Revisiting the Roadblock to Reason
by BradfordThe false faith of scientific reason was mentioned previously in another blog entry. The same article will be referenced again although Melanie's own website will be linked to instead and several paragraphs from the article will be quoted. From the article:
No less irrational is the overreach of science which, as London writes, has been hijacked by secular fundamentalists who want to supplant religion by asserting that only in science can truths be found.
The efforts are not explicit because overt attempts to link science to truth would undermine objectivity; a fundamental part of research. Those who use data to debunk or support extra-scientific claims must be more subtle.
Such ’scientism’ — as this overreach is termed — goes beyond the ability of science to explain the nature of the world around us and claims to tell us how life began. Yet the assumption that science provides a complete theory of knowledge is itself fundamentally unscientific.
Precisely. Knowledge is linked to test results. Results are tentative. They are also incomplete with respect to theories encompassing their interpretation. There is no point in testing if the answers are predetermined or artificially confined to a range of options.
Science generates more questions than it can answer. The more science unravels the mysteries of the world for us, the more mysterious it becomes. And, as the many scientists who are also religious believers demonstrate, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.
The gaps argument has an ugly step-sister which uses data to support metaphysical assertions beyond the reach of science. Dawkins belongs to this faction. For them there can be no gaps that are not already filled with predetermined outcomes concerning how data must be interpreted.
The dogma that science provides the answer to every question and so supplants religion has led to a junking of the moral codes deriving from Judaism and Christianity that underpin western society.
Witness atttempts to incorporate moral precepts within evolutionary explanations. Compose moral precepts to your liking and look for evidence that there is a biological basis for them or conversely a biological basis for a claim that opposing values are a consequence of false beliefs which enhanced survival.
This loss of cultural nerve has created an unwitting collusion between secular zealots and the Islamists who have declared war upon western civilisation, and who believe — correctly — that a secular west will be unable to resist them.
An unwitting but natural non-aggression pact.
Science, rationality and the pursuit of truth are intimately related to the religious traditions of the west. If those traditions are not defended from within against the threat from without, this will be how the west was lost.
Science itself was the offspring of western culture.
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I don't know that it's so unwitting for the so-called secular zealots. I think what we're observing is merely a shared goal, with each of the allied aggressors thinking they have the upper hand and will win over the other one in the end.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 2, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 am
Look. Trust what is trustworthy in your soul. Let the rest be damned. If the likes of Raevmo and Zachriel turn out to be right, well then, bless their poor little souls, let them. It won't matter anyway in the long run. But those of you who intuit otherwise, well, keep on keeping on. Maybe, interesting revelations are in store. Whatever the case, you imagine. You decide.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 3, 2008 @ 12:18 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Which position are you referring to? Please be specific.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 9:13 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Precisely not. Scientific knowledge is predicated on testing. But Phillips's contention is that there are other ways of knowing beyond science.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 9:26 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
No more irrational than any other age. Consider that "astrology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces (demons)" long predate the modern age.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 9:29 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
That means we don't have any scientific knowledge pertaining to universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents as that premise cannot be tested.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:16 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
That is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution predicts specific patterns that are consistent with observation. But that discussion would take us off-topic.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Of course there are others paths to knowledge. If that were not the case there would have been no knowledge acquired prior to the advent of science, a relatively recent event in history.
Her point was that a surge in interest in such things coincided with increased debunking of Judeo-Christian views.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Not true. Chemistry has its roots in Islamic alchemy (see here.
See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geber)Abu Musa J?bir ibn Hayy?n (Geber):
Also look at Ibn al-Haytham, the "father of modern optics", and originater of the scientific method, for a very early Muslim physicist.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 3, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Pixie, there were outstanding individuals outside western culture who made contributions in previous centuries. What was present in the west and lacking outside it was the institutionalization of an approach to the natural world we have come to identify as science. Knowledge was built on the work of predecessors because results were preserved and taught to posterity in the expectation that systematic advances in knowledge would take place.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 6:50 am
How about a link supporting your claim that this was first done in western culture?
With "the institutionalization of an approach to the natural world" do you mean universities and scientific societies are those institutes? Wiki on universities says:
Clearly Muslim science built on the work of predessors and the results were preserved, as was the case for the very early Islamic scientists I mentioned, given that that work is still honoured today. So that leaves you claiming that the early Islamic scientists did not expect "systematic advances in knowledge would take place". I cannot think why you might imagine that to be the case.
Another resource on early Islamic science here.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 4, 2008 @ 6:50 am
November 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Pixie:
Why not look at this from a larger perspective? Did the world of science arrive at its current state by building on the work of the medieval Islamic scholars you mentioned or Did Maxwell and Einstein build on the work of Newton, Faraday, Minkowski and others? Was the foundational knowledge Newton acquired sourced from within his own western culture or from without it? Was he influenced more by Galileo or by non-western individuals? Were the many great physicsts of the early 20th century, whose work laid the foundation for quantum theory, building on the work of Islamic or other non-western sources or on work sourced from within their own culture?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 10:52 am
November 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
LOL Pixie! I'm sure glad that atheism has made you as skeptical of Islam as it has Christianity!
I believe somebody said something about being open-minded to anything but Christianity and you argued against that, and even mentioned Islam in particular. Now you're willing to toss out anything remotely Christian in favor of Wikipedia articles sourced mostly from Muslim historical revisionists.
You've proven Melanie Phillips' point!
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 4, 2008 @ 11:28 am
November 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The Renaissance depended upon knowledge acquired from Islamic Civilization.
