Congruency between Christianity and Science in general

Post Reply New Topic

The biblical roots of modern science

A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.

By: Jonathan Sarfati

Published: 29 September 2009

Many atheopaths(1) and their compromising churchian allies claim that biblical belief and science are mortal enemies. Yet historians of science, even non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia. The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:

"The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."(2)

But if atheism or polytheism is true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:28 gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism which teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, rather than to rely on man-made philosophies, as did the ancient Greeks. So no wonder that sociologist and author Rodney Stark affirmed:

“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”(3)

Furthermore, science requires that we can think rationally, and that results should be reported honestly, more teachings found in the Bible but do not follow from evolutionism.(4)


Science in the Middle Ages

While this period used to be called the “Dark Ages”, responsible historians recognize that it was far from dark. Rather, it was a period of great scientific advances, stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. Small wonder that this period saw the development of water and wind power, spectacles, magnificent architecture, the blast furnace, and the stirrup.(5)

An enormous advance in physical understanding was 14th-century logician John Buridan’s development of the concept of impetus, essentially the same as the modern concept of momentum. Previously, Aristotle’s followers argued that a moving object required a force to keep it moving, but Buridan proposed:

“…after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion.”

This is a forerunner of Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion.


So it’s not surprising that James Hannam, who recently earned a Ph.D. on the History of Science from the University of Cambridge, UK, pointed out:

“During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, which it also kept control of when speculation could impinge on theology. Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”
“Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500.”(6)


Scientific jump after the Reformation


While Europe in the Middle Ages had a Judeo-Christian world view, it took the Reformation to recover specific biblical authority. With this came the recovery of a plain or historical grammatical understanding of the Bible, recovering the understanding of the New Testament authors and most of the early Church Fathers. This turned out to have a huge positive impact on the development of modern science. This is so counter to common (mis)understanding, yet it is well documented by Peter Harrison, then a professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia (and now Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford):

“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.”(7)

As Prof. Harrison explained:

“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …
Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”(8)


Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, writes in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term “literal interpretation”:

“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”(9)

And Prof. Snobelen explains the reason why: scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible. I.e. just as they studied what the Bible really said, rather than imposed outside philosophies and traditions upon it, they likewise studied how nature really did work, rather than accept philosophical ideas about how it should work (extending their allegorizing readings of Scripture to the natural world) (8)

“It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.”(9)


Belief in the Fall of Adam: how it inspired science


Prof. Harrison has researched another commonly overlooked factor in the development of science: belief in a literal Fall of a literal first man Adam. These founding modern scientists, including Francis Bacon, reasoned that the Fall not only destroyed man’s innocence, but also greatly impaired his knowledge. The first problem was remedied by the innocent Last Adam, Jesus Christ—His sacrifice enabled our sin to be imputed (credited) to Him (Isaiah 53:6), and His perfect life enabled His righteousness to be imputed to believers in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as for recovering what they believed to be Adam’s encyclopedic knowledge, they looked to science. Harrison explains:

“New [sic] literal readings of the creation narratives in Genesis provided 17th century thinkers with powerful motivating images for pursuing the natural sciences.

“Adam was thought to have possessed a perfect knowledge of all sciences, a knowledge lost to posterity when he fell from grace and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The goal of 17th century scientists such as Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society of London was to regain the scientific knowledge of the first man. Indeed, for these individuals, the whole scientific enterprise was an integral part of a redemptive enterprise that, along with the Christian religion, was to help restore the original race to its original perfection. The biblical account of the creation thus provided these scientists with an important source of motivation, and in an age still thoroughly committed to traditional Christianity, the new science was to gain social legitimacy on account of these religious associations.”(8)

“For many champions of the new learning in the seventeenth century, the encyclopaedic knowledge of Adam was the benchmark against which their own aspirations were gauged. …

“The experimental approach, I shall argue, was deeply indebted to Augustinian views about the limitations of human knowledge in the wake of the Fall, and thus inductive experimentalism can also lay claim to a filial relationship with the tradition of Augustinianism.”(10)


Objection

Some atheopaths admit that science was in effect a child of Christianity, but now claim that it’s time science grew up and cut the apron strings. However, none other than former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher answered that type of claim:

“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.
“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:
“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’ ”(11)




Summary


* Atheopaths often disparage the Bible, especially its account of creation. Yet …

* Science requires certain presuppositions to work at all, and these are found in the Bible.

* Europe in the Middle Ages, with its general Christian world view, advanced greatly in science and technology.

