atheist scholars who think Christianity was beneficial

[bvgdez]

Are there any atheist scholars who believe that Christianity was beneficial to the development of modern science (or even prerequisite therefore)?

The background to my question is that from discussions with friends and acquaintances the prevalent opinion these days seems to be that there is indeed a conflict between religion and science. Influenced by James' writing in this forum I sometimes mention that some scholars actually believe that Christianity was not only beneficial to the development of Western science but even a prerequisite. However, as James is a Christian it would be easy to argue that he is obviously biased.

I'd also be interested in what the scholarly consensus is on this issue. By scholars I mean those who are actually experts in this field not academics from other disciplines who happen to have a strong opinion on this issue.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

[jonkon]

What makes you think that atheists can be "unbiased"? A person becomes a Christian by confronting the reality of their own depraved nature, in contrast to atheists who are still in denial and instead try to justify this denial. The real problem with "Christian" scholars is their compromise of Christian principles to make their ideas "compatible" with and "acceptable to conventional scholars rather than questioning whether the "science" that conflicts with Christianity is in fact legitimate. The sources I found most helpful in my own professional career development as a product designer were those who exhibited the most spiritual insight into their own work, hence my own investigation into Medieval theological disputes ultimately proved far more valuable to my career than the largely obsolete instruction in engineering design (i.e. design of vacuum tube amplifiers as opposed to using integrated circuit operational amplifiers that I actually used on the job). I found within the first month of starting my career that the "science" I was taught was useless bunk. So-called "scientific laws" like Ohm's Law were in reality overly simplified representations of actual physical behavior that were valid only under extremely limited conditions. The "scientific method," i.e. Mill's Method, is incapable of distinguishing between causal relations and coincidence, leading to potentially disastrous consequences. What I found was that principles and methods that actually worked in creating reliable products were first introduced by Christian theologians engaged in the defense of historic Christian doctrine.

[bvgdez]

Jun 7, 2016 23:16:44 GMT jonkon said:

What makes you think that atheists can be "unbiased"?

Thanks for your reply, Jonkon. I didn't mean to imply that atheist scholars are unbiased. What I meant rather was that if, inspite of their atheism, they were to concede that Christianity was a beneficial influence, it would tend to lend the thesis more general credence than if it were only supported by Christian scholars.

On a side note: I don't really know anything about amplifiers but were the two kinds you referred to what electric guitarists know as valve and tranistor amplifiers?

[jonkon]

I doubt that the "credibility" of atheistic scholars would be any more convincing. For example, Simon Greenleaf was the foremost expert on legal evidence and an atheist when he wrote "Testimony of the Evangelists." The work resulted from a challenge by a Christian friend to use his legal expertise to discredit the four Gospels. He became a Christian as a result of this study, but others treat it with indifference.

Yes you are correct about valve and transistor amplifiers. I recall that the older valve amplifier has a saturation effect that is more desirable among musicians.

[bvgdez]

Thanks for the pointer to Simon Greenleaf. It's maybe not entirely relevant to the particular question I was asking but interesting in it's own right. I have heard of cases where people who set out to debunk Christianity ended up converting but given Simon Greenleaf's background this sounds like a particularly interesting case. Since it was well over a hundred years ago I suppose many would just argue that he would have come to different conclusions in the light of modern scholarship. I intend to read it myself though.

[ydoethur]

Try Pierre Duhem's Systeme du Monde. There is a Wikipedia article on it, but it isn't very good. To cut rather a long story short, Duhem was a nineteenth century French scientist who wrote a major, multi-volume history of science, starting in antiquity and carrying on to his own time. Initially he expected to spend very little time on the period between the collapse of Rome and the Renaissance. However, his research convinced him that the Christian belief in a rational, consistent God was what had underpinned modern physics, and he devoted much time and energy to expanding on this thesis and emphasising the role of the church in the development of science.
Wikipedia also fails to note how extremely controversial this idea was in the anticlerical intellectual circles of France, and how the series was effectively suppressed for several decades after Duhem's death until one of the key atheist opponents died and legal action was threatened by the Duhem estate.
It's not exactly new(!) but it's an interesting example of how will anti-religious historiography will sometimes go in order to keep any challenge to its worldview under wraps. THere's nothing very new about New Atheist Bad History from that point of view!
In answer to your other question, I am no expert on this, but the new GCSE option in Medicine through Time shows that unimaginative anti-clericalism continues to be alive and well in British scientific history. It continues to assert that Stone Age religion had a beneficial impact on medicine and that the medieval Catholic church retarded all scientific invention until the arrival of Paracelsus and his obsession with fairies. It is very much influenced by Marxist thought of the 1960s, rather than by more recent secular or professional research, and will doubtless become even more influential now Medicine Through Time is going to be the default option for, at a guess, 50% of GCSE history courses. People very often are heavily influenced by what they learn at this age, particularly if they have good teachers. So I doubt if the consensus will change any time soon merely because it happens to be at best uninformed.

[jonkon]

Duhem's work is significant for being the first history of science based on an examination of the source documents. The first history of science, written by Comte, was in effect a work of fiction intended to justify the goals and ideals of the French Revolution. To Comte, what a scientist SAID he was trying to do was not as important as what it REALLY must have been to achieve his success. This objective was further developed into the conflict thesis by John William Draper's highly influential history of science. Regrettably, Duhem's work is not available in English, nor have the results filtered down into undergraduate and introductory textbooks.

Besides James Hannam's The Genesis of Science, I recommend David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science and Stephen F. Mason's A History of the Sciences.

[timoneill]

Jun 7, 2016 11:20:29 GMT bvgdez said:

Are there any atheist scholars who believe that Christianity was beneficial to the development of modern science (or even prerequisite therefore)?

Most historians don't bother declaring their religious beliefs or lack thereof, because it isn't relevant. They just do what historians are meant to do - analyse the past as objectively as possible. Ronald Numbers (who happens to be an agnostic) definitely sees elements in Christian culture as intrinsic to the rise of modern science. So does Edward Grant (i have no idea about his beliefs) and Toby Huff (ditto).

[bvgdez]

Thanks to Jonkon, Ydoethur and Tim for your very helpful replies. There are enough reading suggestions ther to keep me occupied for a while (and maybe help me brush up my French).

[wraggy]

Jun 11, 2016 3:17:45 GMT timoneill said:

Jun 7, 2016 11:20:29 GMT bvgdez said:

Are there any atheist scholars who believe that Christianity was beneficial to the development of modern science (or even prerequisite therefore)?

Most historians don't bother declaring their religious beliefs or lack thereof, because it isn't relevant. They just do what historians are meant to do - analyse the past as objectively as possible. Ronald Numbers (who happens to be an agnostic) definitely sees elements in Christian culture as intrinsic to the rise of modern science. So does Edward Grant (i have no idea about his beliefs) and Toby Huff (ditto).

Ron Numbers has made it clear that he is Agnostic on the question of God in the preface to one of the books that he co edited, (cannot recall off hand which book) and in a statement on the net. It may be been Belief Net. I am not sure if it was due to copping some heat from one or more particular groups of people. But it does seem a strange thing to declare your world view when it is hardly relevant to scholars of Numbers' caliber and reputation.