Religion Created Science, Technology

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
So....when I saw the forum topic "Developments that shape how we live our lives," it reminded me of the debt that science owes religion.....


1. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus).
Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.





2. Today, most historians agree that the scientific outlook actually rests on fundamental concepts derived from the biblical view of nature. For example, no other culture, East or West, ancient or modern, came up with the idea of “laws” in nature. The concept appeared for the first and only time in Europe during the Middle Ages, a period when its culture was thoroughly permeated with biblical assumptions.
Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo," p.106.

a. The use of the word ‘law’ in the context of natural events “would have been unintelligible in antiquity, whereas the Hebraic and Christian belief in a deity who was at once Creator and Lawgiver rendered it valid.” The concept of laws was not metaphorical, as in a figure of speech, but literally true!

“Natural laws were regarded as real laws or commands, decrees from the Almighty, literally obeyed.”
Hall, “The Scientific Revolution, 1500-1800: The Formation of the Modern Scientific Attitude,” p.171-172.





3. Many ancient societies were animistic, nature thought to be filled with gods or spirits ready to inflict disasters such as storms, droughts, famines, unless placated by correct performance of the specific rituals; nature "seemed to common sense intractable, even mysterious and dangerous," writes historian Carl Becker.

4. But the bible rejects any religious status for nature. From the opening lines of Genesis, the sun, moon, and stars are not gods, nor emanations of a divine essence, but simply created objects with no power over humans. Rather, the bible teaching of a transcendent God liberated people from fear of spiritual forces within nature.

“…however highly developed a culture’s powers of observation, however refined its equipment for measuring, no real scientific breakthrough is possible until man can face the natural world unafraid.” http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/reformation of modern science.pdf

a. By exorcising the gods of nature, biblical monotheism freed humanity to investigate it without fear. It taught to think of nature as regular, predictable and open to systemic study.




5. Therefore, the idea of an intelligible order in nature was not derived from scientific observation. It was derived from biblical theology prior to observation. And it was what made the scientific enterprise possible in the first place.




6. And, continuing along this line, applying technology was also a biblical worldview. Christian theologians were eager to use science to restore humanity’s stewardship over the rest of creation, lost in the fall into sin.

a. According to historian Lynn White, the development of technology was inspired by the ‘spiritual egalitarianism’ of the Bible, which engendered “a religious urge to substitute a power machine for a man where the required motion is so severe and monotonous that it seemed unworthy of a child of God.”
Lynn White Jr. "What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?" in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie, p.272-91.
 
Hmmm.............. So the ancient Greeks religion created the beginnings of the methods that our scientific method is based upon. Therefore, we should accept the religions prevelant then? Modern math was created under the Caliphate. Should that be the dominate religion?

Perhaps a better way of saying it, is that when a society gave it's brightest people a way of having time to create, rather than just work to survive, they created. Whether that society was one of many religions, such as the Greek and Romans, or monotheistic, such as Islam and Christianity. And it matters little whether the people that were given the time were called priests, philosphers, or scientists, as long as the lessor intellects did not impose restrictions on them, they created.
 
religion created science???

i'm sure galileo would find that amusing.

Judging by the post, you've read only the title....


You might be surprised to learn...and you would if you had the time, or took the time to read the OP...that it speaks to the fact that "most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians."


There are aspects of the premise that are arguable....
...but your point barely grazes the issue.



Also, the references to the bible specify the Old Testament....
...if that is a consideration to you.
 
True all dat -- PChick.. But we also have to face the reality that science should never be forced to answer to wills of sponsors... Be they Govt, Industry OR Religion..

Net positive effect from religion until the Enlightenment. From then on --- not so much.. Biggest impediment to science TODAY --- is politicians with agendas and the gullibility of the general public.
 
True all dat -- PChick.. But we also have to face the reality that science should never be forced to answer to wills of sponsors... Be they Govt, Industry OR Religion..

Net positive effect from religion until the Enlightenment. From then on --- not so much.. Biggest impediment to science TODAY --- is politicians with agendas and the gullibility of the general public.

