This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more
Comments
---riddick: "May I suggest reading Gavin Menzies’ 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance."
May I suggest that you read Duhem, Stark, Woods, Bumbulis, and several others that I could put you on to.StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews,
I stand by my faith, but I feel its direct, relevant accomplishments are enough and don’t need any embellishment.
The purpose of this discussion is not to "embellish" Christianity. Everyone who is a Christian would agree that Christianity needs no such embellishment that being the cause of science may offer. It is a wholly different question than embellishment of Christianity that is being discussed. The question is what role Christianity had in the beginning and development of science, and on that question, which is a historical question, there isn't any other motive needed than to study what actually happened as best as we can. If Christianity played a significant role, so be it, that historical claim isn't posited to bolster Christianity, but just to be honest with the history. No historical evidence of the type that considers people's motivations and systems of thought, outside of Divine Revelation, is airtight, and we shouldn't expect it to be, for it's not airtight even today. But we can get a general, and sometimes specific, picture. And if there is disagreement among people of different faiths, as you mentioned, pertaining to the origin of science, that doesn't mean that there is no correct answer at all. It only means that historians have to be as meticulous as possible and discern what they can on a case by case basis. And some have determined that the modern scientific endeavor was an outgrowth of Christianity. I see nothing wrong with this historical claim. I don't see this claim as being forwarded to bolster Christianity.Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
---Scott: "I stand by my faith, but I feel its direct, relevant accomplishments are enough and don’t need any embellishment."
You are suggesting that I am allowing my religous views to influence my perception of history. That is not very complimentary, and it isn't true.
Western Civilization and the scientific enterprise are two pieces of the same puzzle. Before that, there was no Western Civilization and there was no modern science. The two go together. Begin with Thomas Wood's, "How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization." Then proceed to, "The Rise of Christianity" and "The Glory of God" by Rodney Stark. Then, try Michael Bumbulis' "Christianity and the Birth of Science."
You are taking a great many things for granted. Christianity had to do several things in concert:
[A] Preserve literacy in the Dark Ages. The preservation of literacy in the Dark Ages
[B] Establish the doctrine of the lawfulness of nature
nature.
[C] Examine the real world rather than rely on pure reason.
[D] Propose that science was a sacred duty.
Not all of these things were exclusive to Christianity, but Christianity pulled them all together as it built Western Civilization.
There are a great many anti-Christian websites, [and a few books] out there that try to discount and even deny all these realities.StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
StephenB: After the Greeks put forth their sincere but modest attempts at “science,” [I tend to call it natural philosophy, but I'll accept the amendments proposed], virtually nothing happened for almost two thousand years and then everything took off in the 1600’s.
Really? Virtually nothing? May I suggest reading Gavin Menzies' 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance.riddick
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Do you think it is a coincedence that everything took off after that.
Honestly, yes. "Everything" didn't "take off" in the 1600s. Science was progressing for years before that. People all around the world studied astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and agriculture throughout history. That is a reality, a carved-in-stone fact which does not harmonize with the idea that science stems from Christianity.
Certainly, the concept of a law-giving God is science-friendly. But neither the motivations nor the methods for studying our surroundings are inherently Christian.
If the evidence is air-tight, find a Muslim or Jewish scientist who agrees. I guarantee you there are Muslim scientists who will insist their faith is the foundation of science, and they will cite all sorts of evidence. (For example.) The Greeks will say the same, and so one.
I stand by my faith, but I feel its direct, relevant accomplishments are enough and don't need any embellishment.ScottAndrews
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
---Scott Andrews: "I’ve read through much of this thread and some of the linked material. I am first and foremost a Christian. But I honestly don’t understand crediting Christianity with scientific advances progress in general. Most of the support seems to come from the subjective opinions of well-meaning individuals who wish to attribute good things to Christianity."
I don’t understand this comment at all. What is your response to the work of Duhem, who Clive and kairosfocus alluded to, and, for that matter, to the more recent works of Thomas Woods and Rodney Stark? These men and others have carefully researched the subject matter and have made an air tight case. It has nothing to do with eurocentrism.
---"Their worth is great enough, even if their wisdom isn’t responsible for science."
But their wisdom is responsible for modern science, as the record clearly shows. Science was of little consequence until the 1600's when Christian thinkers decided that "God left clues" and set out to follow those clues. Do you think it is a coincedence that everything took off after that. Almost nothihg happens for 2000 years and then suddenly the cup runs over. Come on.StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
---Learned Hand: "I agree, you have to explicitly exclude all the science done before Christianity became a globally dominant religion in order to make Stephen’s point coherent. If you do that, there’s a decent argument to be made for his position."
OK. Call it "modern" science and the difficulty is solved. I have no problem with it.
On the other hand, a little proportionality is in order here. After the Greeks put forth their sincere but modest attempts at "science," [I tend to call it natural philosophy, but I'll accept the amendments proposed], virtually nothing happened for almost two thousand years and then everything took off in the 1600's. It was the Christian world view that made it happen.StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
I've read through much of this thread and some of the linked material. I am first and foremost a Christian. But I honestly don't understand crediting Christianity with scientific advances progress in general. Most of the support seems to come from the subjective opinions of well-meaning individuals who wish to attribute good things to Christianity.
A Google search for "eurocentricism+science" reveals a number of cases (I can't speak for any of them individually) in which African and Asian advances and discoveries are either downplayed or credited to Europeans and Americans much later on.
The scriptures reveal God as He chooses to reveal Himself, His purposes, and the best way to live. Those same scriptures describe that same knowledge as a vast treasure, and downplay everything else as secondary in value.
Their worth is great enough, even if their wisdom isn't responsible for science.ScottAndrews
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Take Stephen as speaking of Modern Science and the transforming scientific revolution of 350 years of so ago, and I think all will be clear.
I agree, you have to explicitly exclude all the science done before Christianity became a globally dominant religion in order to make Stephen's point coherent. If you do that, there's a decent argument to be made for his position.Learned Hand
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Clive:
Since people often do not read linked materials, pardon a reproduction of that essay:
__________________
>> The Christian roots of modern science
By Dr. Donald DeMarco
Adjunct Professor, Holy Apostles College & Seminary, Cromwell,CT.
The cancellation of Pope Benedict XVI’s address at La Sapienza University in Rome in January, 2008, has received a great deal of attention around the world. A particular comment by Andrea Sterbini, one of the 67 academics signatories who protested the Pope’s visit, however, warrants special attention because it represents, in a nutshell, a pervasive ignorance concerning the sizeable debt modern science owes to its Judeo-Christian roots.
“I think the Pope’s visit is not a good thing,” said Professor Sterbini, “because science doesn’t need religion.” It should be noted here that he made this comment erroneously assuming that the Holy Father and religion are opposed to science. Nonetheless, his words may be fortuitous since they offer a golden opportunity for setting the historical record right and explaining how modern science actually has developed from conceptions of reality that were essentially religious.
The most comprehensive and detailed treatment of the history of science was given to posterity by a distinguished physicist and mathematician, Pierre Duhem, (1861-1916) in his 10-volume magnum opus, Le Système du monde: les doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernicus. The first five volumes—each more than 500 pages in length—were published in consecutive years, from 1913-1917. Although another five volumes were ready for publication when Duhem passed away in 1916, they were not published until four decades later (1954-59) thanks, in great part, to the courage and determination of his daughter Hélène.
The reason for the long delay in publishing the last five volumes of this masterpiece, which is without parallel in its field, was the strong opposition by influential academics who did not want to consider the demonstrable fact that modern science cannot be divorced from its religious foundations.
In the intervening years between the publication of the first and second group of 5 volumes, many studies of medieval science were conducted -- by Anneliese Maier, Marshall Clagett, E. Grant, Alistair Crombie and others. These studies served to extend and confirm Duhem’s work and add credibility to his central thesis concerning the continuity between medieval and modern science. As a result of Duhem's pioneering research and the contribution by other historians of science, the value of studying medieval science is now well established, and can no longer be dismissed by honest scholars.
Science historian A. C. Crombie, for example, comes to the conclusion that
“The natural philosophers of Latin Christendom in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries created the experimental science characteristic of modern times.”
Stanley Jaki, who holds doctorates in physics as well as theology, has this to say about Duhem’s work:
“What Duhem unearthed among other things from long-buried manuscripts was that supernatural revelation played a crucial liberating role in putting scientific speculation on the right track. . . . It is in this terrifying prospect for secular humanism, for which science is the redeemer of mankind, that lies the explanation of that grim and secretive censorship which has worked against Duhem (and his few allies) by two principal means: . . .”
These two means that Jaki amplifies are: 1) An orchestrated censorship that existed on the part of prominent publishing companies against printing major scholarly evidence in favour of Duhem’s perspective. 2) The practice of selective indignation in scholarly societies and their journals against Duhem’s work.
Dr. Peter E. Hodgson, who is University Lecturer in Nuclear Physics at Oxford University, has this to say about Duhem’s scholarly accomplishment:
“The work of Duhem is of great relevance today, for it shows clearly the Christian roots of modern science, thus decisively refuting the alleged incompatibility of science and Christianity still propagated by the secularist establishment. Science is an integral part of Christian culture, a lesson to be learned even within the Christian Church.”
Duhem’s study and documentation of the Christian origin of modern science has been deliberately neglected because it is unwelcome both to the disciples of the French Enlightenment and those of the Reformation. For different reasons, they would like to paint the Middle Ages as darkly as possible.
Alfred North Whitehead, co-author with Bertrand Russell of Mathematica Principia, offers timely approbation of Duhem’s research when he states, in Science and the Modern World, that
“the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivation from medieval theology.” And so does Norbert Wiener, the “Father of Cybernetics,” when he urges his fellow scientists to adopt an “Augustinian approach” to their enterprise
“Science is a way of life,” he states, “which can only flourish when men are free to have faith. . When we do not know whether a particular phenomenon we observe is the work of God or the work of Satan, the very roots of our faith are shaken.”
The faith factor that science presupposes is multifold and includes faith that similar causes will be followed by similar results, faith in the validity of extrapolation from conceptual models to the “real” world, and faith in the very existence of such a real world. For such reasons, Wade Rowland, author of Galileo’s Mistake (2001) can say:
“To the extent that a foundation in faith defines religion, science is every bit as much a religion as Christianity.”
Both the Old and New Testaments provide views of the world as well as human capacities that are most congenial to the development of science. First, the notion that God’s creation is ordered means that the physical universe is organized in a rational manner that is consistent, unified, and free of contradiction. The notion that man is created in God’s image gives him the confidence that he is capable of discovering the orderly pattern of nature. Third, since every thing that God created is good, it is worthwhile to uncover and utilize the good wherever he finds it. The Commandment to love is a powerful incentive to utilize what one has discovered and developed for the practical benefit of others. The notion of the Incarnation means that matter has a certain dignity and is a suitable substance for celestial bodies, as opposed to the pagan belief that they were composed of a higher and imperishable element. As historians of science have noted, the idea that creation took place in time and came out of nothing, and the linearity of time, played important rules in the development of modern science.
The following passage from the Book of Wisdom (7:15-21) offers a frame of mind that is most conducive to the development of science:
“For He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements, the beginning, and the ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of the seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the disposition of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and rage of wild beasts, the force of the winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such things as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me.”
St. Augustine, in his City of God, states that God is the Author of
“all measure, form and order; of all size, number and weight. He is the source of every nature . . . of the seed of every form and the form of every seed and the movement of both seeds and forms.”
This view has been echoed by Kepler, Galileo and Newton. It is at the heart of Einstein’s famous remark that the most incomprehensible thing to him is that the universe is comprehensible. And this is why he concluded that:
“God does not play dice.”
