Buggered if I know!

Too funny, RObert!
Sorry,,,can’t write for a few days, typing too slow, getting uaed to new keyboad layout (Dvorak), Sloooooooooooooooow!

Vanilla,

What you probably should ask yourself is why the pop culture powers haven't revealed something as important as the origins of science but that is of course up to you. In the mushroom situation foistered upon us the natural assumption is that science came after Christianity as some type of substitute. That is wrong.

Okay I'll try to explain and expand minds with a brief look at history together with a look at the relevant aspects of my religion. Hopefully this will explain the apparent anomaly of how Europe, which arose from barbarism and the rubble of Rome, created science and that the birth of science in Christian Europe is no mere coincidence.

Firstly you need to understand the Christian concept of God. We have one God who is a rational omnipotent being who created the Universe as their personal creation. This made it a lawful stable structure that could be comprehended by humans to the extent it can be observed. God believes in human progress and has historically revealed divine will in accordance with our ability to understand.

Thus Christians have always valued reason to better understand things including the will of God. In the second century Quintus Tertullian wrote "Reason is a thing of God inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason, nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."

Next you need to understand what science is. Charles Darwin pointed out "How odd is it that anyone cannot see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of service." Science has been defined as a "method utilized in organised efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and correction through systematic observation". As you can see it incorporates the lawful, discoverable,and progressive Christian viewpoint.

-cont-

I'll discriminate between what is or isn't science to help clarify. Science is not Aristotle theorizing that the speed at which objects fall is proportionate to weight. If he took the time to drop rocks off Greek cliffs he would have discontinued that theory. Science is not Euclid merely describing portions of reality with geometry. Although albeit operating in a different sphere science is not consistent with Epicurus's idea that God is not omnipotent but rather must fulfil Epicurus's requirements. Epicurus's God must be a God of random intervention to suit Epicurus rather than an orderly God. By analogy, Epicurus might not like gravity because it can hurt people. Epicurus would reason that if God exists then gravity would be abolished or at least God would stop people falling. By constrast the Christian viewpoint is that God exists and is orderly so we can work out why gravity exists with theory and observation. Science is not the alchemy of China, Islam, India, Greece and Rome. By contrast science is the chemistry that developed from alchemy in Christian Europe. Science is not the astrology of many ancient societies but is the astronomy that developed in Christian Europe.

Co-author of Principia Mathematica Alfred Whitehead noted that science arose in Europe because of the "faith in the possibility of science...derivative from medieval theology." Indeed 16th Century scientific genius Rene Descartes explained his search for natural laws on the basis of God's perfection thus meaning that God "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible" subject to rare miracles.

Hopefully you now understand how Christianity generated science even if science's success has enabled it to infiltrate all belief systems even ironically atheism. To Christians God is a conscious rational being of unlimited power who cares about humans and has created an orderly rational system including moral codes and responsibilities. We are left with natural moral and physical laws. Science is our tool for discovering the latter.

“What you probably should ask yourself is why the pop culture powers haven't revealed something as important as the origins of science but that is of course up to you.”
Firstly, may I say how little I enjoy the patronising tone you employ in your posts. Let’s just stick to the argument, and I’ll take it as read that you think I’m dense but you rather admire yourself.

And why “the pop culture powers,” by the way? Do you think there’s two systems, Christianity and pop culture?

“In the mushroom situation foistered upon us the natural assumption is that science came after Christianity as some type of substitute. That is wrong.”
Obviously, as an atheist, I fully agree, and fight against those who regard Christianity and science as competing theories. And as I said earlier, I agree science arose in Christan Europe.

“Hopefully this will explain the apparent anomaly of how Europe, which arose from barbarism and the rubble of Rome, created science and that the birth of science in Christian Europe is no mere coincidence.”
To reveal the ending, no, it didn’t. But again you’ve set up a false dichotomy. Are you suggesting that either science is a product of Christianity or that it’s appearance in Christian culture is coincidence? Can you see no third path?

“Firstly you need to understand the Christian concept of God…”
All you seem to do here is define god to fit neatly into the definition of science you’re about to give. Clearly, as an atheist, I believe that the universe is observable because it exists, not because god made it so. Empiricism is more ancient than Christianity. And cultures prior to Christianity celebrated reason — reasoning is a human trait with which Christianity has had a love/hate relationship. So, in sum, I understand that *you* believe this is the Christian concept of god – though I have heard many other, entirely different, definitive Christian conceptions of god, including ones which are profoundly anti-science – but I don’t believe *in* that concept of god.

Cont...

cont...

“Next you need to understand what science is.”
Lordy be, how you love to patronise. Anyway, I agree with your definition.

“As you can see it incorporates the lawful, discoverable,and progressive Christian viewpoint.”
I see nothing of the sort. How do you imagine you’ve proved science “incorporates” a Christian viewpoint. All you seem to be linking some key scientific words that so conveniently popped up in your definition of Christianity — observation, progress, reason. (While torturing the natural subject-verb-object pattern of a nicely delivered sentence, I might add.)

“Hopefully you now understand how Christianity generated science even if science's success has enabled it to infiltrate all belief systems even ironically atheism.”
It’s not ironic. Science sits with other “belief systems” because, while it certainly did arise in Christian Europe, and while the ideas and culture of Christian Europe helped shape and form it, it was not “born out” of Christianity. In fact, the relationship between Christianity and science, and Christianity and the Enlightenment, has not been easy. But Science can sit with belief systems, and can do so because it sits above them — it doesn’t seek to answer the same questions, it values observation over faith.

So I'm afraid you haven't QEDed me with that explanation.