Science and Religion Thread
- Thread starter Human
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
Science doesn't really need a God.
'Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work... Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, '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, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis
'Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work... Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, '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, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis
1. Any member can already create any "thread" they want. Boards have to be created by administration, but you can create any thread you like.
2. Currently Human, no special place is needed for atheists like yourself to present your views, because currently you are allowed to disrupt any thread in the forum, any time you like, with your anti-biblical views. Although this would seem to be a clear violation of site policies, it seems to currently be allowed nonetheless with great liberality.
Have fun.
2. Currently Human, no special place is needed for atheists like yourself to present your views, because currently you are allowed to disrupt any thread in the forum, any time you like, with your anti-biblical views. Although this would seem to be a clear violation of site policies, it seems to currently be allowed nonetheless with great liberality.
Have fun.
How exactly has science benefited from the "knowledge" of an unfalsifiable deity? The history of science is absolutely replete with individuals and circumstances that transcend petty religious boundaries and preconceptions. The Islamic Golden Age, for instance, is universally considered to be a high point in the developmental road that led to the modern scientific method. At its heart, science fundamentally doesn't require a deity to advance and flourish, and evidence abounds to support that.
Science and religion are two entirely separate entities.
Science and religion are two entirely separate entities.
A
Science has benefitted from God's revelation in a great many ways. But before I explain how, understand that this multilayered complex reality we inhabit and are, in fact, a part of is symbiotic (though not pantheistic) with both a material and spiritual composition. This is why the biblical and scientific accounts of phenomena are complementary rather than contradictory, when properly understood.
Historically; the historic, scientific and theological literature all owe much to one another. Since you haven't yet had the opportunity to learn what they are, I should explain some of them starting with the influence of science on theology as you should find that fairly straight forward. Let's start with...
As Dr. Donald Mackay (Professor of Communication and Neuroscience at the University until his retirement in 1982 when he became Emeritus Professor), Dr. Michael Polyani (chemistry professor at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, chemistry and social sciences professor at University of Manchester, professor to three Nobel Prize winners, and elected to the Royal Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences), and Dr. Thomas Torrance (winner of the Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in Religion for singular contributions to the dialogue between science and theology) explained in the New Dictionary of Theology:
"One of the earliest was natural theology. From Robert Boyle (1627–91) to Paley, English literature is replete with attempts to make discoveries of science the basis of a Christian apologetic; it has been argued, somewhat doubtfully, that underlying such efforts lay a quest for social stability which might be bolstered by a strong Anglican church. Its unchanging formularies were to be confirmed by the unchanging laws of science. Be that as it may, the ‘argument from design’ survived, albeit in a weakened form, even the onslaughts of Darwinism. With today’s greater knowledge of the intricacies of the natural world, attempts have been made to revive it, though not with conspicuous success.
It was in fact the awesome regularity of the mechanical universe as emphasized by Isaac Newton that raised urgent questions of divine intervention. Did God intervene in the running of the machine he had created, or did he not? The dilemma was crystallized in the (probably apocryphal) remark by Laplace (1749–1827) that he had ‘no need of that hypothesis (God)’ in his cosmology. Thus arose a powerful stimulus to the growth of deism and its derivatives such as unitarianism. A recognition that all natural events (not merely those explicable by known scientific laws) must be seen as God’s activity was not absent in the late 18th century. But a God-in-the-gaps theology proved surprisingly resilient and represents another popular misunderstanding of the science/religion relationship.
A third response of theology to science has come in the area of biblical interpretation. It goes at least as far back as Galileo’s famous quip of 1615 that, in Scripture, ‘the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes’—a response engendered at least in part by his own telescopic discoveries in vindication of Copernicus.
Since that time the discoveries and theories of science have not infrequently led to a revision of traditional interpretations of Scriptures. These include ancient views on the age of the earth, the structure of the universe, the extent of Noah’s flood and the origins of biological species (including human beings). Few commentators disagree when this happens over cosmology, but application of an identical methodology to questions of human origins is still controversial.
