Resolved; Christianity was a positive influence in the development of modern science

Defence of Opening Arguments 1) The negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science. The argument I have made on the negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science still stands, and I will refute my opponents claims. In my opening argument, I made the claim that Pro was simply cherry picking scientists who happened to follow Christianity. Pro did not respond to this, and judging by the first part of the response did not understand this. He then went on to argue that the words of the Pope were not a hindrance to the development of science. This is incorrect. In the source I provided, the Pope stated that science must accept that there is a correspondence between a spirit and rational structure in nature. [1] This statement places the constraint of a supernatural spirit onto science, which negatively effects its development. Science should be free of such constraints, and by imparting this ideology onto Christianity, the Pope promotes the negative relationship. To correct the Pro, who stated that the Pope said “science presupposes a rational intelligible nature”, the Pope actually stated that science rejects this rationally intelligible nature. For him to refute this(as you claimed that “many Christians reject both of his claims”) would contradict with his OWN third argument that Christian beliefs promote a rationally intelligible universe. Secondly, Pro argued that I must show Christians were not open to natural causes for such diseases. Pro does not refute that Christians could have believed that diseases were caused by demons. This fact is acknowledged by his own source. [2] If this is a fact, then it is safe to assume that a majority of Christian doctors would have held the same beliefs, and would have treated the patient in accordance with this belief, as was stated in my bubonic plague example [3]. As the Pro stated, there were most likely doctors who treated illness with natural causes in mind. But if these doctors believed in Christianity, and their Christian beliefs influenced their scientific practices, then they would have treated the causes as demonic possession. If this was not the case, Christianity wouldn’t have had an influence on the development of scientific medicine, hence holding my argument as valid. 2) Christianity follows on from scientific development The Pro is incorrect in his interpretation of my words, which I will elaborate on. The most obvious factor in a positive relationship between Christianity and the development of science would be scientific facts derived straight from Christian beliefs. Otherwise, Christian beliefs may have nothing to do with science. I argued that not a single scientific fact in history came from Christian beliefs. Pro stated that he is only arguing that Christianity supports the development of science. Supporting is a much weaker relationship. It is a lot harder to find a direct link between Christians who support the development of science and their beliefs. Hence Pro has degraded their argument for a positive relationship into a much weaker argument. To address the Pro’s claim that Christianity only supported science, I would like to raise that if Christianity was really supportive of science, they would have kept up with its development rather than retreating in the face of it, which the Pro has not opposed. I showed however that this was the case [4,5], and that Christianity did abandon their views only after scientific theories were well established. The core of Christianity consistently changed after the development of science. Christianity has only supported the sciences after the evidence had become so apparent that their support no longer had an effect on its development; science had already developed Hence, my original argument holds that Christianity simply followed on from scientific development, not only strengthening my argument for a negative relationship but also weakening the Pro’s already weak argument for a positive relationship. 3) General examples of a negative relationship I will cover the Pro’s two points briefly. Firstly, the Pro may be able to show that in this modern day Genesis is interpreted as poetry, however that does not prove that Genesis was not taken literally over the past two millennium. In fact, considering the New Testament(which excluded Genesis) was not in existence until the 4th century [6], 400 years were spent at least relying on this Christian belief rather than developing science. Secondly, since I already explained the Bubonic Plague case earlier in this round, so will not readdress it here. Response to Pro’s “improvements” I would like to cover the Pro’s fourth argument, round three in this section. Teachings of early Universities Pro claims that teachings in early, Christian funded Universities had a positive relationship on the development of science. However, at the stage of Christian funded universities, science was not taught. Instead, readings of two main set texts, Aristotle and the Bible, were debated. [7] It wasn’t until later on that further teachings were taught. The following subjects were available in the early, Christian founded universities: “Medicine, Civil and Canon Law or Theology” [8]. Only one of these which can be considered a science, which I have shown that in the medieval period, probably wasn’t true to the real science of medicine we know today. It wasn’t until Aristotle that science really started to develop. It just so happened, according to Pro’s source, that this was the time that universities were separated from church and state. [9] So in fact the early universities with Christian influence did not form a positive relationship to science, hence rendering Pro’s argument void. Theology lead to the development of science Pro’s argument that the study of theology caused the development of modern science is simply incorrect. This is shown in his own sources, specifically sources [10] and [11]. “Science in Theology” focuses on three examples, all centered on Roger Roseth’s thoughts. The first example attempts to make a weak case that mathematical infinite came from theology and God’s infinite, but the term infinite was not defined until the mathematical definition, making God irrelevant. The second was a thought experiment derived from mathematical limits. The author states that “the genre of the sophisma, then, was thus one of the analytical tools Roseth applied to the theoretical question at hand, and consequently the thought experiment from physics became part of the methodology in theology.” [10]. Pro’s second source states that Pythagoras’s ideas on science impacted on Christian thinking. It also states that Thomas Aquinas was responsible for Aristotle’s ideas; claimed to be greatly religious, to be absorbed into Christian thinking [11]. My opponents own sources conflict with his remark that Christian developments fertilised the seeds of modern science. In fact, it seems it was the opposite way around; science fertilised the seeds of Christian beliefs. This destroys my opponents improvement for a positive case. References (1) http://www.vatican.va... (2) Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, DW Amundsen – 1996 (3) ”How a mysterious disease laid low Europe’s masses” by Charles L. Mee jr. Smithsonian, pages 66-78.(4) KRETZMANN, NORMAN (01/09/1997). "Creation without Creationism". Midwest studies in philosophy , 21 (1), p. 118. (5) Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Michael Sharratt, p126-31 (6) http://en.wikipedia.org... (7) http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk... (8) http://jameshannam.com... (9) http://www.bede.org.uk... (10) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi... (11) http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk...