IC wrote: Well, it certainly puts the lie to the idea that Christianity was some sort of stifling force that made it hard for science to emerge. Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all. And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism: namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles, and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world. Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism, which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.
Typical I think of IC, and the ideas are more or less *inevitable* given his orientation, yet I have a strong sense that he still needs to be straightened out. He will accept none of this however . . .
It is true, nevertheless, that the European University is a Christian achievement. Of that there is no doubt. But it does not seem possible to say, and to be accurate, that the Church and churchmen, did not oppose scientific investigation. Given the stakes, it is inevitable that the Church attempt to impede strict science investigation and impose restraints. I suppose this was because churchmen sensed that were the intellect of man to break free from the controlling and directing influence of the Church that this would amount, in essence, to the intellect's penetration of the Devil's Kingdom. Quite similar, conceptually, to the notion that eating from the tree of knowledge would result in catastrophe.
Was the Church and Jewish and Christian ideology necessary to determine that the cosmos was decipherable rationally, that it could be analyzed through mathematical models? Come now. That is plainly false. These predicates had been established long before. But if the question is: OK, but why did not some other culture begin the processes of inquiry that led to the exaltation of *science method* and, as a result, to a scientific revolution -- I am frankly uncertain that this question has been answered by anyone. The influence of Christian men was obviously crucial however. But I have a strong feeling that one must turn to questions of *will*: that is, people turned to new methods of grasping and moulding the world, and turned away from merely involving themselves in grand theoretical models (like the Schoolmen). But the rigor of the Scholastic methods must certainly have contributed their part, no?
[Without thus-and-such] "there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all."
That, certainly, is a stretch. Again, those who read you Immanuel know that you are a Christian Zealot and that despite all evidence you believe a dozen unbelievable things. And naturally your zealousness extends to making unsupportable statements which amount to *Jesus Christ initiated the scientific revolution*. That is, in fact, what you believe. And you also believe that without Jesus Christ the world and its people will be *lost* and everything discovered and valuable will also be lost. This is a primary Christian tenet: If you abandon Jesus Christ He will abandon you (let you fall into darkness and dismay).
Here, you reveal the essential, operative predicate:
namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles
Always the Preacher, always dealing in apologetics, it does not surprise me that you say this and would, it seems, associate it with Christian rationalism when Greek rationalism would work just as well. And indeed a rationalism that was largely *atheistic* in that particular Greek sense.
and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world
If that is so, He must be seen as having therefore undermined children's belief in silly, nonsense fables and mythologies! It is a reasoning man, dealing with reasonable and articulated premises, that determines that the *Christian Story* of Bible literalism is not true, but
false. Sorry, Old Boy!
Now, we know things about our world that do not favor a blind, irrational, religious stance nor *faith in Scripture*.
Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism, which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.
Since Aristotle, among others, was a pagan, and he believed in a Prime Mover, your statement is undermined. While I understand the point you want to make, and the viewpoint you are wedded to, I simply do not think it is correct. It is a faith-assertion that contains a faith-derived a priori conclusion.
You are again stuck on the idea -- a problem idea I admit -- that it is very hard to explain an unfolded Universe of such alarming Order if one can only conceive of what you mean by *random forces*. It does follow that a random, chaotic Universe will only continue in that vein.
But how one defines the underlying order, the ordering which inevitably comes about, might help in defining an abstract divinity that, somehow, stands behind everything. But it does not explain the Christian god-concept! As I have said a few times, the *god* that we'd be forced to define if the Universe is the model, would be an utterly weird god. Your trick is to say *No! God is absolutely perfect! What happened is that man's disobedience contaminated the entire Creation! It is man's fault!"
You see? You cannot really *see* the Universe as it
really is. As it was, as it will be tomorrow, and will continue to be so for all eternity. And the *god* that created
that world -- is in so many senses incommensurate with the handiwork of that god.
That's the biggest illogical conclusion ever: Order exists, natural laws exist, and everyone exists, therefore I don't believe in God." That's a triumph of illogic, to argue from some of the best evidence for, and to arrive at against.