The western system of numeration was an import, including the concept of zero, along with significant advances in al-jabr, or algebra. Indian, Persian and Arabic influences profoundly influenced the development of mathematics in the west.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 11:56 am
November 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
No doubt. There is no intent to diss other cultures by citing the rise of science in the west. What you and others have cited on numerous occassions as methodology particular to science arose within western civilization did it not?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Looking back at the quotes in my earlier post, I would say that science in western culture is indeed founded upon early Islamic science. Geber is "considered by many to be the father of chemistry". To me, that reads like modern chemistry is founded on the work of Geber. "Ibn al-Haythem made significant improvements in optics, physical science, and the scientific method which influenced the development of science for over five hundred years after his death." Again, that makes it sound as though a lot of science is founded on the work of Ibn al-Haythem (whose portrait appears on the Wiki page for he scientific method by the way). Of course Galileo and Newton were important in science, but they were not there at the founding. I could see an argument that Islamic science was itself founded on ideas in Ancient Greece, but to claim modern science sprung from Christian Europe alone is somewhat short-sighted.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 4, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Pixie:
The last sentence is revealing and reinforces my view that Phillips is onto something. I spoke of western culture, not Christian Europe. Recognition of the vital groundwork layed by the ancient Greeks is a good reason for doing so. I don't have a problem with crediting non-westerners but given the ancient Greek seeds and the flowering of science in the west from Galileo through Einstein, the contention that science is a by-product of western civilization, albeit with influences from outside itself, is accurate. If you look at what happened within the Islamic world after those early influences the argument is strengthened.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I suspect you carefully picked the phese "western culture" to avoid directly saying "Christian Europe", which is why I specifically said the latter. It is just a wild stab in the dark, but I do wonder if just maybe this blog entry is another salvo in the culture war, and the side you are fighting for is Christianity (of some sort). Is it possible that the point of this post is to glorify the impact of Christianity on science (quietly ignoring the first fiftenn centuries of Christianity)?
Let us be clear what we are arguing, then. You originally said "Science itself was the offspring of western culture." You are talking about where science started. One thing we can be sure of is that it did not start with Galileo (or indeed in Galileo's time or his culture). That is merely when science started in Christian Europe.
A good case can be made for the scientific method being born is Islamic science with Ibn al-Haythem, but certainly a case can also be made that science started in the armchair philosophies of the ancient Greeks, pre-Christianity.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 4, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Actually Pixie, I was well aware of the considerable contributions made by the ancient Greeks before the birth of Christ. It's a matter of accuracy.
I don't have to ignore anything. Human history is a story of tragedies. The tragedies do not lessen when those involved are non-European. Europeans and Americans need to get over their guilt complexes.
You can place the starting line at ancient Greece if you prefer but with respect to both the Greeks and Islamic scholars their scientific impacts were stillborn. There is no continuity beyond promising origin points.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Pixie:
I can't believe anyone would still hold to this myth
Check this out
Christianity is uniquely the source of the systematic thought that became science.
Unlike religions like Islam that are focused on orthopraxy Christian salvation is contingent on what a person believes this “Christian quirk” makes the discovery of truth paramount.
The systematic search for truth that was perfected by the monks and scholastics in the middle ages became the scientific method.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
That's a gross overstatement. The Renaissance depended upon imported knowledge from the East, including mathematics, medicine, and methodology. Virtually every text of the period quotes extensively from Arabic sources. We can trace the centers of knowledge in Babylon, India, China, Egypt, Greece, Byzantium, Damascus. They all contributed at different periods of history.
Every civilization that happens to be at its apex insists that somehow it is unique.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
What do you think the following comment meant? In case you did not notice the phrase "medieval Islamic scholars you mentioned" was an acknowledgement of contributions. As I also pointed out there was no follow up within the Islamic world. Science outside the west was stillborn. No continuity. Don't bother with false allegations. I'm tiring of the dishonesty.
Did the world of science arrive at its current state by building on the work of the medieval Islamic scholars you mentioned or Did Maxwell and Einstein build on the work of Newton, Faraday, Minkowski and others?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
angryoldfatman:
I'm sorry about the delays AOFM. It's not the content of your posts. That's been demonstrated.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
That's just not true. Knowledge grew and then was adopted by others. When a civlization is just a memory, others pick up the torch and carry it forward.
Asked and answered.
The Renaissance depended upon knowledge acquired from Islamic Civilization. The western system of numeration was an import, including the concept of zero, along with significant advances in al-jabr, or algebra. Indian, Persian and Arabic influences profoundly influenced the development of mathematics in the west.
Simply put, without the concept of zero; without Babylon, India, Persia, Egypt; there is no Maxwell, Einstein, Newton, Faraday, Minkowski.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Right Zach. Those others lived in places like Germany, England, France Italy… You can enforce political correctness by fiat but you can't alter history.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
That's right. They took the knowledge passed down from Babylonians … Greeks … Arabs … the West. And each civilization extending human knowledge. And when a civilization has run its course, it wouldn't be correct to say it was stillborn, but that they had their day, they added to human knowledge and passed it on to others.
What numeral system do you use in your country, Bradford?
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Obfuscation is hard to fathom. The number system, the contributions of many great Greek thinkers, Indian, Perisan, Arabic influences- all furnished tools used centuries later in the west by scientists. Is this the politically incorrect statement?
