Not quite, Dan S de Merengue.

>>At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator<<

You are making the assumption that the universe is a "reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator". Which latter, we are also asked to assume, refers to your chosen deity, the Christian God.

It need not, of course, be a reflection of anything of the sort.

But to the point. Would any lack of this reflection, in your philosophy, have prevented these "scientific pioneers" from "search[ing] for the physical laws inherent in the universe"?

I somehow doubt that. I suspect for example that neither Aristotle nor Ptolemy was a Christian, but they both did a fair bit of searching.

Christianity did however pick up on their theories of a geocentric universe, and run with them for a good long time.

So a question to you might be, was Galileo's work fully informed by his Christianity? Because there is no doubt that he was a devout Christian.

Galileo was a) a Christian and b) a scientist. It would however be a gross distortion, in my view, to suggest that his findings were, in any way whatsoever, "caused" by his faith. Which is the position that Mr Duffet seems to hold.

>>...it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter [Christianity] to the former ["Western development"].<<

Causal? No.

Merely post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

And this is just wordplay:

>>Berg's article say we don't need to rely on theology, yet he doesn't put forward a suggestion to fill the gap.<<

The only "gap" visible here is one that is entirely of your own construction. You choose to "rely on theology", which is your absolute, inalienable right. Clearly, its absence from your worldview would create a problem for you.

But to imagine that its absence would create a "gap" in others is highly presumptuous.

Yes, it’s as I’ve said before, Newton, Galileo, et al only ever relied on natural methodology and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

Mark Duffett,

I agree and I thought you might be interested in an earlier extensive discussion we had here on a similar topic (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292&page=0#149026 and the sequel; my contributions are also e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#149056 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#149142).

>>...it's not drawing that long a bow to assert a causal relationship from the latter [Christianity] to the former ["Western development"].<<

Causal? No. Merely 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' ["after this, therefore [assumed] because of this"].

@ Pericles, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 3:10:29 PM

Also, 'cum hoc, ergo propter hoc' ("with this, therefore [assumed] because of this")

Pericles,
You say that I choose 'to rely on theology'. These were not my words. They come from the pen of Berg. It was Berg that suggested liberal democracy was conceived in a Christian framework. He was the first one here attesting the importance of Christianity in the development of Western thought.

The gap of which I spoke comes by inference in what Berg was saying. He wishes to set aside any reliance upon that which he notices as originally present and significant. Perhaps you should argue with him. 

Apologies, Dan S de Merengue, I didn't mean to offend you by putting Berg's words into your mouth.

>>You say that I choose 'to rely on theology'. These were not my words. They come from the pen of Berg.<<

That's a fair point, I guess I made the connection from having similar discussions with you in the past. But it would surprise me if you were to deny such a reliance, after all this time.

>>The gap of which I spoke comes by inference in what Berg was saying.<<

Exactly. You inferred a gap. I pointed out to you that this would only be perceived as a gap by people who "rely on theology".

>>He wishes to set aside any reliance upon that which he notices as originally present and significant. Perhaps you should argue with him.<<

I probably would, if I understood a word of that sentence. What has it to do with gaps?