The names of Jordanus Nemorarius, Jean Buridan, John Philoponus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Nicholas of Oresme, and Leon Battista Alberti may not be known to many, even to many contemporary scientists. Yet they are Christian pioneers of science and provided an indispensable bridge that connected the Medieval world of science to that of modernity. It is estimated that there are between 30,000 and 35,000 medieval Western scientific manuscripts scattered throughout the world. Jordanus, An International Catalogue of Medieval Scientific Manuscripts has now been made available by the Institute for the History of Science at the University of Munich and by the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. The database is accessible on the Internet for any current browser. It provides information about medieval manuscripts written in Western Europe between 500 and 1500 A. D.
By permission of CatholicInsight.com
This version:www.churchinhistory.org >>
__________________
A lot of the above sounds rather familiar, including the controversies and tactics used to censor the unwelcome truth.
"Dwell on the past, you'll lose an eye; forget the past, you lose both your eyes." [Russian proverb often cited by Solzhenitsyn]
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Folks:
Take Stephen as speaking of Modern Science and the transforming scientific revolution of 350 years of so ago, and I think all will be clear.
Individual results are one thing, the rise of the culture-transforming scientific enterprise is completely another.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
The Greeks may not have had a christian conception of the universe, but they most certainly perceived it as orderly, regular and knowable. They were also quite able to do experiments and use those to understand the universe. This is how Eratosthenes calculated the earths circumference, discovered that the earth had a tilted axis, and calculated the distance of the earth from the sun. That is just one example of many. It seems you are also ignoring the massive influence the Greeks had on the early church fathers, not to mention their impact on Hebrew thought.grannyape92
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
That should read, "Christian thinkers became scientists because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislator." [As described by Lewis]StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
I am familiar with what you folks are talking about. However, I don't think real science is done without systematic methods and experiments to explain the natural world. The Greeks didn't even have a conception of the universe. We had to wait for Newton to provide one for us. Granted, the ancient Greeks built the foundations for science, but I don't believe what they did can rightly be called the practice of science. I think natural philosophy would be a better word.
It was the combination of Athens (Greek thought) and Jerusalem (Christian faith) that provided the intellectual fuel for modern science. The difference is in what Clive refers to above as the "firm expectation of systematic order" that turned the tide. Or again, they became scientists Christian thinkers became scientists because "they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator."
The Greeks, for all their brilliance, just didn't have that. What they did have, though, was a philosophy that surpasses most of what passes for rational thought today. If only our modern thinkers had one tenth of their wisdom, we would be far better off.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
StephenB,
Christianity launched the scientific enterprise. Like it or not, this is a fact.
Yes, that is exactly, right.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/science/roots-of-science.htm
And from C.S. Lewis's book Miracles,
Professor Whitehead points out that centuries of belief in a God who combined “the personal energy of Jehovah” with “the rationality of a Greek philosopher” first produced that firm expectation of systematic order which rendered possible the birth of modern science. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died; it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it” (see Alfred North Whitehead; Science and the Modern World; p. 13-14).
Miracles, A Preliminary Study, by C.S. Lewis, pages 168-169. Clive Hayden
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
The Teaching Company has a course on Science to the 1700's. "History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 "
It has 36 lectures. Seven of them are about the Greeks.
3. The Presocratics
4. Plato and the Pythagoreans
5. Plato's Cosmos
6. Aristotle's View of the Natural World
7. Aristotelian Cosmology and Physics
8. Hellenistic Natural Philosophy
9. Greek Astronomy from Eudoxus to Ptolemy
It may have been mainly wrong but they started the ball rolling and did come up with the term atom and that was fairly close. Aristotle is considered the Father of Biology to many.
Another Teaching Company course titled "Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World". The first two ideas were about Greece.
2. Writing Makes Science Possible
3. Inventing Reason and Knowledge
The ancient Greeks were awesome and the 5th century BC in Greece was one of the two or three most important times in the history of mankind.
The Teaching Company courses are highly recommended.jerry
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
I guess Thales, Archimedes, and Pythagoras, to name a few weren't scientist then? There was also a thriving school of science in Alexandrian, to name one, during the Hellenistic period. I also guess that all those classical scholars that have written about the history of Greek science were also wrong? Going a step further one of the preeminent scholars in the study of Greek science, G. E. R. Lloyd, does give a role in the decline of Greek science to Christianity, mainly because of an emphasis on revelation hampered the attainment of knowledge based on observation and reasoning.grannyape92
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Incorrect. The Greeks made progress in philosophy and mathematics, but science did not exist in their society. Christianity launched the scientific enterprise.
How are you defining "the scientific enterprise?"Learned Hand
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
---grannyape02. "This is incorrect. The Greek tradition in science continued, in a diminished form, into the Roman period. A large part of the Greek decline was the result of several centuries of internecine warfare (Pelopenesian, Theban, etc). The Macedonian conquest of Greece and Alexander’s subsequent use of the Greeks as mercenaries also played a role. Additional factors include the deterioration of Greece environmentally – which lead to a decline in wealth, etc,. To attribute the Greek design in science to a lack of faith seems simplistic and monocausal.
Incorrect. The Greeks made progress in philosophy and mathematics, but science did not exist in their society. Christianity launched the scientific enterprise. Like it or not, this is a fact.
---"It also fails to explain how they could become so excellent in science to begin with – lacking faith as they did…"
What scientific achievements did you have in mind?StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
----Learned Hand: “I said that I “am amenable to the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science.” You characterized that statement as having “denied the obvious fact that Christianity launched the modern science initiative.” I cannot read your comment as anything other than, at least, a drastic “skew” of the evidence of what I actually said.”
Your original statement declared that science did not grow out of Christianity, which is far from the truth; the above qualifying statement acknowledged that you were amenable to something less than the truth. In recounting the event, you left out the former and alluded only to the latter. Clearly, you are doing the skewing. Hey, dig that alliteration.
----“I stated that “[m]y beliefs certainly influence my perceptions,” and that “Dr. Hunter and myself both have ‘statements of faith.’” You contend that I “conspicuously left out the possibility that you might be biased.” This, too, appears to be a gross misrepresentation of my actual comments. Incidentally, you appear to have “conspicuously left out the possibility that you might be biased.”
Oh, but you didn’t say your beliefs influence your actions. You do say that Dr. Hunter’s beliefs influence his actions and his writings. So, it wasn’t an admission of moral equivalence. I notice little things like that.
.
----“You say that I “pretend not to have a dog in the fight.” I cannot find any statement that I have made that can be read that way. Would you like to show it to me? And where have you discussed yours? I think you fail this test under your own standard, but you pass it under mind. Although you have not explicitly disclosed your “dog in the fight,” your readers can assume that you have one and take your comments on their own merits.”
You need not explicitly declare that you have a dog in the fight. It is obvious that you do. I don’t hesitate to assert that you are not a disinterested observer. At the same time, I think I will retract the word, “pretend” as being a little too judgmental and presumptuous. On the other hand, everyone knows where I stand, so I could hardly fail a test on forthrightness. Now if you were testing for sensitivity, you might be on to something.
----“I think that Dr. Hunter’s credibility is the point, given the venue and the specific post above us. His complaints are not specific, and contain very few positive assertions that can be tested. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s appropriate to his medium. But without positive assertions of his own, Dr. Hunter’s credibility is of course central to the strength of his critique.”
No, his arguments are the point. Your personal attacks are consistent with the prevalent anti-ID propoganda, which holds that ID scientists allow their religious ideology to leak into their scientific methods and their judgment. Dr. Hunter does not reject evidence based on ideology. That is the test. Can you say the same thing? You still peddle the ID=religion fantasy in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, you reject facts, presumably for the sake of your ideology. That would fit right in to Dr. Hunter’s thesis.
---“(Note that I do not claim that Dr. Hunter is dishonest or immoral, nor do I intend to impugn his character in any way. Nor do I assert that his factual assertions, such as “finding X is wrong,” are incorrect because I find his motives suspect. Rather, I argue that his rhetorical arguments, such as that science is religion and that origins research is going nowhere, are the product of his religious beliefs, and should be assessed as such. I’m curious whether Dr. Hunter would argue with this point; I believe that he would agree with regard to himself, but contend that all other interested parties’ positions are also the product of religious beliefs.)
I suspect that he would insist that his faith directs his attention to the subject matter and that his judgment forms his conclusions. His main argument is that Darwinist ideology is a religious commitment such that its proponents mischaracterize and distort the truth. I don’t think he would say that prominent Christian ID scientists do the same thing, and he would be right. Can you think of any instance in which a prominent ID writer has misrepresented his opponents’ substantive arguments? Is there any ID equivalent of Ken Miller's proclivity to misrepresent Michael Behe’s conception of irreducible complexity? I challenge you to find one.
----“To continue the theme of hoisting you on your own petard, you seem quite put out that I “have tried to attack Dr. Hunter’s credibility” by pointing out his religious motives. Does that mean that you will not critique the motives of atheists? It might cut down participation on Dawkins-related threads…”
I try to keep my personal criticisms at the group level by referring to Darwinists, atheists, theistic evolutionsts, etc.
----“I think you failed your own tests, through the Herculean effort of accusing me of saying exactly the opposite of what I wrote. As I think the tests are silly, though, it’s of no particular moment.”
That you would say that I accused you of “exactly the opposite of what you wrote,” is an exercise in excess that further undermines your credibility. At the very most, I missed the point about your beliefs influencing your perceptions, though, as I say, they implied a moral equivalency that wasn’t there, and I retracted one mildly controversial characterization. Compare that to the accusation that I accused you of the “opposite” of what you wrote. Which action constitutes the greater breach? And what are the chances that you will retract yours, which is far less accurate?
In any case, you are getting a small taste of what it is like to be put on the couch.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 69:
So, you think that the early caveman, without benefit of socialization or culture...
No such animal, as we have certainly been obligately social and obligately cultural throughout the two thousand (give or take) centuries of our history.
If you are referring to species ancestral to our own, you will have to be more specific about which (and responses become increasingly speculative as species becomes more remote in time.)Diffaxial
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
StephenB in #62 says: "One of the reasons that the Greeks gave up pursuing it seriously was because they did not have sufficient faith to sustain them during their setbacks."
This is incorrect. The Greek tradition in science continued, in a diminished form, into the Roman period. A large part of the Greek decline was the result of several centuries of internecine warfare (Pelopenesian, Theban, etc). The Macedonian conquest of Greece and Alexander's subsequent use of the Greeks as mercenaries also played a role. Additional factors include the deterioration of Greece environmentally - which lead to a decline in wealth, etc,. To attribute the Greek design in science to a lack of faith seems simplistic and monocausal. It also fails to explain how they could become so excellent in science to begin with - lacking faith as they did...grannyape92
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial: "Perhaps. Perhaps not. He would certainly discern human acts and artifacts with which he is familiar from natural events adeptly as do we. His evaluation of handwriting would probably turn crucially on factors such as whether the culture in which he resides engaged in artistic activities, particularly representational cave painting."
So, you think that the early caveman, without benefit of socialization or culture, would not have been able to distinguish between a wind storm and someone who entered his cave and stole his stash.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Actually, there are techniques for discerning the extent to which commentators are bound to their biases and prejudices.
I’m dubious, but let’s apply them.
Test one: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one direction or the other are liable to skew the evidence in their favor...
I said that I “am amenable to the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science.” You characterized that statement as having “denied the obvious fact that Christianity launched the modern science initiative.” I cannot read your comment as anything other than, at least, a drastic “skew” of the evidence of what I actually said.
Test two: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other, are, at least, aware of their own biases and prejudices. They acknowledge them and make allowances for them.
I stated that “[m]y beliefs certainly influence my perceptions,” and that “Dr. Hunter and myself both have ‘statements of faith.’” You contend that I “conspicuously left out the possibility that you might be biased.” This, too, appears to be a gross misrepresentation of my actual comments. Incidentally, you appear to have “conspicuously left out the possibility that you might be biased.”
Test three: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other are usually up front about where they are coming from.
You say that I “pretend not to have a dog in the fight.” I cannot find any statement that I have made that can be read that way. Would you like to show it to me? And where have you discussed yours? I think you fail this test under your own standard, but you pass it under mind. Although you have not explicitly disclosed your “dog in the fight,” your readers can assume that you have one and take your comments on their own merits.
Test four: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other typically argue passionately on behalf of the point.
I think that Dr. Hunter’s credibility is the point, given the venue and the specific post above us. His complaints are not specific, and contain very few positive assertions that can be tested. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s appropriate to his medium. But without positive assertions of his own, Dr. Hunter’s credibility is of course central to the strength of his critique.
This is fairly common when laypersons analyze disputes among experts. It is one reason why commenters here frequently call scientists “atheists” and critique their biases—when we do not have the time or information to resolve every claim on its merits, the credibility of the claimant is a relevant topic of conversation. That is the case here. Dr. Hunter’s expertise in the field is greater than mine, as is that of the scientists he is criticizing. They disagree, and I cannot resolve their dispute on the merits. (I lack a research budget!) The credibility of the interested parties is the metric I have with which to judge their dispute. And insofar as Dr. Hunter’s critique is purely rhetorical, his credibility is key to his arguments. His credibility is the point, because Dr. Hunter has given us no other way to judge the merits of his claims.
(Note that I do not claim that Dr. Hunter is dishonest or immoral, nor do I intend to impugn his character in any way. Nor do I assert that his factual assertions, such as “finding X is wrong,” are incorrect because I find his motives suspect. Rather, I argue that his rhetorical arguments, such as that science is religion and that origins research is going nowhere, are the product of his religious beliefs, and should be assessed as such. I’m curious whether Dr. Hunter would argue with this point; I believe that he would agree with regard to himself, but contend that all other interested parties’ positions are also the product of religious beliefs.)
To continue the theme of hoisting you on your own petard, you seem quite put out that I “have tried to attack Dr. Hunter’s credibility” by pointing out his religious motives. Does that mean that you will not critique the motives of atheists? It might cut down participation on Dawkins-related threads…
I think you failed your own tests, through the Herculean effort of accusing me of saying exactly the opposite of what I wrote. As I think the tests are silly, though, it’s of no particular moment.Learned Hand
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Stephen @ 57:
Yes, those four year olds are really sensitive to the cultural zeitgeist.
Exquisitely. For example, from age one year children acquire an average of 10 words a day, with a particularly rapid explosion of vocabulary during the third year.
Welcome to the ID community.
*Gag*
So, given that he was a creature of culture, could the caveman discern the writings on the cave wall as products of human agency apart from wind, rain, snow, and erosion?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. He would certainly discern human acts and artifacts with which he is familiar from natural events adeptly as do we. His evaluation of handwriting would probably turn crucially on factors such as whether the culture in which he resides engaged in artistic activities, particularly representational cave painting.Diffaxial
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Learned Hand: OK, I want to be reasonable. Your qualifying statement that "you are amenable to the notion argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science," does take a bit of the edge off of the earlier formulation, “science” is not an outgrowth of Christianity.."
It is, however, an understatement of fairly significant proportions. If we add the word "modern" to Clive's statement, he is on very solid ground, and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to assume that he meant that. In fact, based on reasonable comparative standards, the Greeks got almost nowhere, so it wasn't a case of them just passing the baton.
Also, your understatement conveniently appears on the heels of Clive's protest that a committment do a Christian institution can hardly compromise ones orientation to science since Christianity launched what we now know as modern science. Context, context, context.
Still, I don't want to overstate the case. We all have biases and prejudices. The argument, as I understand it, is over which preferences are grounded in reason and evidence. I have never known Dr. Hunter to manipulate [or understate] a fact in order to make a point. If only we could all make that claim. That he prefers ID to Darwism is obvious; that you prefer Darwinism to ID is obvious.
Come on.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Jerry @ 60:
Goose, gander, all that good stuff.
You forgot the sauce.
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/uncommon-descent-contest-question-8-do-the-new-atheists-help-or-hurt-the-cause-of-darwinism/#comment-331009Diffaxial
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
For one who claims to value facts, you certainly have no difficulty disavowing those which you find inconvenient. It is a well-established fact that Christianity launched the modern scientific enterprise. One of the reasons that the Greeks gave up pursuing it seriously was because they did not have sufficient faith to sustain them during their setbacks.
I don’t know what facts you think I’ve “disavowed.” Clive contended that “science” was an outgrowth of Christianity. I assume that was an unintentional overstatement, because of course people were doing science before there were Christians. You apparently agree with me on that point; for the Greeks to have given up science, it stands to reason that they had to be doing it at one point.
As to whether Christianity was a positive influence on science, I have no particular opinion. I think it’s a very plausible argument, but I’ve never studied the question. I certainly don’t “disavow” the notion. How did you read my statement that I “am amenable to the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science” as a disavowal of the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science?Learned Hand
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
---"Learned Hand: "I don’t recall claiming that anyone shouldn’t have dogs in the fight. It would be an odd thing for me to say, because it is antithetical to my arguments. I do not contend that Dr. Hunter should not have a bias; I contend that his bias is apparent, and detracts from his credibility. I acknowledge that the scientists he criticizes also may have biases, although theirs are not as explicit as Dr. Hunter’s."
Actually, there are techniques for discerning the extent to which commentators are bound to their biases and prejudices.
Test one: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one direction or the other are liable to skew the evidence in their favor, but they do not deny facts outright. On the other hand, those who are totally committed to an ideology go beyond that and deny facts that are indisputable. A minute ago, you denied the obvious fact that Christianity launched the modern science initiative.
Test two: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other, are, at least, aware of their own biases and prejudices. They acknowledge them and make allowances for them. On the other hand, those who are totally committed to a no-concession policy are completely oblivious to their own partisan posture. A minute ago, you asserted that Dr. Hunter was biased, and that scientists on you side can be biased, but you conspicuously left out the possibility that you might be biased.
Test three: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other are usually up front about where they are coming from. They don’t pretend to be disinterested. On the other hand, those who are totally committed to an ideology, try to create the illusion that they don’t have a dog in the fight. Those who don’t have a dog in the fight don’t post here. You post here, yet you pretend not to have a dog in the fight.
Test four: Those who are somewhat inclined to go one way or the other typically argue passionately on behalf of the point. On the other hand, those who are totally committed to an ideology, tend to go after the credibility of the individual [not the group, which is fine] who is arguing on matters of substance. You have tried to attack Dr. Hunter’s credibility.
Get the idea.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
---Learned Hand: "Science was an outgrowth of Christianity LH….
---"This is a baffling statement. Of course “science” is not an outgrowth of Christianity. Greeks, inter alia, were doing science long before Christianity. I am amenable to the argument that Christianity was beneficial to the development of science, but it is not relevant to the point I made.'
For one who claims to value facts, you certainly have no difficulty disavowing those which you find inconvenient. It is a well-established fact that Christianity launched the modern scientific enterprise. One of the reasons that the Greeks gave up pursuing it seriously was because they did not have sufficient faith to sustain them during their setbacks. Christian scientists, convinced that they were "thinking God's thoughts after him," and that "God left clues," and that God had, indeed, created a rational universe, overcame countless obstacles and stayed with their research until it started bearing fruit.StephenB