There is much support for that claim. Many of the early western scientists were motivated by their religious views. Should we not say that because it does not sound diverse enough?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Zach, the examples you have been citing are advances and contributions to knowledge. Most of them were also not derived experimentally. Phillips acknowledges that non-scientific forms of knowledge are valid. Neither she nor I have contended that other cultures have not added to our knowledge. So what's with the raw nerve?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
It's a
politically incorrect statement.Islamic science was highly developed. During the Renaissance, Islamic knowledge was eagerly sought by Europeans. This includes medicine, chemistry, optics, geology, zoology, agriculture, physics, and the mathematical methods used in astronomy, such as their numerical and computational system, as well as algebra. The Islamics drew influences from the Classical Greece, India and even China. They even introduced peer review, an important step towards empirical objectivity.
You made an inaccurate claim, and I pointed it out. It must be your "raw nerve".
We don't say someone is stillborn if they lived, grew, had children and died. Islamic Civilization made major strides in science and technology, and these were passed into the West. One day, Western Civilization, too, will be but a memory—but they flowered for a time.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
What is it Zachriel? Falsely claiming that I have not credited other cultures is inaccurate. Falsely claiming that Islamic advances preceeded the ancient Greeks cannot be it either. So where's your beef?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
The Median-Persian Empire was pre-Islamic as the Greek and Roman Empires were pre-Christian.
Islam and Christianity helped preserve the knowledge from both of these imperial cultures, though only one of these religions had a separation of religion and government built-in.
Also, it's funny Muslim optics should be mentioned. Where are the pre-17th Century Muslim telescopes? Pre-13th Century Muslim spectacles? Pre 16th Century Muslim microscopes? Is there any solid archaeological evidence of such devices?
Finally, it's hilarious to me the same sorts of people who ridiculed Behe for accurately comparing astrology and astronomy would now compare alchemy to chemistry in order to trash Christianity and exalt Islam the very religion that triggered the latest pitched battle in the culture wars.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 4, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
stillborn, dead at birth, failing from the start.
Islamic science and technology advanced over a period of centuries, and helped give birth to the flowering of western culture known as the Renaissance. That is hardly stillborn.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Umm thbere is no way to predict what mutations will occur and there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
Therefore the theory of evolution is void of predictive power.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:36 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Zachriel wrote:
What children? The numeric system? Yes, Greco-Roman numeric systems stunk, on that we can all agree.
The success of particular numeric systems can be attributed to their utility in accounting moreso than in any science. That's why the concept of zero was optional in many of these systems; zero cows or chickens or sheep don't do anyone any good.
Besides, we've been told by ID critics that mathematicians really aren't scientists. So, in the same fashion, the Arabic numeric system really isn't science.
Islam has contributed very little to science, if anything. The supposed inventions by Muslim "scientists" didn't lead to any practical applications in the Muslim world. I'm guessing that's what Bradford means by "stillborn".
There was no Islamic technology. Muslims did not wear spectacles, look at the stars through telescopes, or peer at single-celled organisms through a microscope until they were invented in the West, even though it is claimed that Muslims invented optics.
To claim that peer review was invented by Muslims is demonstrably false and frankly ridiculous.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 5, 2008 @ 10:46 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
By the way, Bradford, it seems that the spam filter is keyed on my IP address. I am posting this from my work computer.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 5, 2008 @ 10:47 am
November 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
angryoldfatman- Please read the following:
Inventions in the Muslim World
Islam was well ahead of the Christians.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 11:03 am
November 5th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Wiki on Islamic astronomy:
Odd that we still use names devised by a "stillborn" practice.
So Islam promotes science too.
And apparently the Islamic astonomers did use telescopes, and some big ones at that. Another myth busted.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 5, 2008 @ 11:08 am
November 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
Astronomical instruments are not necessarily telescopes. Where is the archaeological evidence supporting these claims of pre-17th Century Muslim telescopes? And since when is Wikipedia an authoritative source? Phillips' case is becoming stronger by the minute.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 5, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
angryoldfatman
Point taken.
Compared to a page of book reviews at Amazon, I would consider Wiki an authority yes. can you provide anything more substantial top back up your claims?
By the minutes? Here is the opening paragraph of Phillips' post:
If you study this thread very carefully, you might spot that Zach and I are arguing that Muslims – that is monotheists, for those who were not aware of it – had a large impact on the foundations of science. Have I missed the point of Phillips' post? If so can you tell me what it is. Can you possibly explain how this discussion supports Phillips' case?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 5, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Pixie:
please read this
The reason that science did not happen in Islam is simply because the majority of Islam views a creation governed by natural laws as heresy.
Allah unlike Yahweh does not rely on laws to create regularity in nature but causes every thing to happen simply because he wills it at that particular instant.
To suggest that there are things (Laws) that even God is subject a great affront to Muslims.
Trust me this is still true today. Ask any Christian apologist. To suggest that Jesus died because of our breaking of law is nonsense to a Muslim. They just don’t understand why God could not just forgive us if he chose to do so
This is a big reason that the Muslim lands, unlike those who find their root in Hinduism and Buddhism still lag hopelessly behind in science after 500 years.
I can’t believe you do not know this.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 5, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
The concept of Natural Law entered the West from Ibn Rushd's commentaries through Aquinas. Ibn al-Haytham applied the scientific method, made major advances in optics, and stated that the heavenly bodies followed physical laws. As there were great advances in science during the Islamic Golden Age, the entire thesis is faulty.
The concept of Providence sustaining the universe is not unique to Islam.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Zach:
Give me a break the concept of natural law is found as far back as the Old Testament.
Psalms 119:89-91
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.
Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
They stand this day according to Your ordinances, For all things are Your servants.
Even The link you provided said that it was through his commentaries on Aristotle that the concept of natural law entered the west. Islam only passed on Greek thinking to the barbarian north It was the Christians who ran with it.
