Here:
Why didn’t polytheistic religions produce modern science? The answer is that finite gods do not create the universe. Indeed, the universe creates them. They are generally said to arise out of some pre-existing, primordial “stuff.” For example, in the genealogy of the gods of Greece, the fundamental forces such as Chaos gave rise to Gaia, the great mother, who created and then mated with the heavens (Ouranos) and the sea (Pontos) to give birth to the gods. Hence, in a polytheistic worldview, the universe itself is not the creation of a rational Mind, and is therefore not thought to have a rational order. The universe has some kind of order, of course, but one that is inscrutable to the human mind. And if you do not expect to find rational laws, you will not even look for them, and science will not get off the ground.
Mrs. Pearcey’s insight into identifying and describing the implications of the secular world view is nothing short of astonishing. I highly recommend her essays and books.
The “Renaissance” of undersevéd fame and approbation and was a “science stopper.” And the so-called “Enlightenment?” That was not just a “science stopper,” but a “reason stopper.”
“The answer is that finite gods do not create the universe. Indeed, the universe creates them. They are generally said to arise out of some pre-existing, primordial “stuff.””
This is why I point out that atheists can’t even present a principled argument against Zeus, much less against God (*). For, any valid argument against Zeus they might offer is *also* a valid argument against human beings existing.
(*) at the same time, when they do try to present a valid argument against God, it’s always Zeus whom they are disputing exists.
The Greeks were aware that the world is at least mostly rational centuries before Jesus.
I think the rise of science can be attributed first to the Age of Exploration, which made Astronomy a critically useful science so the ships could navigate.
The second big factor was probably the invention of the steam engine which for the first time made fuel useage economically important and inspired the first stirrings of Thermodynamics.
War has also been a big factor, at least since the time of the ancient Greeks.
The industrial revolution probably did most of the rest.
dmullenix, you seem to completely miss the point of the post. Many historians of science now recognize that there is a undeniable ‘spiritual/philosophical’ Christian connection to the birth of science, that goes far beyond the extenuating circumstances you have mentioned.
DM:
Please read the previous UD post here, with an excerpt from Pearcey. Please read the whole article as onward linked, and the remarks and onward article at comment no 3, which will help you put the above in context.
It may help you to do some background reading on the Platonic pattern of thought, the demiurge and the recalcitrance of primordial matter. A side-read on the Gnostic semi-popular mindset on escape from this prison of the soul through esoteric knowledge and rituals [some of them pretty bizarre, not merely titillating . . . Dan Brown was tailoring to fit our preoccupation with the sexual], will help.
Let’s just say that one of the joint triumphs of Kepler, Galileo and Newton was to give a factual foundation for lifting the earth from the sump of the world, to the heavens.
Yes, the “demotion” of the earth from the “centre” of the cosmos, was actually a PROMOTION to the heavens, and a joining of the earth and heavens under a unified system of laws and providence by one common and supreme, benevolent cosmic architect, whose creative and sustaining thoughts we can study through science.
GEM of TKI
PS: With that reading on the lingering influences of Platonic thought and its various vulgarisations in mind, please read the excerpt here from Newton’s General Scholium to Principia with fresh eyes.
To really drive the point home of this deep mysterious, and necessary, Christian connection to modern science, I would like to put forth the case that Jesus Christ Himself is the most parsimonious solution to the number one problem in science today. The problem of the unification of Quantum Mechanics(QM) and General Relativity(GR) into a ‘theory of everything’.
The unification of QM and GR, into a ‘theory of everything’, has been a notoriously difficult problem for physicists and mathematicians to solve. In fact, Einstein himself spent many of the last years of his life on earth vainly searching for a solution to the QM-GR split. Moreover, the subsequent years of persistent search by many leading, brilliant, physicists and mathematicians in the world have not yielded any plausible solution that has not involved highly speculative, ‘verification-less’, appeals to string theoretic multiverses, M-Theories, etc.. etc..
The main problem, mathematically, for the split, between GR and QM, seems to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the ‘zero/infinity’ conflict that arises in different places of each framework;
What I find interesting about the preceding zero/infinity mystery, of QM and GR, are two things. One is that the ‘infinity’ of the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity is tied up in black holes. The reason this is interesting to me is because black holes are now verified to be, by far, the largest contributors of ‘entropic decay’ in the universe;
Moreover, besides entropy being the primary reason why the universe, without ‘supernatural intervention, is steadfastly heading for ‘entropic heat death’,,,
,,,entropy is also the primary reason why we will all grow old and eventually die,,,
,,,Thus ‘Death’, itself, of the universe and of us, seems to semi-directly linked to the fact that an ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ is tied up in black holes. At least it seems readily apparent that black holes are forever an ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ as far as the endeavors of mortal man are concerned. Yet Quantum Mechanic offers its own unique infinity that can, in principle, counterbalance the ‘destructive infinity’ of Black holes, the problem that QM has in all this is this,,,
,,, thus it seems readily apparent that QM requires a ‘space’ within the 4-D space-time of General Relativity, in which to ‘pour its infinity’, if the destructive infinity of Black Holes were ever to be overcome. And indeed, subtle hints that this is possible are now available,,,,
,,,And this, ‘controlling a small fraction of that’, is apparently exactly what God choose to do;
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf
Moreover, unlike String Theory and M-Theory, there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355
Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg
A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847
God’s crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe.