It is important not to imply a unique role for science in the reinterpretation of Scripture, but it cannot be neglected. Where a theological response to science has been claimed with much less justification is in the ‘demythologization’ (see Myth) programme prescribed by Bultmann and others. The assertion that ‘miracle’ is incredible in a scientific age is as unphilosophical as it is unhistorical. It ignores the fact that science is, by definition, concerned only with regularities and can therefore make no pronouncement on their breach; and it neglects to note that, at the very time when demythologization came into vogue, old-fashioned, positivistic scientific dogmatism was in decline. For this a variety of causes may be cited, notably the demise of the deterministic world of Newtonian mechanics in the face of successive challenges by thermodynamics, relativity and quantum theory.
Finally it may be briefly noted that the process theology of Whitehead, Hartshorne and others sprang, at least ostensibly, from a concern to understand God’s relationship to the world of nature as studied by science."
With respect to theologies influence on science, they went on to state:
"The origins and growth of science may be fruitfully considered in terms of a response to biblical insights liberated at, and since, the Reformation (Hooykaas, Russell). This response may be seen in the writings of many men of science and in the morphological similarity between scientific and religious theories. Five such insights may be identified:
1. The elimination of myth from nature: an animate, even ‘divine’, nature is not susceptible to scientific enquiry, nor compatible with biblical injunctions to treat nature instead as a dependent creation of God (Pss. 29, 89, 104, 137, etc.) who alone is to be worshipped (Dt. 26:11; Is. 44:24; Je. 7:18; etc.). The replacement of an organismic by a mechanistic universe (nature’s own ‘demythologization’) coincided with a renewed awareness of such teaching.
2. The laws of nature: the emergence of ‘laws of nature’ in the 17th century has been shown by Zilsel (Physical Review 51, 1942, pp. 245–279) as a derivative of biblical doctrines, citing inter alia Jb. 28:26 and Pr. 8:29. Later writers (Whitehead, Oakley, etc.) have strengthened this thesis.
3. The experimental method: both in English Puritanism and continental Calvinism the questioning manipulation of nature was strongly encouraged as an alternative to the abstract reasoning of ancient pagan cultures. It was seen as fully compatible with biblical injunctions to ‘test’ all things (1 Thes. 5:21; Rom. 12:2; Ps. 34:8; etc.).
4. Controlling the earth: Bacon and his followers saw in Scripture (Gn. 1:26; Ps. 8:6–8, etc.) a clear mandate for altering the natural world for human benefit.
5. To the glory of God: that scientific research could add lustre to the divine name was believed even by patristic writers, but it most strongly emerged in the 17th century. Thus John Kepler (1571–1630), in studying those heavens which declared the glory of God (Pss. 8, 19, 50), exclaimed he was ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. This of itself was a powerful motive for the scientific exploration of nature.
If science may, without exaggeration, be seen as historically dependent for its emergence on Christian theology, then, in an age when this has been largely forgotten, biblical theology has an even more important contribution to make. This is in the area of ethical direction. Crucial to such an impact is a renewal of the biblical concept of stewardship which may be seen as the only key to current dilemmas over areas of concern ranging from the pollution of the biosphere to a possible nuclear holocaust. All of these arise from a technology now made possible by science. Moreover, many aspects of modern science have been seen as eroding human dignity and worth, whether in the extrapolations of biological science to the so-called ‘sociobiology’, or in the naive reductionism that, in the manner of the Greek atomists, sees all phenomena in purely material terms. To an allegedly ‘scientific’ world-view so devoid of comfort and hope theology surely has much to say."
Reductive materialism is a false view of reality, the Christian worldview stands apart from all others in which science was materially "stillborn" as Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall Stanley Jaki wrote, science greatly benefited from the Christian revelation of God, historically science has itself been replete with "individuals and circumstances" consumed by their "petty boundaries and preconceptions" (read the Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn as a suggested starting point for more information on that topic), the rise of modern science correlates with and springs from the Christian worldview embedded in Western Civilization not the "Islamic Golden Age" as you call it which I need to educate you with respect to, etc...
Note to mods: Though not necessary, this is why a section would be desirable. Your call. I leave it in your capable hands. Peace.
Historically; the historic, scientific and theological literature all owe much to one another. Since you haven't yet had the opportunity to learn what they are, I should explain some of them starting with the influence of science on theology as you should find that fairly straight forward. Let's start with...
As Dr. Donald Mackay (Professor of Communication and Neuroscience at the University until his retirement in 1982 when he became Emeritus Professor), Dr. Michael Polyani (chemistry professor at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, chemistry and social sciences professor at University of Manchester, professor to three Nobel Prize winners, and elected to the Royal Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences), and Dr. Thomas Torrance (winner of the Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in Religion for singular contributions to the dialogue between science and theology) explained in the New Dictionary of Theology:
"One of the earliest was natural theology. From Robert Boyle (1627–91) to Paley, English literature is replete with attempts to make discoveries of science the basis of a Christian apologetic; it has been argued, somewhat doubtfully, that underlying such efforts lay a quest for social stability which might be bolstered by a strong Anglican church. Its unchanging formularies were to be confirmed by the unchanging laws of science. Be that as it may, the ‘argument from design’ survived, albeit in a weakened form, even the onslaughts of Darwinism. With today’s greater knowledge of the intricacies of the natural world, attempts have been made to revive it, though not with conspicuous success.
It was in fact the awesome regularity of the mechanical universe as emphasized by Isaac Newton that raised urgent questions of divine intervention. Did God intervene in the running of the machine he had created, or did he not? The dilemma was crystallized in the (probably apocryphal) remark by Laplace (1749–1827) that he had ‘no need of that hypothesis (God)’ in his cosmology. Thus arose a powerful stimulus to the growth of deism and its derivatives such as unitarianism. A recognition that all natural events (not merely those explicable by known scientific laws) must be seen as God’s activity was not absent in the late 18th century. But a God-in-the-gaps theology proved surprisingly resilient and represents another popular misunderstanding of the science/religion relationship.
A third response of theology to science has come in the area of biblical interpretation. It goes at least as far back as Galileo’s famous quip of 1615 that, in Scripture, ‘the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes’—a response engendered at least in part by his own telescopic discoveries in vindication of Copernicus.
Since that time the discoveries and theories of science have not infrequently led to a revision of traditional interpretations of Scriptures. These include ancient views on the age of the earth, the structure of the universe, the extent of Noah’s flood and the origins of biological species (including human beings). Few commentators disagree when this happens over cosmology, but application of an identical methodology to questions of human origins is still controversial.
It is important not to imply a unique role for science in the reinterpretation of Scripture, but it cannot be neglected. Where a theological response to science has been claimed with much less justification is in the ‘demythologization’ (see Myth) programme prescribed by Bultmann and others. The assertion that ‘miracle’ is incredible in a scientific age is as unphilosophical as it is unhistorical. It ignores the fact that science is, by definition, concerned only with regularities and can therefore make no pronouncement on their breach; and it neglects to note that, at the very time when demythologization came into vogue, old-fashioned, positivistic scientific dogmatism was in decline. For this a variety of causes may be cited, notably the demise of the deterministic world of Newtonian mechanics in the face of successive challenges by thermodynamics, relativity and quantum theory.
Finally it may be briefly noted that the process theology of Whitehead, Hartshorne and others sprang, at least ostensibly, from a concern to understand God’s relationship to the world of nature as studied by science."
With respect to theologies influence on science, they went on to state:
"The origins and growth of science may be fruitfully considered in terms of a response to biblical insights liberated at, and since, the Reformation (Hooykaas, Russell). This response may be seen in the writings of many men of science and in the morphological similarity between scientific and religious theories. Five such insights may be identified:
1. The elimination of myth from nature: an animate, even ‘divine’, nature is not susceptible to scientific enquiry, nor compatible with biblical injunctions to treat nature instead as a dependent creation of God (Pss. 29, 89, 104, 137, etc.) who alone is to be worshipped (Dt. 26:11; Is. 44:24; Je. 7:18; etc.). The replacement of an organismic by a mechanistic universe (nature’s own ‘demythologization’) coincided with a renewed awareness of such teaching.
2. The laws of nature: the emergence of ‘laws of nature’ in the 17th century has been shown by Zilsel (Physical Review 51, 1942, pp. 245–279) as a derivative of biblical doctrines, citing inter alia Jb. 28:26 and Pr. 8:29. Later writers (Whitehead, Oakley, etc.) have strengthened this thesis.
3. The experimental method: both in English Puritanism and continental Calvinism the questioning manipulation of nature was strongly encouraged as an alternative to the abstract reasoning of ancient pagan cultures. It was seen as fully compatible with biblical injunctions to ‘test’ all things (1 Thes. 5:21; Rom. 12:2; Ps. 34:8; etc.).