This fact makes the absence of science in Islam as a whole all the more striking
Despite having access to the entire corpus of Greek thought and isolated geniuses Islam did not devolp the culture that was necessary to science to thrive. Somthing in it's worldview held it back. and it still does
None of this is controversial
The concept of Providence has nothing to do with a god who acts on creation in a arbitrary fashion that can’t be discovered by man even in principle.
Allah does as he pleases
Yahweh makes laws and follows them therefore the need for the cross
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 5, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Zach:
Psalms 148
1 Praise the LORD!Praise the LORDfrom the heavens;
praise him in the heights!
2Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his hosts!
3Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
4Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
5 Let them praise the name of the LORD!
For he commanded and they were created.
6And he established them forever and ever;
he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.
7Praise the LORD from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist,
stormy wind fulfilling his word!
9 Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and allcedars!
10 Beasts and all livestock,
creeping things and flying birds!
11Kings of the earth and all peoples,
princes and all rulers of the earth!
12Young men and maidens together,
old men and children!
13 Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is exalted;
his majesty is above earth and heaven.
14He has raised up a horn for his people,
praise for all his saints,
for the people of Israel who are near to him.
Praise the LORD!……..
sounds like the "concept of natural law" to me
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
It is quite clear that the Islamic Civilization had highly developed science (medicine, chemistry, optics, geology, zoology, agriculture, physics, mathematics including algebra, philosophy) far surpassing Europe of the time. It wasn't isolated geniuses, but an entire culture of learning in a common language over several centuries that integrated and extended Greek and Indian knowledge. Universities. Libraries. Hospitals. Encyclopedias. Peer-review. Experimental method. Mathematization.
Islamic Science and Engineering, Hill, Edinburgh University Press 1994.
The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West, Huff, Cambridge University Press 2003
Science in Medieval Islam, Turner, University of Texas Press 1997
Wikipedia: Science in Medieval Islam
Wikipedia: Medicine in medieval Islam
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Zach:
Europe with the possible exception of Italy was the domain of barbarians when the empire fell. So the pre Islamic Roman Empire had science (if that’s what you want to call it) that was “far surpassing Europe” of the time.
What we see in the Islamic lands is the slow death of the huge advantage that circumstances had bequeathed them.
Islamic science is nothing but the last gasps of Greek thought.
To try and claim otherwise is to deney reality. There is a reason that the west colonized the Arab world and not the other way around. There is a reason that to this day most scientists come from Christian influenced society. To say this is not cultural chauvinism or racism it’s just observation.
I’m not saying that Islamic people are stupid far from it. The anecdotal “scientific” achievements you bring up are evidence of the ability of the human mind to rise above even the most archaic of worldviews once and a while.
Even cultures like the Inca and Aztecs had amazing discoveries that given the befit of the doubt in retrospect could be considered science but making calendars and trinkets is not Galileo or Newton
The fact remains that Islam began to trail the west soon after it had milked Aristotle for all it could and even today badly trails the west in scientific achievement. This is not so with countries that aren’t saddled with a unpredictable deity like China or Japan. This is in spite of the fact that Islam controls huge oil wealth. Why is that?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 5, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Bradford to Pixie:
I also disagree with you Bradford that Islamic science was “stillborn.” Indeed, new scholarship is revealing that during the centuries that it flourished Islamic science was very innovative. Science historian David C. Lindberg backs this up in his book, The Beginnings of Western Science.
He writes “It is simply not true that Muslim practitioners of Greek science were ‘destitute of all originality’ [as Pierre Duhem said] …one possible response to Duhem… is to demonstrate this by enumerating the many contributions of Islamic physicians, mathematicians, and natural philosophers… Unfortunately, to carry out this program of recounting Muslim contributions to the various sciences would require volumes… (p 175)
The question is what happened to Islamic science? Why didn’t it lead to a scientific revolution on par with what we saw in Western Europe beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries? Rather than being “stillborn” it appears to have fizzled. The question is, why?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 6, 2008 @ 12:23 am
November 6th, 2008 at 12:40 am
John A. Designer:
OK. Amend that from stillborn to fizzled. Why?
Comment by Bradford — November 6, 2008 @ 12:40 am
November 6th, 2008 at 5:38 am
fmm
So I guess we agree it comes from the Middle East then.
You are making a sweeping generalisation about people with a common religion, but that spans many centuries and many cultures to support your claim (do you think all Christians have the same philosphical position?), while ignoring the historical facts. Just so we know, are you denying that Islamic scientists made the scientific advances credited to them or do you accept they made the advances but that they had little or no impact on later science?
Bradford
See here for a discussion on why Islamic science declined.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 6, 2008 @ 5:38 am
November 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I keep pointing you to resources, and you keep pretending you don't see them. What we see is a flowering of civilization, including science, philosophy, mathematics, architecture, engineering, followed by a decline. That Baghdad was overrun by Mongols didn't help.
—
It is God who raised the skies without support, as you can see, then assumed His throne, and enthralled the sun and the moon (so that) each runs to a predetermined course.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 8:22 am
November 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Pixie:
Of course mine is not a regional or racial claim it’s a theological claim
Generalizations are the only way to study culture individuals always vary. There are always those who disagree with the dominant worldview of their culture but the question we are asking deals with the culture and not with those who buck it.
If a Christian believed in arbitrary interventionist god who behaved like Allah he would be an unorthodox exception. On the other hand I challenge you to go to any place where pious Muslims gather and suggest that there are laws that even Allah must obey. The difference between the two cultures could not be more striking
What historical facts am I ignoring? The scientific revolution is a historic fact it happened and it happened in Christian Europe not Islam. This is all the more amazing when you look at the vast library of Greek thought that Islam had access to and the hundreds of years of peace that Muslim lands enjoyed . To ignore something as big as the scientific revolution for the sake of political correctness seems to be a much bigger deal than to ignore an isolated case of dissection or astrology now and again
I’m saying that every culture had its high points some were amazing and science can and does make use them as it sees fit.
However the rise of Science happened only once in a particular place with a particular worldview to ignore that is to sacrifice truth on the alter of political correctness.
Worldview matters in an increasingly global and pluralistic society we ignore this at our peril
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 6, 2008 @ 8:27 am
November 6th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Zach:
It is my resources that have been ignored. Yours only deal with pre science not science. There is a vast amount of scholarly resources on the Christian causes of the scientific revolution Why do you ignore it.
That is just incorrect we see the slow death of an already flowered culture as Islam became more prominent.
Europe was the domain of savages yet Science arose there. Why
notice nothing is said about law. In Islam the sun and moon are enthralled. In Christanity they follow the law
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 6, 2008 @ 8:38 am
November 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
No one is ignoring the European contributions, or the scientific revolution in the West. Rather, you are ignoring the fact that important scientific and technical advances were made between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance in the East by Islamic and other Eastern civilizations, that were then transmitted to the West.
After the Reconquista in Spain, Europe was astounded by the extent of knowledge in Andalusian libraries. Close to a million manuscripts, including scientific treatises, were eagerly sought by European scholars. This was one of the sparks of the Renaissance.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 8:52 am
November 6th, 2008 at 9:18 am
If you *define* science in such as way as to make your point, then your point is vacuous. The scientific method was innovated by Ibn al-Haytham and taught in Islamic universities.
In part, by absorbing scholarship from the East. Renaissance scholarship is full of references to original scientific research written in Arabic. The Islamic world was far beyond the Classical Greek (though they certainly did build on the knowledge of the Greeks). It was Christian Byzantium that was largely stagnant—not the Arabs.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 9:18 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
fmm
Ah, I see. That is in stark contrast to Bradford, who was keen to distance himself from any theological claim.
My point was that you were making a generalisation of numerous cultures. Modern day Christian culture is very different from the culture of tenth century Christendom, is it not? So why should we imagne that all Islamic cultures would fall under your generalisation. Or should I say, your stereotype?
The evidence tells us clearly that Islamic science was significant, and that it had a significant impact on western science.
I am no theologian, so perhaps you can help me here. When Jesus turned water into wine, was that "arbitrary interventionist"? Or was Jesus obeying the natural laws? When Christians pray for the sick, are they hoping God will be an "arbitrary interventionist" or that the laws of nature will run their course?
Also, do all Muslims have an idential faith? Hint: This web page lists differences in philosphies between different schools of Sunni Muslims.
Hmm, why did Christianity not have access to that vast library of Greek thought for all that time?
The scientific revolution (part of the Renaissance) in Europe was triggered by an influx of new ideas from Islam (among other origins):
Would you say the Christian church aided the scientific revolution? Should we discuss how the church receieved the ideas of Galileo? You said before: "There are always those who disagree with the dominant worldview of their culture but the question we are asking deals with the culture and not with those who buck it." I would suggest that the early Christian scientists were indeed "those who disagree with the dominant worldview of their culture". Therefore, I assume you would prefer that we exclude them from the discussion, Or is that only for Islamic scientists?
So will you agree with me that at one time it was Islam that led the scientific world? Will you agree with me that the advance made by Islamic scientists were a significant influence on early western scientists?
Ah, right. So you are claiming (if I understand you right) that only western culture has achieved the science that we have today. I will agree. That science was built on the foundations of other cultures, but the bulk of it certainly is from the western culture.
However, I thought we were arguing about the origins of science, following: "Science itself was the offspring of western culture" Strange how we lose sight of the original argument so readily!
I would be interested in seeing them. Can you give us some links?
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 6, 2008 @ 10:08 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Unless God Wills otherwise and makes the Sun's shadow move backwards, or a stick turn into a serpent, or the dead to rise, or water to turn to wine.
You seem to think that Islam is all of one mind, of one theological view. And that your own beliefs are representative of the myriad of views within Christendom.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 10:12 am
November 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Zach:
I’m not ignoring anything. Science can and does use anything that other civilizations contribute. Medical Scientists study acupuncture and incorporate it in modern medicine this does not mean that acupuncture is science or was discovered using scientific methods.
They should have been filled with manuscripts after all they inherited much of them from the pre Islamic culture and much of the rest were commentaries on this Pre Islamic learning
If you use the definition you are apparently using ID would be science. Funny how lose you can be with your definition when you want to
.
So why was it so seldom put to use until the barbarians of the north got a hold of it. I wonder
Pixie:
If you have evidence of your claim that what is heresy in the Koran and heresy now was for a time embraced by orthodox Islam present it. I'm all ears
He was obeying the law often what we think are natural laws only express a limited understanding of nature for example
What goes up must come down seemed to be a natural law but it was only an approximation based on experience
a rocket to mars seems to violate this natural law but is in fact it follows the law perfectly
They are praying that God will see fit heal the man. Healing is not against natural law it it was we would all die from our first cold.
Because it was held in the civilized world not in the barbarian north.
duh
I’m a Baptist. My "church" was not involved in the treatment of Galileo? In fact my church holds it a fundamental tenant that it can not use force against those it disagrees with.
I would suggest you read their writings. The were if anything more devote as a rule than the rest of their culture
There was no scientific world till the scientific revolution and Islam has never lead that “World”
No the knowledge of Islamic philosophers and technicians (not scientists) was beneficial to the early scientists but their influence came from other places
In addition to those Ive already posted I suggest
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_soc/cosmoeng.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400062284/bookstorenow600-20
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protestantism-Rise-Natural-Science/dp/0521 000963/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226013249&sr=8-4
no I'm generalizing to the leval of culture that's what you have to when you are talking about culture
God cannot will to violate his own law
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 6, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Knowledge is cumulative. We don't expect medieval scholars to use radio telescopes, or that they had abandoned occult concepts. But there was extensive use of the experimental method and peer review.
The experimental method was taught and used in Islamic universities, particularly in medicine and pharmacology. This is not a controversy in historical scholarship. I've provided you multiple references.
Most historians call them scientists. They innovated in medicine, physics, optics and botany. They used and taught the experimental method in universities. They still often held medieval ideas, but then, so did Newton.
We don't want to overstate in either direction. For centuries, the "barbarian" Christian West, and the "civilized" Christian East, stagnated scientifically. So the development of science required more than just the adoption of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, Islamic Civilization made great strides in science, engineering and philosophy. However, for a variety of reasons they went into decline. Their knowledge, accumulated from Greek and other civilizations, and from their own efforts, were passed to the emerging West.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Many Christians believe God is omnipotent, that He can violate the laws of nature at will, that miracles are just that, miracles, and not some awesome technology. Indeed, this is the conventional theological belief.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Zach:
Many Christians believe God is omnipotent, that He can violate the laws of nature at will,
Being consistent does not negate God’s omnipotence. The fact that God acts according to law that he set forth does not diminish his power but increases his trustworthiness
Who said that miracles were technology? Miracles are supernatural acts carried out by God. That does not make them arbitrary violations of the laws that he himself set down. Such “miracles” would be a sign of weakness not strength
If unforeseen circumstances some how forced God to violate his own laws that would negate his omniscience as well. Such a God would not be Yahweh. Allah perhaps?
I’m not sure where you got your theological training but Augustine and Aquinas both agree with me. That pretty much covers the bases of the "conventional view"
check this out
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 6, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Pixie wrote:
I think that Edward Grant would argue just that (that the church aided the scientific revolution) and furthermore that what led to the decline of Islamic science was due to a difference of patronage. In his book, The foundations of Modern Science in the middle Ages, he writes:
“Natural philosophy and theology had very different relationships in Christian Western Europe and in Islamic society. In Islam, with the exception of the mutakallimun and an occasional striking figure such a al-Ghazali, natural philosophers were usually distinct from theologians. Scholars were always on the defensive; it was viewed as a subject to be taught privately and quietly, rather than in public, and it was taught most safely under royal patronage… Within Western Christianity in the late Middle Ages, by contrast, almost all professional theologians were also natural philosophers. The structure of medieval university education also made it likely that most theologians had early in their careers actually taught natural philosophy. The positive attitude of theologians and religious authorities toward natural philosophy within Western Christianity meant that the discipline could develop more comfortably and consistently in the West than in Islamic society. In the West natural philosophy could attract talented individuals, who believed that they were free to present their opinions publicly on a host of problems that formed the basis of the discipline.” (p182 & 183)
Earlier in the same chapter Grant argued that the importance of these theologian-natural philosophers, “cannot be overestimated. If theologians at the universities had decided to oppose Aristotelian learning as dangerous to the faith, it could not have become the focus of study in European universities. Without the approval and sanction of these scholars, Greco-Arabic science and Aristotelian natural philosophy could not have become the official curriculum of the universities.” (p174)
BTW, I would argue that the Galileo incident had more to do with the politics of his time than the churches apparent opposition to science.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 6, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Supernatural acts. From your cite:
So there's a controversy. Furthermore,
God transcends nature.
A Baptist, "The gift of miracles involves Spirit-given power to perform an act contrary to, or suspending natural law."
A Catholic, "A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life."
Aquinas, "
Miraculum est praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae.A miracle is something beyond the order of all of created nature."You could redefine natural, as Aquinas does, to be anything in accord with God's Will, but that's a vacuous distinction. God can change anything He wants, any time He wants.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Zach:
In the world at large Sure there is
Hume thinks that a miracle is anything that violate natural law but he also rejects induction so I would not put much stock in his opinion. Muslims think that Allah is not bound by laws.
But I was discussing the standard orthodox Christian view
I’m not sure who this Baptist is but I would bet that the “natural law” he is referring to is a human approximation like “what goes up must go down” and not a divine command. Otherwise he is not an orthodox thinker
The Catholic has it right in that he said Known laws
Miracles are violations of known laws not real laws
Aquinas has it right as well miracles are beyond created nature in that they are carried out by God this does not mean that God acts against his own law
Aquinas is a Christian so naturally he believes that nothing transpires that is beyond God’s will. He is not a duelist who thinks that the physical is somehow beyond the power of the spiritual. Your point is?
He has the power to if that is what you mean but if he violated his own law he would cease to be God so he does not do it
That is why Christ had to die
This is pretty basic stuff Zach I’m surprised you don’t know this
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 7, 2008 @ 8:31 am
November 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Many Christians believe that if God wants to stop the Sun in its track, He will do so. If you define Natural Law to be whatever God Commands, then nothing would be against Natural Law. That's not an argument, but a definition.
Many Muslims accept Natural Law. However, like many theists, they also often believe that God's nature is ineffable, except through revelation. Fundamentalists, Muslim or Christian, believe that Divine Command overrides all other considerations, and often point to interpretations of sacred texts to support their beliefs. Fundamentalism is a strong force in the Muslim world.
For centuries, the "barbarian" Christian West, and the "civilized" Christian East, stagnated scientifically. So the development of science required more than just the adoption of the Christian religion.
There are arguments to be made as to why Islam began to stagnate after centuries of scientific and technical achievement. As I mentioned previously, being overrun by the Mongols didn't help. But you don't seem particularly curious, or willing to consider your own views skeptically.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 9:32 am
November 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Zach:
I believe this as well however God will never violate his own laws to do so.
Things that God prohibits would be against natural law by definition. Things like the stopping of the sun in its tracks Gen 8:22
I was not making an argument about what natural law is I was only pointing out that the Christian God unlike Allah works through and is subject to law.
Perhaps but I’ve never heard of a Muslim that thought that there were laws that Allah must himself obey. Have you. This is an important point
Exactly! This is also a major difference between Christianity and Islam.
The Christian God’s nature is expressed in his creation as well as his revelation. (Romans 1:20) That’s why s Christian worldview is such a good fit with Science.
Actually it’s only Christians who believe that Divine command overrides all other considerations That is why an atonement is necessary for any infractions of the Law in Christianity and Allah can just forgive if he so desires
And therefore Islamic science struggles even today that’s my point
Actually the "civilized" Christian East, despite being in constant battle with the forces of Islam and saddled with an unhealthy reverence of nonempirical Greek thought somehow managed to progress a lot tward science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science
This fact is striking given the political and economic dominance of Islam in the region
I agree and the best explanation is clearly theological
Give me a break. In the north the barbarian hordes are the ones who devoloped science that is when Christianity soaked in to their culture
You are the one who won’t even consider arguments that might cast Christianity in a positive light. This is very predictable why should your view of history be any different than politics and science?
Christianity is always the enemy of reason in your view no mater what the evidence shows.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 7, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The Byzantine's did make some scientific progress, and I modify my previous statement accordingly. Reading your own reference.
That refutes your original contention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
That is not my view.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Moderation queue, please.
Comment by Zachriel — November 7, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Zach:
A un credited comment on a open source Wiki that mentions the words science and Islam in the same sentence refutes what part of my contention exactly?
That’s some standard of proof you’ve got there Zach
You could have fooled me. I’ve never seen you post a single comment on this sight that would tend to cast orthodox Christianity in a positive light.
I'm sure you view my impression as yet more evidence of your freedom from bias. But freedom from bias does not mean what you think it means.
I know you like to think of yourself as some kind of neutral defender of science against the evil forces aligned against it.
But this thread once again has illustrated that the only evil force that you believe is worth fighting is Bible believing Christianity and you will do that by defending a science killing worldview if you have to.
At least that's how it appears to this unbiased observer
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 8, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Um, you cited it as evidence that the Byzantine Civilization made scientific progress. It's your cite. And it says the Islamic Civilization made scientific progress. You might peruse the list of scientists from that era, and their extensive contributions.
Again. That is not my view.
Unbiased? Jeepers.
From the Renaissance on, Europe made sweeping discoveries in science. Even during the Middle Ages, there was significant scholarship in natural philosophy, often under the auspices of the Church. But that's not the issue. You overstated your position, and refuse to modify your claims.
That's simply false. Systematic thought dates at least to the pagan Greeks. Philosophy and logic are both part of the tradition that leads to modern science.
Islamic Civilization made significant scientific discoveries. They innovated the experimental method, and contributed to fields as diverse as physics and biology, and especially in medicine and pharmacology. Islamic Civilization never fully broke free of medieval mysticism before being largely overrun by steppes-people. You are making an invalid comparison between first-millennium Islamic culture and second millennium Christian culture.
Comment by Zachriel — November 8, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
fmm
I am still having problems getting my head around this idea that the Christian God keeps (voluntarily) the laws of nature, and the Islmic God does not; and how this impacts on the science in their respective cultures. You see, I cannot understand how Newton could think his law of gravity can possibly be correct if it does not explain how Jesus can walk on water or how Christians can float to the sky in the rapture. An Islamic Newton would not have a problem; he can explain it away as God intervening to break the natural laws in specific instances, to suit his divine purposes. The Christian Newton does not have that option (if your claim is accurate). For him, Jesus walking on water must be within the natural laws, and so F = G.m1.m2/r^2 is demonstratably wrong. In a similar vein, one has to wonder how early Christian astronomers dealt with Joshu's long day. Any theory about how the Earth moves through space around the sun (or indeed vice versa) would be obliged to account for this long day, given that the Christian God has chosen to operate though natural laws.
All this makes me think that the Islamic approach is actually better suited to the determining of natural laws.
That said, I do not actualy believe that most Christians believe God has to or choses to keep to the natural laws he devised, and I started a thread on another site to gauge how common it is.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 9, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Hey Pixe:
You are mistaking human approximations for God’s natural law. Newton’s law of gravity is simply a better approximation than "what goes up must come down" it’s not the actual law. Later Einstein would come up with an even better approximation but we still haven’t quantified the actual law involved
Science for Newton is all about coming up with better approximations of Gods law “Thinking God’s thoughts after him”
No in the view of an Islamic Newton Allah would hold the planets in orbit and make an apple fall by the shear force of his will he does not use the secondary means of law so to even conceive of a law of gravity would not occur to him unless he was influenced by a world view other than his own
No it's correct just incomplete. This is in fact what he believed
remember Newton believed that God intervened periodically to insure that the planets maintained their orbits.
This was not a violation of the law of gravity In Newton’s view but a necessary complement to it
An early Christian astronomer would do what modern Christian astronomers would do with the star of Bethlehem. He would expect the event actually occurred just like any other celestial event and expect to find evidence if he looked.
However He would expect it not effect his calculations at all because the Bible clearly says that this was a one time occurrence never to be repeated (Jos. 10:14)
You still don’t get it the concept of Natural law is foreign to Islam. Allah does as he chooses he does not follow laws. He controls everything at all times he does not rely on secondary means like laws
I would caution you from gauging what a Christian world view is from posting on an internet forum.
Nothing aginst any particular site but folks now days tend to get more of their theology from Oprah than from the Bible.
It would probably be better to consult some scholarly writing on the subject. There is plenty out there
That being said I did check on the site and it appears that my view is broadly leading 5 to 2.
I would say that’s pretty good in a post Christian neo pagan world.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 9, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Jesus walking on water is a miracle inconsistent with natural regularities. If a staff turning into a snake is just a slight of hand, or an explainable natural illusion, then your god is a tiny version of the God of most Christians who sends mighty angels and commands the Heavens.
Such as a law of inertia as applied to celestial bodies? Or the experimental method? What would be the point? How could someone predict the path of planets or experiments when they are subject to the whims of a ineffable God? That's why Islamic scientists never constructured complex astrolabes. Or made experiments in optics. Or insisted upon published, replicable results. What would be the point?
Why do you keep repeating that when the error has already been pointed out to you? It's simply not true. Natural Law was passed to Islam from the Greeks. They wrote extensive treatises on the subject. In the tenth century Abu Mansur Al Maturidi founded an important movement within Islam that emphasized Natural Law. This movement then influenced Aquinas and others.
Islamic Civilization did have science, so your claim is without foundation. They developed the experimental method, and made advances in medicine, chemistry, optics, geology, zoology, agriculture, physics, and the mathematical methods used in astronomy, such as their numerical and computational system, as well as algebra. The Islamics drew influences from the Classical Greece, India and even China. They even introduced peer review, an important step towards empirical objectivity.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 9:05 am
November 10th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Zach:
So is a rocket to mars. I'm not talking about natural regularities I’m talking about natural laws. Notice how you once again try to subtly switch words if it means scoring points against orthodox Christianity. Nice one
I never said Miracles are slight of hand, or an explainable natural illusion. Notice how you try to place your appoints views in the worst possible light to score points against orthodox Christianity
Nice one
Miracles are mighty Supernatural works of God. It’s just that The
Christian God is trustworthy and does not violate laws that he himself establishes
As I’ve said the fact that great discoveries were made in Islamic lands is testimony on the ability of the human mind to rise above science hindering world views.
Individual Muslims can and do science that was never in question. The question is what it is in Muslim culture that hinders Science even today.
I’m not talking about what Greek thought was but what Islamic thought was.
Circumcision has been passed to our culture from the Jews that does not mean its Christian.
From what I can tell this movement is about natural moral law for humans not the laws of nature to be obeyed by creation and Allah himself am I missing something?
Is this another case of you distorting the evidence to score points against any one who would defend biblical Christianity? That would not suprise me.
There was a major theological block within Islam that condemned all efforts to formulate natural laws(laws of nature) as blasphemy in that they deny Allah’s freedom to act.
I linked to articles and books that documented this but apparently you dont care to look at facts you disagree with
Until you give me reason to believe you are willing to look at the other side of this issue I’ll let you have the last word. Checking these out would be a good place to start.
Epistemic theory of miracles
Islamic view of miracles
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 10, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
November 11th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The foundation for the scientific method is natural regularities. It's the notion that we can set up a specific situation (experiment) and that we will get the same results each time, and that other observers will also get the same result. We often call natural regularities "scientific laws", but this is just a matter of nomenclature.
But you are welcome to provide a non-vacuous distinction.
The question I raised concerned your overstatements about history.
These statements are wrong for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, Islamic Civilization had a highly developed scientific culture. And Christendom knew it. Islamic science innovated the experimental method and peer review. And they were a spark of the European Renaissance.
So, Christianity is not "uniquely the source of the systematic thought that becamse science". They borrowed heavily from Greek philosophy and Islamic science. Historical records bear this out, with Arabic scholarship being in very high demand. You can't possibly supported the claim that "science did not happen in Islam" because it *did* happen, including the development of the experimental method and peer review. Nor is Islamic science "the last gasps of Greek thought". They innovated in a number of important areas as previously discussed.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 9:24 am
November 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The problem with this sort of distinction, is that it is a distinction without a difference. This is no more than defining natural law as whatever God says it is at this moment in time. If He intervenes, if an angel descends from the sky, then that's natural law, too. God is ineffable, so who are we to say. That's fine, but don't confuse that with science or the foundations of science.
The scientific method does not depend on any conception of an ineffable God; only on the experience of natural regularities. And it turns out that even now there is no reasonable scientific explanation for a man walking on water—other than to trivialize the event.
Christians believe that God has a Plan, and that this Plan makes sense from God's point of view, and most Christians also believe God is omnipotent and has directly intervened in the world in miraculous ways. A Deist, on the other hand, might believe that everything is foreordained and that Providence is contained in the laws of nature. This is quite different from the very personal God that most Christians hold dear.
Comment by Zachriel — November 11, 2008 @ 10:54 am