Steve Fuller asks, Why shouldn’t religious commitments influence one’s science?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 4, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

File:Aj-ayer-philosopher.jpg — AJ Ayer:Was he right?

Agnostic Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller, author of Dissent over Descent (2008) offers:

One wishes that the US legal system exercised the same diligence in authenticating people’s religious beliefs s their scientific beliefs. Ayala, Miller and Collins claim that their scientific inquiries are driven by their faith in God. Yet, as they are the first to admit, the science they do is indistinguishable from those who do not share that faith.One might reasonably wonder: how exactly does their faith influence their science, especially given the enormous import of their religious commitments? Would it not be reasonable to expect their Christian beliefs, assuming they have some cognitive content, to colour the theories they propose and the inferences they draw from the evidence? If not, why should we think that their Christianity has any impact on their science whatsoever – simply because they say so?

Perhaps logical positivists like A.J. Ayer were right, after all, when they dismissed religious utterances as no more than emotional outbursts.

In any case, theistic evolution appears to be the kind of religion that even Richard Dawkins could love, since it appears to exact no psychic cost from its scientific adherents. Their religious beliefs spin as decorate but cognitively idle wheels.

What follows? Not necessarily that theistic evolutionists are liars. But if not, then either their theism must be very weak or it is held in a state of captivity, as if they fear its public expression would invite persecution. (pp. 108-9)

Note: When Ayala received the Templeton Prize in 2010, he refused to talk about his religious beliefs, but presumably Fuller’s comments apply to Miller and Collins who explicitly say they are Christians.

For a curious story about A.J. Ayer, go here.

