Antitheism?

[1137]

Yep. The only thing missing is any observable and measurable evidence.

So you deny things like the entire field of psychology and its findings?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you think every religious person was a literalist automaton? Religious views evolve constantly, it's mainly antitheists that see them as reified.

No

You could say that. Unless you are totally biased and refuse to accept people at their word (Euler, Descartes, Newton, Smith, etc.) you have to acknowledge the role their religious views played in their beliefs and motivations and thus contributed to the Enlightenment.

You'll need to make the case in each instance. Did all of those men say that their work came out of the Bible, or was derived from biblical scripture?

Why do you believe modern science emerged in Europe if you believe the prevailing beliefs were actually antithetical to this happening? Why not one of these other regions which had different belief systems that didn't have such 'repressive' cultures?

Action-reaction. I told you why I don't credit Christianity with the advent of science. As I recall, you had no comment. My position is unchanged.

Where did its ethics come from though and why are they identical to liberal Christian ethics of the same time and place?

Unshared assumptions. Make your case that Christian ethics are the source of humanist ethics if you think you have such a case to make.

[/QUOTE]Again, unless you are saying they are liars, many Enlightenment thinkers including pivotal figures such as Descartes, Newton, Euler, Newton and Smith did not see science and rational philosophy as a 'secular pursuit'. Not to mention key pre-Enlightenment figures like Erasmus, Bacon and Galileo.[/QUOTE]

How would that be relevant? You have to actually make an explicit argument as to how their Christianity led to their secular pursuits.

Christianity is a massively diverse tradition which has played a role much oppression as well as many of the ideas you hold most dear. Is it really that surprising that the most dominant influence on European culture for close to 2 millennia has been a significant influence on modern European thought?

I'm still waiting for you to do more than just make a claim.

Don't you see some intellectual dishonesty in arguing that people were wrong about their own views just because they don't match your facile and preconceived beliefs about what Christianity normatively should be?

Straw man. I made no such argument.

I didn't see much moral growth in the 20th C.

I did.

 

[Augustus]

Quick Q: Do you think that modern science must necessarily have evolved sooner or later, that in a thousand alternate universes, it would emerge a thousand times? Or do you believe it required the right circumstances to evolve, and with different quirks of fate we might never have created such a methodology?

Christianity is also antithetical to Enlightenment values such as rational skepticism and rational ethics. There is no place for a free citizen in the Christian Bible, which advises us to submit - man to God, subject to king, slave to slaver, and wife to husband.

And there is no place for man to make his own rules for living according to his senses of reason and compassion. He is ordered to submit to commandments that we are told come from a god, who is a dictator and serves as the model for the head of government and family.

Seems surprising then that so many Christians were intimately involved in the creation of "Enlightenment Values". You also keep defining Christianity according to your prior assumptions about what it is, rather than letting others decide for themselves what it means and allows.

http://sydney.edu.au/science/hps/ea...ne_The_Religious_Thought_of_Francis_Bacon.pdf

It is God who has established the laws of nature , as a King
establishes laws in his kingdom … You will be told that if God
has established these truths, he could also change them as a King
changes his laws. To which it must be replied: yes, if his will can
change. But I understand them as eternal and immutable. And I
judge the same of God.
(Descartes, 1630 )

The same conception was expressed by Spinoza :

Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree,
it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God
following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature
… nature, therefore, always observes laws and rules which
involves eternal necessity and truth, although they may not all
be known to us, and therefore she keeps a fi xed and immutable
order.
(de Spinoza, 1670)

Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly
from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained
largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the
“theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific
thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions
behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance,
are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science
and theologians.

Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

Leonhard Euler - Wikipedia

Gallileo: 1985gamf.conf...75P Page 75

Leibniz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Roger Bacon - Wikipedia

Robert Boyle - Wikipedia

Scholasticism - Wikipedia

Because of Jesus?

Nah, he's a pretty minor figure in the 2 millennia of Christian thought.

Why is it intellectually dishonest to disagree?

It's really about the double standards, when someone credits religion as a motivation for a negative act they will be taken very much at their word.

When it is given as a reason for scientific endeavors or it is used as a framework in which the laws of nature are discoverable precisely because they were instituted by a rational God, then it doesn't count and "humanism done it".

Would you agree that people's thoughts and motivations are often influenced by their religious beliefs? If so, would you agree that it would be rational to consider that some Christian natural philosophers and later scientists, must also have been influenced by their religious beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Quick Q: Do you think that modern science must necessarily have evolved sooner or later, that in a thousand alternate universes, it would emerge a thousand times? Or do you believe it required the right circumstances to evolve, and with different quirks of fate we might never have created such a methodology?

I think that the discovery of science was inevitable.

Seems surprising then that so many Christians were intimately involved in the creation of "Enlightenment Values".

Not to me.

You also keep defining Christianity according to your prior assumptions about what it is, rather than letting others decide for themselves what it means and allows.

Give your own definition of Christianity. It's probably one I can accept.

http://sydney.edu.au/science/hps/early_modern_science/publications_and_preprints/Gascoigne_The_Religious_Thought_of_Francis_Bacon.pdf[/QUOTE]

I can discern between what came from biblical scripture and what didn't.

It is God who has established the laws of nature , as a King
establishes laws in his kingdom … You will be told that if God
has established these truths, he could also change them as a King
changes his laws. To which it must be replied: yes, if his will can
change. But I understand them as eternal and immutable. And I
judge the same of God.
(Descartes, 1630 )

The same conception was expressed by Spinoza :

Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree,
it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God
following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature
… nature, therefore, always observes laws and rules which
involves eternal necessity and truth, although they may not all
be known to us, and therefore she keeps a fi xed and immutable
order.
(de Spinoza, 1670)

Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly
from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained
largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the
“theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific
thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions
behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance,
are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science
and theologians.

I don't see evidence of the laws of physics deriving from theology.

Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

Leonhard Euler - Wikipedia

Gallileo: 1985gamf.conf...75P Page 75

Leibniz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Roger Bacon - Wikipedia

Robert Boyle - Wikipedia

Scholasticism - Wikipedia

You are not making the case that Christianity put the relevant ideas into those men's heads.

It's really about the double standards, when someone credits religion as a motivation for a negative act they will be taken very much at their word.

When it is given as a reason for scientific endeavors or it is used as a framework in which the laws of nature are discoverable precisely because they were instituted by a rational God, then it doesn't count and "humanism done it".

Each case must be made separately. I have made the case for the harm. You are claiming a good and trying to support it with the idea that these people believed in a god. I just can't see the connection.

Would you agree that people's thoughts and motivations are often influenced by their religious beliefs?

Yes

If so, would you agree that it would be rational to consider that some Christian natural philosophers and later scientists, must also have been influenced by their religious beliefs?

I'm sure they were. You seem to be implying that all of their thoughts derived from their theology. Go ahead and make the case. Connect the dots. Explain how believing that God created the world in six days then rested another, some kids sinned in a garden, the earth was flooded, Lot's wife turned to salt, Jews wandered the desert, Joshua stopped the sun and shouted down the walls of Jericho, Job's family was slaughtered, somebody was born to a virgin then crucified and resurrected - things Newton presumably believed - get me from that to F = ma.

How did that book figure into that piece of science? You asked me at the outset whether I believed that the discovery of the scientific method was inevitable, and I answered yes. Do you disagree? Do you think we needed Ezekiel and Micah's help to come up with that? It's a basic assumption in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) that distant civilizations will discern and exploit the same laws we did, and without having access to the Christian Bible.

 

[Thumper]

So you deny things like the entire field of psychology and its findings?

You don't think psychology has any observable nor measurable evidence?

 

[Augustus]

I think that the discovery of science was inevitable.

This is our main area if disagreement. If you don't believe it was inevitable, then you have to ask yourself the question of "why did it occur, where and when it did?" and look for answers.

What is your reasoning behind this inevitability?

Give your own definition of Christianity. It's probably one I can accept.

What is believed by people who self-identify as Christians.

I'm really talking about Christian thought though, which is thought which relates to teachings, doctrines and interpretations of scripture, as well as theological discourse and the philosophical implications of any aspect of any these beliefs.

I can discern between what came from biblical scripture and what didn't.

I keep saying not to focus narrowly on Biblical scripture, but the history of ideas and how they evolve through time and the various influences that combine and interact.

I don't see evidence of the laws of physics deriving from theology.

At least some respected physicists and scholars of the history and philosophy of science do though. The idea is not based on looking at the Bible, but on the philosophical implications of living in a world created by a Divine Being that would not apply in other belief systems such as those based on a chaotic view of the world.

Another example stolen from another poster:

“[Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis] believed that nature always acted in such a way as to minimize something. For mechanics, he postulated that this something, that he termed the action, was the product of mass, speed and distance. He attempted to furnish a theological foundation for mechanics. Maupertuis claimed to obtain several experimentally verifiable results from his principle, but often imprecisely and with a certain amount of 'fudging'. However, Euler and Lagrange gave precise, mathematical formulations of Maupertuis' vague idea. For example, if a body is constrained to the surface of a sphere and an impulse is imparted to that body, it will move from its initial location to its final position along that path (on the surface of the sphere) that requires the least transit time. Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum.” pp. 166-7
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Each case must be made separately. I have made the case for the harm. You are claiming a good and trying to support it with the idea that these people believed in a god. I just can't see the connection.

Case? You basically say Bob persecuted people because of his religion beliefs, therefore James wasn't inspired by his religious beliefs, and they certainly had no philosophical implications for his worldview.

No one is denying that other Christians were regressive and anti-science.

The beliefs of each of these people are contained in the links I provided. There are whole chapters on Bacon and Galileo.

You are not making the case that Christianity put the relevant ideas into those men's heads.

Correct, I'm saying that Christianity was one of the aspects that made it possible for them to put these beliefs into their heads. That is to say, in other belief systems it would not have been possible to formulate the underpinnings of modern science.

In another world, these conditions could potentially have been provided by another belief system, it just happens in this world they were provided by some forms of European Christianity.

I'm sure they were. You seem to be implying that all of their thoughts derived from their theology. Go ahead and make the case. Connect the dots. Explain how believing that God created the world in six days then rested another, some kids sinned in a garden, the earth was flooded, Lot's wife turned to salt, Jews wandered the desert, Joshua stopped the sun and shouted down the walls of Jericho, Job's family was slaughtered, somebody was born to a virgin then crucified and resurrected - things Newton presumably believed - get me from that to F = ma.

Cute, but I've not once made that argument.

If you think that the influence of Christianity in Europe can be condensed into what is literally stated in a few words in a book you are probably being a bit myopic, and you are certainly misrepresenting my position.

I've explicitly stated several times that ideas form from adaption and combination of different beliefs. It is not Christianity alone, it was merely one ingredient in the mix. The emergence of modern science grew from certain Christian assumptions about the nature of the world combined with the Renaissance infusion of Greek philosophy and logic, as well as numerous other influences and societal conditions.

 

[Thumper]

"I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia." ~ Ptolemy

Napoleon, once remarked to Pierre-Simon Laplace, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

 

[Augustus]

Each case must be made separately. I have made the case for the harm. You are claiming a good and trying to support it with the idea that these people believed in a god. I just can't see the connection.

The study treats science in the modern period as a particular kind of cognitive practice, and as a particular kind of
cultural product...

Comparison with China made me realize that the success of science in the West in the early-modern era might be due to its close association with religion, rather than any attempt to dissociate itself from religion; comparison with Iberian science helped me realize just how contingent and precarious any association between scientific values and modern culture was in the early modern era; and comparison with medieval Arabic science made me realize just how peculiar and anomalous the development of science in the West was, and in particular how distinctive its legitimatory programme was...

Indeed, a distinctive feature of the Scientific Revolution is that, unlike other earlier scientific programmes and cultures, it is driven, often explicitly, by religious considerations: Christianity set the agenda for natural philosophy in many respects and projected it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture...

a good part of the distinctive success at the level of legitimation and consolidation of the scientific enterprise in the early-modern West derives not from any separation of religion and natural philosophy, but rather from the fact that natural philosophy could be accommodated to projects in natural theology: what made natural philosophy attractive to so many in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were the prospects it offered for the renewal of natural theology. Far from science breaking free of religion in the early-modern era, its consolidation depended crucially on religion being in the driving seat: Christianity took over natural philosophy in the seventeenth century, setting its agenda and projecting it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture, and in the end establishing it as something in part constructed in the image of religion.

We shall be investigating the complex processes by which this accommodation occurred, and how both natural philosophy and theology were transformed in the process. By the nineteenth century the two had started to come apart, but the intellectual causes of this phenomenon do not lie in any conflict or incompatibility between natural philosophy and theology. Quite the contrary, materialistically inclined atheists (at least before Diderot) were forced to ignore recent developments in natural philosophy, and reverted to the radical naturalistic conceptions that were prevalent immediately prior to the Scientific Revolution.⁴³

The case of nineteenth-century Anglicanism is instructive here. The causes of Anglicanism’s decline in authority from the 1840s onwards are complex, but the reasons given by those who had ‘lost their faith’ in Victorian England hardly ever included advances in science.⁴⁴ Rather, at least some of the difficulties for Christianity arose because of the emergence, from the seventeenth century onwards, of a historical understanding of, first, the Bible, and then Christianity as a whole, a development that gradually undermined the credentials of Christianity, as it was historicized and then relativized, from Bacon through to Hume and Gibbon. The final blow in the British Isles came with the publication of Essays and Criticisms in 1860, where the contributors, predominantly Anglican clergymen, urged the replacement of an inspirational reading of the Bible with a historical one, arguing that the Bible had to be read like any other book.⁴⁵ It was primarily biblical criticism and history rather than science that were the external causes of the intellectual rethinking of religious sensibilities and sources of authority.⁴⁶

(Stephen Gaukroger - The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685. Oxford University Press.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is our main area if disagreement. If you don't believe it was inevitable, then you have to ask yourself the question of "why did it occur, where and when it did?" and look for answers.

But I do believe it was inevitable.

What is your reasoning behind this inevitability?

Any creature with external senses and an intellectual capacity ought to eventually discover how to study nature effectively.

What is believed by people who self-identify as Christians.

There are a few core tenets common to most Christians, and other ideas they disagree about. You know them as do I. None of them include the methods of science.

I'm really talking about Christian thought though, which is thought which relates to teachings, doctrines and interpretations of scripture, as well as theological discourse and the philosophical implications of any aspect of any these beliefs.

I keep saying not to focus narrowly on Biblical scripture, but the history of ideas and how they evolve through time and the various influences that combine and interact.

You seem to think that Christian thought and thoughts held by Christians are synonymous. I don't. You're allowing in any thoughts had by Christians whether they derive from their scripture or not. The ideas from Christianity were written down into a book. Additional ideas do not come from Christianity. They come from the application of reason or rational ethics to Christian ideas, as was the case with the abolition of slavery. Not a Christian idea even if most abolitionists were Christian.

When they finally got around to saying that slavery was wrong, they got the idea from outside of Christianity.

Likewise with the American Revolution and the US Constitution. When they defied their Bibles and revolted against a divinely appointed king, and then went and enumerated rights and freedoms, even if every soldier and founder to a man was a Christian, those ideas did not come from Christianity. They would be in the Bible if they had.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Augustus said: At least some respected physicists and scholars of the history and philosophy of science do though. The idea is not based on looking at the Bible, but on the philosophical implications of living in a world created by a Divine Being that would not apply in other belief systems such as those based on a chaotic view of the world.

Aristotle did some early science. He never heard of Christianity. Christianity is not needed to develop science. In fact, it probably would have have proceeded more quickly without the obstructionism of the church.