4. Controlling the earth: Bacon and his followers saw in Scripture (Gn. 1:26; Ps. 8:6–8, etc.) a clear mandate for altering the natural world for human benefit.
5. To the glory of God: that scientific research could add lustre to the divine name was believed even by patristic writers, but it most strongly emerged in the 17th century. Thus John Kepler (1571–1630), in studying those heavens which declared the glory of God (Pss. 8, 19, 50), exclaimed he was ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. This of itself was a powerful motive for the scientific exploration of nature.
If science may, without exaggeration, be seen as historically dependent for its emergence on Christian theology, then, in an age when this has been largely forgotten, biblical theology has an even more important contribution to make. This is in the area of ethical direction. Crucial to such an impact is a renewal of the biblical concept of stewardship which may be seen as the only key to current dilemmas over areas of concern ranging from the pollution of the biosphere to a possible nuclear holocaust. All of these arise from a technology now made possible by science. Moreover, many aspects of modern science have been seen as eroding human dignity and worth, whether in the extrapolations of biological science to the so-called ‘sociobiology’, or in the naive reductionism that, in the manner of the Greek atomists, sees all phenomena in purely material terms. To an allegedly ‘scientific’ world-view so devoid of comfort and hope theology surely has much to say."
Reductive materialism is a false view of reality, the Christian worldview stands apart from all others in which science was materially "stillborn" as Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall Stanley Jaki wrote, science greatly benefited from the Christian revelation of God, historically science has itself been replete with "individuals and circumstances" consumed by their "petty boundaries and preconceptions" (read the Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn as a suggested starting point for more information on that topic), the rise of modern science correlates with and springs from the Christian worldview embedded in Western Civilization not the "Islamic Golden Age" as you call it which I need to educate you with respect to, etc...
Note to mods: Though not necessary, this is why a section would be desirable. Your call. I leave it in your capable hands. Peace.
Essentially, your material is assuming -- on the basis of broad, general assumptions that easily contradict the much more historically complex development of modern science -- that, on the basis of a handful of Biblical extrapolations that posit vague musings, such as Genesis 1:26 (Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." -Genesis 1:26, NIV), Western men of early science formed the basis for the scientific method we're familiar with today. This is decidedly shallow and arrogant for a variety of reasons -- and, above all, it's provably incorrect. To begin with, let's offer a partial summary of the actual history of scientific thought and inquiry centuries prior to the Renaissance, which credits individuals in a religious and cultural background far different from the West as opposed to just Western figures that, conveniently, are capable of being superficially quote mined to shoehorn a thesis that fails to acknowledge countless important factors tied to the history of science and of natural human curiosity. Your assertion that modern science arose from "the Christian worldview" is untrue and highly culturally biased, and it needs to be addressed.
Now, then. Ultimately, and probably obviously, science can be regarded as a progressive enterprise building off of both prior work and the work of contemporaries. This is a crucial fact to take into consideration when weighing the relative importance of various cultures in terms of the development of science. It can't be overstated, and out of both necessity and respect for the achievements of the individuals associated with scientific progress, it certainly can't be overlooked in the name of familiar Western faces that owe an incredible amount to their more Easterly counterparts. Many elements integral to modern science, such as a methodological reliance on experimentation and advances in arithmetic beyond primitive Roman numerals, were developed and had existed apart from Western civilization, and in many cases were introduced to the West well after initial developments. In terms of the achievements of Eastern academics, one name in particular stands out -- Alhazen.
Alhazen, a prominent Islamic scientist, mathematician and philosopher, who today is widely regarded as one of the most historically important early figures in the development of the scientific method (among various other achievements), made countless advances in various academic disciplines. Among the most pertinent was his work in optics. Here's a small excerpt from Wikipedia's article on Alhazen.
"An aspect associated with Alhazen's optical research is related to systemic and methodological reliance on experimentation and controlled testing in his scientific inquiries. Moreover, his experimental directives rested on combining classical physics with mathematics. This mathematical-physical approach to experimental science supported most of his propositions in Kitab al-Manazir (The Optics; De aspectibus or Perspectivae) and grounded his theories of vision, light and colour, as well as his research in catoptrics and dioptrics (the study of the refraction of light). Bradley Steffens in his book Ibn Al-Haytham: First Scientist has argued that Alhazen's approach to testing and experimentation made an important contribution to the scientific method. According to Matthias Schramm, Alhazen was, quote, 'the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen diminishes constantly as one of the apertures is gradually blocked up.'"