Comments

Ted Davis, Have you read any of the following, and if so would you care to comment? The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685 The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1680-1760 The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450Mung_{May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis:
I generally avoid speaking about “causes,” partly b/c the notion of causation in history is not the same as it is in philosophy or the sciences. If you have read a lot of history (perhaps you have), then you know this. I remember being very amused (but also not amused) by Carl Hempel’s ideas about causation in history: some philosophers just don’t get it.
The Causation Debate in Modern Philosophy, 1637-1739Mung_{May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @48, on the prospect of Stark's rhetorical approach, I provided my own quote, which is as follows: –”Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles. –-"These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and no where else.” I have no problem with that formulation, and I can't imagine why anyone else would. It's pretty much the same thing that Tom Bethal, Thomas Woods, Dnesh Dsouza and others have said in their books. To be sure, there are times that these authors should acknowledge the fact that the Christians in question were standing on the shoulders of great man, but in my reading of them, I think I recall that they all did that. So, someone will have to present the offending passages and the attendant context before I can pass judgment on the question of whether or not Stark has overstated the case at some other time and some other place. I am open to the possibility that he may have done just that, but I need a good reason for believing it.StephenB_{May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Ted, let me begin by saying that I read your very well-written essay and I admire the extent to which you can unify a number of complex dynamics into an easily comprehensible theme. Thank you for your effort. First, I can readily sympathize wtth your disdain for the "war" paradigm as a description of the realtionship between religion and science. In the current environment, there seems to be an assumption that religion is based on faith and science is based on reason. Many TE's carry on this way. If you subscribe to that philosophy, we would be in different camps. If, however, as I interpret your essay, you reject that dichotomy and accept the synthesis of faith and reason, an extension of the principle of the unity of truth, then we would be in the same camp. That truth is unified, however, does not mean that all truths are of equal importance. Indeed, I think truth arrays itself in a hierarchy, with theological/philosophical truths illuminating scientific truths, which I hold, is the world view that launched the modern scientific enterpreise. It began with the theologically inspired concept of an orderly universe that produces regularity, which in turn, produces repeatability, the stuff of which science is made. In other words, order from the top is the overriding principle that makes everything else possible and that principle, I submit further, was not socially constructed through some kind of dialogue between religion and science. On the contrary, it was accepted as an apriori truth, a principle of faith that would inform scientific methods. I submit further, that this notion of theology illumniating science from the top down (not arising out of a theological/scientific dialogue) could likely have taken hold only in a Christian culture that understood the character of God in a specific way--as the kind of being that would create nature rationally, that is, in his image and likeness, just as He created man in his image and likeness. Again, this vision did not emerge through reflexive dialogue; it was, for the most part, accepted on faith. According to this theological vision, God possessed an absolute power and an ordered power, meaning that was it was not in His nature to fool us by designing the kind of nature that would be anything but rational because it was not in his character to reveal himself in anything other than a rational way..Only a culture prepared for this vision could have accomodated it-- a culture that believed in a God who made all things in "measure, number, and weight, and a culture which had, for a long time, thought about the universe in mathematical terms. Could pagan civilizations have pulled this off? One thing we do know for sure: they didn't. Given that fact, I think is fair to say that they likely would not have done so under any other set of circumstances. Should the Greeks be given due credit for helping to prepare the intellectual soil. Absolutely. Without their necessary input, things would not likely have played out that same way, and yes, they were doing real, albeit primitive science. Nevertheless, Christian theology and the conviction that God left clues about his identity through nature owes more to Scipture and the Church than to the Greeks, and in this context, Christians through their faith in God can pride themselves as the "necessary," but not "sufficient cause of the birth of modern science. It was their vision that produced the confidence and the courage to endure, and yes, it was the absence of that confidence that limited the GreeksStephenB_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Let's not be too pedantic about this. Ted was originally paraphrasing the argument of Stark as "Christianity caused modern science." And while it is true that the most careful academics distinguish different sorts of causes -- e.g., necessary and sufficient -- Stark's books are read by a number of non-academic general readers who are not all that refined in their use of words, and tend to comprehend what they read in terms of their own sloppy colloquial usage. And in colloquial usage, to say "X caused something" is to say that "X is *the* cause of something," meaning "X is the exclusive or at least preponderant cause of something." If someone says, "The Democrats caused the problem," that person does not mean that the Democrats were but one of the necessary causes of the problem; blame is being assigned to them as the sole or at least principal cause of the problem; and if someone says, "Reagan caused Americans to take pride in themselves again," that person does not mean that Reagan was just one of a number of factors; praise is being bestowed upon Reagan as the main factor in restoring American pride. Ted is worried that readers of Stark, hearing him say that "Christianity caused science," could come away with the impression that "Christianity was the cause of modern science" in the colloquial sense of which I'm speaking. In other words: "We Christians can be darned proud of ourselves for coming up with modern science -- none of the pagans were capable of it. It belongs to US." And that would be an oversimplified notion of the history, as you seem to agree. So if you, StephenB, want to say: "Well, when I say Christianity caused modern science, I don't mean it in that popular way, but in the sense that Christianity was a necessary cause, and not even the only necessary cause" -- fine; but by convention, when we want to be very precise about the kind of cause we are asserting, we spell that out at the beginning of the conversation, not afterward, by which time the ambiguity of "X caused Y" has already generated friction or confusion. So your qualified language may agree with Ted's; but that might not have been clear to everyone at the outset. And in any case, even if you and Ted agree on the need for nuanced causal language, does Rodney Stark also agree? Or does he allow himself an ambiguous causal language, the better to sustain his apologetic purposes? T.Timaeus_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Some brief comments on this issue are in an essay review that I did many years ago, on two excellent books by the Canadian scholar Cameron Wybrow: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF6-94Davis.html It's easy to provide that one; most of my essays are not available on the internet, but most of those can be sent privately to inquirers. And, most of those (sorry that I have to keep shrinking the reference set) are itemized on my Messiah web site. Also see the short reply: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF12-94Lyons.html#Cause%20and%20EffectTed Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

The link for my Faraday essay is: http://www.testoffaith.com/resources/resource.aspx?id=623 At least, that one works in my browser. For StephenB. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it's not clear to me yet that you've read any of my articles on the Sci Rev. I'm assuming at this point that you probably have read the one on the Faraday website (I want to give you the benefit of the doubt), and that's good. What I'd like you to do, relative to this particular issue, is to read the one about the "Foster thesis" that I've also mentioned above. Nevertheless, you haven't directly answered my question. Which (if any) of my writings on the Sci Rev have you read? I come back to this again b/c, StephenB, I'm seeing a big gap between the kinds of things I've argued for in my various writings and the impression you seem to have formed of my overall approach/views/familiarity with the relevant literature. I'll make you a deal: if you answer my question here, I'll answer yours in #42.Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, I think, being a historian, you may find this new article up at ENV very interesting; Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.htmlbornagain77_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

