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.
> that modern science as we know it today arose in Venice during the Italian Renaissance.
Indeed, once the stranglehold of the Church started to crack. Platonist dogma, enshrined as The Way Things Are by, IIRC, Paul his own self, held western civilization back. Once the non-Pythagorian/non-Platonist Greek scientific method could be re-established, the scientific Renaissance began in earnest.
It only took 10 posts for Godwin's Ghost to become involved.
Thanks for the ping!
Yup. The Poofists seem to be becoming more desparate... if they can scream loud enough that Hitler was Darwin's fault, they think maybe they'll make some progress. Very... main-stream-media, if ya ask me...
Well "Mein Kampf" fails to mention Darwin or evolutionary theory. It does have many references to a couple of religions, however.
Are you saying that in your conception of evolution, only earth has biology? Sounds awfully anthropomorphic.
P.S. Many of the scientists on the list were post "Origin of the Species". Here is another group of scientists that will give you fits.
> Are you saying that in your conception of evolution, only earth has biology?
Answer the question, Rev. Jackson, and stop dancing. Was Irwin doing biology on the moon?
> Many of the scientists on the list were post "Origin of the Species".
And how many of them were in the fields of biology, genetics, geology or paleontology?
Quite an impressive list of people I've never heard of. Except for Gish... and he's friggen' *hillarious*! Did you see him embarass himself on Penn & Teller's "Bullsh!t!"?
Oh, so long as you're dropping names as a way to prove that Poofism is scientifically based, have you compared the ICR list with that of Project Steve?
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
They've got ICR beat by a mile.
Yes.
And how many of them were in the fields of biology, genetics, geology or paleontology?
Yes.
Any other questions I can help you with?
Ha ha. Does he also reveal that Hitler was an occultist who wanted to replace science with magic?
"We stand at the beginning of a colossal revolution with regard to moral ideas and the spiritual orientation of humanity. A new age is coming with the magical interpretation of reality, an interpretation based upon the will, not upon intelligence."
Hitler's views on Jews and Aryans, by the way, were taken directly from the occult writings of W Scott-Elliot:
"The tribes resulting from the segregation effected by the Manu for the formation of the new Root Race eventually found their way to the southern shores of the Central Asian sea, and there the first great Aryan kingdom was established. When the Transaction dealing with the origin of a Root Race comes to be written, it will be seen that many of the peoples we are accustomed to call Semitic are really Aryan in blood. The world will also be enlightened as to what constitutes the claim of the Hebrews to be considered a "chosen people." Shortly it may be stated that they constitute an abnormal and unnatural link between the Fourth and Fifth Root Races"
If a scientist wants to believe in secular humanism, they should delineate it from their day job. If they want to use their belief to take leaps of logic in order to solve certain problems, publish those leaps of logic with the materials for all to discern their viability. That is called a disclaimer.
Creationists should do the same.
A just-so idea is just-so.
In the first line of the article:
"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." (emphasis added)
If you read the whole article (by going to the source website), I think you will find Dr. Bumbulis gives a balanced editorial on the topic.
read later
> "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."
And again, the problem is that science was born before Christianity was. Science was stifled *before* Christinaity by the Platonist worldview... but Christianity adopted the same world view and used its power to continue to stifle science for the next 1200 years or so.
Science arose not *because* of the influence of Christianity, but *despite* it.
> A just-so idea is just-so.
Indeed so. But evolution is NOT a "just-so" idea. Unlike Poofism, evolution nhas a mountain of evidence in support of it... and *no* real evidence against it. The closest thing there is to evidence against evolution and in support of Poofism is a lack of *complete* evidence in support of evolution.
>>Was Irwin doing biology on the moon?
>Yes.
Indeed? And what was the lunar biota he was working on?
>>And how many of them were in the fields of biology, genetics, geology or paleontology?
>Yes.
And thus your reasoning power is fully displayed.
You must have missed the part where the author writes: "I am not claiming that Christianity was sufficient for the birth of science."
What evidence does evolutionism provide for the arrangment and existence of information, i.e. how information comes into being? One would think that, before evolutionism could postulate its first inductive statement, there would have to be some information on hand.
What is the probablity of information arising completely apart from intelligence or design? What is the probability of an automobile arising apart from intelligence or design?
Science puts forth more than one theory as a means of understanding the universe. As a matter of probabilities and interpretation of the information the universe presents, evolution would not be allowed to present its first inductive hypothesis if its fundamental assertion were true: that intelligent design has little or no place in the creation and sustaining of the universe.
The mountain of evidence, if such exists for evolutionists, is a created universe that demonstrates remarkable consistency with respect to both natural law and content.
It's easy to understand how pagan philosophers could adopt a pantheistic cosmology, but even the most able monotheistic Islamic and Jewish scholars lapsed into pantheism. Stanley Jaki argues in The Savior of Science that the Catholic Church's promulgation of the dogma of "creation from nothing" was the catalyst for Newton's scientific breakthroughs, and the birth of "science" as a self-sustaining enterprise.
Renowned historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki boldly illumines one of the best-kept secrets of science history— the vital role theology has historically played in fruitful scientific development. Beginning with an overview of failed attempts at a sustained science by the ancient cultures of Greece, China, India, and the early Muslim empire, Jaki shows that belief in Christ—a belief absent in all these cultures—secured for science its only viable birth starting in the High Middle Ages. In the second part of the book Jaki argues that Christian monotheism alone provides the intellectual safeguards for a valid cosmological argument, restores the sense of purpose destroyed by theories of evolution, and secures firm ethical guidelines against fearful abuses of scientific know-how.
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.