Another example stolen from another poster:

“[Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis] believed that nature always acted in such a way as to minimize something. For mechanics, he postulated that this something, that he termed the action, was the product of mass, speed and distance. He attempted to furnish a theological foundation for mechanics. Maupertuis claimed to obtain several experimentally verifiable results from his principle, but often imprecisely and with a certain amount of 'fudging'. However, Euler and Lagrange gave precise, mathematical formulations of Maupertuis' vague idea. For example, if a body is constrained to the surface of a sphere and an impulse is imparted to that body, it will move from its initial location to its final position along that path (on the surface of the sphere) that requires the least transit time. Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum.” pp. 166-7
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Thales believed that the world was rational and comprehensible. Herodotus tells us that he successfully predicted an eclipse.

Euler and Lagrange didn't need Christianity to be great mathematicians. Maupertuis was wrong about purpose. Atheists could have done what all three of those men did.

Your argument seems to be in part that if science arose in a Christian culture, Christianity accounts for it.

It also seems to be that if one can conceive of a perfect god, that that leads us to scientific thinking. But I have described the deeds of pre-Christian ancients already dabbling in science, and below are passages from far Eastern cultures where these same ideas arose without Christian influence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Augustus said: Case? You basically say Bob persecuted people because of his religion beliefs, therefore James wasn't inspired by his religious beliefs, and they certainly had no philosophical implications for his worldview.

No one is denying that other Christians were regressive and anti-science.

The beliefs of each of these people are contained in the links I provided. There are whole chapters on Bacon and Galileo.

I still don't see the case for Christianity being the mother of science.

Correct, I'm saying that Christianity was one of the aspects that made it possible for them to put these beliefs into their heads. That is to say, in other belief systems it would not have been possible to formulate the underpinnings of modern science.

A permissive effect wouldn't make Christianity a source of science.

And we can hardly call Christianity a permissive effect. It has been battling science for centuries and still does.

In another world, these conditions could potentially have been provided by another belief system, it just happens in this world they were provided by some forms of European Christianity.

Once again, I don't see how you can credit Christianity just because it was there.

Also, as I recall, we were constantly told that God was inscrutable, and our minds too puny to understand His ways were not comprehensible to man with his puny mind.

I doubt that this guy was Christian or influenced by Christianity:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

From a transcript of an episode of Tyson's remake of Sagan's Cosmos:

"By Mo Tze's [470-391 BC] time, the Chinese had already been recording their thoughts in books for at least a thousand years. Still, our knowledge of him is only fragmentary. It consists largely of the collection of essays attributed to him and his disciples. In one of them, entitled "Against Fate," a three-pronged test for every doctrine is proposed. Question its basis-- ask if it can be verified by the sights and senses of common people-- ask how it is to be applied and if it will benefit the greatest number."

These are the roots of science, and we see these ideas emerging in multiple cultures. They emerged in the West not during the height of Christian influence, but in the transition from that world to modernity, which featured the repudiation of multiple Christian ideas. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were reactions to Christianity and its doctrines.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Augustus said: Cute, but I've not once made that argument.

That has to be the argument if we are to credit Christianity with science rather than people who happen to be Christians engage in in secular pursuits. You probably know very well that you need to compartmentalize your faith while doing mathematics and science. You need to do exactly the same work that an atheist does.

Newton illustrates this well. His work on calculus, optics, force, motion, and celestial mechanics are exactly what an atheist with the same talent would have come up with. The words are still meaningful and useful today.

His work on alchemy and the occult was faith based, and is useless.

Faith adds nothing to science.

If you think that the influence of Christianity in Europe can be condensed into what is literally stated in a few words in a book you are probably being a bit myopic, and you are certainly misrepresenting my position.

You're misrepresenting mine now.

I've explicitly stated several times that ideas form from adaption and combination of different beliefs. It is not Christianity alone, it was merely one ingredient in the mix. The emergence of modern science grew from certain Christian assumptions about the nature of the world combined with the Renaissance infusion of Greek philosophy and logic, as well as numerous other influences and societal conditions.

