Wow! What a radical idea. Isaac Newton would’ve had a fit. Oh wait.
From Prager U:
Does belief in God get in the way of science? The idea that science and religion are inevitably in conflict is a popular way of thinking today. But the history of science tells a different story.
But now, just asking: Have new atheists made any difference to the practice of science? Why are they even associated with science in particular?
You may also wish to read: How did new atheism,/a> become the “godlessness that failed”?
Meyer misses the first part of the story. Modern science didn’t “start”. It evolved from pagan Greek science. Who evolved it? Muslims in Arabia and Persia. They were doing science and math and medicine to determine God’s purpose, and to help people swing with God’s purpose. Kepler and Brahe picked up their work, copying their instruments and their attitude.
Numerous scientist believe in God today, just as they have for thousands of years. Einstein believed in God and he accomplished wonderful things.
Polistra states
Well, there are two fallacies within Polistra’s statement.
First, Polistra is repeating Islamic, (even repeating atheistic), propaganda when he claimed that modern science ‘evolved’ within Islamic culture.
In fact, the relatively minor contributions of individual Muslims to modern science was due, far more, to the fact that Islam “invaded the Christian Middle East, Christian North Africa and Christian Spain, and expropriated the culture and work of Christians and Jews and pagans in the conquered lands.” Moreover, when the conquered, “lands became wholly Islamic, science became wholly dead.”
Shoot, to prove that Islamic culture was, and still is, antagonistic to the rise and practice of modern science, I have to go no further than to point to what is currently happening in Afghanistan at this present time.
Moreover, there is a fatal presupposition within Islamic monotheism that prevented the discovery of the laws of nature. Namely, within Islamic monotheism God is held to be capricious in His actions instead of being completely trustworthy in His actions as He is held to be completely trustworthy within Christianity.
In fact, one of the names of God in Islam is “Capricious”
And this ‘capricious’ presupposition about God’s nature played an instrumental role in preventing the discovery of the laws of nature.
In fact, such laws of nature were considered “blasphemy” to the Islamic conception of a ‘capricious’ God.
As the following article states, “in Islam, Allah is capricious, doing whatever he pleases. “Consequently, there soon arose a major theological bloc within Islam that condemned all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy insofar as they denied Allah’s freedom to act.”
The second fallacy within Polistra’s statement concerns his specific claim that “Modern science didn’t “start”. It evolved from pagan Greek science.”
Yet, directly contrary to this oft repeated false claim from secularists, modern science, (particularly the scientific method itself, as it was first championed by Francis Bacon), arose as a, quote-unquote, ‘anti-Aristolean’ movement.
As Henry F. Schaefer succinctly put it, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
In short, it was only when Francis Bacon championed ‘inductive reasoning’, over and above the ‘deductive reasoning’ of the ancient Greeks, (an ‘inductive’ form of reasoning where repeated experimentation played a central role in reasoning “up” to a general truth, instead of ‘deductively’ reasoning “down” from a presupposed truth), that the scientific method itself was born.
“Bottom up” inductive reasoning, (where one’s assumptions about the universe are only held provisionally, and are subject to falsification by experimentation), is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in which they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
And ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that followed from Aristotle’s ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning.
Thus in conclusion, directly contrary to what Polistra and other secularists may falsely, and repeatedly, try to claim, modern science, particularly the scientific method itself, was not an outgrowth which quote-unquote ‘evolved’ from Greek philosophy, but modern empirical science was, in fact, basically a complete repudiation, even a complete overturning, of the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning from the ancient Greek philosophers that had, more or less, dominated Christian scholastic thinking for hundreds of years up until that time.
Of supplemental note is this recent post:
There is no conflict. There is only one Truth.
There are two courses by The Great Courses on this topic, actually several more but the two most relevant
Science before 1700
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-science-antiquity-to-1700
And
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-and-religion
Both by Lawrence Principe.
The problem comes because there are so many religions but only one science. The one truth will not have any problem with one or certain religions and science.
Jerry: “The one truth will not have any problem with one or certain religions and science.”
Funny, I’ve always thought that ‘one truth’ meant ‘one truth’, and that that ‘one truth’, (as is revealed by modern science?), should, and would, discriminate between the various ‘truth claims’ made by the different religions of the world?
Jerry, since you are making a fairly radical claim in regards to science having no problem with any of the truth claims made by any particular religion, perhaps you should drop a note to Dr. Stephen Meyer since he, in his recent book, “Return of the God Hypothesis”, and via the method of ‘multiple competing hypothesis’, (and when Dr. Meyer compared the various religions of the world to Judeo-Christian Theism), found that the various religions of the world, (i.e. specifically pantheism, deism, atheism), were deficient in explaining the scientific evidence that we now have in hand when compared to Judeo-Christian Theism
Of related note:
Never said that.
So maybe you should retract your comment.
Aside: Meyer is not arguing for a specific religion. He just says that science blossomed under Christianity. Then there is the issue, which Christianity? There are several thousand versions.
Jerry, before I retract my statement, would you be kind enough to clarify exactly what you meant by, “The one truth will not have any problem with one or certain religions and science.”???
As to you trying to, (once again), distance modern science from its Christian foundation, and saying that there are “several thousand versions” of Christianity, I am speaking of the ‘specific’ version of Christianity where it is held that, “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
I put the phrase “certain” so as not to offend some readers here. It certainly was not referring to all religions.
I did not want to get into a debate over what is the “true religion.” That would imply there is just one. There may be just one but this certainly does not mean all are true or that various religions do not contain some or a lot of truth.
I have several times said that if ID wins the day, the real food fight will begin.
Jerry, well since you admitted you phrased your statement in such a way “so as not to offend some readers here”, perhaps you can also see why I see no need to retract my comment in regards to what I thought you actually meant?
“Why are they even associated with science in particular?”
Demonstrably superior public relations.
(I think it was Bernays who invented the term, explicitly to distance his work in the public mind from propaganda, which it was. In other words, public relations is the propaganda term for propaganda.)
Without Judeo-Christianity the world would be “much more primitive morally and scientifically. “
What unmitigated nonsense…
Bacon was a helluva guy, a true genius, no doubt about it. I am a big fan. And not just because of his championing induction. What drove him to his concept of greater-truth-through-induction was a psychological question, “why do people believe the things they do?” He realized that people tend to be seriously cognitively biased about confirming evidence. I suggest anyone seriously interested in Natural Philosophy (what they called “science” back then) read everything he wrote and all the major biographies.
As for him being a “Christian”, well, yes he was. And he was also steeped in Rosicrucian/Kabbalistic thought (Jewish mysticism) and hobnobbed in RC circles. His fingerprints are all over the Rosicrucian Manifestos among other things. His New Atlantis posits a new world (North America) society run by Rosicrucians. IMO, his name (and history) should be as much of a household name as Albert Einstein.
Hail Sir Francis Bacon and the Great Instauration!
–Ram