Bradley Steffens and other biographers go further to state that Alhazen was the world's "first true scientist." In fact, Isaac Newton's work in the field of optics stood on the shoulders of Alhazen, a man who lived 700 years before his time in an entirely different culture and society.
Aside from Alhazen in the Arabic world, there's Ibn al-Nafis, an Arab physician renowned as the first man to discover and describe pulmonary circulation; Al-Jayyānī, known for introducing the general Law of Sines; Al-Biruni, renowned as the father of geodesy and an important contributer to geology; Avicenna, whose work in the On Demonstration section of a vast encyclopedia discussed the philosophy of science, disputed Aristotelian induction and proposed a formal method of investigation and experimentation; Al-Kindi, who adamantly opposed the concept of alchemy and debunked the popular belief that base metals could be transformed into precious metals; and countless others. Mind you, this is within the context of the Islamic Golden Age alone. There's also, for instance, the Greek thinker Aristarchus of Samos, who -- contrary to popular belief -- developed the first heliocentric theory, not Copernicus.
Now, let's address the predominantly Christian society of the West that existed for centuries in a pre-Renaissance state. To be sure, several powerful church fathers did anything but inspire doubt, skepticism, and curiosity that forms an integral part of the fundamental framework of science. Peter Harrison, research professor and director of the Center of the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland, states that
"From the patristic period to the beginning of the seventeenth century, curiosity was regarded as an intellectual vice."
Several church fathers, including Tertullian, expressed explicit warnings against curiosity and thought that curiosity shouldn't venture past faith, asserting it to be heresy. Lactantius, an early Christian apologist, wrote that
"when God revealed the truth to man, He wished us only to know those things which it concerned man to know for the attainment of life; but as to the things which related to a profane and eager curiosity He was silent, that they might be secret. Why, then, do you inquire into things which you cannot know, and if you knew them you would not be happier."
St. Augustine also warns about curiosity in Confessions:
"For over and above that lust of the flesh which lies in the delight of all our senses and pleasures--whose slaves are wasted unto destruction as they go far from you--there can also be in the mind itself, through those same bodily senses, a certain vain desire and curiosity, not of taking delights in the body, but of making experiments with the body's aid, and cloaked under the name of learning and knowledge."
Granted, these views weren't universally shared, but they did cultivate resistance to scientific inquiry. Assuming the foundation of science "sprang" from the "Christian worldview" (which can mean whatever you're willing to stretch the term to imply), then for what reason did science not develop and flourish during the Middle Ages at the height of Christian power and influence? They had centuries to invent or advance astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics while the Eastern world was racing forward, but they didn't -- and, in fact, they regressed. Why? Because to do good science, you need an environment that encourages scientific thought, and the Church did little in this regard.
This brings us to another point -- the Renaissance and its fruits. As you've (in part) correctly stated, scientific discoveries (which, in several famous instances, were met with official Christian opposition that had to be dismantled tooth and nail) resulted in reinterpretations of the Bible at various points in history. However, you've implied by the material you're sourcing that this reinterpretation is merely the correct perspective to hold as far as a general view of both science and religion is concerned -- but this is no better than the fallacy of the God of the Gaps. To be sure, these reinterpretations are the result of science bending religion to meet its will in the face of traditional ignorance, which is a recurring theme that exists even today in the controversy between literal and allegorical interpretations of various Biblical passages. It's possible to stretch a given religious verse to extremes unthinkable, but that does not render them compatible with science beyond the extent religious apologists are willing to go to preserve the integrity of their traditional beliefs.
In speaking of the Renaissance and beyond, it can't be overstated that the scientists and intellectuals along the lines of Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, and Galileo were, like Alhazen and other Eastern intellectual giants, shaped (to varying degrees) by the cultures they were born and raised into. And in this regard, your post can be summarized by the following fallacies:
Quote mining (The ability to source certain quotes to a given individual paints an undeniably and highly incomplete picture of the individual's views, motives, and so on -- your material's source from Francis Bacon is a prime example of this);
confusing correlation with causation (just because a scientist accepts religion doesn't mean his science derived from religion);
non sequitur (it doesn't follow that just because scientists believed in God that science resulted from it, as demonstrated by the sheer plurality of scientific thought and development beyond the scope of Christian dogmas);
and confirmation bias (list all the Christian scientists, but exclude their rejection of dogmas that conflicted with their science along with various non-Christian scientists and intellectuals that had an invaluable impact on early science).
