The earliest book known to have been printed was by wood-block in China in 868. It was a Buddhist sutra. Between 1040 and 1050 Pi Cheng got the idea of movable type.

Development of printing in Europe had more effect on religion than on science. Those dissatisfied with simony and other abuses of the Catholic Church had been making similar statements before Luther, but the printing press was a mechanism by which Luther's statements could be spread. The first printers in Europe looked for material to sell, and Luther's prolific writing was at hand. His polemics and his translation of the Bible into the German were available. The early printing press in Germany sparked the Reformation.

According to Fernand Braudel, the historian, printers were slow to produce scientific and mathematical works.

George,

<<However, it is an interpretation of western history, you might or might not agree with (yes, you cannot verify that "inspiration" in a laboratory) but I do not think you can dismiss it as pure speculation.>>

I certainly accept that it may very well have played a role – regardless of my (sometimes harsh) wording.

My point though, was that those curiosities would have happened regardless of the “orderly creator”. Which is why I added this:

“It almost sounds as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe. If you're not implying this, then there is very little validity to you claim.”

But I should have said “significance” rather than “validity”, for two reasons

Firstly, because although it would be reasonable to say that the Christian mindset played a role in the birth of modern science in this sense, I think it would be exaggerating to say that modern science was "born" from it, as there were other factors at play;

And Secondly, even if modern science was purely born from the Christian mindset, that doesn't discount Davidf's last post which was very much what I was talking about in regards to the stifling effect religion can have. Nor does is discount the fact that there are many Christians who will blindly assume that if the interpretation of data conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible, then it is automatically wrong - which also goes back to my other point about 'fundamentalist-style' beliefs.

It's not so much the belief in God that I have a problem with. It's the literal interpretation of the Bible.

AJ,
<<as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe.>>

There is a big difference between natural science, and humanities, theology or other such intellectual endeavours. You cannot conduct laboratory experiments of the kind “what happens if I change parameters, leave out this ingredient, etc.”, not even “thought experiments” like the famous experiment about the free falling elevator, that Einstein used to convince people about the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and which one can perhaps apply to check some conclusions of neo-Darwinian theory. Historical events are irreversible, in distinction to events that (most of) natural science studies. I used to tell students that one cannot replicate a situation in Europe in, say 1925, leaving out Hitler, and see what would happen.

Neither can you replicate European history leaving out Christianity, the Greeks, Islam, belief in an “orderly creator”, or other ingredients and see what would happen. You can quarrel about the importance of this or that “ingredient” without being able to check its irreplaceability. For many years historians saw the essence of Western civilisation in its predominantly Christian nature (with Judaic, Hellenic and Islamic contributions). I see Christianity as providing, so to say, both the thesis and (indirectly) antithesis which led to a synthesis that we now call modernity or scientific age. However, you can have an opinion differing from mine (or Whitehead’s), and as I said, there is no way to check which one of us is more right. It is not the same as different opinions about the validity of e.g. the neo-Darwinian theory.

Only one thing can be accepted, namely that investigative critical thinking that led to present day levels of science, technology, but also human rights, is a product of Western civilisation, while in other civilisations - Islamic, Chinese, Aztec - this kind of development stagnated after reaching a certain level. Whether you ascribe the merit of this to Christianity - as most scholars did until recently - or consider other influences in our civilisation as the main initiators/contributors, is a matter of opinion.

George,
On the surface, the theology of Altizer may appear as rather depressing or sad with his apocalyptic visioning. However, a more contextual reading (as you suggest of the Pope) is appropriate. Undoubtedly , the theology offered is radical but he suggests a new beginning. It is only on the basis of this understanding that we can see how radical the choice between an apocalyptic hope and an apocalyptic despair would be.

One should remember Newton not only as not a scientist, but as a heretic and apocalyptic theologian (as his later years show) - he was also a profoundly Christian believer. It is only Spinoza in that world who rivals Newton as a radical theological thinker, and we could even understand that finally Newton made possible not only Spinoza but the whole tradition of modern radical theological thinking. Newton understood God’s presence as a substantial presence in the world, and just as God exists necessarily, ‘by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere’ (Scholium Generale).
Through the Newtonian revolution, and for the first time, infinity is fully realised as the infinity of the world.

The type of thinking offered by Newton was but a starting point. Altizer's belief in an absolute apocalypse that is the death of God, looks like a stubbornness, from the perspective of the surface, but should be read as kenotic—as the absolute emptying that makes the surface sacred, and not just a space of possible experiences. Thus, not only is Christianity the origin of our nihilism, but a full or absolute nihilism is necessary and essential for Christianity, or for an apocalyptic Christianity, or that Christianity which is an original Christianity.

Sorry, The above post belongs to another thread.

BOY WHAT A SUBJECT!What about ME? Yes, "I don't know!" When I saw the Dalai Lama on the ABC, PROGRAM, when asked a LONG serious question, to which he listened very carefully,Then gave his answer-"I, DON'T KNOW!" I said, " That's my boy!" My upbringing was religious, which stopped me sowing any wild oats, but that's the only regret.I DID KNOW LOTS OF GOOD WELL-MEANING PEOPLE who believed and some downright hippocrits.The ones who don't try to shove their beliefs on others and do good works helping others are my friends.We are just another species of animal, with similar desires and motivations. But we did send a man to the moon. Explain why we have that power, if we work together. No one of us could do it alone.God or NO God, we have an instinct of right and wrong.An atheist can be honest and good as any believer.