Hebrews 2:14-15
“Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”
further note:
If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of ‘The Being of Light’ while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘The Being of Light’ they were in the presence of is none other than ‘The Lord God Almighty’ of heaven and earth.
In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544
Encounter with God – NDE of Lawyer
http://www.cbn.com/media/playe.....bnav=false
The Day I Died – Part 4 of 6 – The NDE of Pam Reynolds – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560
more detailed notes in first part of this paper:
http://lettherebelight-77.blog.....is_19.html
Of related note:
Science vs God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY
“The universe has some kind of order, of course, but one that is inscrutable to the human mind. And if you do not expect to find rational laws, you will not even look for them, and science will not get off the ground.”
–The problem with this idea is that one merely needs to read works of the ancient Greeks to see that this isn’t the case. Throughout many writings of the ancient Greeks we see talk of studying the natural world as a worthwhile pursuit to acquire knowledge.
Does anyone think that Aristotle, Archimedes, Strato of Lampsacus, Hero of Alexandria, Ptolemy, Thales, Aristarchus, etc saw the universe as “inscrutable”?
As Aristotle writes in the opening of “Physics”: “When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained.” Or check out the works of Hero of Alexandria: http://himedo.net/TheHopkinTho.....dex-2.html
In fact, the only place I’ve seen the kind of sentiment towards the universe that Pearcey speaks of is – the early Christians. And it isn’t hard to find.
For instance Eusebius in “Preparation for the Gospel” writes that while the study of moral philosophy is “practicable and useful, any discussions about nature are quite the contrary, neither being comprehensible, nor having any use even if they are clearly understood.”
Clement of Alexandria is said to have been a supporter of science. He wrote that the “The multitude are frightened by Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks, being afraid lest it lead them astray,” and “Some do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic or to learn natural science. They demand bare faith alone”.
However he continued that this was not necessarily a good thing because while “it is necessary to avoid the great futility which occupies itself in irrelevant matters” (i.e. the sciences and philosophy) a good Christian “avails himself of branches of learning” but only as “auxiliary preparatory exercises” in order to be able to communicate with scientists and philosophers; however it should be done with “as little distraction as possible” and such subjects should not be learned “principally, but necessarily, secondarily, and on account of circumstances.”
So not exactly a ringing endorsement. Although relative to the others I suppose he was better.
Tertullian said that “what concern have I with physiological conceits? It were better for one’s mind to ascend above the state of the world, not to stoop down to uncertain speculations.”
And then added that it “served Thales of Miletus quite right” to fall into the well for his applying his study to a “vain purpose” and “stupid curiosity on natural objects”. (AD NATIONES)
One can feel the Dark Ages looming.
There were times when science was on the rise in the ancient world, but without the printing press ideas spread slowly and before long (within a couple centuries) something would occur to turn the world upside down (warfare, disease, famine) and progress would back-track. Fires that destroyed tens of thousands (and perhaps even hundreds of thousands) of books were also heart-breakingly common. And at a time where each book had to be copied by hand such incidents were utterly tragic.
The Scientific Revolution occurred at a time when Europe had experienced a long period of stability (relatively speaking anyway). There hasn’t been anything like the fall of the Roman Empire and it had been a few centuries since the Bubonic Plague, and thanks to how easily text was copied, knowledge could spread faster than ever before, and was available to far more people than ever before. So I would say the Scientific Revolution was the result of the intersection of long stability (which continues on to today), the printing press, New World wealth entering Europe, and the rediscovery of classical literature (from Crusades and sacking of Islamic Spain).
But alas goodusername, the Christian view of human beings being specifically endowed by God to be ‘above nature’, in that God Himself would dare inhabit a lowly human body, instead of being merely a ‘victim of nature’, as is inherent in virtually all other non-Theistic philosophies, that try to explain man’s place in the cosmos, is the very reason why they could not maintain a sustained scientific development. Indeed, in the following video at the 9:00 minute mark, please note how Michio Kaku concedes to the materialistic premise when he states,,, “Nature is smarter than we are”.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video with more concise notes on ‘unification’
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6597379
But goodusername, also please see in the notes of the video that if we continue on in this Christian Theistic framework, that has lifted man above being a mere victim of nature, and has indeed given us modern science in the first place, then a very plausible solution to the General Relativity/Quantum Mechanic split presents itself to us that Michio Kaku!
correction; then a very plausible solution to the General Relativity/Quantum Mechanic split presents itself to us that Michio Kaku missed!
This song reflects the ‘above nature’ Christian view of reality:
Peter Furler – Reach (Official Music Video)
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ1C9MNU
Excellent post, goodusername.
“Why didn’t polytheistic religions produce modern science?”
More to the point, how come Christianity existed for over 1600 years and ruled Western Europe for 1200 of them and did produce any science?
Why didn’t science get a start in Western Europe until religious dominance was broken and secular governments took over?
And speaking of those polytheistic societies which supposedly are unsuited to science, has anybody looked at India lately?
I think Nancy and Company should get their heads out of philosophy and take a look at the world around them. There are a lot of questions that they’re ignoring.
Or one can expose the lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages