|
Post by unspammable on Oct 9, 2005 7:02:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 10, 2005 13:03:47 GMT -5
"Obviously, I think something deeper is involved. My hypothesis is that the Christian world view was crucial, perhaps even necessary, for the birth of modern science. I realize I cannot prove this, but since I set out not as a mathematician, interested in certainties and proofs, this is irrelevant. Instead, I set out as a sleuth, and I find many clues that converge to support my belief."
If he can't prove it then obviously it isn't true. Christianity and science don't go hand in hand. Christianity has always been at odds with science. The title of that second website is especially annoying. "Christianity and the Birth of Science." Science was born among the ancient Greeks. It was Aristotle who laid down many of rules of the scientific method. He was first to stress observation. He was also the first known person to head what could be considered a research team. Considering faith is what is demanded rather than reason I don't see how Christianity plays a role. Lets ask Galileo.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 10, 2005 14:20:41 GMT -5
Science was not always at odds with the Catholic Church , in fact the Galileo incident is in my experience the only one that is ever mentioned.
In the middle ages, till the renaissance the church was the only body which concerned itself with science, and even after the renaissance, it still had a great presence on science, specially through the Jesuits and their institutions, Descartes, Voltaire all studied in jesuit institutions for example, and the father of Genetics, a science which has its own forum here, was Mendel, an augustinian Monk.
The Catholic church used to believe and still believes that since both "christianity" and "science" are true, there can be no contradiction between them.
Generally, if the Catholic church percieves a contradiction between a well established fact of science, and some bible passage, she says that science is right, and alegorizes the bible passage. That is why for example the theory of evolution is accepted in the catholic church.
Other christian denominations, if they see a contradiction between a bible passage and a well established science fact, inerpret the bible literally, and say science is wrong.
The Church was wrong with Galileo, but it was a quite complicated incident, remember that even before Galileo was born, Copernicus had already said pretty much the same things, and it caused no problems, his book was even dedicated to the Pope and published by churchmen.
|
|
|
Post by unspammable on Oct 11, 2005 5:20:28 GMT -5
Christianity has always been at odds with science. Read this: www.bede.org.uk/university.htmOne wonders. If Christianity has always been at odds with science, why is it that modern science started in Western Europe rather than Islam (where Greek ideas were more popular)? Science was born among the ancient Greeks. That depends on how you define 'science'. The greeks had speculative theories, but they didn't depend as much on empirical experimentation. Modern science began with the Renaissance. Indeed; Galileo was Christian. Read this: www.galilean-library.org/galileo1.html
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 11, 2005 13:19:02 GMT -5
The problem witn Galileo was that he didnt give The Church its proper due and Respects it demanded at the time ...they took that as an insult,so they made an example out've him!
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 11, 2005 17:12:46 GMT -5
"One wonders. If Christianity has always been at odds with science, why is it that modern science started in Western Europe rather than Islam (where Greek ideas were more popular)?" Greek ideas were very popular among the Muslims. Like early Christians they used Aristotle and Plato to help soften out the edges of their belief system. No historian would disagree. Christians came from as far as Germany to study in Cordoba when it was dominated by Islam to gain information. Muslims made huge contributions in medicine and so did Jews living among them. "That depends on how you define 'science'. The greeks had speculative theories, but they didn't depend as much on empirical experimentation. Modern science began with the Renaissance." The Renaissance was an intellectual rebellion against the Catholic Church. Before the Rennaissance art centered around the bible and the what science you had was based on the ancient greek texts (and for the most part inaccurate) that had been translated. The Renaissance reached further back to the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Renaissance came into existant because of a rebirth of reason (and a decline of the Church's power) which is a child of the ancient Greeks. Science and reason go hand in hand. Not Christianity (irraitonality) and science. I suppose you could make an argument that modern science started in the Renaissance but not many innovations occured during that period. The Englightenment (the age of reason) is where innovations really picked up. I think Charles Murray in his "Human Accomplishments" has a a chart showing levels of innovations being produced by each decade up until the the 1950s. (If I can get my scanner to work I'll upload it) I call the Rennaissance the age of schizophrena for its mixture of the rational and the irrational and then there's a progression to the Englightenment which i consider man's golden age (and its child the industrial revolution) and then we fall back to schizophrenia thanks to German philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, etc. (No, wait, insanity is a better word). "Indeed; Galileo was Christian. Read this: www.galilean-library.org/galileo1.html" I never denied he was a Christian. The argument was whether Christianity and science go hand in hand and it simply doesn't. Gailileo was punished for developing a theory that went against what the church had come to believe. I agree with crimsonguard to a degree. It was about "respect" in a way but clearly we see how Christianity is an enemy of the rational mind. Rather than allow a debate the church threatened Galileo with death. I'm not completely sure but I recall the protestant sect leaders not being too keen on Gailileo either. Gailileo, using his reason, question what was considered "fact" and developed a different theory. The church was simply restating what the ancient Greeks believed with their limited information but the church felt it had to keep to tradition considering the religious upheavel (science demands objectivity. Denying a theory, as the church did, simply because they didn't get their "due "respect" shows they were enemies of reason and therefore enemies of science.) During a time where Christianity was breaking into sects the church felt it had to tighten up. Too many people (Luther, Calvin, etc.) were questioning in some form or another the catholic church and the way it went along with its business and/or challenged its premise. Now this wasn't anything new. There had been heretics popping up here and there during the middle ages but for the first time these heretics had significant state support and so therefore couldn't be squashed so easily (recall the Albengensians (spelling?). But the protestant sects were just as bad as the Catholic Church. After the initial religious fanatic fervor gave way you see a movement away from fanatic faith and seeking inside the bible for explanations to nature and a movement towards true science. The time when "men of the mind" finally step forward. "In the middle ages, till the renaissance the church was the only body which concerned itself with science, and even after the renaissance, it still had a great presence on science, specially through the Jesuits and their institutions, Descartes, Voltaire all studied in jesuit institutions for example, and the father of Genetics, a science which has its own forum here, was Mendel, an augustinian Monk." Voltaire was an enemy of the Church and for good reason. Although I'm not exactly keen on Voltaire I agree with him there. With regards to Descartes it was the Catholic Church's condemnation of Gailieo that stopped Descartes from publishing "The World" out of fear. Christianity, in this case the catholic church, doesn't seem too keen on free thinkers during this period. There's also Giordano Bruno was executed by the church. "The Catholic church used to believe and still believes that since both "christianity" and "science" are true, there can be no contradiction between them." That's an irrational statement by the church. For example, it says in the bible that Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead. The man had been dead for days. So how does science not conflict with the church on that one? I've yet to hear of a corpse, dead for a few days, coming back to life. Now the pope can say: "Well, Jesus was the son of God so you must have faith that he accomplished that feat." But now we move into the realm of faith and not science. “Generally, if the Catholic church percieves a contradiction between a well established fact of science, and some bible passage, she says that science is right, and alegorizes the bible passage. That is why for example the theory of evolution is accepted in the catholic church.” It took a long time for the church to accept evolution, from what I recall. And the Catholic Church of today isn’t the same as before. They may be more “liberal” today but that doesn’t prove they were so centuries ago or even decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by unspammable on Oct 12, 2005 1:11:34 GMT -5
A couple of points:
-The 'conflict' hypothesis between science and christianity is dead in the water as far as current historical synthesis is concerned. The "science vs christianity" myth has been very popular in journalism and popular culture, but most current scholars reject it. Whether christianity was responsible for the modern science is another story however, and one that is open to debate...
-Modern science is defined as an organized method of formulating explanations of nature. Such a method consists of two parts: theory and research. The former explains the how and why of natural phenomena, and the latter is necessary for empirical predictions and prohibitions. This is why post-Copernican science was "science" and how that of (e.g.) Ancient Greece or China was merely technology or "natural philosophy".
-Greeks tried to explain nature, but their explanations were either too theoretical or too empirical. For example, Aristotle theorized that the speed at which objects fall is proportional to their weight -- this would have been falsified if he bothered to do some experimentation. Democritus' theory that all matter is composed of atoms, or Empedocles's theory that all matter is composed of four elements, were just speculation with no basis in observation.
-Interestingly, Copernicus' heliocentric model wasn't scientific either, being merely a descriptive claim. He didn't bother to explain why planets moved around the sun. A truely scientific theory of the solar system wasn't around until Newton.
-Islamic learning was dominant from the eight century to the end of the fourteenth. Muslims built on the Greek philosophical heritage and the Hindu numeric system, and made many impressive mathematical advances. However, Islamic scholars were not scientists but rather exegetes, merely content with mastering the classic texts instead of innovating. This was due to a theological obstacle: Allah was presented as a god that capriciously interferes with physical reality. There was consequently a major bloc within Islam that saw natural laws as blasphemy -- a limitation of divine power.
-In constrast, scholastic Christianity provided a metaphysical basis that supported the scientific enterprise. Unlike (e.g.) the Taoist Chinese, scholars in Western Europe saw the universe as being governed by a rational entity. Therefore, it was thought that natural phenomena can be explained by logical rules. Monotheism made the radical break with nature that was necessary for science to flourish. This is in contrast with the Ancient Greeks, who thought of reality as composed of capricious Gods.
-It is true that Catholic church tried to force others to conform to their doctrines. However, in almost every case these disputes were theological rather than scientific. For example, Giordano Bruno (who was not really a scientist, but rather a speculative astronomer) happened to be a Hermetic sorceror. His troubles had to do with a heretical theology proposing an infinite number of worlds (a theory which was entirely speculative).
-In the case of Galileo, it's a lot more complicated than you think. In Galileo's time, the Catholic church was under attack by protestant accusations of not being true to the scripture. During the counter-reformation, the problem was church authority, but the Pope (and other church leaders) wasn't ready to condemn all science and impose fundamentalism. Scientists were permitted to evade theological controversy by claiming to speak as mathematicians (as opposed to theoligans). It was a very simple dodge, and most scientists at the time managed to avoid trouble.
-Galileo's error was strategic. When he published the Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he put the evasion into the mouth of Simplicio, the dullard. Morever, he lied to the Pope (his former friend, Matteo Barberini) about when it will appear, so the book came out unexpectedly, sparking a storm of controversy. This obviously prompted a crackdown by the Catholic church against intellectual freedom. So yes, the church (like other political institutions) did abuse power, but Galileo thoughtlessly provoked it and in so doing almost jeapordized the scientific revolution. Almost.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 12, 2005 5:06:57 GMT -5
“-The 'conflict' hypothesis between science and christianity is dead in the water as far as current historical synthesis is concerned. The "science vs christianity" myth has been very popular in journalism and popular culture, but most current scholars reject it. Whether christianity was responsible for the modern science is another story however, and one that is open to debate...”
You say it’s open to debate but your first two sentences state that “science vs. Christianity” is a myth and that the “conflict hyposthesis” between science is a dead as far as current historical synthesis is concerned. That’s a claim that needs proof. You haven’t presented that proof.
“-Modern science is defined as an organized method of formulating explanations of nature. Such a method consists of two parts: theory and research. The former explains the how and why of natural phenomena, and the latter is necessary for empirical predictions and prohibitions”
I mentioned in my previous post that Aristotle was the first to have what you could consider a research team. He had a theory and he went about collecting data.
“Greeks tried to explain nature, but their explanations were either too theoretical or too empirical. For example, Aristotle theorized that the speed at which objects fall is proportional to their weight -- this would have been falsified if he bothered to do some experimentation. Democritus' theory that all matter is composed of atoms, or Empedocles's theory that all matter is composed of four elements, were just speculation with no basis in observation.”
We’re speaking of roots and what was congenial to the advancement of science. Which is congenial to science? Christianity or the ancient Greeks? When Western man open their eye’s after the dark ages was it Christianity they look towards for knowledge or the Ancient Greeks? Who is called the father of Medical Science? Saint Peter or Hippocrates? “Natural philosophy” is the first building block towards science. It’s the roots. And since it was man’s first attempt at understanding the world around them there are many errors. Aristotle was the first to attempt to use observation to develop a theory. Whether some of his theories are incorrect does not negate that he was the first to stress observation and then develop an explanation. You speak as if I claimed the scientific method was developed completely during the time of the Ancient Greeks. Look over my last post. I clearly did not make that claim. The roots of the scientific method is found among the Ancient Greeks but its development occurred during the 17th century. We’re speaking of roots here.
“-Interestingly, Copernicus' heliocentric model wasn't scientific either, being merely a descriptive claim. He didn't bother to explain why planets moved around the sun. A truely scientific theory of the solar system wasn't around until Newton.”
Copernicus was lacking in information that was aware to Newton. When you have limited information you make the most reasonable assumption based on the information you have in front of you. It’s like blaming the ancient Greeks for not having a telescope instead of admiring their attempts at understanding their world.
“-Islamic learning was dominant from the eight century to the end of the fourteenth. Muslims built on the Greek philosophical heritage and the Hindu numeric system, and made many impressive mathematical advances. However, Islamic scholars were not scientists but rather exegetes, merely content with mastering the classic texts instead of innovating. This was due to a theological obstacle: Allah was presented as a god that capriciously interferes with physical reality. There was consequently a major bloc within Islam that saw natural laws as blasphemy -- a limitation of divine power.”
Allah was a god that capriciously interferes with physical reality? Give me an example or two. I claimed that Muslims made advances in science and medicine. You acknowledge their contribution to mathematics but for some reason you pass over their contributions in other fields. And their contribution is more in the field of medicine than in science. I get the impression that you think I was trying to make Islam sound more congenial towards science than Christianity. It was not at all. Their contribution was minimal.
“-In constrast, scholastic Christianity provided a metaphysical basis that supported the scientific enterprise.”
And where do you think that metaphysical basis derives from? It has its roots with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Augustine borrowed heavily from Plato when writing his classic “City of God.” The most important Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas, was heavily influenced by Aristotle. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a connection between science and Christianity. In Islam you had a similar trend. What it does prove is that the best minds in the Christian world tried to validate their beliefs by referring back to the Ancient Greeks. The “metaphysical basis” you speak of is Ancient Greek in origin.
“Unlike (e.g.) the Taoist Chinese, scholars in Western Europe saw the universe as being governed by a rational entity. Therefore, it was thought that natural phenomena can be explained by logical rules. Monotheism made the radical break with nature that was necessary for science to flourish. This is in contrast with the Ancient Greeks, who thought of reality as composed of capricious Gods.”
What the majority of the Ancient Greeks believed is irrelevant. Just as what the poor peasant during Thomas Aquinas’s time believed is irrelevant. What matters is what the few who actually used theirs minds achieved. And from what I recall Aristotle didn’t believe in the gods.
Natural phenomena explained by logical rules in relation to God? I would like you to expand on this if you wish.
“-It is true that Catholic church tried to force others to conform to their doctrines. However, in almost every case these disputes were theological rather than scientific. For example, Giordano Bruno (who was not really a scientist, but rather a speculative astronomer) happened to be a Hermetic sorceror. His troubles had to do with a heretical theology proposing an infinite number of worlds (a theory which was entirely speculative).”
Well, not much science was going on during that period for them to get overly upset and I don’t seem to recall the Catholic Church getting excited over scientific issues as the centuries rolled on. Most of which came outside its sphere of influence. In fact, I recall a sense of evasion, distrust, and apathy.
“-In the case of Galileo, it's a lot more complicated than you think. In Galileo's time, the Catholic church was under attack by protestant accusations of not being true to the scripture. During the counter-reformation, the problem was church authority, but the Pope (and other church leaders) wasn't ready to condemn all science and impose fundamentalism. Scientists were permitted to evade theological controversy by claiming to speak as mathematicians (as opposed to theoligans). It was a very simple dodge, and most scientists at the time managed to avoid trouble.”
The term scientist is rather new. It wasn’t used during that period. I think it first came around in the 19th century. If you can name a handful of people, even remotely involved in anything that can be classified as science before the reintroduction of the Ancient Greeks texts and their accomplishments I’d be amazed. I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I’m just unaware of any scientific accomplishments during a Church dominated era.
“-Galileo's error was strategic. When he published the Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he put the evasion into the mouth of Simplicio, the dullard. Morever, he lied to the Pope (his former friend, Matteo Barberini) about when it will appear, so the book came out unexpectedly, sparking a storm of controversy. This obviously prompted a crackdown by the Catholic church against intellectual freedom. So yes, the church (like other political institutions) did abuse power, but Galileo thoughtlessly provoked it and in so doing almost jeapordized the scientific revolution. Almost.”
I’m unaware of this intellectual freedom before the early 17th century in Catholic Europe. As long as a piece of work didn’t contradict or offend the sensibilities of the Church it wasn’t banned. With regards to the different Protestant sects the story was the same during the initial fanatic fervor. I fail to see how someone can claim there was intellectual freedom when you could have your life’s work banned because it conflicts with Church dogma.
|
|
|
Post by unspammable on Oct 12, 2005 9:57:48 GMT -5
You say it’s open to debate but your first two sentences state that “science vs. Christianity” is a myth and that the “conflict hyposthesis” between science is a dead as far as current historical synthesis is concerned. That’s a claim that needs proof. You haven’t presented that proof. Actually, the burden of proof is on you, since I was responding to your statement that christianity conflicts with science. On the contrary, most modern historians of science would disagree with that. I can provide a reading list if you want. The problem I was addressing in the first post was whether Christianity (as well as Greek philosophy) had an indispensable hand in causing the scientific revolution. Most historians are divided on this issue. Your points about Greek influences on medieval philosophers (from the 12th century onwards) are a red herring. I am not saying that Christianity alone is sufficient to bring about modern science. If Christianity were introduced to a stone-age culture, science would hardly result. But Christianity was necessary for progress into modern science, due to some major conceptual obstacles that plagued the Greeks. I'll get to this later -- but to fully explain it would require several books. I'll just make a couple of points: -For the scholastic philosophers, the God of Christianity was a rational, responsive, consistent, and ominpotent being whose will is rationally intelligible. To say that God cannot (e.g.) make a square circle is not a limitation on his omnipotence, but simply an expression of his divine will. Nicholas Oresme said that God's creation is like that of a man making a clock and letting it run and continue its motion independently. The analogy is apt, for God never does interfere with his own natural laws (since such a thing is impossible in the first place). Such a conception of God was compatible with the notion that (in Whitehead's words) "every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles." -Theology, therefore, was rational. Saint Augustine said of reason that it was the only thing that made man superior to the animals. If you are familiar with scholastic philosophy, you will see the high standard of reasoning and logic that was exemplified in Aquinas, as well as in Ockham, Duns Scotus, et al. -The Greeks had many notions that were rational and conductive to natural philosophy and science, but also many notions that prevented science (and which were done away with by scholastic philosophy). First was their conception of the gods. None of them were remotely rational (one thinks of Zeus here) to create a lawful universe. Plato conceived of an evil spirit (the demiurge) failing to create a cosmos out of pure reason. (It is possible that this was merely a metaphorical device.) Plato also thought that the universe was created according to ideal shapes, not operating principles. Thus, the universe "must" be a sphere because that is symmetrical, and heavenly bodies "must" rotate in a circle because that is most perfect. Platonic idealism thus was a serious obstacle to scientific rationality. -Second was the Greek notion of the universe being an endless cycle of being. Plato deviated from this by proposing that the universe had been created at some point, but most Greek scholars (including Aristotle) thought the idea that the Universe had been created at a certain point to be unthinkable. They thus rejected the idea of progress. To Aristotle, every thought or idea has occured before, and everything happens in cycles. This thought is no doubt inconceivable to us today, but this is because we were raised in a Christian metaphysics, if not theology. If you are an atheist (or merely an agnostic, like I am), it is the monotheistic God of Abraham that you disbelieve in. -Third was the notion that the universe was animate and that all physical objects were living beings. Plato wrote in Timaeus that the world is a single visible living creature. He divinity to the world's soul and conceived of heavenly objects to be celestial gods. The difficulty this would pose to mechanical laws requires, I trust, no explanation. -As for Islam, it rejected the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental principles laid down by God at creation. This was due to a statement in the Qur'an: "Verily, God will cause to err whom he pleaseth, and will direct whom he pleaseth." (See here: word.nipl.net/x/quiki/quran/sale/35.al-fatir.the_creator.html) Although this seems to refer only to individuals, many Muslims interpreted this to apply to all things. When the Muslims assimilated Aristotle's physics, they simply exanded on him instead of correcting his mistakes by observation. They also shared the Greek notion that the world itself was conscious and animate. Muslim philosophers like Averroes proclaimed Aristotle's physics was infallible, and that those whose observations were inconsistent with Aristotle's views were simply mistaken. If you can name a handful of people, even remotely involved in anything that can be classified as science before the reintroduction of the Ancient Greeks texts and their accomplishments I’d be amazed. I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I’m just unaware of any scientific accomplishments during a Church dominated era. It is a myth that learning floundered in Europe during the Middle Ages. Technologically, the Middle Ages marked a period of steady advance over the Roman Empire. To detail the intellectual progress during early to late Medieval times would take several volumes, but I'll just point out some innovations: -In 732, (the Early Middle Ages) Charles Martel led a Frankish army in the Battle of Tours and roundly defeated the Saracens. When the Saracens first attacked, they could make no dent in the superly armoured Frankish infantry -- superior to any troops in Roman or Greek times. When they withdrew, they were slaughtered by Knights in full armor. The knights charged at a gallop, the full weight of the horse and rider behind a long lance. The difference was stirrups and the Norman saddle. This enabled a rider to (1) charge forward and drive home a long lance while (2) withstanding sudden shocks. Neither the Saracens or the Romans knew how to harness horses effectively, thus they lacked heavy cavalry. -Many other inventions were made in the Middle Ages, including the use of iron shoes for heavy cavalry, effective waterwheels, mills, camshafts, mechanical clocks, the compass, etc. Also important was the recognition of uses for certain technologies, like gunpowder. The Chinese were the first to use an explosive powder, but when knowledge of this arrived in Europe (around the beginning of the fourteenth century), implementation to gunnery was immediate. Cannon were fist used in battle during a seige of Metz in 1324. By 1325, cannon existed all over Europe. -Jean Buridan of the University of Paris was a major figure in medieval science. His work on mechanics was very impressive and extensive. In addition to demolishing Aristotle's theory in the Physics that projectiles are propelled by air closing in from behind, he also anticipated Newton's First Law of Motion by his work on inertia. Buridan also wrote a long discussion theorizing that the earth turned on its axis, as well as hypothesizing that the earth rotates (although the latter was purely hypothetical). -Burdian's succesor, Nicole d'Oresme (1325-1382) was also very influential. His work, unlike previous scholars, was very mathematical, setting a high standard for later advances. There were some arguments against the notion of the earth revolving, including the popular one that if you shot an arrow into the sky, it goes strait ahead and not behind or in front of the shooter -- something which seemingly contradicts Buridan's theory. His answer was arrows shot have horizontal as well as vertical impetus imposed on the bow, due to the fact that the motion of the earth is imparted upon all objects on the earth or close by, including the atmosphere. -As professors accepted and taught that sunrise and sunset was caused by the rotation of the earth, it was no longer necessary to assume that the sun revolved around the Earth. Bishop Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) observed that from the viewpoint of the earth or any other heavenly object, it will always seem that you are stationary and all other things are in motion. He thus casted doubt that the earth is stationary. -This was where Copernicus came in. He proposed a system where the sun was in the center, with the earth circling it. However, everything else in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was incorrect. He worked out a geometrical system for calculating future planetary positions -- the results of which were completely wrong and less accurate than that of the Ptolematic system. He failed to realize that planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. This was probably due to a over-reverence of Greece philosophy, since the Greeks thought the motion of heavenly bodies must be circular since that is the ideal shape. Consequently, Copernicus's system was even more convoluted than Ptolomy's, since he had to clutter his model with more epicycles. He also failed to progress beyond Ptolemy because he conceived planets not as moving through space but encased in huge rotating shells that held them in place. Thus according to Copernicus it was spheres which rotated around the sun, not planets (thus the title of his book). -The scientific revolution began more with Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who corrected Copernicus' system. Part of the reason why history remembers Copernicus more than those who preceded him is because his book did not acknowledge their debts, while Kepler's did acknowledge Copernicus'. Kepler built his theory out of long and careful obervations, concluding the a model could be built that assumed elliptical orbits rather than epicycles.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 13, 2005 1:46:19 GMT -5
“Actually, the burden of proof is on you, since I was responding to your statement that christianity conflicts with science.” Wait, you stated that “Christianity vs. science” is a myth but then you went on to say it was still debatable. First of all, you contradicted yourself. Either the truth of it is debatable or it’s a myth. Second of all, the burden of proof is on you, not me, since you’re the one who made the initial claim that Christianity is indispensable to science. You’re the one who started this thread claiming an absolute so the burden of proof is on you. Moving on, I provided proof on every statement I made. Just go back and read my posts. If you have a question about my posts, I’ll be happy to answer. But this should help: faith is not based on reason. Science is based on reason. Christianity survives on faith and is therefore not congenial to understand the world around us. Quick example: Does God exist? One may say, “well, the world follows a natural order so of course there has to be a divine being to set the world as it is.” Follow up question: What proof do you have? Answer: none or, and this always annoys me, “well, there just has to be since nature follows a natural order.” That’s not proof. Therefore, the belief is irrational. And pointing out that the Ancient Greeks had some irrational beliefs as an attempt to “turn the tables” on me doesn’t work at all. Reason why: Aristotle made an attempt to understand the world around him rather than simply rely on irrational faith. He laid down the foundation. I never claimed he built the house. Christianity, on the other hand, doesn’t have its roots in reason. Christians push the concept faith rather than reason because it can’t be taken seriously when viewed outside of faith. “On the contrary, most modern historians of science would disagree with that. I can provide a reading list if you want.” The answer is obvious... yes, I do. You’re attempting to prove a belief. Any evidence you can bring up would be welcomed and expected so you don’t need to ask me if I want to see it or not. Who are these “modern historians of science”? It would be easier if you just named them, and I’m sure there are those who disagree with them. Naming them wouldn’t be enough. I want to know if their theory stands up to criticism but that would be my “homework.” I won’t know that until you post the names so I can check. “The problem I was addressing in the first post was whether Christianity (as well as Greek philosophy) had an indispensable hand in causing the scientific revolution. Most historians are divided on this issue.” Yes, and usually one side is right and the other is wrong. Let’s look at the arguments of both sides. We’re just lay people arguing in a forum. “-For the scholastic philosophers, the God of Christianity was a rational, responsive, consistent, and ominpotent being whose will is rationally intelligible. To say that God cannot (e.g.) make a square circle is not a limitation on his omnipotence, but simply an expression of his divine will.” I’m repeating myself here. Christian scholars used the Ancient Greeks to validate God and Christianity. They made their best effort to mesh the two together, so to speak. So that attempt in making a rational God has its roots in the Ancient Greeks. “Nicholas Oresme said that God's creation is like that of a man making a clock and letting it run and continue its motion independently. The analogy is apt, for God never does interfere with his own natural laws (since such a thing is impossible in the first place). Such a conception of God was compatible with the notion that (in Whitehead's words) "every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles." Same as my previous statement. By the way, that sounds like Deism. Now I know where that concept started out. “-Theology, therefore, was rational. Saint Augustine said of reason that it was the only thing that made man superior to the animals. If you are familiar with scholastic philosophy, you will see the high standard of reasoning and logic that was exemplified in Aquinas, as well as in Ockham, Duns Scotus, et al.” That’s the problem. Both St. Aquinas and St. Augustine weren’t rational in every way. To be rational you must be objective and this is lacking because thier attempt is to validate Christianity through Greek philosophy because on its own Christianity can’t stand. They failed. It may be enough for a man who wants to prove the validity of Christianity to themselves but it’s not enough for someone looking to see if the claims are rational or not. St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, as I think I pointed out before, were philosophical schizophrenics. Mixing the rational with the irrational. “-The Greeks had many notions that were rational and conductive to natural philosophy and science, but also many notions that prevented science (and which were done away with by scholastic philosophy). First was their conception of the gods. None of them were remotely rational (one thinks of Zeus here) to create a lawful universe. Plato conceived of an evil spirit (the demiurge) failing to create a cosmos out of pure reason. (It is possible that this was merely a metaphorical device.) Plato also thought that the universe was created according to ideal shapes, not operating principles. Thus, the universe "must" be a sphere because that is symmetrical, and heavenly bodies "must" rotate in a circle because that is most perfect. Platonic idealism thus was a serious obstacle to scientific rationality.” Why focus on Plato? I speak of his better: Aristotle. We are dealing with science and Aristotle is the Ancient Greek we mention most when dealing science, and Hippocrates with regards to medical science. Plato is a mystic type. Check out Ayn Rand’s view of the Plato vs. Aristotle conflict. She mentions it in everyone one of her non- fiction books. “-Second was the Greek notion of the universe being an endless cycle of being. Plato deviated from this by proposing that the universe had been created at some point, but most Greek scholars (including Aristotle) thought the idea that the Universe had been created at a certain point to be unthinkable. They thus rejected the idea of progress. To Aristotle, every thought or idea has occured before, and everything happens in cycles. This thought is no doubt inconceivable to us today, but this is because we were raised in a Christian metaphysics, if not theology. If you are an atheist (or merely an agnostic, like I am), it is the monotheistic God of Abraham that you disbelieve in.” Reject the idea of progress? There is no civilization without progress. What defines progess? Achievements, correct? The Egyptians and the Romans don’t even come close to the achievements of the Ancient Greeks. The Romans copied their betters without shame. That many believe the world happens in cycles, or that every idea or thought has already occurred, didn’t stop them from trying to recover what they believed to be lost knowledge. “-Third was the notion that the universe was animate and that all physical objects were living beings. Plato wrote in Timaeus that the world is a single visible living creature. He divinity to the world's soul and conceived of heavenly objects to be celestial gods. The difficulty this would pose to mechanical laws requires, I trust, no explanation.” Consider that god breaks these natural laws left and right, not unlike the Ancient Greek gods, in the Old Testament shouldn’t be passed over. And once again, we must look at Aristotle. Not Plato. These two are in conflict. “-As for Islam, it rejected the notion that the universe ran along on fundamental principles laid down by God at creation. This was due to a statement in the Qur'an: "Verily, God will cause to err whom he pleaseth, and will direct whom he pleaseth." (See here: word.nipl.net/x/quiki/quran/sale/35.al-fatir.the_creator.html) Although this seems to refer only to individuals, many Muslims interpreted this to apply to all things. When the Muslims assimilated Aristotle's physics, they simply exanded on him instead of correcting his mistakes by observation. They also shared the Greek notion that the world itself was conscious and animate. Muslim philosophers like Averroes proclaimed Aristotle's physics was infallible, and that those whose observations were inconsistent with Aristotle's views were simply mistaken.” Sounds a lot like how Christians in the middle ages first viewed the Ancient Greeks when they were first reintroduced to the texts but unlike (perhaps we’re both wrong on this) the Muslims they questioned, eventually, the ancient texts but you fail to convince me that the Church played any role in advancing anything associated with science, reason and objectivity, to disclaim those errors. What I see is individual’s using their minds rather than relying on faith. The only thing you proved is that Islam never had an intellectual revolution as occurred in Western Europe. A revolution of the mind. "Verily, God will cause to err whom he pleaseth, and will direct whom he pleaseth." Sounds like predestination. An aspect of Calvinism. This is a pretty weak argument. You took one sentence out of the Qu’ran to prove a point. If I sat down and read the bible I could pull out the same. I’ll ask the Presbyterian pastor how John Calvin decided that predestination was a valid belief. It appears to be a central belief for John Calvin. “It is a myth that learning floundered in Europe during the Middle Ages. Technologically, the Middle Ages marked a period of steady advance over the Roman Empire. To detail the intellectual progress during early to late Medieval times would take several volumes, but I'll just point out some innovations:” I looked over the technologies you mentioned. The Middle ages last centuries longer than the Enlightenment (very short period of time) and the rate of achievement can’t be compared. On that note, we should also point out when most achievements during the middle ages occurred. They were after the rediscovery of the Greek texts. Did the church dominate during the Enlightenment or during the Middle Ages? And isn’t it rather interesting how during the Renaissance the church was in the middle of losing a great deal of power and at the same time innovations were being produced at a faster rate. It seems that the less influence Christianity has in state matters the more innovations are produced. Also, military innovations don’t impress me. They are not the result of men attempting to understand the world around us. It’s an attempt to dominate others rather than to understand the world. “-This was where Copernicus came in. He proposed a system where the sun was in the center, with the earth circling it. However, everything else in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was incorrect. He worked out a geometrical system for calculating future planetary positions -- the results of which were completely wrong and less accurate than that of the Ptolematic system. He failed to realize that planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. This was probably due to a over-reverence of Greece philosophy, since the Greeks thought the motion of heavenly bodies must be circular since that is the ideal shape. Consequently, Copernicus's system was even more convoluted than Ptolomy's, since he had to clutter his model with more epicycles. He also failed to progress beyond Ptolemy because he conceived planets not as moving through space but encased in huge rotating shells that held them in place. Thus according to Copernicus it was spheres which rotated around the sun, not planets (thus the title of his book).” His mistakes were due to a lack of information and a lack of ability to gain that information. I already pointed this out. I’m not going to go through it again. I’ll just ask you to go back to my previous post and read it. “-The scientific revolution began more with Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who corrected Copernicus' system. Part of the reason why history remembers Copernicus more than those who preceded him is because his book did not acknowledge their debts, while Kepler's did acknowledge Copernicus'. Kepler built his theory out of long and careful obervations, concluding the a model could be built that assumed elliptical orbits rather than epicycles.” You acknowledge that people have debts towards those before them but you're nit able to acknowledge that the first were the Ancient Greeks (basically Aristotle) who provided the philosophical foundation.
|
|
|
Post by unspammable on Oct 13, 2005 6:25:41 GMT -5
Check out Ayn Rand’s view of the Plato vs. Aristotle conflict. Why focus on Plato? I speak of his better: Aristotle. And once again, we must look at Aristotle. Not Plato. These two are in conflict. Hmmm. I suspected you were an objectivist when you first cited Charles Murray's book, and proceeded to say that reason isn't compatible with faith (this reminded me of an interview with Murray by some objectivist or other). Are you? Why the animosity to Plato? Moving on, I think most of your 'objections' aren't objections at all, and that you actually agree with me more than you think (though perhaps you misinterpreted my points). First of all, I never said the Ancient Greeks didn't have a significant hand in influencing medieval scholastic philosophy (and thus the scientific revolution). My thesis was Ancient Greek learning alone wasn't sufficient for the rise of modern science, and that the Christian element was necessary but not sufficient for modern science to be created. You are talking about roots, and (insofar as they are concerned) the roots of modern science lay in Athens and Jerusalem (meaning Greek philosophy and Judaism). But I wasn't talking about roots per se. [F]aith is not based on reason. Science is based on reason. Christianity survives on faith and is therefore not congenial to understand the world around us. That depends on how you define reason and "proof". Aquinas tried to "prove" the existence of God by using purely deductive logic, not blind faith. The other scholastics tried similar methods. I don't agree with this approach (which is why I'm agnostic), but if reason is defined as necessity and logical inter-relatedness, then medieval Catholicism would indeed be 'rational'. I think you're confusing scholasticism with the Protestantism of Luther or Karl Barth. Christian scholars used the Ancient Greeks to validate God and Christianity. They made their best effort to mesh the two together, so to speak. So that attempt in making a rational God has its roots in the Ancient Greeks. This also depends on how you define rationality. The God of the Hebrew Bible was omnipotent and consistent, and the universe he created was intelligible but separate. Thus, one can rationalize the unknown without 'violating' the sanctity of God, since God is not identified with nature. The 'roots' then are in Judaism as well as Greece. As for ancient Greek philosophy, the scholars in Western Europe were disputing them as soon as they were introduced to Europe in the 12th century. They clearly had standards of reason and logic before then, as the notion of an eternal universe was first ridiculed by Saint Bonaventure as a logical absurdity. Aquinas integrated Aristotelian logic, but it is inaccurate to say that the rational element in medieval philosophy was just an extension of ancient Greek thought. The theological element in Christianity made scholars reject the ideas of an animate universe, as well as the Demiurge. Reject the idea of progress? There is no civilization without progress. What defines progress? Achievements, correct? The Egyptians and the Romans don’t even come close to the achievements of the Ancient Greeks. The Romans copied their betters without shame. That many believe the world happens in cycles, or that every idea or thought has already occurred, didn’t stop them from trying to recover what they believed to be lost knowledge. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It certainly is very obvious to you that progress occurs, since you were raised in a certain metaphysics. The Judaic and Christian mindset was a universe that had a beginning and therefore a purpose. The concept of a providential universe was alien to the Greeks. They always looked to the past for achievements, never to the future. The idea that history is heading for a destiny, a "new city on a hill, had its 'roots' in Judaism, not the Greeks. Consequently, this provided a very strong motivation for achievement and innovation. [M]ilitary innovations don’t impress me. They are not the result of men attempting to understand the world around us. It’s an attempt to dominate others rather than to understand the world. Whether they impress you or not, they are technology. Technology can be used for good or ill. Weapons can be used to defend as well as attack. As for 'dominating others', this can provide an incentive to understand nature (for example, the computer was invented by Alan Turing as a result of code-breaking in WW2). I looked over the technologies you mentioned. The Middle ages last centuries longer than the Enlightenment (very short period of time) and the rate of achievement can’t be compared. Modern science wasn't fully developed during the Middle Ages. The rate of technological change is exponential. The scientific method was gradually developed during the Middle Ages, and resulted in efflorescence during the enlightenment. Did the church dominate during the Enlightenment or during the Middle Ages? And isn’t it rather interesting how during the Renaissance the church was in the middle of losing a great deal of power and at the same time innovations were being produced at a faster rate. It seems that the less influence Christianity has in state matters the more innovations are produced. The Church lost a great deal of power because of the Protestant reformation. The use of Christianity was expended in developing the scientific method. Once science itself grew out of institutional influences, it became independent. [Copernicus'] mistakes were due to a lack of information and a lack of ability to gain that information. I am not denying this; it doesn't contradict my assertion that his theory was mostly wrong. I am not disparaging Copernicus, I already credited him with making a crucial "next step" that influenced Kepler (and others). I am simply pointing out a myth that many people thought his theory gave better predictive results than the Ptolematic model. The answer is obvious... yes, I do. The following scholarly books provide conflicting viewpoints in the role of Christianity and the History of Science (some of them are available in Google Library, so you can read a portion of them there): -The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy by Nancy R. Pearcey, Charles B. Thaxton www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891077669?v=glance-The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 by David C. Lindberg www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226482316?v=glance(You might also want to read this paper by Lindberg: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html#Beyond%20War%20and%20Peace:%C2%A0)-The Origins of Modern Science by Herbert Butterfield www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684836378?v=glance-The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West by Toby E. Huff www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521529948?v=glance-The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts by Edward Grant, George Basalla, Owen Hannaway www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521567629?v=glance -Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027595904X?v=glance -God and Reason in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521003377?v=glance-Physical Science in the Middle Ages by Edward Grant, George Basalla, Owen Hannaway www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521292948?v=glance-Medieval Technology and Social Change by Lynn Townsend White www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195002660?v=glance-Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle by Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393005836?v=glance-For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691114366?v=glance-The Way and the Word: Science an Medicine in Early China and Greece by Geoffrey Lloyd, Nathan Sin www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300101600?v=glance-Greek Science After Aristotle by Geoffrey Ernest Richard. Lloyd www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393007804My advice to you is: Read and investigate, then decide for yourself. This is far more effective than letting me regurgitate what was discussed in far greater detail.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 13, 2005 14:47:43 GMT -5
Anodyne is confusing the Catholic Church with Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 13, 2005 19:06:35 GMT -5
Exactly...
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 14, 2005 4:28:13 GMT -5
Mike & Seizure: The Catholic Church is just one representation of Christianity. Whether it's Calvanism, Lutherism, Eastern Orthodox, or some guy walking around the world preaching his own version of Christanity the premise is still the same... it's a belief based on faith. There is no empirical evidence for something believed on faith. If there was it wouldn't be faith.. it would be a truth or at least a well substaniated theory. Science doesn't deal with faith.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 14, 2005 4:45:39 GMT -5
“Hmmm. I suspected you were an objectivist when you first cited Charles Murray's book, and proceeded to say that reason isn't compatible with faith (this reminded me of an interview with Murray by some objectivist or other). Are you? Why the animosity to Plato?”
I suppose I’m in the Objectivist camp. I disagree with Any Rand on minor things only. I don’t know if I would classify Murray as an Objectivist. I don’t know what he calls himself (well, he calls himself a libertarian but not your typical type) but in “The Bell Curve” he states that Christianity is the best way to keep people of low IQs to act morally. Reminds me of Plato’s “noble lie.” An Objectivist doesn’t lie (he may be misinformed or his information on a subject may be limited because of lack of information) since to be objective means you seek the truth where ever it leads you. And lying to the public so you can get the correct behavior is a disgusting disregard for truth.
I mention Plato further along and the reason why I dislike him will be clear.
“Moving on, I think most of your 'objections' aren't objections at all, and that you actually agree with me more than you think (though perhaps you misinterpreted my points). First of all, I never said the Ancient Greeks didn't have a significant hand in influencing medieval scholastic philosophy (and thus the scientific revolution). My thesis was Ancient Greek learning alone wasn't sufficient for the rise of modern science, and that the Christian element was necessary but not sufficient for modern science to be created. You are talking about roots, and (insofar as they are concerned) the roots of modern science lay in Athens and Jerusalem (meaning Greek philosophy and Judaism). But I wasn't talking about roots per se.”
It all flows from the roots. Without those roots you don’t have anything but blind faith. This is why I keep pointing out that Christian thinkers kept referring back to the Ancient Greeks to validate Christianity and they failed. They eventually fall back on faith and faith is irrational because it’s based on nothing. It’s like the man who bets on a horse because he “feels” it will win. He feels it in his heart and in his gut. The professional gambler does his research and has a better chance of betting on the right horse.
How does modern science lay in Jerusalem as well as Ancient Greece? It’s been years since I read the old Testament and the Gospels but I don’t recall any instance of the Hebrews trying to understand the world around them. Instead I recall every natural act being attributed to Yahweh. A being removed from their senses. It’s like some native American group thinking that it rains because the gods or whatever make it so. There is no attempt to use the senses to understand why. It’s simply acknowledged that a being is pulling the strings.
Also, the Hebrews didn’t think they were masters of their own fate. So why bother attempting to learn of the actual world around us? Rabbi’s love knowledge, so it is said, but it is false knowledge. They spend their lives going over their religious texts trying to understand God’s plan and how to live according to God’s rules and by doing so they’re wasting their time with what their ancestors wrote to keep people in line and by doing so remove themselves from what matters: the world around them.
That depends on how you define reason and "proof". Aquinas tried to "prove" the existence of God by using purely deductive logic, not blind faith. The other scholastics tried similar methods. I don't agree with this approach (which is why I'm agnostic), but if reason is defined as necessity and logical inter-relatedness, then medieval Catholicism would indeed be 'rational'. I think you're confusing scholasticism with the Protestantism of Luther or Karl Barth.”
I define reason the way the dictionary defines it. The way people have always defined it. Reason doesn’t have several conflicting definitions.
Also, deductive reasoning derives from the Ancient Greece as you already know. It has no connection to Christianity. Yes, Aquinas was following the tradition of the Ancient Greeks.
(On a side note)
Here’s a quote by Leonard Peikoff that you may find interesting:
Logic is man’s method of reaching conclusions objectively by deriving them without contradiction from the facts of reality – ultimately, from the evidence provided by man’s senses.
I can validate that I am a God: All Americans are Gods: Bill is an American: Therefore, Bill is a God. (I like that idea... but I’m not.) But it conflicts with your senses. I can’t will the sun to set nor can any American.
And this goes back to your claim that Christianity is rational. It is if you leave out empiricism. Christianity conflicts with the senses. It's based on faith, not evidence. But that's a different topic. The topic here is whether Christianity had a hand in science. And considering logic has its origins in Greece I see no connection between Christianity with science.
“This also depends on how you define rationality.”
I define rationality as the dictionary defines it. I can’t make up my own definition. Language loses its meaning if each person redefines words.
“The God of the Hebrew Bible was omnipotent and consistent, and the universe he created was intelligible but separate. Thus, one can rationalize the unknown without 'violating' the sanctity of God, since God is not identified with nature. The 'roots' then are in Judaism as well as Greece.”
Ah, there’s that Plato influence. Two separate worlds and apparently this world is a water down version of the “better” world. Christians took this idea and ran with it. The problem with this belief is that since this is a watered down version, it’s not worth dealing with. So since the world around us is a bastardization we can’t conceive truth. Our mental faculties are unable to comprehend so we have to rely on faith. Our world is distorted, a shadow of a better world, so why make an attempt to understand it since we’ll be wrong. St. Augustine had a love affair with this view.
“As for ancient Greek philosophy, the scholars in Western Europe were disputing them as soon as they were introduced to Europe in the 12th century. They clearly had standards of reason and logic before then, as the notion of an eternal universe was first ridiculed by Saint Bonaventure as a logical absurdity. Aquinas integrated Aristotelian logic, but it is inaccurate to say that the rational element in medieval philosophy was just an extension of ancient Greek thought.”
Yes, the texts were disputed. The Franciscans weren’t too keen on them. But did they reject the standards based on reason? There reasoning ability consists of “it conflicts with our text therefore it isn’t true” or did they use logic in an attempt to discredit. In that case, the Ancient Greeks are being used to discredit themselves. It’s not clear that they had standards of reason and logic before the Ancient Greeks texts were reintroduced. In fact, they didn’t. You’re not entertaining the notion that logic, when it was reintroduced, was used to negate the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, but of course it was kept from being used to negate Christianity. Very few people are willing to die an early death. I’m not aware of this old Christian logic. It wasn’t mentioned when I took a class on logic.
“The theological element in Christianity made scholars reject the ideas of an animate universe, as well as the Demiurge.”
Yes, it was denied on theological grounds. It conflicts with “our” texts so it can’t be correct.
“This is exactly what I'm talking about. It certainly is very obvious to you that progress occurs, since you were raised in a certain metaphysics. The Judaic and Christian mindset was a universe that had a beginning and therefore a purpose. The concept of a providential universe was alien to the Greeks.
The Ancient Greeks had a purpose in their life. It was called the pursuit of the good life. At least where Athenians are concerned. Part of that good life was being actively involved in the polis and pursuing knowledge. Of course, this was built on a slave society. Thinkers don’t have time to dig ditches.
“They always looked to the past for achievements, never to the future.
Future achievements exist because of past achievements. Past achievements are foundations for future achievements. Aristotle didn’t simply accept Plato without question. He developed beliefs that conflicted with his teacher’s. I’d say Christianity as it was without Greek influence was like that. The early Christians lived in communes. They were getting ready for the world to end. Some are still waiting.
“The idea that history is heading for a destiny, a "new city on a hill, had its 'roots' in Judaism, not the Greeks. Consequently, this provided a very strong motivation for achievement and innovation.”
It provided for faith being the key to that “new city.” This new city is God’s city. If you want to be part of that city then you best follow the rules or it will never come to existence. That’s basically the mentally behind that. These rabbi’s weren’t spending their days trying to better everyone’s lot in life, or their own, by dealing with reality. They spent their time hovering over the Torah looking at the past for answers.
“Whether they impress you or not, they are technology. Technology can be used for good or ill. Weapons can be used to defend as well as attack. "
The computer has provided other benefits that help us shape our world. The cannon ball does what exactly other than sinking boats and blowing a leg off? There was no secondary benefit.
"As for 'dominating others', this can provide an incentive to understand nature (for example, the computer was invented by Alan Turing as a result of code-breaking in WW2)”
Sure. Thank the Ancient Greeks for that. Like I said before, the reintroduction of the Ancient Greeks texts allowed for this to happen. Christianity had nothing to do with this. What do we have before the reintroduction of the Ancient Greek texts? What do we have afterward? Shows that Christianity wasn’t indispensable at all to science. The minimal amount of achievements didn’t pop up until after the reintroduction of the before said texts. The Dark Ages weren’t a time of learning. And I should have been saying Dark Ages all this time instead of the Middle Ages. That's my fault an dI apologize.
“The Church lost a great deal of power because of the Protestant reformation. The use of Christianity was expended in developing the scientific method. Once science itself grew out of institutional influences, it became independent.”
My last comment touches on your statement.
“I am not denying this; it doesn't contradict my assertion that his theory was mostly wrong. I am not disparaging Copernicus, I already credited him with making a crucial "next step" that influenced Kepler (and others). I am simply pointing out a myth that many people thought his theory gave better predictive results than the Ptolematic model.”
I still don’t understand how it shows Christianity was involved. My last comments basically sum up why. Before the Ancient Greek texts had been discovered you had nothing worth talking about. Afterwards you started to see advancements. I guess my mistake is saying Middle Ages instead of Dark Ages.
“The following scholarly books provide conflicting viewpoints in the role of Christianity and the History of Science (some of them are available in Google Library, so you can read a portion of them there):”
I’ll take a look over them in the next few days, and thank you. You put in the time to collect the information for this debate and I appreciate that.
|
|