How do you know that Christianity was an ingredient in the mix? You simply keep asserting it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson did a nice presentation on the evolution of the god of the gaps arguments. I bring it up now to illustrate when gods come into science - at the limits of knowledge. And we'll see a third non-Christian attempting to determine the underlying order in nature - Ptolemy:

Written article The Perimeter of Ignorance | Natural History Magazine , video

=====

First was Ptolemy from antiquity. He suggested that the sun, moon, and planet revolved around the earth because that is how it appeared from what felt like a stationary earth, a reasonable idea. But when it came to the problem of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets - illustrated and explained at Retrograde Motion - where they seemed to briefly stop, go backward, stop again, and reverse direction again, he reached the limits of his understanding, and at that moment, invoked his god, Zeus:

"I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia" - Ptolemy

It was just a matter of earth overtaking a planet like Mars whose orbit was outside earth's and whose motion was slower. As earth is approaching it, the planet seems to be going in the direction that they are both moving. As earth passes it, it seems to be going in the reverse direction. As earth gets further ahead of it, it appears to be moving in its actual direction

Two millennia later, Newton, who never referred to deities in his Principia when discussing universal gravitation and the laws of (planetary) motion, hit a wall: the 3 bodied gravitational problem. Newton realized that as earth reached its closest approach to Jupiter, Jupiter tugs on earth. Newton could not see how it was possible for the solar system to remain stable given that intermittent destabilizing force. So, "for the first time in his entire record of the discovery of the laws of mechanics and the laws of gravity" Newtons says, "God must step in and fix things."

Tyson goes on to say that, "He didn't mention God. He didn't mention God when talking about his formula F = ma. He didn't talk about God when he knew and figured out the motions of the planets and his universal law of gravitation. God is nowhere to be found. He gets to the point where he can't answer the question,[and] God is there."

"It took 130 years, but somebody was finally born that could solve the [three body gravitational body] problem ... Pierre-Simon Laplace," who developed a new branch of calculus called perturbation theory. Napoleon, a contemporary of Laplace, asked him why he never mentioned the creator in his treatise. Laplace answered, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

Likewise with 17th century astronomer Christian Huygens, who was comfortable with planets and orbits, and so never mentioned God when discussing them, but when he considered biological systems invoked intelligent design:

“I suppose no body will deny but that there's somewhat more of Contrivance, somewhat more of Miracle in the production and growth of Plants and Animals than in lifeless heaps of inanimate Bodies. … For the finger of God, and the Wisdom of Divine Providence, is in them much more clearly manifested than in the other.”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia." ~ Ptolemy

Napoleon, once remarked to Pierre-Simon Laplace, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Hmmm. I just posted that myself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The study treats science in the modern period as a particular kind of cognitive practice, and as a particular kind of
cultural product...

Comparison with China made me realize that the success of science in the West in the early-modern era might be due to its close association with religion, rather than any attempt to dissociate itself from religion; comparison with Iberian science helped me realize just how contingent and precarious any association between scientific values and modern culture was in the early modern era; and comparison with medieval Arabic science made me realize just how peculiar and anomalous the development of science in the West was, and in particular how distinctive its legitimatory programme was...

Indeed, a distinctive feature of the Scientific Revolution is that, unlike other earlier scientific programmes and cultures, it is driven, often explicitly, by religious considerations: Christianity set the agenda for natural philosophy in many respects and projected it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture...

a good part of the distinctive success at the level of legitimation and consolidation of the scientific enterprise in the early-modern West derives not from any separation of religion and natural philosophy, but rather from the fact that natural philosophy could be accommodated to projects in natural theology: what made natural philosophy attractive to so many in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were the prospects it offered for the renewal of natural theology. Far from science breaking free of religion in the early-modern era, its consolidation depended crucially on religion being in the driving seat: Christianity took over natural philosophy in the seventeenth century, setting its agenda and projecting it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture, and in the end establishing it as something in part constructed in the image of religion.