---Ted: "Have you read *any* of my scholarly essays on the Scientific Revolution? I don’t mean this as a hostile question; I’m simply puzzled how you could say some of the things you have said. If you have read any, what are they?" If you read my comments @42, it will become clear to you, I think.StephenB_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, thank you for responding to my comments. I appreciate it. Without commenting on "old" and "new" approaches to interpreting history, I will zero in on the problem, which I hope is a semantic one. If so, then perhaps we can come to a meeting of the minds. As is clear, I am arguing that we can, without fear of exaggeration, say that the Christian culture "caused" the birth of modern science. You have argued that this claim is too extravagent, so naturally, I wondered if we were using the same definition of the word "cause." Without knowing if that was the case, I could not discern whether our disagreement was substantive or semantic. Under those circumstances, I defined a cause as "something that brings something else about." Breaking it down a little further, I alluded to the fact that a cause may be either "necessary," meaning without its input the effect will not happen, or "sufficient," meaning that with the input, it will happen. Since you seem to agree with my definition and its attendant qualifications, and since we seem to agree on the historical facts in evidence, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge the validity of my claim, which again was very precise: Christianity was a necessary but not a sufficient cause of modern science. That is exactly the way I put it. ---"You write: "Where we continue to differ, StephenB, is on whether that influence amounts to “causing” modern science, in some sense that sets it apart from other factors, such as the large body of Greek natural philosophy, without which there would have been no universities at all, no universities to provide the institutional settings for those great theological developments. If you want to say that Christianity “caused” modern science, insofar as it is an important part of the mix, then why wouldn’t you also say that Aristotle and Ptolemy “caused modern science,” or that Plato’s emphasis on mathematical forms “caused modern science”? But, as is clear, I didn't define cause in terms of "setting something else apart," since a necessary cause does not have that kind of texture. If I had said Christian culture was a "sufficient" cause, that is, if I had said that Christianity alone was sufficient to cause the birth of modern science, I would not have been on solid ground. But I didn't say that Christianity was a sufficient cause in this context because I am aware of and acknowledge that fact that Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Plato were also "necessary" causes, that is, without them, there likely have been no faith/reason synthesis to launch the scientific enterprise. So, given my definitions and qualifications, and given your agreement to those same definitions and qualifications, I don't understand why we can't come to an agreement that Christianity did, indeed, cause the birth of modern science.StephenB_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis @37 the faraday link does not seem to be working.MedsRex_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, I'm glad to see that you have fought against the 'warfare myth', at least to a point; For I was indoctrinated with the whole Galileo affair growing up, and was actually quite surprised to learn that devout Christians were at the forefront of the development of practically every, if not every, branch of modern science. That is quite a peculiar thing! Why exactly would it be Christian Theism in particular, as opposed to mono-Theism in general, that would have this profound 'fruitful' effect on man's minds. Though I alluded to the necessary 'higher dimensional' reference point, in which to maintain a sustained scientific development, before, there is something more subtle to be fished out of the Christian position than just the truthfulness of the proposition that all of reality, and truth itself, is based upon, and based in, a higher transcendent dimension. And I think that something to be fished out is Christ Himself!!! and Christ indeed made some very unique and startling claims for Himself, such as; John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ,,, Needless to say these are very strong claims as to His own position within reality. But can this unique position of His within reality be substantiated as plausible by anything more than the very strange "Christian connection" to the founding of modern science and the changed lives of millions of people??? I think a very strong case of plausibility can be made for His unique position!!! notes: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time 'unifying' into a 'theory of everything'.(Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Field theory), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality. http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Yet, the unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this 'unification' of the infinite and the finite: 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/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Moreover 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: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - 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 Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram - Face And Body - Dr. Petrus Soons - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5889891/ 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 "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a 'unification into a theory of everything' for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for 'unification' within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the 'scientific evidence' we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart. Psalms 16:10 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. etc.. etc.. further notes: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Finally, StephenB, another direct question: have you read the essay whose abstract I linked above: http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/Foster.html? If not, then with all respect I think you need to refrain from commenting further on my the shortcomings of my position, until you do. I would be happy to send you a copy of the essay (and this goes for anyone else who is interested also); simply contact me privately. If you have read it, however, then perhaps you would like to quote some of it, criticize it, and ask me to respond to specific points. Have you read *any* of my scholarly essays on the Scientific Revolution? I don't mean this as a hostile question; I'm simply puzzled how you could say some of the things you have said. If you have read any, what are they?Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Now, StephenB, I respond to this statement: "In my judgment, it is the new interpreters of history and not the old ones that are telling people truths they do not want to hear. Again, with all due respect to Ted, and I do mean respect, his position is the one almost everyone does want to hear, which is, in effect, Christianity and modern science enjoyed a fruitful dialogue but the former did not cause the latter. Sorry, gentlemen, but I don’t think that is the way it went down." StephenB, I don't think you realize the irony here: you are talking to one of those "new" interpreters of history. With regard to the history of the history of science (no typo there), let me tell you "the way it went down." I was there, you weren't. When I went to grad school, the generally received approach to the history of religion and science was AD White's grand narrative of ongoing, inevitable conflict; and, the generally received view of the Scientific Revolution (the field in which I had the bulk of my training) was the classic view, according to which science separated itself from the strictures of medieval theology (i.e., Christianity) and became "modern" during the Sci Rev. When it came time for me to write a dissertation proposal, I wanted to argue for the view that elements of Christian theology had been very important in shaping views of scientific knowledge (what it is, and how we get it) in the Sci Rev; and, that those theological elements came from theological debates of the high middle ages. I had to convince the members of my doctoral committee that what I wanted to write about was really the history of science at all, as vs religious studies (as one member of my committee put it). In short, StephenB, the view that "Christianity and modern science enjoyed a fruitful dialogue" was hardly the view that "almost everyone does want to hear," to borrow your words. My experience was no reflection of a local situation; it was the general story in my discipline at that time. It was only at that point, right at that point, that some senior people were getting serious about challenging the White thesis and starting to show its deficiencies. They welcomed me into the game and encouraged me to keep going with my ideas--but it was a new game, StephenB. Nor do I think that it is even yet the view that "almost everyone does want to hear." I am puzzled by this claim. From the little that I know about his work (let me admit that it is not much), Thomas Woods does the same "new" kind of history that I also do, relative to looking for religious influences on modern science. Perhaps he and I differ on the details (I say perhaps, b/c I don't know his work well enough to say), but if he's arguing against the "old" view that modern science arose in spite of theology, then he and I play in the same ballpark. Timeaus was getting at this, StephenB: you mustn't overlook the nuances here. I'm a lot closer to Stark, as much as I differ with him, than to White. I simply think that Stark overstates the case.Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Responding (again) to StephenB: Did you read the essay I wrote about this for the Faraday Institute, the one available at http://www.testoffaith.com/resources/resource.aspx?id=623? If you did, then you see that I give substantial credit to the Catholic church for aiding in the development of modern science. And, in the latter part of the essay I give substantial credit to medieval theologians (who were also Catholics) and other Christians for the modern scientific attitude of rational empiricism. In short, I mention what you refer to as "the synthesis of faith and reason," in relation to "the birth of modern science." Where we continue to differ, StephenB, is on whether that influence amounts to "causing" modern science, in some sense that sets it apart from other factors, such as the large body of Greek natural philosophy, without which there would have been no universities at all, no universities to provide the institutional settings for those great theological developments. If you want to say that Christianity "caused" modern science, insofar as it is an important part of the mix, then why wouldn't you also say that Aristotle and Ptolemy "caused modern science," or that Plato's emphasis on mathematical forms "caused modern science"? You seem to think that I'm shortchanging the role of Christianity here--a charge that I find quite puzzling. Indeed, the one thing that other historians might say about my work, is that it is mainly about the roles that Christian beliefs have played, in the history of science generally and in the life and work of individual scientists. You imply that I don't understand what necessary and sufficient causes are. I know what they are, StephenB; I've had grad courses in philosophy of science, and plenty of work in physics and mathematics. I generally avoid speaking about "causes," partly b/c the notion of causation in history is not the same as it is in philosophy or the sciences. If you have read a lot of history (perhaps you have), then you know this. I remember being very amused (but also not amused) by Carl Hempel's ideas about causation in history: some philosophers just don't get it.Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