In reality, most early scientists (including prominent Islamic scientists in the Arabic world) weren't inquiring because of their religious views or because of existing religious views at the time (excluding a handful of notable cases in your defense, such as Kepler), and there's insufficient evidence to argue that they did. Most appear to have been inquiring merely because of their natural curiosity and talent. If there truly were fundamental religious underpinnings to early science, we wouldn't have to search for, say, Francis Bacon's religious views -- we'd merely be able to read a typical biography or webpage about him to find that religion played an integral role in his investigations. That simply isn't the case.
Now, then. Ultimately, and probably obviously, science can be regarded as a progressive enterprise building off of both prior work and the work of contemporaries. This is a crucial fact to take into consideration when weighing the relative importance of various cultures in terms of the development of science. It can't be overstated, and out of both necessity and respect for the achievements of the individuals associated with scientific progress, it certainly can't be overlooked in the name of familiar Western faces that owe an incredible amount to their more Easterly counterparts. Many elements integral to modern science, such as a methodological reliance on experimentation and advances in arithmetic beyond primitive Roman numerals, were developed and had existed apart from Western civilization, and in many cases were introduced to the West well after initial developments. In terms of the achievements of Eastern academics, one name in particular stands out -- Alhazen.
Alhazen, a prominent Islamic scientist, mathematician and philosopher, who today is widely regarded as one of the most historically important early figures in the development of the scientific method (among various other achievements), made countless advances in various academic disciplines. Among the most pertinent was his work in optics. Here's a small excerpt from Wikipedia's article on Alhazen.
"An aspect associated with Alhazen's optical research is related to systemic and methodological reliance on experimentation and controlled testing in his scientific inquiries. Moreover, his experimental directives rested on combining classical physics with mathematics. This mathematical-physical approach to experimental science supported most of his propositions in Kitab al-Manazir (The Optics; De aspectibus or Perspectivae) and grounded his theories of vision, light and colour, as well as his research in catoptrics and dioptrics (the study of the refraction of light). Bradley Steffens in his book Ibn Al-Haytham: First Scientist has argued that Alhazen's approach to testing and experimentation made an important contribution to the scientific method. According to Matthias Schramm, Alhazen was, quote, 'the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen diminishes constantly as one of the apertures is gradually blocked up.'"
Bradley Steffens and other biographers go further to state that Alhazen was the world's "first true scientist." In fact, Isaac Newton's work in the field of optics stood on the shoulders of Alhazen, a man who lived 700 years before his time in an entirely different culture and society.
Aside from Alhazen in the Arabic world, there's Ibn al-Nafis, an Arab physician renowned as the first man to discover and describe pulmonary circulation; Al-Jayyānī, known for introducing the general Law of Sines; Al-Biruni, renowned as the father of geodesy and an important contributer to geology; Avicenna, whose work in the On Demonstration section of a vast encyclopedia discussed the philosophy of science, disputed Aristotelian induction and proposed a formal method of investigation and experimentation; Al-Kindi, who adamantly opposed the concept of alchemy and debunked the popular belief that base metals could be transformed into precious metals; and countless others. Mind you, this is within the context of the Islamic Golden Age alone. There's also, for instance, the Greek thinker Aristarchus of Samos, who -- contrary to popular belief -- developed the first heliocentric theory, not Copernicus.
Now, let's address the predominantly Christian society of the West that existed for centuries in a pre-Renaissance state. To be sure, several powerful church fathers did anything but inspire doubt, skepticism, and curiosity that forms an integral part of the fundamental framework of science. Peter Harrison, research professor and director of the Center of the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland, states that
"From the patristic period to the beginning of the seventeenth century, curiosity was regarded as an intellectual vice."
Several church fathers, including Tertullian, expressed explicit warnings against curiosity and thought that curiosity shouldn't venture past faith, asserting it to be heresy. Lactantius, an early Christian apologist, wrote that
"when God revealed the truth to man, He wished us only to know those things which it concerned man to know for the attainment of life; but as to the things which related to a profane and eager curiosity He was silent, that they might be secret. Why, then, do you inquire into things which you cannot know, and if you knew them you would not be happier."
St. Augustine also warns about curiosity in Confessions:
"For over and above that lust of the flesh which lies in the delight of all our senses and pleasures--whose slaves are wasted unto destruction as they go far from you--there can also be in the mind itself, through those same bodily senses, a certain vain desire and curiosity, not of taking delights in the body, but of making experiments with the body's aid, and cloaked under the name of learning and knowledge."
Granted, these views weren't universally shared, but they did cultivate resistance to scientific inquiry. Assuming the foundation of science "sprang" from the "Christian worldview" (which can mean whatever you're willing to stretch the term to imply), then for what reason did science not develop and flourish during the Middle Ages at the height of Christian power and influence? They had centuries to invent or advance astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics while the Eastern world was racing forward, but they didn't -- and, in fact, they regressed. Why? Because to do good science, you need an environment that encourages scientific thought, and the Church did little in this regard.
This brings us to another point -- the Renaissance and its fruits. As you've (in part) correctly stated, scientific discoveries (which, in several famous instances, were met with official Christian opposition that had to be dismantled tooth and nail) resulted in reinterpretations of the Bible at various points in history. However, you've implied by the material you're sourcing that this reinterpretation is merely the correct perspective to hold as far as a general view of both science and religion is concerned -- but this is no better than the fallacy of the God of the Gaps. To be sure, these reinterpretations are the result of science bending religion to meet its will in the face of traditional ignorance, which is a recurring theme that exists even today in the controversy between literal and allegorical interpretations of various Biblical passages. It's possible to stretch a given religious verse to extremes unthinkable, but that does not render them compatible with science beyond the extent religious apologists are willing to go to preserve the integrity of their traditional beliefs.
In speaking of the Renaissance and beyond, it can't be overstated that the scientists and intellectuals along the lines of Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, and Galileo were, like Alhazen and other Eastern intellectual giants, shaped (to varying degrees) by the cultures they were born and raised into. And in this regard, your post can be summarized by the following fallacies:
Quote mining (The ability to source certain quotes to a given individual paints an undeniably and highly incomplete picture of the individual's views, motives, and so on -- your material's source from Francis Bacon is a prime example of this);
confusing correlation with causation (just because a scientist accepts religion doesn't mean his science derived from religion);
non sequitur (it doesn't follow that just because scientists believed in God that science resulted from it, as demonstrated by the sheer plurality of scientific thought and development beyond the scope of Christian dogmas);
and confirmation bias (list all the Christian scientists, but exclude their rejection of dogmas that conflicted with their science along with various non-Christian scientists and intellectuals that had an invaluable impact on early science).
In reality, most early scientists (including prominent Islamic scientists in the Arabic world) weren't inquiring because of their religious views or because of existing religious views at the time (excluding a handful of notable cases in your defense, such as Kepler), and there's insufficient evidence to argue that they did. Most appear to have been inquiring merely because of their natural curiosity and talent. If there truly were fundamental religious underpinnings to early science, we wouldn't have to search for, say, Francis Bacon's religious views -- we'd merely be able to read a typical biography or webpage about him to find that religion played an integral role in his investigations. That simply isn't the case.
Last edited:
A
Oh, I see you replied with an erroneous post that hypocritically engages in exactly the fallacious behaviors you falsely accused some of the world's most respected scholars, whose information I shared, of doing.
Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the moment to bless you with a lengthy corrective refutation but I've bookmarked this for later perusal and will be back to reduce your erroneous, juvenile, hypocritical post to the mound of smoking inaccurate fallacious ash which it deserves... as is my habit, of course.
I have a project to finish. In the meanwhile, be blessed.
Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the moment to bless you with a lengthy corrective refutation but I've bookmarked this for later perusal and will be back to reduce your erroneous, juvenile, hypocritical post to the mound of smoking inaccurate fallacious ash which it deserves... as is my habit, of course.
I have a project to finish. In the meanwhile, be blessed.
I have thought on this before. However, seeing as most of what is touted today as "science" is not even science, but is only theory, perhaps it be prudent to just rename the Conspiracy Section to the Theory Section and move such things to there. Just a suggestion, it's not my forum though, do what seems good to you.
Well, as much as I appreciate feedback, as members of the forum will ultimately show the popularity of an idea and somewhat dictate its efficacy, I do disagree with the idea that 'most of what is touted today as science is not even science but theory'. That disagreement, and of course the explanation of the misconception from which such a statement ultimately derives (an explanation which I will post) shows a great reason to have the thread in the first place.
The dictionary defines' theory', in common speech, as 'an idea used to account for situation of justify a course of action'. So, in this sense, my idea that a science and religion forum would be a worthy addition to the site under reasoning that miscnceptions arise and threads are posted which clog other forums, is a 'theory' - an idea used to justify a course of action. That definition of theory seems to be the one you base your idea of science being 'only theory' upon, for it seems obvious to me that if you understood the definition of 'scientific theory' you wouldn't make that argument to begin with.
A scientific theory is a system of principles with a substantial and overwhelming body of evidence gleaned from experimentation and observation of the natural world which explains an occurence or some other phenomena within that natural world. For isntance, the scientific theory of atoms, which is a system of explanation, based on observed facts, of how matter is made up of units composed of atoms which can bond to one another, unbond from one another or can fuse; all of which do not cause them to stop being atoms of matter.
The dictionary defines' theory', in common speech, as 'an idea used to account for situation of justify a course of action'. So, in this sense, my idea that a science and religion forum would be a worthy addition to the site under reasoning that miscnceptions arise and threads are posted which clog other forums, is a 'theory' - an idea used to justify a course of action. That definition of theory seems to be the one you base your idea of science being 'only theory' upon, for it seems obvious to me that if you understood the definition of 'scientific theory' you wouldn't make that argument to begin with.
A scientific theory is a system of principles with a substantial and overwhelming body of evidence gleaned from experimentation and observation of the natural world which explains an occurence or some other phenomena within that natural world. For isntance, the scientific theory of atoms, which is a system of explanation, based on observed facts, of how matter is made up of units composed of atoms which can bond to one another, unbond from one another or can fuse; all of which do not cause them to stop being atoms of matter.
To the degree science is able to formulate principles which are formed as a result of an orderly universe, to that degree we see the evidence of a law Maker or Orderer. It would be irrational and absurd to think that the vast complexity and order observed in the universe was a result of purely random activity. True science doesn't require a deity to advance and flourish but it does require an ordertly universe to make sense of it's findings.
F
It looks like this type of material without proper supervision fosters strife. Also a good book for this thread is Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lie, discussing the relationship between naturalism and science versus theism and science. It is a good read for those interested a theistic response to the alleged conflict between science and religion. Apart from that, this could potentially like many well-intended initiatives be a beneficial thing for the community as long as there is openness in the discussion, so we must make efforts to demonstrate this now before we are privileged with such an opportunity. There are also various forums on the internet making these efforts, and I am sure google will render her results.
From personal study, science itself is not incompatible with Christianity, nor is it incompatible with naturalism, but merely the philosophical worldview you decide to claim as your own is what influences the results. Methodology heavily draws on empiricism from what I observe, but this does not exclude the possibility of Christ and the miraculous. Read Plantinga and Philosophy of Religion and Science, it will answer many questions and fill gaps of knowledge.
From personal study, science itself is not incompatible with Christianity, nor is it incompatible with naturalism, but merely the philosophical worldview you decide to claim as your own is what influences the results. Methodology heavily draws on empiricism from what I observe, but this does not exclude the possibility of Christ and the miraculous. Read Plantinga and Philosophy of Religion and Science, it will answer many questions and fill gaps of knowledge.
F
Oh, I see you replied with an erroneous post that hypocritically engages in exactly the fallacious behaviors you falsely accused some of the world's most respected scholars, whose information I shared, of doing.
Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the moment to bless you with a lengthy corrective refutation but I've bookmarked this for later perusal and will be back to reduce your erroneous, juvenile, hypocritical post to the mound of smoking inaccurate fallacious ash which it deserves... as is my habit, of course.
I have a project to finish. In the meanwhile, be blessed.
Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the moment to bless you with a lengthy corrective refutation but I've bookmarked this for later perusal and will be back to reduce your erroneous, juvenile, hypocritical post to the mound of smoking inaccurate fallacious ash which it deserves... as is my habit, of course.
I have a project to finish. In the meanwhile, be blessed.