It was, in the context of the game, the difference between winning and losing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Sachin Tendulkar's innings was significant, but was it decisive? He is one member of an 11 man team. He made less than one third of the teams’ [sic] score. After he fell the team relied on others, such as Suresh Raina, to achieve their total.<<

As conclusive in its influence on the result, in fact, as the timely arrival of von Blücher at Plancenoit.

Sure, Wellington did his bit. And there certainly were a few other soldiers around that day who did theirs. But the decisive influence on the outcome was undoubtedly the Prussians.

Pericles,
It’s agreed that Tendulkar’s large contribution was essential for India’s victory. Yet another much lesser role could also be described as crucial, like that of Raina whose score was greater than the slim winning margin. It’s possible that there were several decisive elements.

Tendulkar has been among the most successful batsmen of his era. India has been somewhat reliant on him for a while, though he may retire soon. When he does leave, do you think India will easily be able to fill that gap left in its batting line up?

Pericles,

I agree I should have used options, or whatever you prefer, instead of alternatives.

I agree I should not have started the sentence about that fact with “on the other hand”.

I agree that “decisive influence” and “significant influence” are not “not much different”.

I agree that we do not agree even on the “size” of the influence Christendom had on the intllectual/cultural formation of modern Western man (in addition to our obvious disagreement on how to weigh, overall positively or negatively, this influence/contribution).

I hope this will satisfy you.

I think you are getting the idea, Dan S Merengue.

>>Yet another much lesser role could also be described as crucial, like that of Raina whose score was greater than the slim winning margin. It’s possible that there were several decisive elements.<<

A case can be made for every person in the side being influential on the outcome. But it cannot equally be said that every performance was indispensible, except to the extent that each side needs eleven players. At some point, individual genius transcends its surroundings to make a decisive contribution.

Similarly, the fact is that Galileo was a practising, even devout, Christian. The vast majority of Galileo's friends and acquaintances were Christians too, and he held the church in high esteem, so obviously it had some influence on the manner in which he approached his life. What clearly cannot be asserted, is that his Christianity "caused" his findings.

That's all. No biggy.

So we have several categories of contribution: important, crucial, indespensible, etc. And how critical was the unique contribution of Christian doctrine to our values, traditions and institutions in the West?

I got a reaction from Pericles and AJ for highlighting the influence Christian thought had in the development of Western science.   

It's also not a biggy. Many scholars have described such things.

"[Rodney] Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal."

Loren Eiseley said, "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

The causal relationship between faith and motiations for investigation entails the foundational belief of an orderly universe making sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator.   

Tendulkar's contribution to winning that game for India was significant and decisive. Christianity's contributions I believe are evident. Any 'gap' created by their absence will be telling.

“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots." M Thatcher.  

Neatly put, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The causal relationship between faith and motiations for investigation entails the foundational belief of an orderly universe making sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator.<<

Exactly. The only people who contest that there is a causal relationship between Christianity and the motivation to stretch the boundaries of knowledge, would have to be Christians.

Those more dispassionate see the investigator's chosen religion to be incidental to their research. The search for knowledge and understanding requires no God to guide it. In fact, it could be argued that by knowing in advance the answer - viz. "it was God wot dunnit" - the zeal with which the creationist pursues an explanation might in fact be a tad lacking.

>>Christianity's contributions I believe are evident. Any 'gap' created by their absence will be telling.<<

In the case of Galileo, Christianity was particularly irrelevant not only to his pursuit, but also to his findings. Do you believe he would have found differently, and left a telling "gap", had he not been a devout Christian?