For my part, I respect all parties involved in this discussion and again, for my part, I have not alluded to anyone's motives [nor did anyone suggest that I did] for taking this or that position. I like Ted Davis a lot, and I appreciate his charitable approach to almost everything he writes. However, anyone who wants to make the case that Christianity, in general, or the Catholic Church, in particular, did not, through the synthesis of faith and reason, bring about the birth of modern science, really does have a high bar to clear. On the matter of historians and experts, I must, again with respect, reject the proposition that specialization produces something akin to infallible knowledge or that immersing one's self in a narrow field of study protects him/her from the problem of partisanship. Quite the contrary, it is, in my judgment, the generalist, the one who analyzes and understands the intersection of disciplines who is best qualified to judge the accuracy and objectivity of writers who argue a given case. On the present subject, I have a lot more confidence in analysts who have been steeped in theology, philosophy, science, history, and sociology, than those who double down in any one discipline. Why? Because the information gained from each area serves as a check and balance on information gained from other areas. This is especially true of the relationship between history and philosophy (I first learned of Will Durant's leanings [and prejudices] from a philosopher). In my own small way, I have tried to meet this standard myself, which is one reason why I do not accept arguments from authority or, please do not misunderstand this, or from those who may enjoy a favorable reputation. So, back to the issue on the table. I must reject most firmly the proposition that Rodney Stark, until recently an agnostic, is a partisan or that anyone for that matter, tied to or loosed from a religious perspective, is less qualified than someone else to comment on such important matters as the birth of science on the grounds that he doesn't take the consensus position. Where have we heard that one before? In my judgment, it is the new interpreters of history and not the old ones that are telling people truths they do not want to hear. Again, with all due respect to Ted, and I do mean respect, his position is the one almost everyone does want to hear, which is, in effect, Christianity and modern science enjoyed a fruitful dialogue but the former did not cause the latter. Sorry, gentlemen, but I don't think that is the way it went down. The correct answer, in my judgment, is found in the title of Thomas Woods' book, "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." So for those who are asking us to face facts, I say this (with love) Gentlemen, take your own medicine, bite the bullet, and live with it.StephenB_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, I still disagree with Ted Davis's position for pretty much the same reasons as I listed in 25. As to 'motive mongering', it is just a simple fact that those who have much invested in a position are the hardest to convince otherwise no matter what the evidence says, as is amply testified to by those given to the materialistic philosophy of neo-Darwinism.bornagain77_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Well said T.Mung_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Whatever happened, the "authorized" version of my comments is #31, although they are mostly identical. If a moderator could clean this up by removing #30, #32, and this comment, I'd be grateful.Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