We shall be investigating the complex processes by which this accommodation occurred, and how both natural philosophy and theology were transformed in the process. By the nineteenth century the two had started to come apart, but the intellectual causes of this phenomenon do not lie in any conflict or incompatibility between natural philosophy and theology. Quite the contrary, materialistically inclined atheists (at least before Diderot) were forced to ignore recent developments in natural philosophy, and reverted to the radical naturalistic conceptions that were prevalent immediately prior to the Scientific Revolution.⁴³

The case of nineteenth-century Anglicanism is instructive here. The causes of Anglicanism’s decline in authority from the 1840s onwards are complex, but the reasons given by those who had ‘lost their faith’ in Victorian England hardly ever included advances in science.⁴⁴ Rather, at least some of the difficulties for Christianity arose because of the emergence, from the seventeenth century onwards, of a historical understanding of, first, the Bible, and then Christianity as a whole, a development that gradually undermined the credentials of Christianity, as it was historicized and then relativized, from Bacon through to Hume and Gibbon. The final blow in the British Isles came with the publication of Essays and Criticisms in 1860, where the contributors, predominantly Anglican clergymen, urged the replacement of an inspirational reading of the Bible with a historical one, arguing that the Bible had to be read like any other book.⁴⁵ It was primarily biblical criticism and history rather than science that were the external causes of the intellectual rethinking of religious sensibilities and sources of authority.⁴⁶

(Stephen Gaukroger - The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685. Oxford University Press.)

Same problem here. I don't see Christianity's role: "what made natural philosophy attractive to so many in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were the prospects it offered for the renewal of natural theology."

Also, unsupported claims like this are not persuasive: "Far from science breaking free of religion in the early-modern era, its consolidation depended crucially on religion being in the driving seat: Christianity took over natural philosophy in the seventeenth century, setting its agenda and projecting it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture, and in the end establishing it as something in part constructed in the image of religion."

What consolidation? Crucially, huh? Christianity set the scientific agenda? Science is constructed in the image of religion?

I still don't see a reason for not believing that our science would have been as advanced or more advanced today without Christianity.

But even if we concede that Christianity was crucial in the development of science, it doesn't support the idea that the institution is salutary today, or that we wouldn't be better of with less of it.

 

[Thumper]

Hmmm. I just posted that myself.

A number of years ago I created an entire thread (on a different discussion board) focused on talking about the Beyond Belief symposium. You might have been involved with that discussion, by chance?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A number of years ago I created an entire thread (on a different discussion board) focused on talking about the Beyond Belief symposium. You might have been involved with that discussion, by chance?

I don't recall seeing that.

 

[Augustus]

But I do believe it was inevitable.

Any creature with external senses and an intellectual capacity ought to eventually discover how to study nature effectively.

This is a very faith based assumption. In 100,000 years most societies showed not the slightest inclination to do so and while we have the capability to reason, we are not a rational species.

The implicit Humanist teleology that seems to believe that "Humanity progresses until people think like me", which I think is a failure of imagination to try to view things from outside a modern Western mindset.


"Moreover, he is fortified by a belief in a 'reason' common to all mankind, a common power of rational consideration, which is the ground and inspiration of argument: set up on his door is the precept of Parmenides - judge by rational argument. But besides this, which gives the Rationalist a touch of intellectual equalitarianism, he is something also of an
individualist, finding it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself."

You seem to think that Christian thought and thoughts held by Christians are synonymous. I don't. You're allowing in any thoughts had by Christians whether they derive from their scripture or not. The ideas from Christianity were written down into a book. Additional ideas do not come from Christianity. They come from the application of reason or rational ethics to Christian ideas, as was the case with the abolition of slavery. Not a Christian idea even if most abolitionists were Christian.

I believe that culture has an influence on thoughts and actions, yes. Also not all thoughts held by Christians, those that result from a particular worldview and its implications.

Reducing religion, theology and its philosophical implications to a literalist reading of words in a book is inane. Especially if you see the diversity of cultures that emerged all based around that same book.

You are literally arguing that the divergence between different forms of Christianity is not based on Christianity as many of the differences are not written literally in a book.

Newton illustrates this well. His work on calculus, optics, force, motion, and celestial mechanics are exactly what an atheist with the same talent would have come up with. The words are still meaningful and useful today.

It depends on the philosophy of the atheist in question. Enlightenment ones were from the same cultural tradition so it is possible. My argument has never been that Christianity was the only possible philosophical framework, just that it was the one that existed and worked in way not universally found in other cultures. The 'scientific revolution' would have been unlikely to occur if Europe had been animist for example.

Newton, continually brings God into his work as both a foundation and motivation, for example on the fundamental role of God in his philosophy.

Yet, you seem to be insisting that he is mistaken about his own thoughts and that his natural philosophy was completely unaffected by Christianity.

When they finally got around to saying that slavery was wrong, they got the idea from outside of Christianity.

Where though? It just magically appeared with a solid philosophical grounding that enabled mass acceptance? Where does this "rational ethics" come from and why has is it a historical anomaly? Why would "rational ethics" appear to be wildly irrational to most societies in history?

Same problem here. I don't see Christianity's role: "what made natural philosophy attractive to so many in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were the prospects it offered for the renewal of natural theology."

Basically natural philosophy was seen as a pretty pointless activity with few practical benefits. Its link to theology gave it credibility as a discipline worth studying and investing in thus making it a legitimate option for many people.

In China, for example, science was largely given as much credit as it earned with practical results. This combined with different philosophical perspectives on the nature of the universe are possibly the reason modern science failed to develop in China despite their technological and scientific superiority over the Europeans for many centuries

These are the roots of science, and we see these ideas emerging in multiple cultures. They emerged in the West not during the height of Christian influence, but in the transition from that world to modernity, which featured the repudiation of multiple Christian ideas. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were reactions to Christianity and its doctrines.

Evidence?

What do you mean by 'reactions to Christianity'? Christianity is often 'a reaction to Christianity', almost everything that influences the status quo in any situation is a 'reaction' to the dominant ideology. Most of the time, this reaction comes from within the same ideology.

Also, no one is doubting that some other cultures developed some forms of scientific activity, we are asking why these cultures did not develop 'modern science' as is generally accepted to have occurred in Western Europe in the 17th/18thC. Why not China, despite being more advanced and not being repressed by Christianity? Why did it emerge in one of the most unlikely, 'anti-scientific' cultures?

Also, unsupported claims like this are not persuasive: "Far from science breaking free of religion in the early-modern era, its consolidation depended crucially on religion being in the driving seat: Christianity took over natural philosophy in the seventeenth century, setting its agenda and projecting it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture, and in the end establishing it as something in part constructed in the image of religion."

Unfortunately the support covers 2 volumes and 1000 pages, it's not really practical to include it. Interesting books on the development of modern science though if you fancy a read.

I still don't see a reason for not believing that our science would have been as advanced or more advanced today without Christianity.

Ironically this teleological view of history is likely a legacy of monotheistic influence on your worldview: that Western Rationalism must necessarily emerge as it is the One True Belief.

But even if we concede that Christianity was crucial in the development of science, it doesn't support the idea that the institution is salutary today, or that we wouldn't be better of with less of it.

That's completely irrelevant to what I'm discussing as I'm not Christian or carrying out blanket Christian apologetics.

 

[Thumper]

...That's completely irrelevant to what I'm discussing as I'm not Christian or carrying out blanket Christian apologetics.

Actually you are arguing some extreme christian apologetics, apparently all from one specific book you've read, 2 volumes, etc.

 

[Augustus]

Actually you are arguing some extreme christian apologetics, apparently all from one specific book you've read, 2 volumes, etc.

Yes, the academic study of the history and philosophy of science is "extreme Christian apologetics". A victory for Humanist 'Reason'

And the influence of Christianity on European thought is solely covered in a single text. No one else considered it fruitful to write about it because "it was really mean and nasty and anti-science, obvs. ".

Certainly the high point to an interesting thread. Bravo!