Pericles,
I'm not sure where you are going with a hypothetical question, what if he wasn't a devout Christian? Galileo was who he was. Maybe if he was born a girl, we would know him as Gail or Gillian, or not know her at all. But he was who he was.

In my previous post, when I spoke of scientist motivations I was meaning the motivations the pioneers had in developing the scientific method, getting the ball rolling in the first place. You also seem to be working with the assumption that all religions are the same. By contrast, I look for the unique contribution made by the influence of a Christian worldview.

"In China, the Confucian and Taoist philosophies did not contain the idea that a ‘science of explanations’ would be possible so they pursued personal enlightenment and social order. The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation. The persistence of this gap can be traced to their view of the universe—it was seen as a ‘living organism’ with ‘motives’, influenced by a multitude of fallible gods. In the face of such arbitrary behaviour, they pursued speculative ideals that could not be subjected to empirical testing." (this paragraph from a reviewer of Stark)

When I speak of a gap, I'm talking about a developing absence or lack of knowledge of our history. If we forget our history or separate ourselves from our roots then we could be in danger of losing the special heritage given to us.

Interesting points, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Galileo was who he was. Maybe if he was born a girl, we would know him as Gail or Gillian, or not know her at all. But he was who he was<<

The question might be, had he been a girl, would he have made the same discoveries? Would the social/religious environment in which he lived have allowed a girl the opportunities to research and publish.

The answer is quite probably no, it would not.

You might then argue that the attribute of gender is therefore a decisive factor, in the same way in which Christianity is a decisive factor, in the development of Western thought.

My view would be that neither gender, nor religion, would have an impact on the individual's thinking processes, only on the ability of those thoughts to reach the rest of the world. This act of suppression would not, on the whole, be a quality with which Christianity wishes to be identified.

>>You also seem to be working with the assumption that all religions are the same. By contrast, I look for the unique contribution made by the influence of a Christian worldview.<<

If there were only one "Christian worldview", I might agree with you. But as you are well aware, Christianity has been at war with itself over the shape and consistency of that worldview since it began. Even you, it would appear, with your strong views on Creationism, are out of phase with many of your "fellow Christians". And it is superfluous to point out the centuries-old battle between the Prods and the Micks.

So to describe Christianity as a "special heritage" in the history of the West is about as meaningful as making the same claim for the existence of plant disease. While true in a general sense, the impact of potato blight differs greatly from that of coffee rust, for example.

To argue that "we are shaped by our environment" is a truism. But to single out Christianity as a sort of intellectual driving force is, in my view, over-egging the pudding.

Thanks for your posts Dan and Pericles. Dan, you mention Rodney Stark. He is the best historian I know of who has written of the influences of Christianity in the West. He writes of the development of modern universities, science, and the anti-slavery movement as all initiated by Christianity. I would recommend his book, 'For the Glory of God', for those who want to find out more about the positive influence of Christianity in history.

Nils,

After having read online (amamzon.com) the Introduction to the Rodney Stark book I am already convinced it is an excellent book. Even this Introduction contains insights that to me seem rather original and illuminating. Thanks indeed for letting me/us know about the book.

Small correction, Nils.

>>Dan, you mention Rodney Stark. He is the best historian I know of who has written of the influences of Christianity in the West.<<

Stark is not a historian - at least, not by education. His degrees are in Sociology, as are his professorships.

>>He writes of the development of modern universities...<<

This is where his lack of education (as a historian) is most evident.

He writes of that "uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the university", which of course is nothing more than wishful thinking. The original Trades Guilds, which began to be formed as a means to introduce and maintain high levels of training in their crafts, were the first European universities. The Latin concept of "universitas" covers these as well as purely academic institutions.

These evolved quite quickly into urban centres of learning, fuelled by massive demand for broader knowledge. These were mostly secular, private enterprise operations.

Around the same period, the Roman Catholic Church, which was the predominant force in Christianity at the time, was flexing its theological muscles. Most of the doctrines that define that church - the veneration of Mary-the-mother, the notion of celibacy, the concept of purgatory - were developed in the 11th and 12th centuries.

The influence of this, let's face it, highly political organization allowed it to hijack the universitas concept, and to "licence" as many of the more academic variety as they could control. This enabled them to run the education agenda which, not surprisingly, limited research to "approved" topics.

Rather than being a trailblazer in the field of education, and a pioneer and thought-leader in research, the Church acted as policeman, in order to channel thinking along their preferred lines.

Many of Stark's other claims for Christianity fall at the same fence - he sees only that which will support his argument.

Which is fine, and it is his perfect right to do so.

But it alters his work from being historically informative, to being just another polemic.

And no, George, I'm still not a historian. And on this evidence, glad not to be.

Pericles,
Worldview is a bit like language or culture. It is dynamic and changes over time. No two people share its understanding in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, one can easily identify the common traits and elements that make one collectively distinctive. There are many common and basic elements that Christians share regardless of their era.

You raise the idea of creationism. You would note that in that period I mentioned before, those middle centuries of great scientific advancement, how the prevailing view was that the world was the creation of God, the result of his handiwork, and all by and large accepted the account of creation as described in Genesis.

You seem to want to challenge Christianity historically as a key influential factor in the shaping of ideas in our culture. For certain, it hasn't been the only influence. But in this discussion, we are only looking to give it's assent in correct proportion, to give it due credit.

While no one book by any historian is going to adequately capture the immensity of all of the last two thousand years of Western history, I think it's clear that many of the ideas, democratic institutions and scientific achievements developed in the West can be described as unique. Do we then say the profound influence of the West's particular lines of thought supplied by the West's dominant religion to be only incidental and of little consequence?

We don't want to white wash history, but rather to give credit where it is due.