Myth:

The Roman Empire falls. Europe, in the grip of anti-scientific Christianity, lapses into the dark ages. Scientific and technological progress in Europe ceases. Compared to its Muslim neighbours or the Chinese Europe is a dark, barbaric continent.

Then Europeans recover the lost Greek learning from the Muslims. The Renaissance! Modern science! Progress!

Reality.

The so-called 'dark ages' were a time of immense scientific and technological progress in Europe. During this period we have the first appearance of blast furnaces. Better ploughs are developed. Europeans learn, literally, how to harness horsepower. Better spinning and weaving machines are introduced revolutionising the production of textiles. The first harbour cranes make their appearance. Iron horseshoes revolutionise transport.

Also uring the 'dark ages' Europeans build the INFRASTRUCTURE of the knowledge economy. A dense network of well-funded universities is established. Academics are well-paid and enjoy immense privileges. Modern theoretical physics gets its start at the University of Paris. By the time the ancient Greek texts are recovered Europeans have far outstripped Greek science.

The cases of Bruno and Galileo notwithstanding, on the whole the Catholic Church supports science and technology. It is precisely during the 'dark ages' that Europe surged ahead in science.

The reality is well documented in Rodeny Stark's new book, 'For the Glory of God'. With a few exceptions the history in it is not controversial among professionals. If Stark had stopped there I would have regarded his book as interesting but unexceptional.

Stark, however, goes further. He asserts that it is because Christianity teaches the existence of a 'law abiding' God that science could ONLY flourish in Europe. It could not flower in Dar-ul-Islam because Allah is depicted as a capricious deity while it sputtered out in China precisely because their elite did not believe in any God.

Perhaps I am blinded by my disdain for religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, but I cannot see it that way.

Yet I cannot explain why Europe alone surged so far ahead in science and technology.

Any thoughts?

A common theory is climate.

Surviving in cold regions, where food is scarce and hard to cultivate, requires more innovation than subsisting in warm, fertile climates.

You'll note that Christianity brought the Middle East precisely zero advancements in technology. It's likely that Europeans, having evolved to become innovators, would have thrived regardless of the dominant religion.

A few more points I could not make within the 350 word limit of my original post.

Popular myth has it that Copernicus was an isolated Catholic prelate who came up with the idea of a heliocentric system out of the blue. This is false. Copernicus attended some of the best universities in Europe. He would have heard of the work of Jean Buridan and Oresme who speculated that, rather than the heavens orbiting the Earth, it was the Earth that spun on its axis. (See PLANETS, STARS & ORBS: The Medieval Cosmos 1200-1687 pp 642 – 643)

Copernicus took the next step. Like most scientists he built on the work of his predecessors.

It was not initially the Catholic Church but the Protestants who objected. Here is what Martin Luther had to say:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, …However, as Holy Scripture* tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

*Luther was referring to Joshua 10:10-15

Amazingly the Catholic Church permitted dissection of human bodies – something neither Islam nor Judaism would have countenanced. This led to an explosion in medical knowledge. The myth that the great anatomist, Vesalius, was taking his life into his hands by performing dissections is false.

Finally, by the time Columbus set sale in 1492 no educated person, and certainly no senior prelate, believed the Earth was flat. The argument was about the size of the Earth, not its rotundity. Columbus' critics believed he could not carry sufficient supplies to reach India or Japan and that he and his crew would perish.

Columbus' critics were right. But Columbus lucked out and discovered America.

I could go on dispelling myths but again I am up against my 350 word limit.

There were no 'Dark Ages'.

On the whole the Catholic Church as not anti-science.

However I would not go so far as to say Catholicism gave birth to modern science. But maybe I am not seeing things clearly.

Steven,

My understanding - admittedly from more popularised accounts - is that the Dark Ages were associated with Emperor Charlamagne and his support of the clandestine monasteries around Europe. Maybe it was they who were actually in the dark while others were off doing some enlightened stuff? It's the first I've heard of this, but nothing would surprise me.

The other popular story is that the Muslims in Spain were responsible for innovations like the development of mathematics, the invention of latitude and longitude, the microscope and others. Where does this fit into the scientific landscape of the time?

Hi RobP

Round about the year 1000 AD various people started experimenting with curved glass as a reading aid. There is no known single inventor.

The manufacture of the first wearable spectacles is usually credited to Salvino d'Armate. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvino_D%27Armate

The first known attempt at a microscope appears to have been a father and son team, Sacharias and Hans Janssen.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacharias_Jansen

A competing claimant for inventor of the microscope is Hans Lippershey. He is usually credited with the invention of the telescope. See:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/342926/Hans-Lippershey

Eratosthenes is generally credited with being the first person to propose the use of latitude and longitude back in the 3rd century BC. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

No one person developed mathematics. Al-Khwarizmi is sometimes credited with the invention of algebra. However his magnum opus is mainly an extension of the work of Diophantus. See:

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Al-Khwarizmi.html

Notably Al-Khwarizmi was among the first algebraists to use the Hindu numbering system with the zero. That's the decimal system we use to this day.

Charlmagne was especially enlightened when it came to scientific innovation. He established schools for the teaching of mathematics and grammar.

Sancho,

Maybe it was the weather. However scientific innovation also flourished in parts of Europe that have a mild climate such as Italy and most of France. On the other hand the harsh climates of Central Asia and parts of North America do not seem to have engendered any scientific innovation.

The European surge in science and technology only gathered momentum in the 8th Century AD by which time the Middle-East was firmly under Muslim control.

On the other hand there was a pre-Islamic and pre-Christian history of scientific enquiry in parts of the Middle-East. The Great Library in Alexandria was the greatest institute of learning of antiquity until it was destroyed by Christians. The Babylonians seem to have invented observational astronomy. The Hebrew calendar is actually the Babylonian calendar.

Pre-European science reached its zenith in Alexandria which has a mild climate.

Hmm. Tough one. A few ideas:

Innovation begets innovation perhaps? A spark causes a conflagration which dies out unless fanned by winds of competition?

Perhaps it was the wider variety of peoples and cultures all crammed into the one continent. Although the Chinese aren't the monolithic culture they are often assumed to be, the various cultures around there tended to come from people who cultivated herds or crops. There wasn't quite the urban density which led to people adopting a more mercantile lifestyle.

Probably a combination of a multitude of factors.

Methinks there's a bit of revisionist history happening here.

The Dark ages preceded the Renaissance by quite a while and during that time, all knowledge was retained by the Church and was pretty much kept to itself.

The Dark Ages was a stagnant 500 years of ignorance and religious suppression in the West where not much was achieved in any field.

Most people may not be aware that as well as the general population, many of those monks who laboriously copied and illuminated the Bible were in fact illiterate.

Knowledge was power and not something to be shared.

A hundred years before the "official start" of the Dark Ages, pagans were being persecuted, tortured and slaughtered in Christian death camps in Skythopolis, Syria and their temples were being torn down or converted into brothels and stables. Not a pleasant time for anybody.

the truth of histry isnt to be found in words...words have allways been the domain of pr...propaganda...that being said once cheap paper from hemp was found...the restriction of the word was lesson-ed...finally we could share ideas in word..and build on others thoughts

pre this the domain of the word was restricted to those with the ability to collect it...think of missionmaries finduing new people with new inventions...like china etc..with its wood printing blocks..or its gun powder...cannon..venetian glass..algebra..porcelain..silk..hemp

the church during the long dark age's ruthlessly tried to suppres knowing...but by the same token..taught the elites..hold records..provide a elitist knowledge base..from which education/charity/and..yes war..medicinal-malfeasance/racial/religious..oppression too..expanded

its not good ..to live in the past...as much as its..not best..to fixate exclusivly..on the future...to the exclusion of the present...

currently we are under massive ..instant..censorship...but little realise it..in the wealth of our enjoined past recordings/writings/red herrings/faulse flags/black swan events..

we are..allowed..to acces..butt crumbs..of the rich bw-itccches tables..yet its still a feast

Wobbles,

I find it difficult to accept "a stagnant 500 years of ignorance … in the West where not much was achieved in any field." The fact is quite a bit was achieved in Europe. To name but two that I know of:

Bede (673-735) detects the precession of the equinoxes and links the tides to the phases of the moon.

John Philoponus (490-570) develops the theory of impressed force to explain why objects such as arrows keep moving after they have been given a shove. This overturns Aristotle's physics and leads eventually to Newton's laws of motion.

Both of these are, for the time, PARADIGM BREAKING insights rather than mere extensions of previous knowledge.

The problem with dismissing Stark's thesis out of hand is this. Few can argue that by the 12th Century Europe was the global leader in science and technology. Such leadership does not, however, spring out of the blue. It is only possible if there is an established culture of scientific enquiry and the INFRASTRUCTURE to sustain it. That culture must have been nurtured during the so-called 'dark ages'. And the infrastructure must have been built over the same period.

As Stark point out, the infrastructure of Europe's knowledge economy could not have been built without generous funding from the Catholic Church.

Perhaps Wobbles we are both blinded by our antipathy towards the Catholic Church.

As for the persecution of pagans, etc, that shows the Catholic Church was a brutal imperial power. It is not germane to the issue of whether they nurtured a scientific culture and infrastructure in Europe.

The contrast with Dar-ul-Islam is stark. Islam conquered a region with an EXISTING culture and infrastructure of science. During the early period (700 – 1000) Muslim scholars easily outshone European ones. Then science in Dar-ul-Islam died a slow death. The so-called "golden age of Muslim science" seems to have been the tail end of the PRE-EXISTING SCIENTIFIC CULTURE that Islam allowed to wither on the vine.

I've read somewhere that scientific and intellectual development seems to be associated with countries that have four seasons as opposed to just a wet and dry season. This could make sense, as in hot climates it's just too uncomfortable to try and study; all you are thinking about is a change in the weather.

Maybe the inspiration comes from passing through a cold, dark winter where one can't do anything much but to think about things to spring and summer when the ideas that have brewed over winter burst forth and are implemented.

This is just one idea. I'm sure the reasons why human development has been more advanced in some parts of the world over others are quite complicated.

Steve,

Does Rodney Stark have peer reviewed journal articles? Key civilizational writers Toynbee, Gibbon, Quigley, Wells and Mc Neil would disagree with him. Comparative Western and Sino studies indicate that China grew its knowledge gradually from ancient times and did not experience any deep Dark Ages,whereas, when it is graphed, and it has been, there is a clear drop in measures of Western innovation (Jin). I have seen primary research on the topic.

When discussing this topic, it is usual to distiguish between technology,experiment and science, as Jin did.

Stone axes are techology, alchemy is experiment. Science requires the application of theory to practice: e.g., the steam engine or the discovery of Pluto. It is this esoteric front-end that tends to lead authors to cite the Greek method.

Several technologies were no doubt developed in the DA. Incidently, I am not saying the there was no progress, only that the progress was slower than in other periods in the Western path and slower than China.

If Stark is not distinguishing between technology, experience and science, that is problematic.

stevenlmeyer,
Thanks for calling our attention to Rodney Stark’s 2004 book, and especially for your fair posts here.

I think the simple answer to your last question is that one cannot “explain why”: One cannot objectively decide which historical contribution, influence, event, institution etc. was more important than others or even decisive. As I said on another thread, in distinction to problems in science, you cannot experiment by creating another historical development (in a laboratory) replacing this or that “precondition” - e.g. by injecting Greek philosophy into another culture unrelated to Christianity and Judaism - to see how necessary the precondition was.

We have Whitehead saying “Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology." (Science and the Modern World). Of course he was a Christian (although not mainstream, especially for his time), and there are atheist philosophers and historians who see it differently.

I myself prefer not so much a necessarily Christian points of view, but points of view presented by professionals of whatever world-view, even when I know that also in that case, their faith or “unfaith” will show through. Similarly, when reading about speculations related to problems with the anthropic principle: a professional speculation is for me more insightful (and - in distinction to the case of human history - I can demand that their faith or “unfaith” should not show through) than an unprofessional speculation trying to “prove” or “disprove” Divine cause and purpose.

I see that good old stevelmeyer's trying yet another tack in his relentless campaign to attack and discredit Islam beyond all other religions. Now he wants to deny - or at least minimise - the many positive contributions that Muslim scientists have made to global civilisation and knowledge in the past.

Next he'll find Jesus and be born again as a full-fledged fundamentalist Christian Islamophobe. That'd be more honest, in my opinion, than his current persona.

Hi Oliver,

Rodney Stark does have peer review journal articles. Here is a link to his website.

http://www.rodneystark.com/

Stark's definition of science parallels closely the one you give in your post. He does distinguish between science, technology and experience. If anything I would say he raises the bar a little too high. Strictly speaking, by his definition, the Chinese never had science.

While I appreciate the difference between science and technology, the two are inter-related. One does not invent blast furnaces, chain mail armour and the technology to manufacture cast iron canon by accident. Their development bespeaks a large "R&D" effort.

I should emphasise that the history Stark recounts is not controversial today. Most professional historians understand that the term "dark ages" was a bit of self-serving propaganda on the part of Enlightenment philosophers.

What Europeans did between about AD 700 and AD 1200 is to INSTITUTIONALISE science. By the 12th century Europe deployed a FULL TIME scientific and technical labour force that was unparalleled anywhere in the world. This was the basis of Europe's centuries' long scientific superiority and it happened during the so-called "dark ages".

However what is VERY controversial is Stark's claim that the Catholic Church played a central role in the development of European science. I personally find that hard to swallow. As a Jew I am no admirer of Christianity, Catholic or otherwise. At the same time I have to concede that Stark makes a case that is hard to rebut.

George,

Thank you for your kind words. You are right. In the end this is all speculation. It is possible that science would have developed in Europe even without Church support. It is also possible that science would have died in Dar-ul-Islam even if Islam had not been anti-science.

LOL CJ Morgan

When I embrace Christianity you will know I'm senile.

In the end the fact remains that Europe did build the infrastructure for a knowledge economy while in Dar-ul-Islam the existing infrastructure was destroyed.

There seems to be an aversion to giving credit where it's due mainly on the basis on the presence of Islam.

While the Muslim philosophy (at that time) was that "the blood of the poet is more valuable than the blood of the martyr" is was mainly the trading wealth of that empire that enabled them to save and study the remnants of the world's libraries and sponsor the city of Baghdad into an open centre for philosophy and learning.

I see no evidence of the equivalent in the Christian world during those 500 years. While Cordoba was thriving and lit by street lights at night, people were still living in huts along the Thames.

It was that accumulated and preserved knowledge (plus significant advances of their own) that kick-started the Renaissance a couple of centuries later.

Each civilisation builds on the efforts of previous ones and none stand completely alone.

While there may have been some random advances, they were not of the same order as elsewhere and the same claim made be made of the Stone Age, when man discovered fire.

stevenlmeyer,
>>It is possible that science would have developed in Europe even without Church support.<<
Strictly speaking, this is true, however, in my opinion, of not much more value than the statement “in the 20th century one could have made those scientific discoveries without understanding a word of English”.

Science does not need Church support, the same as e.g. physics does not depend on the language you express your theories and findings in. However, there was a long period in the development of Western thinking, when the Church was ubiquitous, and you needed its support for everything (including mental activities that later developed into modern science); the same with the English language in scientific publications of the 20th century. So I think Whitehead's observation is more than just unfounded speculation.

George,

Your post reflects a major plank in Stark's case. Given the nature of European society between AD 500 and AD 1200 it is difficult to see how this huge scientific effort could have proceeded without the ACTIVE co-operation of the Church.

Wobbles wrote,

"There seems to be an aversion to giving credit where it's due…"

Yes. And many people, myself included, are reluctant to give credit to the Catholic Church. But I'm beginning to think I was wrong.

In return I ask you to consider the possibility that you are wrong about a golden age of Islamic science.

Muslim historians are like Australian historians prior to +-1960. Until about 1960 Australia history started with European settlement. Likewise, for Muslim historians, the history of Dar-ul-Islam starts from the advent of Islam. If you want to make a devout Muslim very uncomfortable trying discussing the achievements of people in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa or present-day Turkey prior to their conquest by Islam.

Did you know that at the time of Muhammad the Arabian Peninsula had a trading and commercial culture that was arguably AHEAD OF ITS TIME? The Romans referred to Yemen as "Arabia Felicia" because of its wealth and sophistication.

You mention Cordoba? Cordoba receives so much attention because it was atypical. By then Europe already had MULTIPLE centres of learning.

Modern observational astronomy started in present-day Iraq 1500 years before Muhammad.

In assessing Islam you need to consider the riches it INHERITED when they conquered what became Dar-ul-Islam. They took over a region that was perhaps in the scientific forefront. 500 years later Dar-ul-Islam is a scientific and technological backwater while Europe has seized global leadership.

And Europe's technological leadership was NOT dependent on acquiring some ancient manuscripts that the Muslims preserved. By then Europe had already far surpassed the science contained in Aristotle's physics! The only document of some utility was the Almagest because of its ancient astronomical tables which enabled comparison with the skies as they appeared in the 12th century.

Muslim history today is like an Australian history written c1950.

Steve,

One reason why the Western world would have had difficulty transitioning from the late Roman Empire was that few people could speak Attic Greek, the language used by the classial intelligensia. Latins spoke, well, of course, Latin. :-) Vular Latin. The pace of growth in knowledge acquisition eased even before the DA.

I checked Toynbee and Quigley and unlike what I said above, they seem more inclined to assign stages through which civilizations develop over the external assignment of "Ages".

George's comment on the ubiquitous Church deserves recognition. The Church claimed dominion over Logos, not only Mythos. In the West, modern science happened with the Enlightenment and, proto-science with Copernicus, perhaps.

AS previously, stated one needs to discern between technology, experiment and science (true scientfic method).

I fully agree with two slight qualifications. Turn Right Then Left said something along the lines that it may have been one of a number of contributions and the issue of building on that which exists has been raised a few times.

To say that the Church midwifed science is one way of putting it. A stronger way (intended to piss off secular fundamentalists) might be that science is an artifact of the Church. The Church needed the knowledge base provided by the Greeks and preserved by the Persians. However birthing Science required the Christian perspective on the world (and of course setting up Universities didn't exactly harm the process). If the Jews had flourished in the same way and had access to the same knowledge and infrastructure I concede that they might have done the same thing based on a similar concept of God. The orderly Yahweh who set up the world and likes rules where everything is orderly with the rare miracle exception enables the birthing of a scientific approach. If your perspective creates an expectation that things are orderly and rule based then why wouldn't people want to discover the rules?

mjpb,

"The orderly Yahweh who set up the world and likes rules where everything is orderly with the rare miracle exception enables the birthing of a scientific approach."

Bibical Creation and intelligent Design provide models. More generally, Several religions have systematic creation stories, yet this is not scientific method. Genesis plays out more like executing a project management plan. The writings describe the plan's execution, like how an after-the-evident observer's recall of how the Sydney Habour Bridge was built.

Real Science was more evident in the Academies of th seventeenth century.

Karen Armstong will be launching a book soon which will discuss Logos and Mythos. Hopefully, she address the matter of what is Religion and what is Science.

In recent OLO, threads there have been comments on Natural Philosophy,as a mechanism for the religious to accept both god and science.

mjpb,

<< A stronger way (intended to piss off secular fundamentalists) might be that science is an artifact of the Church.>>

Secular fundamentalists, eh?

Who are these people who believe in a strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the idea of the separation of church and state, and why would they be “pissed off” with that suggestion?

<<...birthing Science required the Christian perspective on the world (and of course setting up Universities didn't exactly harm the process).>>

”Required”?

And what is your proof that science could not have come about in any other way?

<<The orderly Yahweh who set up the world and likes rules where everything is orderly with the rare miracle exception enables the birthing of a scientific approach.>>

Oh, so now it’s just “enabled”?

<<If your perspective creates an expectation that things are orderly and rule based then why wouldn't people want to discover the rules?>>

Okay, so before it HAD to be a "Christian perspective", but now it’s just any perspective that creates an expectation that things are orderly and rule based.

I do believe you’ve just discredited your own argument, mjpb.

AJ Philips,
If you do not like mjpb’s rewording of Whitehead‘s observation that “Faith in the possibility of science ... is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology", I suggest you read e.g. Whitehead’s original argument. mjpb and I are not the only ones who agrees with him.

Let me repeat, you cannot prove or disprove this kind of historical insight, since there are no other civilisations that would have reached our level of scientific sophistication after having also passed, or without having passed, through a “totalitarian” Christian (or similar) period in their development. The situation will be different if/when we encounter extraterrestrial civilisations.

George,

<<If you do not like mjpb’s rewording of Whitehead‘s observation that “Faith in the possibility of science ... is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology">>

Where did I say I had a problem with that?

I don’t, because it is largely meaningless as anything other than an observation or a passing comment. I would, however, have a problem with it if someone were to use it as proof for God or Creationism.

What I had a problem with, was that mjpb asserted that the “birthing [of] Science required the Christian perspective on the world”, and you have helped to strengthen my case...

<<Let me repeat, you cannot prove or disprove this kind of historical insight, since there are no other civilisations that would have reached our level of scientific sophistication after having also passed, or without having passed, through a “totalitarian” Christian (or similar) period in their development.>>

Exactly, George!

Which is why mjpb’s assertion that the “birthing [of] Science required the Christian perspective on the world”, was so ridiculous. How could he/she know without repeating many variations of history? Not to mention the fact that mjpb is making the wild assertion that science couldn’t have possibly come about in another way.

How can anyone possibly know that?

But you’ve missed my other point, and that point being that mjpb discredited his/her own case for his/her assertion that the “birthing [of] Science required the Christian perspective on the world”, by inadvertantly conceding that .

I didn’t need to say anything, mbpj did the work for me.

Hang on... I just had a feeling of Déjà vu. Haven’t we been through this before?

Oh yes, we have...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#105409
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#105657

And just as it did now, your argument back then strengthened mine.

AJ Philips,
If your long line by line criticism of mjpb did not imply a criticism of Whitehead’s position, then I agree, we have no bone of contention on these matters, and I apologise for misreading you. Reading again mjpb’s post I can see only one word - “required” - that is not implicit in the quote from Whitehead (except for the unnecessary assault at atheists). However, if you agree with my second paragraph, then the argument against (or for) the use of that word is not that strong either.

Hi AJ Phillips,

"Secular fundamentalists, eh?

Who are these people who believe ...and why would they be “pissed off” with that suggestion?"

They are hanging around with the homophobics who fear sameness and most of the Christian fundamentalists who just get the description as a pejorative description which doesn't literally apply. A secular fundamentalist like Dawkins would be pissed off because they would hate the idea that Christianity might have produced anything positive.

”Required”?

You get back to that one.

"And what is your proof ...?"

There is none. It was an opinion that no other religion at the time was either in a position or had a perspective which would allow it. I haven't proved anything. But I believe that Stark, George, and StevenlMeyer have a point.I was explaining why I believed it made sense and why I agree.

<<The orderly Yahweh ...enables the birthing of a scientific approach.>>

"Oh, so now it’s just “enabled”?"

If something is required it would certainly enable.(?) That does raise an interesting point. Was it necessary to have the relevant perspective or did it just help? At that time in history it still looks like it would have been necessary. A few civilisations came so close sometimes for a long time but never birthed it. It sure looks like that was needed. Do you have any reason to think that another civilisation would have broken through? If so why didn't any? Greek knowledge had been passed around but in no other religious system had it had that result.

"Okay, so before it HAD to be a "Christian perspective", but now it’s just any perspective that creates an expectation that things are orderly and rule based."

Yes to both. At the time it had to be the Christian perspective. I believe only Christians and Jews had that perspective at the time and Jews weren't in the position to do it. They didn't have the knowledge needed to build on.

"I do believe you’ve just discredited your own argument, mjpb."

I do believe you are being overly literal and pedantic for sport.

The contribution of the Greeks to knowledge was not merely practical, it was also their approach to analysis. To the Greeks, Dialogue was important, for example. So if I say, for example, Simplicus (representing the Pope) debates another and the Simplicus looses, its still a fair discourse. The Church of Olde would not allow this. Just ask Galileo and that's centuries after the DA.

Were one to seek the roots of Englightenment, it would be found in the popular reation to Feudal Society to Monarchy and the Church, ultimately fueling individualism. Freeing people from Kings and Popes allowed idenpendent thought. Market capitalism, industrialisation and
entrepreneurism produced surpluses, so the Enlightenment could be put into practice, to benefit of Science and Humankind.

Apart from basis organizational models that can be found in the stories of most civilizations, before Newton we have very little true Science. Techonlogy and Experiment, perhaps, but not Science. [Copernicus and Galileo were not quite there.]

George,

There’s no need to apologise, and yes, I specifically had a problem with the word “required”.

mjpb,

My point about “Secular fundamentalists” is that there is no such thing as a “Secular fundamentalist”. If you meant “Atheist fundamentalist”, then that’s even worse, because there is no doctrine for atheists to strictly adhere to the literal interpretation of.

<<A secular fundamentalist like Dawkins would be pissed off because they would hate the idea that Christianity might have produced anything positive.>>

You’re misrepresenting Dawkins. I’ve heard him in an interview say that he acknowledges the positives that religion has produced.

The important thing to remember though is that that doesn’t saying anything about the truth of religious claims, nor does it mean that any of those positives couldn’t have come about by some other means.

<<If something is required it would certainly enable.>>

I know.

My point was that you went from “required” to a mere “enabled”.

<<At that time in history it still looks like it would have been necessary. >>

Well, it might have sped things up a bit.

<<Do you have any reason to think that another civilisation would have broken through?>>

You’re thinking here is too narrow, mjpb. You’re only considering the already existing civilisations in our already known history.

Statistically speaking, the chances that we would have NEVER started studying what we now refer to as “science”, is incomprehensibly (and probably infinitesimally) small when you think of all the events that had to occur throughout history for you to be born. It’s beyond what our minds can grasp, but it gives you an idea of how silly it is to suggest that science would never have come about without Christianity. In fact, one could argue that it was inevitable with or without religion.

<<I do believe you are being overly literal and pedantic for sport.>>

Words are important, and if we are to have a productive discussion and understand each other correctly, then we need to be careful with the wording we choose.

Dawkins acknowledges that his position is fallible in the God Delusion – hardly doctrinaire.

I tried to find Rodney Stark on the History of Science Society’s 2008 Bibliography Index – nothing. Also, no Rodney Stark on the university databases, I tried.

Kepler, centuries after the DA applied early science, computing the orbit of Earth, as if he were on Mars. Kepler’s Third Law states:
“The squares of the periods of any two planets are proportion to the cubes of the distances from the Sun.”

This is theory which can be applied and tested on planets that unknown to Kepler. The Church of the Dark Ages didn’t think like this. Even in Kelper’s time, the notion of elliptical orbit stood opposed the Catholic Logos, which stated orbits must be true circles. On issues of dogma, the Church was like a dog with a bone or a Sells with a trinity, no debate is entered into. As I have mentioned on other threads, Vatican astronomers would not look through Galileo’s telescope.

p.s. Kepler, along with his fellow Lutherans, had to escape Catholic persecution.

Strangely, a more militant and secular view focuses on the ‘illegitimate’ birth of science with Christianity becoming its ‘whipping boy’. Supposed warfare is seen to exist between science and religion, bringing to the fore, for example, such episodes as the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" where agnostic lawyer for the defense, Clarence Darrow quite rightly embarrasses William Jennings Bryan. Bryan, who had transformed himself into some "sort of Fundamentalist Pope" ( H. L. Mencken},was the ‘front’ man presenting the Christian Fundamentalist view.

Yet despite this false dichotomy, modern science arose among avowedly Christian clerics, theologians, monks, and professors of medieval and renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries. One should therefore ask, if science gradually arose during the medieval and Renaissance periods and Christianity and science are now seen as totally incompatible, what has occured? After all, both Galileo and Copernicus maintained the sun was at the center of the solar system, not the earth - they were neither skeptics or unbelievers. The remarkable truth (and uncomfortable for some) is that the world view of Christianity was absolutely necessary for the rise of modern science.

A direct tie between Christian metaphysics, its rejections of various classical Greek philosophical conceptions, and the birth of a self-sustaining science is able to be seen. A historiography of science needs to honestly face the problem as to why three great ancient cultures (China, India, and Egypt) all display, independently of one another,a similar pattern regarding science i.e., the stillbirth of science in each of them in spite of the availability of talents, social organization, and peace, which are after all, the standard explanatory devices furnished by all-knowing sociologies of science on which that historiography relies.

If science is to exist, explanations of natural phenomena must avoid a priori of pseudo-scientific"explanations" that really do not describe the causes,such as astrology. A pantheistic view hinders science. It is also hindered if the reality of the basic orderliness of the universe ("the external real world")is denied. We will not investigate carefully what is considered not to really exist,or that which will be changed at whim by the God(s),or nature herself.