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.