The biggest enemy of science today are politicians defunding it like Barack Obama. :mad:
 
True all dat -- PChick.. But we also have to face the reality that science should never be forced to answer to wills of sponsors... Be they Govt, Industry OR Religion..

Net positive effect from religion until the Enlightenment. From then on --- not so much.. Biggest impediment to science TODAY --- is politicians with agendas and the gullibility of the general public.

The biggest enemy of science today are politicians defunding it like Barack Obama. :mad:


Well...unless you include 'fake' science.....


"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come


The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
 
religion created science???

i'm sure galileo would find that amusing.

Galileo was a devout Christian, stupid.

100%


"God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

Galileo Galilei, though famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."
Galileo Galilei | Christian History
 
Hmmm.............. So the ancient Greeks religion created the beginnings of the methods that our scientific method is based upon. Therefore, we should accept the religions prevelant then? Modern math was created under the Caliphate. Should that be the dominate religion?

Perhaps a better way of saying it, is that when a society gave it's brightest people a way of having time to create, rather than just work to survive, they created. Whether that society was one of many religions, such as the Greek and Romans, or monotheistic, such as Islam and Christianity. And it matters little whether the people that were given the time were called priests, philosphers, or scientists, as long as the lessor intellects did not impose restrictions on them, they created.

Rocks, it doesn't seem that you have denied any of the OP....but you did ignore part.
Even so....let me add this:


1.If one needed an example of why it is not enough to study science, or history, alone….here we have the perfect nexus.

2. While modern science owes the creation of a cultural vacancy, allowing its birth, to religion…as the OP states…a study of the French Revolution explains the secular approach that crowded out the biblical worldview.

3. ‘Science’ was co-opted by Enlightenment ideologues who stripped it of its Christian context. The idea of empirical facts is biblically informed.

a. “…what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands,…” 1 John 1:1




4. How did the ‘divorce’ occur? French revolutionaries, in throwing off the rule of the monarchs and clergy….tossed out religion as well.

a. The French invested reason with the same dogmatic status as religion, creating a secular reflection of the Catholic Church. Reason, or nature, or the general will, became the civil religion. Thus authoritarianism was there from the time of the French Revolution.

b. The philosopher Condorcet believed that the application of mathematics and statistics to social policy would result in general happiness, truth and virtue.




c. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion, and predicted that, like religious, secular propaganda would employ artists and poets. His collaborator, Auguste Comte, also saw the need for a secular religion, a scientific materialism, which contends that the only reality is what can be detected and measured by human senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. His authoritarian thinking shapes today’s liberal’s doctrinaire insistence that science has the explanation for all things.
See chapter 13, “The World Turned Upside Down,” Melanie Philips.


If religion is based on dogma....don't ignore the fact that 'science' is, as well.
 
Having been raised in a very fundementalist Christian family, I saw little encouragement of the independent thinking demanded by scientific inovation. I saw much dogma unsupported by reality.

The divorce of science from religious dogma was a neccessity demostrated by Galileo's ordeal. And science seems to be done just fine by people of whatever religion, or no religion at all.

The present denial of the reality of global warming and the climate change it is creating is a prime example of the rejection of science for the idiocy of an ideology. The fact that one of our political parties has embraced that idiocy is a reflection of the scientific knowledge of those within the party, and their gullibility.

Worldwide, every single Scientific Society states that AGW is real. As does every National Academy of Science in the world. As does every major University.

So, PC, are you claiming all of these are in on a grand internatonal conspiracy? And who are the leaders of this grand conspiracy? And how do they get the Arctic Sea Ice, the alpine glaciers, and the continental glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica to cooperate? Why are Swiss Re and Munich Re stating that the number of extreme weather event is 3 to 5 times what is was 40 years ago?

PC, I think you are a candidate for a tinfoil hat.
 
Why are Swiss Re and Munich Re stating that the number of extreme weather event is 3 to 5 times what is was 40 years ago?
Because they're aren't any MORE events than there used to be, It's just that Science is better at DETECTING them.

So you just THINK there's more of them when in fact they've always been there.
 

Forum List

Back
Top