From: bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messanic
Organization: Forecast Systems Labs, NOAA, Boulder, CO USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:37:28 GMT

In article <eharbin.725572840@convex.convex.com> eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>
>There were of course interesting approaches to the sciences in Arab countries,
>classical Greece, India, and China.

Christian Europe was a den of barbarians less than a millenium ago, totally
ignorant of it's 'own' history (I use quotes since there isn't the nice
continuity with Greco-Roman culture that Christians like to assume) and
was completely blown away by the Greek literature preserved by the Arabs...

... and he has the balls to call this an "interesting approach."

Christian hubris rides to the rescue once again!

>But the critical combination of
>mathematics and observation that we think of as modern science came to life
>in the cathedral schools of Paris, Bologna, and Cambridge. 

Excuse me, but the early universities spent all of their time debating the
number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin.

_Modern_ science didn't begin until well after the Protestant Reformation, 
although a few individuals did follow a semi-modern approach prior to that.
(I say "semi-modern" since they could not communicate with their peers).

The Church rewarded their efforts with death or imprisonment.

Bruno was burned at the stake.

Galileo was imprisoned.

Copernicus did not publish his results until after his death out of
fear for his safety.

Need I continue?

BTW, the modern Christian churches continue to draw sharp lines around
"acceptable" research.  Didn't the Vatican recently pronounce genetic
engineering a sin?  (And we can never forget the Creation Science
research groups, much as we would like to :-)

>Most Christians have trouble with none of the above. What Christianity
>had to contribute was a metaphysics which accepted simultaneously immanence
>and transcendence: nature was a created good in which truths may be found
>which reflect a transcendent order. 

Actually, this is entire correct.  However modern science has rejected
Aristolean science (which was preserved by the Arabs after Christian
Europe reverted to barbarism).

Instead, modern scientists fall into two camps.  The first camp finds
it remarkable that the universe can be described so logically but doesn't
really think about it.  The second camp believes that the universe fits
our nice mathematical models in large part because that was the model
we tried to fit the universe into -- it's purely a "selection" effect.
(That _doesn't_ mean that this group accepts every alternate scheme
that pops up).  This is still visible in quantum mechanics, where there
are several different (but equivalent) ways of representing analogous
concepts.

BTW, this "metaphysical science" means that you don't have to bother
performing research.  You ask yourself "How many teeth should a horse
have?" and logically derive the answer from Universal Truths.  Actually
finding a horse and looking into his mouth is unthinkable -- it would
reject the Light of Divine Reason for the secular world.

>- why _did_ Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, [long
>list follows] come from a Christian environment, if that environment were
>not in some way friendly to their development?

Gee, you just proved the superiority of men and caucasians as well!

Of course, I could ask if Christianity is so great why didn't Christians
invent paper?  Or gunpowder?  Or the civil service exam (== hire qualified
people instead of people with family connections).


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic