Christianity could not have invented Science

[DouglasL]

The Argument: Christianity could not have invented Science.

Science, as we know it was (arguably) started in Ancient Greece. Their philosophers and engineers had invented or discovered by observation such things as the fact that the Earth is round, hydraulic cement that was not rediscovered for another 1000 years, etc.
The mindset to seek out and try to figure out the world around them was (I believe) built into their worship of many different Gods. The Gods and Goddess of the Greeks and later the Romans personified Nature. They each had Attributes of natural forces that where directly observable. Neptune/Poseidon as the personification of the Sea for example. These Gods and Goddess also had many human characteristics, fights among themselves, family trouble, love affairs with other gods and goddess, even affairs with mortals. As believers in these various Gods, the Greeks could understand and even identify with the human like qualities that the Gods displayed. Since you can understand one aspect of the gods (the human like portion), you should be able to understand other aspects of the god (the natural portion).

In contrast the basic mind set of Christianity (and the whole monotheistic Jewish, Islamic, our god is better than your many gods) is that “God works in mysterious ways.” The God of the Jews that was adopted and adapted by Islam and Christianity is one of omnipotent power, omniscient knowledge, and omnipresence. There are not any human qualities that believers can relate to or identify with (except some basic insecurity about how big of a God he is, see first Commandment, but that is a separate discussion). There is nothing in this concept of god that encourages believers to try to understand the world around them. In fact, most of the priesthood actively discourages rational, inquisitive thinking “the Shepard leads the flock,” and the flock follows along. The whole Dark Ages is a historical example of the suppression of knowledge that the Christian mind set actively encourages. This mindset lasted until the Renaissance when the Italian city/states broke away from the Church and started gathering knowledge from the past as well as discovering new things. If this type of, god is unknowable, mindset had started in an earlier time, ancient Egypt for example, it is possible that none of the Science that exists today would be around and we would be in a long, long, dark age.

Thank you for reading my post. Any comments, critiques, questions, or even flames are welcome. I am interested in what you think of my first attempt (ever) to start a thread.

 

[truethat]

That's a very interesting point you made about the Dark Ages representing the oppression of knowledge. Here's an article

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/11557/history-channel-to-explore-the-dark-ages

 

[DouglasL]

Thank you. I have read it. It seem to me that the church was trying to stay in control spreading itself throughout Europe. Until the Crusades brought back knowledge (some of which the Church had in its monasteries but was unwilling to release) from the Middle East.

 

[slingblade]

Well, a slight problem with terminology, or semantics perhaps: Christianity, not being alive, cannot act. A better way to frame it might use "Christians," instead of Christianity.

Even then, however, I'd still have to quibble.

First, the belief did not exist when science was "invented." Frankly, I'm not sure how one determines that, since many elements of science are actually fairly simple (such as the scientific method), and have been practiced since mankind emerged as a species. It is disingenous to say that Christians couldn't have invented science, since they didn't exist that long ago.

But if what you mean to say is that an adherence to Christian tenets (one presumes a strong adherence) does not tend to foster scientific thought, I suppose that may be true in a sense, but history belies the impossibility.

Many adherents of Christianity, throughout its existence, have contributed greatly to science. I cannot say if that was in spite of their beliefs, or because of them, but I suspect one would more likely find it a combination, to one degree or another.

An adherence to or belief in Christianity may not specifically encourage scientific thought or exploration, but it doesn't seem to specifically preclude it, either. If it did, one would be unable to find even a single scientist, past or present, who was also a Christian. Yet, there were and are many.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In contrast the basic mind set of Christianity (and the whole monotheistic Jewish, Islamic, our god is better than your many gods) is that “God works in mysterious ways.” The God of the Jews that was adopted and adapted by Islam and Christianity is one of omnipotent power, omniscient knowledge, and omnipresence. There are not any human qualities that believers can relate to or identify with (except some basic insecurity about how big of a God he is, see first Commandment, but that is a separate discussion). There is nothing in this concept of god that encourages believers to try to understand the world around them. In fact, most of the priesthood actively discourages rational, inquisitive thinking “the Shepard leads the flock,” and the flock follows along. The whole Dark Ages is a historical example of the suppression of knowledge that the Christian mind set actively encourages. This mindset lasted until the Renaissance when the Italian city/states broke away from the Church and started gathering knowledge from the past as well as discovering new things. If this type of, god is unknowable, mindset had started in an earlier time, ancient Egypt for example, it is possible that none of the Science that exists today would be around and we would be in a long, long, dark age.

Thank you for reading my post. Any comments, critiques, questions, or even flames are welcome. I am interested in what you think of my first attempt (ever) to start a thread.

This is historically inaccurate.

First, science did continue through the "Dark Ages", as did technology in the guise of seige warfare in Byzantium, which was the heart of Christendom during that time period.

The "Dark Ages" was a time of political change with decentralized power. Large scale technological changes do not occur during "dark ages". The dark age that most of Europe experienced roughly from 500 to 800 CE was not the result of any religion suppressing knowledge. It was actually fairly similar to the dark ages that Egypt periodically experienced -- those time chunks that we label intermediate periods. When we lack political organization we lack the ability to "do science" on any scale.

The modern scientific method was born within a Christian setting. It is simply not true that the Church actively suppressed all knowledge or promoted ideas of complete otherworldliness alone. There were certainly such strains -- largely in the monastic communities and very early in the desert fathers of Egypt -- but they were not dominant.

In Europe one very common idea was that there were two books one could read to understand God. One was the book of the Bible and the other was the book of Nature. Galileo saw himself as exploring the mind of God, so did Newton, so did Kepler. Kepler, for instance, would not believe that ellipses were the real solution to planetary motion until he happened upon his third law which showed a deep mathematical relationship. He saw that beauty as a reflection of the mind of God.

The current suppressions that we experience are a result of science being too good at the game. It is patently obvious that the material explanation of the world contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible. As science was being born this was not as obvious.

 

[Gurdur]

....Science, as we know it was (arguably) started in Ancient Greece.

To a degree in Babylon, India and China too. But so what? Christianity did not invent science, that is true, but a great deal of science flourished under Christianity, just as it did under Islam for a period, and under Confucianism in China.

In contrast the basic mind set of Christianity

You ignore the fact that a great many scientists and inventors were in fact Christians. Newton, Bacon etc. Not to mention the Scholastics and advances in formal logic.

The whole Dark Ages is a historical example of the suppression of knowledge that the Christian mind set actively encourages

Um, no. Not true in this case; the so-called Dark Ages were so named because of the immense population movements, large-scale breakdown of civil order, and disappearence of literacy and scribes (a lack in scribes meant few writings from the period, this the name). Christianity itself was quite fragmented and quite powerless for this period. It simply wasn't in any position to go in for suppression during most of that time.

 

[geni]

There is nothing in this concept of god that encourages believers to try to understand the world around them.

There is. Consider. If you consider the bible important because it is the word of god then understanding the things that god produced is by definition important.

Christian view is the god created the world/univerise.

So that gives you two creations of god to study. His word through the bible and the world he created.

Thus the cristian world view requires you to work to understand the world around you.

Of course this will produce a slighly odd set of scientific priorities. It will be important to find every beetle species in existance even if from a scientific viewpoint there isn't a vast amount to gain by doing so.

edit to add:
Another oddity is that it's monotheistic viewpoint will tend to assume that there is some form of theory of everthing.

 

[DouglasL]

Thank you all for replying to my post. You all make some very valid points. More for me to think about.

 

[l0rca]

Do you know about the Ionians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionians

Instead of explaining natural phenomena by recourse to traditional myth, the cultural climate was such that men began to form hypotheses about the natural world based on ideas gained from both personal experience and deep reflection. These men - Thales and his successors - were called physiologoi, those who discoursed on Nature. They were sceptical of religious explanations for natural phenomena and instead sought purely mechanical and physical explanations. They are credited as being of critical importance to the development of the 'scientific attitude' towards the study of Nature. (see Ionian school)

This is the Ionian School one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_school

Thales, the first Western philosopher, was the "Father of Science."

We can't call the Ionians the birth of modern science, but you could say that the Ionian school played a good part in how modern science formed, as future Europeans rediscovered the older Ionian culture. In this context, you could say that science itself was formed in a bedrock of skepticism and atheism. But just because science can from this way does not mean that it can only form this way.

Your thesis itself, I think is flawed. You can't prove a negative, which is what you're essentially trying to do. If you really want to claim "Christianity can not give rise to science," you must either throw around the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or define what 'Christianity' is to something it simply is not.

And welcome to the forums, you crazy Christian hater you.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is historically inaccurate.

First, science did continue through the "Dark Ages", as did technology in the guise of seige warfare in Byzantium, which was the heart of Christendom during that time period.

There were effectively two Christendoms, corresponding to the Eastern and Western Empires, and the Dark Ages were an experience of the Western Empire. From the context, I think this is what DouglasL is focused on.

The "Dark Ages" was a time of political change with decentralized power. Large scale technological changes do not occur during "dark ages". The dark age that most of Europe experienced roughly from 500 to 800 CE was not the result of any religion suppressing knowledge. It was actually fairly similar to the dark ages that Egypt periodically experienced -- those time chunks that we label intermediate periods. When we lack political organization we lack the ability to "do science" on any scale.

Except when it's "defence-related", to use the modern euphemism for better weaponry and logistical support. Scandinavian naval science came on leaps and bounds during the Dark Ages.

It's true that the Western/Catholic Church didn't exert itself to suppress knowledge at that time, it exerted itself to suppress paganism and heresy.

The modern scientific method was born within a Christian setting.

The modern scientific dynasty emerged in Christendom, but the scientific method emerged long before in China, India and Mesopotamia. It's really an accident of history and geography that it came to fruition in the West.

The current suppressions that we experience ...

Pretty feeble efforts, to my mind.

... are a result of science being too good at the game.

Oh yes.

It is patently obvious that the material explanation of the world contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible. As science was being born this was not as obvious.

A successful religion, such as Catholicism, does not fight on science's ground. If the Bible isn't descriptive, meh, it's allegorical and the message remains the same. Which is whatever works for the hierarchy at the time. Fundies who deliberately provoke science by invasion only bring down the wrath of a higher power.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is. Consider. If you consider the bible important because it is the word of god then understanding the things that god produced is by definition important.

Not by definition. The Judaic tradition is one of those which devote themselves to understanding the word . In that sort of tradition the world is a stage and what the god produces is events. All very anthropomorphic.

Christian view is the god created the world/univerise.

So that gives you two creations of god to study. His word through the bible and the world he created.

Christianity is a lot more Greek than Jewish, and your second creation definitely comes from the Greeks.

I don't think it's coincidental that the Reformation occurred at about the time (the 16thCE) that science was starting to eclipse superstition in Western Christendom. Science had to periodically redesign Christianity to give it room to progress, until it finally shook free of it with the US Constitution.

 

[CapelDodger]

Do you know about the Ionians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionians



This is the Ionian School one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_school

Thales, the first Western philosopher, was the "Father of Science."

Contemporary rumour says otherwise, but Philosophy is a bitchy world.

We can't call the Ionians the birth of modern science, but you could say that the Ionian school played a good part in how modern science formed, as future Europeans rediscovered the older Ionian culture.

Looking further back, the Ionian school emerged in Asia Minor, not the Greek heartland. From there they were tuned in to the whole Persian Empire and all the philosophies it encompassed. The Persian Empire was like the InterNet of its day, it was a phase-shift in communication.

And welcome to the forums, you crazy Christian hater you.

And a big Hi from me too .

 

[l0rca]

Contemporary rumour says otherwise, but Philosophy is a bitchy world.

Really? What do you mean by rumor, and can you provide any reading material?

Looking further back, the Ionian school emerged in Asia Minor, not the Greek heartland. From there they were tuned in to the whole Persian Empire and all the philosophies it encompassed. The Persian Empire was like the InterNet of its day, it was a phase-shift in communication.

From my understanding, what emerged from the Persians were geometry, math, ideas of time, but I don't think the first forms of scientific reasoning were there. I thought that was solely the Ionians with Greece.

 

[DouglasL]

Looking further into the history's I have discovered that basic geometry and trigonometry where invented/discovered by the Egyptians. Who used this math not only to build pyramids, but also to map out changes in the course of the Nile after each spring flood.

 

[CapelDodger]

Really? What do you mean by rumor, and can you provide any reading material?

It was meant as a joke. "He's the father of so-and-so." "Not from what I've heard he ain't."

From my understanding, what emerged from the Persians were geometry, math, ideas of time, but I don't think the first forms of scientific reasoning were there. I thought that was solely the Ionians with Greece.

The Persian Empire is the thing, not the Persians. From the Indus to Asia Minor and Central Asia to Egypt, there were no artificial borders. It was also impressive enough to be noticed by the Chinese. (Europe didn't figure at the time.) Cyrus the Great built roads long before the Romans, and encouraged diversity and exchange. The benefits of this cross-fertilisation are clear to see. It's not well-documented, though. That whole region has seen far more interesting times than Europe has.

I think you're picking up the reported effect it had on the European fringe. I'm sure the Ionians sold it to the mainland Greeks as their own contribution, and from there it's been spread via the Romans into the European mindset. I don't buy it, frankly.

 

[CapelDodger]

Looking further into the history's I have discovered that basic geometry and trigonometry where invented/discovered by the Egyptians. Who used this math not only to build pyramids, but also to map out changes in the course of the Nile after each spring flood.

That's the kind of practical question that drives science onwards. How, in the Nile Delta, do you establish land-ownership? It's all re-arranged when the annual flood subsides. So, naturally, early Egyptian law focused on the matter and came down the side of compensation. Geometricians became the accountants of their day, just one step below lawyers.

Pythagoras put time spent in Egypt and Mesopotamia in his resume, for the added credibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To a degree in Babylon, India and China too. But so what? Christianity did not invent science, that is true, but a great deal of science flourished under Christianity, just as it did under Islam for a period, and under Confucianism in China.

This requires a more precise definition of science. Are individuals who do very clever things scientists if they do not diseminate their findings broadly?

Or is any technological acheivement science? If so then science predates modern humans.

 

[CapelDodger]

This requires a more precise definition of science. Are individuals who do very clever things scientists if they do not diseminate their findings broadly?

They did. Only later reporting suggests that they didn't. That was my point about the Ionian Greeks : they're reported as being the fount of science, which is how Europe first came across it, when in fact the Ionians were on the periphery of an intellectual revolution which Europe - including mainland Greece - played no part in.