[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

So, "equality" and "liberty" are Enlightened counterparts to Christian values, but they are not Christian values. Similarly, most of the Greeks hated scientific study, so you needed a Christian context in order to have the bravery to think that the world might be valuable in the way that a few Greeks (Aristotle, Archimedes) had imagined, but the New Science went beyond Christianity's high humanism and tended to view the scientific endeavor as divine in its reach and knowledge.

May I ask John if you could transitionally enlighten a bit on how the New Science evolved away from its "Christian roots?" If you'll accept the request, in which one (or combo) of the Christian contexts would you be using: philosophical, scientific, social, cultural or historical development? And considering the history of science I need to be very clear what kind of science you would be talking about (if you choose so) when you say "New Science" - science of early civilization, early experimental science, early modern science or modern science?

AFAIA, the way our modern world is generally using the term ’science’ now - the ‘current science’ that we know today that is the modern and dominant naturalistic/empiric world view I currently know of it as Western Science and was 'born' from a scientific revolution in the second millennium out of a one millennium plus year old Christian dominant culture in Europe and even though Eastern Science contributed to Western Science, Western was scientifically far superior to Eastern in terms of historical development. So "science" connotates that expression for now.

Furthermore, allow me to further clarify my position so it could maybe help you gauge where I'm going with this.

It was the Christian world view, which pre-supposes an ordered creation based on Scripture, that led to the birth of the Scientific Revolution. Christians believed that when God created the world, He brought order out of the primordial chaos; and that if this were true, then it should be evident in the created order. Christians then began to look for order in the universe, and viola! - they found it. They found it in the laws of physics, thermodynamics, gravitation, biology, chemistry, etc. The universe is indeed governed by natural laws. And in the recent history of science we learn that men like Newton, Boyle, Keplar, Pascal, Maxwell, Faraaday were the greatest names of science. They loved the Lord. Yeah. They were "bible-believing" Creationists (the italics and quotes denote an equivocal meaning.) The founders of nearly discipline of science you can name was a "bible-believing" Christian. In Newton’s ‘Principia’ (it’s a little old flowery old-fashioned language):

“All sound and true philosophy (IOW, science) is founded on the appearances of things; and if these phenomena inevitably draw us, against our wills, to such principles as most clearly manifest to us the most excellent counsel and supreme dominion of the All-wise and Almighty Being, they are not therefore to be laid aside because some men may perhaps dislike them.”

Unfortunately, Isaac Newton's conception of God was more Deist than Christian. So he was far from being a "bible-believing creationist". Pierre-Simon Laplace, sometimes called the "French Newton," had this to say when Napoleon asked him where God fit into his theories of the universe: I did not need to make such an assumption. As you have pointed out, all of the scientists in the Scientific Revolution drew their influence from Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, and other Greeks. Indeed, Archimedes came pretty close to inventing calculus 800 years before Newton. In addition, they wouldn't have gotten quite as far without developments from Hindu and Arabic mathematicians, such as the current number system (try doing math in Roman Numerals sometime) and algebra.

Nevertheless, I think scientists were a little more courageous back then than they are today. IOW, even if our science leads us towards a conclusion we don’t like personally we dare not cast it aside because we don’t like it. Now contrast that quote right there with a modern day quote 1985, Richard Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker”, he said this: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having design and purpose.” Basically he says even though there’s an appearance of design or there’s an appearance of purpose he says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. But don't miss the titanic shift that’s happening in the history of science from the days of Isaac Newton to the days of Richard Dawkins. IOW, biologists must acknowledge that there’s an appearance of design in, say, a morpho butterfly. “It really LOOKS like it was designed. It really LOOKS like it’s got purpose. But it’s ALL an illusion. Nature’s really fooling you.” is what Dawkins is saying. And that’s what all the other evolutionists are telling us. That there’s a grand deception out there. Amazing! The times we live in today that people would say that, right?

Of course, we can flip the table on each other and say it's just the appearance of purpose, design, age, randomness, evidence, and vice versa. Nevertheless, the founding fathers of nearly every discipline of science were "bible-believing" creationists. Isn’t that interesting? You can go to the universities for decades and never hear that being taught. Amazing. Did science begin in Hindu, India? or Shanghai, China? Africa? or some other place? Where was Buddhism's Newton? Where was Hinduism's Boyle? Where was Islam's Galileo or Copernicus? It began in Europe where systematic science is where it got going and it was on the heels of the Reformation. Essentially it was an outbreak of Christianity in Europe and that’s where these men of science came out of. However, would none of this have become known if it were not for the Christian world view which prompted the search for order? Hence, the Renaissance...

Furthermore, in history we have one of the greatest contributors to science, Darwin's dubious religious views and Einstein's atheism.

edit: Oh my! That's a quite a bit of more typing than I intended. Still, you're not obligated but if you do any amount is fine and is greatly appreciated. It's open to anyone too.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Yes, I am a "collectivist," through and through.


I am accepting those failures on my own head, yes.


I think you have a sharper sense of the word 'culpable' than I'm necessarily using. Obviously you recognize that the situation of each individual now is to a significant extent irreducibly determined by forced that preceded his/her birth, but I'm assuming that you would want to make a very strong contrast between these kinds of effects and Moral Culpability. I'm not as big on that sharp distinction.

Okay, John. You admit the dangers/failures of collectivism, as the two basic objections to collectivism come from the ideas of liberal individualism, which are controversially related to egoism (selfishness.) I'm sure you know it. Following is an example of an atheist response to the concept of Original Sin (arguable

"Anyone who will hold ME accountable for the actions of someone thousands of years ago can stuff it."

I can see the correlation between this and what your view of the "fundamental Western ethic" is - "individual liberty," and its effects - extreme isolation (or in the broader biblical context - "sin,") and a need for a collectivist outlook. By "sin" I also mean separation from God, not a mere simple violation of a moral code or law.

May I ask if you could elucidate a bit on how, or if, psychological, ethical and rational egoism play their roles in this "individualistic" predicament? IOW, from this idea of "liberty," results in different kinds of egoistic individuals.

Let me know if I'm resurrecting an old topic.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

May I ask John if you could transitionally enlighten a bit on how the New Science evolved away from its "Christian roots?"

This isn't really the kind of space designed for that, and I certainly don't have the expertise to do it much justice. To be honest with you, there are a lot of different explanations of how and why the New Science formed as it did and I don't understand things nearly well enough. It's clear to me that the story of the Renaissance -- i.e., that we slumbered through the Dark Ages of dogmatic ignorance for centuries between the Greeks and the Renaissance -- is false, but I don't have a better story to explain the Renaissance.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

And considering the history of science I need to be very clear what kind of science you would be talking about (if you choose so) when you say "New Science" - science of early civilization, early experimental science, early modern science or modern science?

I'm talking about Newton, Galileo, Descartes, (Francis) Bacon, etc.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

AFAIA, the way our modern world is generally using the term ’science’ now - the ‘current science’ that we know today that is the modern and dominant naturalistic/empiric world view I currently know of it as Western Science and was 'born' from a scientific revolution in the second millennium out of a one millennium plus year old Christian dominant culture in Europe and even though Eastern Science contributed to Western Science, Western was scientifically far superior to Eastern in terms of historical development. So "science" connotates that expression for now.

The strongest two sources of influence are Greek and Islamic, easily. The Chinese, Hindus, and Egyptians may have also contributed very significantly.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Christians then began to look for order in the universe, and viola! - they found it. They found it in the laws of physics, thermodynamics, gravitation, biology, chemistry, etc. The universe is indeed governed by natural laws.

Certain worldviews contours are behind these conceptions that don't seem to me to have come through the Christian imagination. Atomism, mechanism, and the priority of abstract geometry were definitely central here. But when I look for the source I have trouble. Perhaps these developed in part as responses to problems developing within the Christian tradition. I don't see how they could come from only Muslim influence, even though I'm sure the Islamic thinkers were catalysts and major sources of inspiration.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Nevertheless, I think scientists were a little more courageous back then than they are today. IOW, even if our science leads us towards a conclusion we don’t like personally we dare not cast it aside because we don’t like it.

But there's a very significant counterbalance to this in that you can only draw a conclusion from the evidence that you have the resources to imagine. Members of the New Science converged in remarkable ways, but more recent scientific work has shown that none of that convergence was based purely on evidence because it turns out that it's all wrong, strictly speaking. E.g., Newton was right that stuff falls but relativity shows that his conception of gravity was way off.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

May I ask if you could elucidate a bit on how, or if, psychological, ethical and rational egoism play their roles in this "individualistic" predicament? IOW, from this idea of "liberty," results in different kinds of egoistic individuals.

The model for liberal societies is free individuals acting according to rational self-interest. I don't see what question you're asking beyond that, unfortunately.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This isn't really the kind of space designed for that, and I certainly don't have the expertise to do it much justice. To be honest with you, there are a lot of different explanations of how and why the New Science formed as it did and I don't understand things nearly well enough. It's clear to me that the story of the Renaissance -- i.e., that we slumbered through the Dark Ages of dogmatic ignorance for centuries between the Greeks and the Renaissance -- is false, but I don't have a better story to explain the Renaissance.

I understand. Certainly those people actually living and researching in the Renaissance would offer a different explanation ("Renaissance" -> "Rebirth" of the Antique.) Have you taken Western Philosophy? Because I'd like to hear this story if you don't mind.

[Thrash]

Didn't Augustine address this issue? Or,maybe he is just on my mind because he was stinkin hott!