* The Reformation, with its emphasis on the authority of Scripture and a historical-grammatical understanding, led to a great leap forward in science as such methods were carried over into the study of nature.

* Belief in a literal first man Adam and his Fall inspired science as a means to rediscover knowledge Adam had before the Fall.

* It is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while undermining the roots in biblical Christianity.



References



1. Leading misotheist Richard Dawkins often calls theistic religion a ‘virus of the mind’, which would make it a kind of disease or pathology, and parents who teach it to their kids are, in Dawkins’ view, supposedly practising mental child abuse. But the sorts of criteria Dawkins applies makes one wonder whether his own fanatical antitheism itself could be a mental pathology—hence, “atheopath”.

2. Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961.

3. Stark, R., For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, 2003; see also review by Williams A., The biblical origins of science, Journal of Creation 18(2):49–52, 2004; <www.creationontheweb.com/stark>

4. Sarfati, J., Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009

5. Carroll, V., and Shiflett, D., Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry, ch. 3, Encounter Books, 2001; see review by Hardaway, B. and Sarfati, J., Journal of Creation 18(3):28–30, 2004 <creation.com/trial>.

6. See Hannam, J., God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, 2007; <http://jameshannam.com/Godsphilosophers.pdf>.


7. Harrison, P., The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of natural science, Cambridge University Press, 2001; see review by Weinberger, L., J. Creation 23(3):21–24, 2009 (in press).


8. Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science 23(3):14–15, 2002.


9. Snobelen, S., “Isaac Newton and Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur’s Newton’s strange bedfellows”; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.


10. Harrison, P., The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2007, introduction.


11. Thatcher, M., Christianity and Wealth, Speech to the Church of Scotland General Assembly, 21 May 1988.



Link: http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science

There certainly is a congruency between iamnotap. and starting lots of topics here.

The basic assumption that the universe is assumed to be orderly and therefore it could only come from an orderly creator is merely that. An assumption. Scientific investigation so far has revealed both orderliness and randomness in the universe and although orderliness has been discovered in very many useful areas there is no assumed guarantee that it is everywhere.

Not mortal enemies, but groups with a history of conflict.



Ummm.... well, Richard Carrier is a historian of science and from what I've heard, he disagrees and has even addressed this idea on a radio show that can be found through one of his blog posts.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009 ... ience.html

In any case, wasn't Stoicism a deterministic philosophy that emphasized reason?


Sure there is. Assuming that the universe is orderly leads to more success than not doing so.

Not only that, but "the universe is orderly" is not the first thing most people hear whenever they enter a church. Even you have had issues with "emotionalistic" pastors, and Christianity is an emotional religion, and one that emphasizes the magical content of reality given the notions of prayers and spiritual powers.


Permission to dominate the world is not the same as experimenting.




I find it interesting that it happens to be that the Richard Carrier blog post I reference ends up attacking Rodney Stark as massively misinformed, calling his work on the matter an "embarrassing forray into ancient history".


Well, I don't know how "evolutionism" even gets into the normative issue being called into question here, but there does not seem to be a real conflict between rationality and evolution. I mean, first off, our reason is partially a result of an evolutionary pathway, at least if we take John Dewey's perspective on the matter seriously, found in Chapter 6 of Reconstruction in Philosophy, where he points out that in the history of mathematics there were failed efforts in the past, and that modern logic is just the refined version after all of these failures.


Ok, but inventiveness comes in most societies. In any case, a lot of the worldview that Catholicism was based upon, was the Greek ideas. That is why Galileo's findings were so dramatic, because they struck at the heart of this inherited worldview. Not only that, but it isn't as if Christianity was the greatest thing ever at keeping knowledge during this period of time. It must be recognized that a lot of learning was gotten from the Middle East at this point in time and that the Middle East was leading Europe by many measures of an Enlightened society.


Yes, I do believe that the Reformation had a positive impact on science, however, given that neither Luther nor Calvin were exactly fans of dissenting ideas, and Luther is even recorded as considering heliocentrism rather ridiculous, I am not sure that the reading of the Bible is really what is so much important as the challenge to traditional values. Perhaps one might construe "reading of the Bible" to the empirical mindset of the Reformers in their perception on scripture, but still. The division of power within the church allowed for the re-emergence of secular philosophies in the Enlightenment, which would itself give science more power than religion.


The only fruit is the belief that the world is comprehensible and rational, and frankly, we don't need a Christian root to sustain that. All we need is to point out that the belief that the world is comprehensible and rational has led to successful gain in knowledge. Or even that nature does in fact seem to work by rules.

Even if one has a case that Christianity has impacted science, you know that this isn't a central element of modern Christian teachings. You know that there are emotionalistic pastors who would attack science. And I think the rest of us know that modern efforts to hinder science have largely been religious in nature. Finally, I think Biblical scholars are relatively confident in the idea that Christian history does not match the literalist view of things, as most Biblical scholars aren't literalists and are skeptical of the view.


Not very much done here to argue this. You've only quoted 2 verses, and neither of those verses says "the world functions by laws, therefore we should study those laws".


Yeah, and that wasn't even argued. Nor does it make sense given that all of our scientific/systematic enterprises have undermined the roots of Biblical Christianity, whether these enterprises are in cosmology, biology, geology or even Bible studies. In any case, the success of ideas is often linked to the success of these ideas in explaining our world or providing real benefit, and this suggests that science is now strong enough to actually provide it's own roots.

In regards to this at least, how the dominion mandate relates to scientific investigation, this prayer by James Clerk Maxwell should give some light to this theological issue,

Order is in the eye of the beholder.

It isn't really there.

It isn't really there? Order is an illusion then? On what grounds do you make that claim?

Sand, do you mean to suggest that because some degree of randomness exists, that the randomness negates the orderliness? Or do you mean imply, theologically, that God would instill order into everything exactly? What do you mean?

There are some processes which have been discovered to be random, such as which atoms
in a radioactive substance will decay. There are some processes which are orderly enough to predict the outcome far in advance. These things must be determined by experiment and observation. Scientific activity continually searches for ways to predict outcomes in all processes and does not assume in advance that this search will be successful. The inherent difference between the processes of science and religion is that science makes continuous temporary assumptions to be tested and rejected if found faulty. Religion in general makes untested claims as to the nature of the universe and fights tooth and nail to prevent doubt about these untested assertions which frequently form the foundation for religious beliefs. Science maintains no unassailable beliefs and welcomes discoveries that shatter previous concepts because this usually opens up novel pathways to explore. This is not to say that science is eager to accept every crackpot notion but it does say that it is fundamentally open to change and new understanding. Religion is not and this is the crucial difference.

No, it does not help at all.

The fact that a scientist in the 19th century prayed and invoked the creation mandate in said prayer does not mean that the early Christians in the 1st century understood the creation mandate in the same way. Or even that the Jews, to whom this mandate was originally given understood this mandate in the same way. In fact, perhaps I am ignorant, but I don't know of many inventions attributed to pre-Roman Jews that could not be attributed to other groups in the basic region as well, and that could be my ignorance. However, if the creation mandate says what you think it does, and this is so incredibly special, then I would think that we would see these attributes in the early Jewish tribes rather than just in later Jewish thinkers. Perhaps even some praises to God for certain highly important inventions in the Jewish scriptures given how revolutionary an invention can be, or at least references to Jewish technological superiority as a sign of God's favor.

In any case, I am not currently in a position where I can listen to the podcast that Carrier linked to through the blog post I linked to, however, I think Carrier attacks this notion arguing that the Christian era of the Roman empire was not known to be an age scientific wonder either, which if true, would also seem to undermine the idea that you are proposing.

I've heard similar arguments before. The problem becomes how you continue to uphold that when it turns out that the natural world doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, what's the deal with light? Why does it have to be so wishy-washy? Be a wave or a particle, not both! Also, I've heard apologists try to refute quantum mechanics on the grounds that such a disorderly, random universe is incompatible with a rational creator. There's actually quite a bit in physics that is very counter-intuitive, or else just doesn't make sense.

Oh yes! I am currently trying to convince a friend that the theory of relativity is essentially correct. Apparently he doesn't like what it says about time(the relativity of simultaneity to be more precise).

Wave and particle are mathematical concepts along with the notion of vector. We should not reify our mental constructs. Nature is what it is. It is no obliged to fit into our mental categories, however much we want that to be the case. Wave and particle are descriptive terms, not substances.

ruveyn

Try telling that to the creationists.

*snort*
China
the Library Of Alexandria
Greek Philosophers
Greek and Arabic mathematics
The Reformation
The Enlightenment

China
the Library Of Alexandria
Greek Philosophers
Greek and Arabic mathematics
The Reformation
The Enlightenment
Vs


Hmmmmm

Now lets see

Am I delusional or obstinate to the point of insanity? nope, so I will stick to proven science and leave the faerie tales to those that are.