Post by James Hannam on Dec 29, 2015 10:47:35 GMT
Thanks for your post Ed. I’m sorry about the delay in replying, but the Christmas holidays intervened.
Firstly, I’m glad we agree that western science was a western invention. Oddly, that is a controversial statement in some quarters where we are expected to share the credit around more widely.
But indirectly, Christianity did provide a useful metaphysical framework. For instance, from the twelfth century, Christian theologians began to explore what it meant for the world to be God’s creation at the beginning of time. One consequence was that nature was separate from God and followed the laws he had ordained for her. Various Greek philosophies had accepted the rationality of the laws of nature but for Christians, nature’s laws were God’s laws rather than the laws of logic. God was free to do as he pleased so it was impossible to work out the laws of nature by using reason alone. Experiment was required.
I wrote a rather longer article on the metaphysical foundations of science for the US magazine First Things that you can read here:
www.firstthings.com/article/2011/10/modern-sciences-christian-sources
David Wootton’s new book, The Invention of Science, also points to the discovery of the New World. Wootton is a great scholar and I’m looking forward to reading the book, which I got for Christmas.
For the moment, I’m less than convinced. I’ve read a lot of 16th century science books and they are all remarkably blasé about America. OK, America is news and it is interesting. But there is no sign that it produced a major change in thinking. It was just there. One or two people used it as a stick to beat ancient sources or the Bible or whatever, but not many. In any case, the wealth initially poured into Spain, which is not noted for scientific novelty. It is true that later the slave/sugar nexus provided the capital for Britain’s industrial revolution, but in the 16th and 17th centuries, the main thing American treasure did was cause inflation.
Except that endless inventions in ancient and medieval China, including gunpowder, the blast furnace, printing, etc etc did nothing to affect Chinese theoretical science. Nor did the Chinese voyages of discovery do anything except to convince the Ming emperors that they were not a good idea. The fact is, science and technology had very little to do with each other until the 19th century.
Indeed. Just as today we have animal rights fanatics terrorizing medical researchers, environmentalist kooks getting GMOs banned and social scientists demonizing behavioural genetics. That said, I think some degree of conflict, I call it creative tension, is a good thing as it sharpens minds and arguments, driving forward progress. My own thinking on the history of science has been helped greatly by disputing views I disagree with.
Yes I agree. We’ve almost lost the ability to thing in any other way. The mental world that Christianity created, both scientific and political, no longer needs Christianity to sustain it.
Best wishes
James
Firstly, I’m glad we agree that western science was a western invention. Oddly, that is a controversial statement in some quarters where we are expected to share the credit around more widely.
"Christianity," the religion and its specific beliefs and dogmas and reliance on specific holy books and spiritual experiences for its inspiration has nothing directly to do with developing and advancing science and the scientific method.
But indirectly, Christianity did provide a useful metaphysical framework. For instance, from the twelfth century, Christian theologians began to explore what it meant for the world to be God’s creation at the beginning of time. One consequence was that nature was separate from God and followed the laws he had ordained for her. Various Greek philosophies had accepted the rationality of the laws of nature but for Christians, nature’s laws were God’s laws rather than the laws of logic. God was free to do as he pleased so it was impossible to work out the laws of nature by using reason alone. Experiment was required.
I wrote a rather longer article on the metaphysical foundations of science for the US magazine First Things that you can read here:
www.firstthings.com/article/2011/10/modern-sciences-christian-sources
The west does not appear to have been more advanced than other cultures in shipbuilding, navigation, and mathematics prior to the west's landing on the New World, which ignited curiosity and greed. Here was a whole new world that expanded people's minds and brought great wealth to Europe. And wealth means more funding for special projects, and more leisure time to pursue them.
David Wootton’s new book, The Invention of Science, also points to the discovery of the New World. Wootton is a great scholar and I’m looking forward to reading the book, which I got for Christmas.
For the moment, I’m less than convinced. I’ve read a lot of 16th century science books and they are all remarkably blasé about America. OK, America is news and it is interesting. But there is no sign that it produced a major change in thinking. It was just there. One or two people used it as a stick to beat ancient sources or the Bible or whatever, but not many. In any case, the wealth initially poured into Spain, which is not noted for scientific novelty. It is true that later the slave/sugar nexus provided the capital for Britain’s industrial revolution, but in the 16th and 17th centuries, the main thing American treasure did was cause inflation.
The invention of finely ground clear glass lenses also expanded greatly the vision of the micro and macro cosmos and increased curiosity and study in a plethora of new directions. And the development of the printing press allowed the new data being gathered to be disseminated, setting off an arms race in study of nature.
Except that endless inventions in ancient and medieval China, including gunpowder, the blast furnace, printing, etc etc did nothing to affect Chinese theoretical science. Nor did the Chinese voyages of discovery do anything except to convince the Ming emperors that they were not a good idea. The fact is, science and technology had very little to do with each other until the 19th century.
I agree that Christianity was not necessarily at war with science, but some Christians did resist developments and discoveries in science that disagreed with earlier interpretations of holy writ when it came to the age and special creation of humanity, the age of the earth and cosmos, even the stability of the earth. So when long held theological interpretations and new discoveries in science disagreed, conflicts arose.
Indeed. Just as today we have animal rights fanatics terrorizing medical researchers, environmentalist kooks getting GMOs banned and social scientists demonizing behavioural genetics. That said, I think some degree of conflict, I call it creative tension, is a good thing as it sharpens minds and arguments, driving forward progress. My own thinking on the history of science has been helped greatly by disputing views I disagree with.
And yes, science has outgrown it's western nest. Today anyone of all religions or none can pursue scientific investigations of nature. And there is far more money and genius devoted to studying nature today than studying Christian theology.
Yes I agree. We’ve almost lost the ability to thing in any other way. The mental world that Christianity created, both scientific and political, no longer needs Christianity to sustain it.
Best wishes
James