Getting to grips with God

[Tassman]

The prevailing view among modern historians of science is that Christianity was a major factor in the development of modern science, but not the only factor.

From a paper which I wrote a number of years ago:

Source: kbertsche

Since God was free to create nature in any way He wished, it is
impossible to know its details by philosophical arguments from first principles (as the
Greeks tried to do).Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48.
37 Barbour, 44-50.

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks for that. Very interesting! I would say that although their reasons were wrong in my view their methodology was right (bolded), namely empiricism which is the basis of modern science. But surely Galileo got there first?

[Kbertsche]

Thanks for that. Very interesting! I would say that although their reasons were wrong in my view their methodology was right (bolded), namely empiricism which is the basis of modern science. But surely Galileo got there first?

Yes, Galileo got there first, in the early 17th century, partly due to similar social-historical factors as Barbour noted for the Puritans.

Barbour makes a good case that modern science rests on three elements: the empiricism of Bacon, the mathematical rigor of Kepler, and Galileo's ability to "abstract" observations into general principles and laws. Until all three elements were in place, we didn't have modern science.

[tabibito]

Yes, Galileo got there first, in the early 17th century, partly due to similar social-historical factors as Barbour noted for the Puritans.

Barbour makes a good case that modern science rests on three elements: the empiricism of Bacon, the mathematical rigor of Kepler, and Galileo's ability to "abstract" observations into general principles and laws. Until all three elements were in place, we didn't have modern science.

Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.

[Kbertsche]

Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.

???How did you get this from what I wrote???

[Tassman]

Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.

[tabibito]

It was that the Church was indifferent to the great advances of knowledge of the Pagan period and tended to let it lapse.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-scienc...r/Tim-ONeill-1

In short - the myth of the scientific dark ages was protestant propaganda against the evil Church of Rome. That it was turned around and made to bite the very people who invented the rumour is ironic.

[shunyadragon]

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-scienc...r/Tim-ONeill-1

In short - the myth of the scientific dark ages was protestant propaganda against the evil Church of Rome. That it was turned around and made to bite the very people who invented the rumour is ironic.

To me the Dark Ages are far more recent, like today, for those that consider Genesis factual history. The Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.

[rogue06]

To me the Dark Ages are far more recent, like today, for those that consider Genesis factual history. The Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.

All of history with the exception of the last couple of hundred years lacked the benefit of modern science so I guess for you nearly all of history constitutes the Dark Ages.

[siam]

The Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.

The "middle ages" in EUROPE lacked the benefit of "modern" science (or more precisely... the scientific method)...which was available to the rest of the world.....

Ibn Haytham (965-1040 CE) known in the West by the latinized name Alhacen developed the "scientific method", and also known as the father of modern optics, his book on optics (kitab al manazir) was transtlated into latin (De Aspectibus)

Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method.
As commonly defined, this is the approach to investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on the gathering of data through observation and measurement, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm

Al Biruni and Avicenna (ibn Sina) are among many others that used the scientific method, but paid attention to, and developed, the use of (proper) tools in the scientific method.

[tabibito]

The historical contribution of the Arabic world to science is a matter of record, true enough.
965-1040 CE translations to Latin could only have been driven by the church - any other use of Latin (save in perhaps one pocket size country) was long since obsolete.

[siam]

The historical contribution of the Arabic world to science is a matter of record, true enough.
965-1040 CE translations to Latin could only have been driven by the church - any other use of Latin (save in perhaps one pocket size country) was long since obsolete.

Yes....perhaps.....
---a few Arabic to Latin translations did occur around the 10th/11th century---but most (including de aspectibus) occurred around the 12th/13th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics

In Europe, some translations into Latin occurred in Spain and Italy.....which would be the territory of the RCC? ....but I am not sure it was "driven" by the Church---rather by Christian scholars?...the Church may have allowed it because it recognized the benefits?.......(thus, it cracked down when it felt otherwise?)----on the other hand, both Oxford and Sorbonne history affiliates them with Christianity....

Medieval Latin was the form of Latin used in the Middle Ages, primarily: as a medium of scholarly exchange; as the liturgical language of Chalcedonian Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church; and as a language of science, literature, law, and administration. Despite the clerical origin of many of its authors, medieval Latin should not be confused with Ecclesiastical Latin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin

In the non-European "world" (Eastern) Christian scholars contributed to the "Golden Age"---translations from Greek to Arabic are known of course---but Christian scholars may have contributed to translations from Chinese as well?....when researching Islamic history in China, I came across mention of Christian missionaries translating Chinese texts.....these missionaries had apparently come into China using the trade routes traveled by Jewish merchants......?.....

See---House of Wisdom (8th to 13th century--destroyed by the Mongols) for the non-European history of the pursuit of knowledge....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

[shunyadragon]

The prevailing view among modern historians of science is that Christianity was a major factor in the development of modern science, but not the only factor.

From a paper which I wrote a number of years ago:

Source: kbertsche

Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48.
37 Barbour, 44-50.

© Copyright Original Source

I believe your sources are failing to consider the significant contribution of Islam, and the rise of humanist secular scholarship.

Though if you are even in part correct, Christianity has taken a leap backwards as far as the acceptance of modern science and in particular the science of evolution. Many if not most reject the science of evolution or only conditionally accept it in the traditions of most Church Fathers that believed in a literal Genesis.

[Kbertsche]

I believe your sources are failing to consider the significant contribution of Islam, and the rise of humanist secular scholarship.

Firstly, your comment reveals that you have not read my source (not sources). The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were important contributing factors, as Barbour explained and as I said in my paper.

Secondly, I am NOT convinced that Islam was an important factor. My impression is that 1) Islamic science was mainly descriptive, not getting to causes and mechanisms, and they 2) there was little historical connection between Islamic science and modern science.

Though if you are even in part correct, Christianity has taken a leap backwards as far as the acceptance of modern science and in particular the science of evolution. Many if not most reject the science of evolution or only conditionally accept it in the traditions of most Church Fathers that believed in a literal Genesis.

Why do you think Christianity has moved backward in this? On the contrary, I see a fairly steady forward progression. Groups like BioLogos have arisen, and there is much more Christian acceptance of evolution now than there was 50 or 100 years ago.