Christianity: The Science-Starter

[PoliticalChic]

1. The experimental methodology of modern science owes its origin to the biblical concept of a Creator. Prior to the rise of Christianity, the Greeks had defined science primarily in terms of logic. In classical philosophy, things were composed of matter and of form. Science was the knowledge of the forms, and, since the forms were rational and eternal (like numbers), science was logically necessary (as in mathematics).

a. Therefore scientific truth depended on logic, and not on empirical findings.

b. Clearly, once one grasps the essence of any object, one does not have to examine the object: all the important information about an object is derived by way of deduction. Once one knows that the purpose of a saucepan is to boil liquids, characteristics such as shape and composition follow via a deductive method.
Nancy Pearcey, “Saving Leonardo,” chapter five.




2. Over the centuries, Christian theologians reflected on the biblical text, and began to question the Greek definition of science: the gospel itself has an important empirical element. The apostle John insists that the message of Christ’s death and resurrection is based on “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1).


3. Further, based on the definition of God, that He is omnipotent, He could have made the world in any number of different ways, theologians found the deductive method wanting. Since every facet of the world was contingent upon God’s will, scientists could not sit back and deduce what ‘must’ be…instead, they must go out into the world and discover what ‘is.’ This meant observe and discover.

a. For example, Aristotle had argued that the earth ‘must’ be at the center of the cosmos, because elements seek their ‘natural’ place. But Marin Mersenne [French theologian, philosopher, mathematician and music theorist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_Mersenne] decried such deductive reasoning, and claimed that “there was no ‘must’ about it. It was wrong to say the center was the earth’s natural place. God had been free to put it were he liked. It was incumbent upon us to find out where this was.”
Brooke and Cantor, “Reconstructing Nature: The Engagement of Science and Religion,” p. 20.





4. This view was stated in the 17th century by Isaac Newton’s friend, Roger Cotes, who wrote that nature arose from “the perfectly free will of God,” and, therefore, we must learn about it “from observation and experiments.”
Roger Cotes, preface to the second edition of Newton’s “Principia.”

5. Theologians, therefore, were responsible for the new definition of science, i.e., knowledge based on empirical evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

Was this meant to be a syllogistic argument? Please say no. You are clearly begging the question, and unabashedly so. Your conclusion is contained in your first premise, although it is worded slightly differently.


This is all I should have to say, but, just for fun, I'll go on.

Practically everyone before modern science was religious, so, you're conclusion is completely obvious.

Funny that the title of the thread is 'Christianity: The Science-Starter' and yet for your conclusion, you back off that, and say it is "theologians" who are the science starters. This is presumably because you're initial premise is untenable, and you know it.

I could falsify this premise of the thread by mentioning any key arabic thinkers who are credited as having majorly influenced the modern scientific method, such as... wait for it.. Ibn al-Haytham, an Arab Physicist in 1021 who used observation, experiments, and rational arguments in his "Book of Optics" (wiki). Done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Was this meant to be a syllogistic argument? Please say no. You are clearly begging the question, and unabashedly so. Your conclusion is contained in your first premise, although it is worded slightly differently.


This is all I should have to say, but, just for fun, I'll go on.

Practically everyone before modern science was religious, so, you're conclusion is completely obvious.

Funny that the title of the thread is 'Christianity: The Science-Starter' and yet for your conclusion, you back off that, and say it is "theologians" who are the science starters. This is presumably because you're initial premise is untenable, and you know it.

I could falsify this premise of the thread by mentioning any key arabic thinkers who are credited as having majorly influenced the modern scientific method, such as... wait for it.. Ibn al-Haytham, an Arab Physicist in 1021 who used observation, experiments, and rational arguments in his "Book of Optics" (wiki). Done.

The first sentence in the OP:
"The experimental methodology of modern science owes its origin to the biblical concept of a Creator."


Were you in the process of preparing to address same?


And, by the mention of Ibn al-Haytham, are you arguing that other theologians, in addition to the Christian ones, deserve some credit for experimental science?


And, are you stating that Western science owes more to Islam than to Christianity?


Of interest:
“Although Roger Bacon acknowledged his debt to Ibn al-Haytham in the field of optics, he did not give the Iraqi scholar credit for having developed the method of inquiry that he strongly advanced. Instead, Bacon praised Peter Peregrinus, a French scholar he met while he was in Paris, as the master of experiments.”
Fountain Magazine - Issue - Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist

 

[Moonglow]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

 

[uscitizen]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

Yep the earth is the center of the universe. Recant or die.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

Yep the earth is the center of the universe. Recant or die.

Admit it, neither one of you read all of her post did ya'?

5. Theologians, therefore, were responsible for the new definition of science, i.e., knowledge based on empirical evidence.

Can't get past Liberal Socialist Dogma can you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

Of course, today, any scientist who doesn't toe the Leftist materialist line lives in fear.....fear of his livelihood, his career, his reputation.


Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?

“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com
DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

Yep the earth is the center of the universe. Recant or die.

So....you seem to imply that you are actually interested in 'truth' in association with science...
...really?

It no longer exists as Liberal influence assigns political view as a higher value.

1. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


2. So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

3. Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.



One would have hoped that, at your age, you realized this.

 

[del]

Th only problem was, Christian religious leaders had a tendency to kill any that tried to prove them wrong, or had a new theory, thus early scientist lived in fear.

Yep the earth is the center of the universe. Recant or die.

Admit it, neither one of you read all of her post did ya'?

5. Theologians, therefore, were responsible for the new definition of science, i.e., knowledge based on empirical evidence.

Can't get past Liberal Socialist Dogma can you?

can't get past parroting rw horseshit, can you?

 

[Moonglow]

I have seen a couple of theories asto the reasons why the dinosaurs died off, they were on TV I don't believe they were excommunicated, tortured to confess, burned at the stake, hung or had their heads lobbed off.