I apologize for the double posting; I have no idea what I did to produce that. If a moderator would remove one of them, and this comment, I'd be grateful.Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

I very much appreciate what Timaeus said in my defense. His analysis of my position on this question is spot on. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, simply b/c I said so; that doesn't happen anywhere else, and it shouldn't happen here. But, it would be good if folks would at least read some of my work (i.e., one or two of the relevant publications, not just my brief comments here) before suggesting that my views are either ill-informed or ill-considered. I am not aware of anyone else here at the moment (with pseudonyms one just doesn't know who's here) who has written on this topic from a comparable basis of study, but Timaeus could be in that category. The "culture wars" can affect such discussions profoundly. We all know that science has been, and still is, a weapon in such conflicts. The history of science has also been a weapon--that's what AD White understood, and that's how he used it (and rather incompetently, to be frank, despite his status as the first president of the AHA). It's easy to understand why people want to respond to White, Dawkins, and others by shouting, "Christianity caused modern science; that's a fact; deal with it." However, IMO that is not a fact, even though it is true that Christianity and science had a rich and fruitful interplay during the Scientific Revolution. IMO, one ought not respond to the ill-supported "warfare" myth by making claims that are comparably ill-supported. I don't think that takes anyone where they really want to go. At this point I feel somewhat like my friend John Fea, whose recent book about America as a "Christian nation" has been generating a lot of conversation. http://www.readthehook.com/89210/god-we-trust-john-fea-explores-americas-christian-foundations John and I have pretty much done the same kind of thing: we've written as "experts" about a topic that some like to bring up in the "culture wars," culture warriors (on either "side") who don't like what we've said have called us "revisionists" and questioned our qualifications to address the topic. Well, to be frank, John knows more colonial American history, from the inside out (i.e., from the original sources) than any of the culture warriors who dismisses his conclusions in a sentence or two. I don't recall seeing any conversation about his book here (it would certainly be off the topic of ID), but a lot of bloggers and folks on "Christian radio" are upset with him. My message for them is: don't shoot the messenger. The truth is often among the first casualties in "culture wars."Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

I very much appreciate what Timaeus said in my defense. His comments about my qualifications to address this large historical question are generous, and his analysis of my position on this question is spot on. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, simply b/c I said so; that doesn't happen anywhere else, and it shouldn't happen here. But, it would be good if folks would at least read some of my work (i.e., one or two of the relevant publications, not just my brief comments here) before suggesting that my views are either ill-informed or ill-considered. When folks use pseudonyms, it's hard to know who's in the room; but, I don't see anyone in this room at the moment who's studied the relevant sources enough to draw such conclusions credibly. The "culture wars" can affect such discussions profoundly. We all know that science has been, and still is, a weapon in such conflicts. The history of science has also been a weapon--that's what AD White understood, and that's how he used it (and rather incompetently, to be frank, despite his status as the first president of the AHA). It's easy to understand why people want to respond to White, Dawkins, and others by shouting, "Christianity caused modern science; that's a fact; deal with it." However, IMO that is not a fact, even though it is true that Christianity and science had a rich and fruitful interplay during the Scientific Revolution. IMO, one ought not respond to the ill-supported "warfare" myth by making claims that are comparably ill-supported. I don't think that takes anyone where they really want to go. At this point I feel somewhat like my friend John Fea, whose recent book about America as a "Christian nation" has been generating a lot of conversation. http://www.readthehook.com/89210/god-we-trust-john-fea-explores-americas-christian-foundations John and I have pretty much done the same kind of thing: we've written with objectivity about a topic that some like to bring up in the "culture wars," and a lot of culture warriors (on either "side") don't like what we've said. The truth is often among the first casualties in "culture wars."Ted Davis_{May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

For YEC Christian belief in the accuracy of the bible demands boundaries on biology, geology, and others like crazy. Therefore , by a line of reasoning, if the bibles true then it forces investigation into more narrow paths. Wrong turns are less of a problem and right turns rewarded by more right turns even before one understands what's going on. if the bibles true it would eliminate a lot of wrong hypothesis's. ID folks might learn from this.Robert Byers_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: You wrote: "But of course Ted you have probably have far too much invested in your position to see clearly, but none-the-less the fact remains the same, Modern science came to maturity ONLY in Christian cultures!!!" BA77, this sort of aggressive motive-mongering is not productive. Ted is not trying to manipulate the facts to reach a preconceived conclusion. He is trying to explain what his research in the history of science has taught him. You don't have to agree with his conclusions, but you don't have to impute bad motivations to him. Second, Ted has not denied but affirmed a major role for Christianity in the rise of modern science. He has denied only certain unbalanced claims about that role. Further, he has not denied the difference between Greek and modern science; he has merely insisted that Greek science still counts as science. He is trying to say things in a nuanced way, and he shouldn't be shouted down for failing to give the sort of partisan, Christianity-cheering account of modern science (e.g., the approach of apologists like Stark and D'Souza) that is apparently to your liking. I do not know if you or anyone else here knows it, but Ted is the co-editor of the complete works of Robert Boyle, one of the founding fathers of modern science, and Ted has great academic expertise in the history of science. He certainly is aware of the view of Duhem and of the condemnations of 1277, and having spent a good part of his life in good university libraries reading the classic primary and secondary sources with great care and in painstaking detail, he knows the various theories on the relationship between Christianity and the rise of modern science like the back of his hand. He does not have to Google for quickie quotations from works that he has not studied, as you appear to be doing; he speaks out of a vast store of well-internalized knowledge. One of the reasons that UD has had a bad reputation in the past is that some of the posters here have an "attack dog" approach to anyone who questions any aspect of ID, or even offers an alternative account of Christian theology or of the history or philosophy of science. This militant approach sometimes makes UD look as bush league as Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula or the blogs of Matheson or Shallit. We must rise above this if we hope to portray ID to the world as a view fit for reasonable, moderate human beings. Admittedly, some of the atheists and TEs who drop in here have exhibited a sneering attitude which naturally inspires the attack dog in all of us; but Ted is not one of them. He is a gentleman, and a very well educated one, and he should be treated as such. And he is no Darwinist thug, but is among the TEs the most reasonable and most open to ID notions; we should be conversing with him as a friend and ally against the atheists, not chiding him or lecturing him on the history of science. T.Timaeus_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

I too like the way BA worded this. It made me think about the limits of materialism with regard to science. Einstein was able to elucidate his theory of relativity partly because he had a very active imagination, and also because certain assumed conventions regarding time were puzzling to him. I would guess that while materialists are capable of doing good science, what they don't seem to be capable of due to their a priori assumptions regarding nature, is elucidating groundbreaking and counterintuitive revolutions against scientific convention on the order of relativity as Einstein did. Einstein was not a materialist, and as such, he had a certain capacity (call it a drive) to see beyond the conventional wisdom, and as BA points out; to posit higher dimensional reference points to our reality; yet still within reach of scientific rationality. While Einstein didn't appear to have any religious commitments per se; he was fascinated with religious ideas. I've read where he was often invited to attend prayer meetings and bible studies with Christians, and on such occasions he would oblige and take along his violin in order to appreciate the presence of the divine. He was not a Christian, but he did understand that there is a spiritual dimension. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Einstein) http://michaelcaputo.tripod.com/einsteinandgod/ And I think BA's point regarding the Greeks is correct. Their philosophy seemed to disconnect the divine from natural reality. So for them there were two separate and non-interacting planes of existence - the divine and the natural.CannuckianYankee_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Thanks, it is certainly appreciated from one who I appreciate the gift of clarity in so much!,,,bornagain77_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

---bornagain77: "The ancient cultures, Greece especially included, simply lacked the higher dimensional’ reference point from which to sustain continued scientific development!" bornagain, I really like the way you put this--a higher dimensional reference point as a necessary condition for sustaining continued scientific development. Very nice!StephenB_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis; I disagree with you. In fact it can be argued rather forcefully that the birth of modern science was impeded by Greek thought as much as helped by it i.e. Greek thought was trapped in a 'self absorbed' philosophy which prohibited the continued discover of transcendent truths: Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science? Excerpt: Of course, if Catholic Christians had not believed in concepts opposed to these pagan ones due to their theology, such a conflict would not have occurred and science would not have reached a modern, self-sustaining form in the West. Duhem, in his Le Systeme Du Monde, maintained that modern science was made possible by the Bishop of Paris Tempier's condemnation in 1277 of 219 propositions, which blasted these anti-scientific concepts of antiquity. ,,,Christian theology removed the intrinsic stunting inhibitions of Greek science. It did not create science by itself mostly from scratch. However, neither could have the philosophy of the Greeks without the theology of Judeo-Christianity have created modern science by themselves either, for it took Christianity to remove various science-inhibiting false metaphysical concepts from the former's philosophy to have modern science born. http://www.rae.org/jaki.html But of course Ted you have probably have far too much invested in your position to see clearly, but none-the-less the fact remains the same, Modern science came to maturity ONLY in Christian cultures!!! I think one of the best examples of how Christian thought fully enabled the rise of modern science can be found in Bernhard Reinmann in his work on 'higher dimensionality'; In this following video is a description of the work of Bernhard Riemann, the son of a Christian minister, whose work on the math of ‘higher dimensionality’ opened the door for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity; The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ As well Carl Friedrich Gauss was a devout Christian and he was also instrumental,,, Bernhard Riemann Excerpt: For his Habiltationsvortrag Riemann proposed three topics, and against his expectations Gauss chose the one on geometry. Riemann's lecture, "On the hypotheses that lie at the foundation of geometry" was given on June 10, 1854. This extraordinary work introduced (what is now called) an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold and its curvature tensor. It also, prophetically, discussed the relation of this mathematical space to actual space. Riemann's vision was realized by Einstein's general theory of relativity sixty years later. http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/riemann.html i.e. Ted Davis the main point being in all this is that without that foundational Christian belief in a higher transcendent dimension, none of the framework would have been accomplished, by Reinmann and Gauss, for Einstein to elucidate General Relativity! The ancient cultures, Greece especially included, simply lacked the higher dimensional' reference point from which to sustain continued scientific development!bornagain77_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

---Ted Davis: "Stark, who is a sociologist rather than an historian of early modern science" (the relevant period) In my judgment, Stark is a painstaking researcher who has no political or social axe to grind. Also, his work has been corroborated by several others scholars that I find trustworthy, all of whom have investigated the matter assiduously and without undue prejudice. One example would be Thomas Woods. --"gives readers wrong impression the impression that historians of science generally agree that Christianity “caused” modern science." If you want to argue, as you did above, that those who specialize are better equipped to answer questions that fall into their area of specialization, then Stark, who is a sociologist and who is trained to measure demographics, is better equipped than yourself to judge whether or not there is a consensus on the matter. I am playing with irony a bit here, but I wanted to give you a taste of what it is like to listen to an argument based on the appeal to the wisdom that comes from narrow specialization. While I respect specialization, I respect reason, objectivity, fairness, and more. So, for my part, your dismissal of Stark as a mere "tertiary source" is a bit too facile. ---"It is true that many historians see important roles for religion in this phenomenon–I am one of them, and I’ve written about this more than once." But it is not at all accurate to imply (as Stark does) that there is a consensus that Christianity “caused” modern science." It is important to use the word "cause" with care, and it is obvious that Stark understands the meaning of the word. To cause something is to bring it about. One might argue that Christianity was a "necessary" but not a "sufficient" cause for modern science, but that would not be the same thing as saying that it was not a cause. A necessary cause is one without which something cannot happen. A sufficient cause is one which, if present, will infallibly produce that same something. Those who say that Christianity did not cause modern science, then, either do not know their history or they do not know the meaning of the word cause. ---"Indeed, IMO, the facts are that Aristotle, Galen, and Ptolemy did genuine science, long before any Christians were engaged in scientific activities. I don’t buy Jaki’s view (e.g.) that science was “stillborn” in antiquity for theological reasons." I think we should make the distinction between "science," which the Greeks studied, at least in some basic form, and "modern science," which would likely never have existed without Christianity's vision of a rational universe in which God left clues for discovery--a vision which instilled in scientists the confidence and courage to carry on in the face of numerous failures-- a vision totally alien to the Greeks.StephenB_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

For a nice review of some of the other problems with claims such as those I just distanced myself from, see Noah Efron's chapter in http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418. His "myth" is called "That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science." Contributors to this book attended a working conference to review the chapters as they were being written, and I was very happy with what Prof Efron wrote; indeed, IMO it's one of the very best chapters in the book. I know, I know--the essay isn't available for free on the internet. You have to buy the book, or at least visit a library for an hour. But, this is a book well worth owning. For more of my comments on the book, see http://biologos.org/blog/an-obituary-for-the-warfare-view-of-science-and-religion/Ted Davis_{May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply