimpy is wisdom for all I care.
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.