Would There Be Science Without Christianity?
As promised for the atheist, agnostic, and fellow Christian readers…
I hope more people will read and participate in the discussion too.
First, let me briefly (promise) chronicle my introduction to this concept. I loved science as a child. Nature fascinated me and as I grew and studied, I wanted to know how things worked. I loved science in high school, I majored in biology in college, and I taught high school chemistry for two years. Since teachers learn as much as students, especially when they are as young as I was, I developed a love for chemistry. So I went on to graduate school for a Ph.D., and published in enough reputable international journals, Science magazine included, to go on and work for DuPont.
I don’t list all of that to brag, but to emphasize an important point: I had no clue what philosophy was even though the title Doctor of Philosophy was appended to my name.
Then I became Catholic and entered a Masters degree program in theology where I was required to take the introductory philosophy course for people who have never studied philosophy. In that course the first book I read was The Savior of Science by the late (and great) Father Stanley L. Jaki, a Benedictine priest and leading thinker in the philosophy and history of science. He authored more than two dozen books on the relation between science and Christianity, and was a frequent lecturer at Yale and Oxford. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1987 for furthering the understanding of science and religion.
It blew me away as if I were a child again. Here in an introductory course in theology I suddenly understood science like never before, not as just some discipline to master so I could publish and get a job, but I finally understood why people ever wanted to know about the natural world in the first place and where we are supposed to be going in our knowledge of it. I understood why we all pine for truth and why science was born — and it was because of Christ. Now, of course, I understand that everything is because of Christ, who is God, but at the time it was a radical, mind-boggling, and awesome concept.
Would science ever have developed without the Christian mindset, the Christian psychology about the world and man’s ability to know truth?
My lifestyle now (read that “My kids, puppies, editorial obligations, and glued eyes to Facebook celebrating with internet friends our new Pope Francis, who also studied and taught chemistry) prevent me from covering all of the material in one long discourse (which I doubt I could do without all the other priorities anyway), but here I want to at least introduce the framework of Fr. Jaki’s thesis. Not all theologians or historians of science agree with him, but I think I do. This plunge into the topic is as much for my own learning as it is for anyone else, so argue away.
Defining Terms
Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows I am a stickler for defining terms, not because I’m some superhero of logic, but because it must be done if a discussion is to stay focused. It’s only fair. If people cannot agree on definitions, then communication, much less debate, is impossible, and useless combox swaggering will ensue.
Science: In modern use, this word is treated as synonymous with Natural and Physical Science, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws. This is the dominant sense in ordinary use that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives. It is a systematic body of knowledge about nature gathered by sense experience and organized by reason. This is Modern Science.
What we do not mean: As I have explained before, science in the general sense of the word (also given primarily in the OED) from its Latin root means a “body of knowledge.” In the early universities begun by the Catholic Church, science comprised the entire curriculum of studies (the consortium magistorum) except for theology, law, medicine, and arts (philosophy). For the question of whether Modern Science (as most people know it today) grew out of Christianity, we need to define the more limited term, which is done above.
What science is not: Science, Modern Science that is, cannot comment on immaterial or spiritual things. It cannot prove or disprove the existence of angels, demons, or God (though reason can assume the first two and know with certainty the latter). Science cannot comment on anything that is not:
- material,
- therefore, in motion, and
- thus, observable and quantifiable.
Modern Science can apply the Scientific Method to the natural world and answer questions about, for instance, the rate of falling objects, the reaction of materials with each other, or the effect of controlling conditions on a process. It includes, most fundamentally, physics, and also chemistry and biology, and their sub-disciplines.
It should also be noted that to even do science, a scientist also must rely on intellectual abstractions to organize what he has observed and make predictions for the next round of the Scientific Method. A scientist must also rely on abstract reasoning to apply his knowledge to life, and a scientist must rely on abstract reasoning to even define science and define that he (okay, or she, darn pronouns) is a scientist.
Since I’m nearing a self-imposed 1,000 word limit, I’ll explain what’s next: Fr. Jaki’s thesis begins with a review of the “Stillbirths of Science.” He explains how in other cultures under different religious mindsets scientific progress may have been made in off-sprouts of the “evolutionary tree of science” but together they ended in “a vista of dead branches (to say nothing of the innumerable dead twigs).” If you’re up for the adventure, we’ll move through these cultures one at a time, and consider the title question.
So first, tell me, do we agree on terms?
(1,000 words reached – now.)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (77)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Would There Be Science Without Christianity? - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul | March 14, 2013
- What is a Stillbirth of Science? : Accepting Abundance | March 21, 2013
- What is a Stillbirth of Science? : Stacy Trasancos | March 24, 2013
- What is a Stillbirth of Science? : Stacy Trasancos | March 30, 2013
- Why Wasn’t Science Born in Egypt? : Stacy Trasancos | April 4, 2013
- Would There Be Science Without Christianity? : Stacy Trasancos | April 5, 2013
P.s. Heisenberg, father of quantum mechanics, said in his Gifford Lectures, it was only much later in his career that he finally ‘understood’ what he was doing in his mathematical physics. That this understanding came by way of, surprise surprise, the pre-Socratics and Aristotle – the perennial philosophy preserved by the Catholic Church through time – a patrimony imperilled multiple times and most dangerously today by scientism and atheist scientists bribed by the secularist establishment to wax on about philosophy.
As I understand it, christians lost and/or actively destroyed the pagan works of the Greeks, which you only got back through tortuous paths, aided by Arabs, one thousand years after your cult monopolized the politics and culture of the mediterranean.
“A patrimony imperilled (sic)” indeed.
Longshanks, you might be referring to the creation myth of secularism, it works well enough in our Christian civilisation as substitute mythos, primordial battle between light and dark, science and faith: a mythos so crucial to the totalising movement of modern nation states. It has v.little connection with actual history. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/07/hypatia/
Unless we hold to an organic/dynamic understanding of culture, seed, soil, environment then history becomes mere raw material in our polemic. What was occuring in the environment of the ancient near east as the spiritual foundations of a civilisations were being remolded? What did the Monasteries have to do and why? What was Islam doing and what did it do to the cultures it assimilated?
The better method of thinking about history is an evolution/environment of selection-development-epigenetic/symbolic-behavioural one rather than mechanical/mathematical/quantum.
Martin, the John Wright link is quite a commentary, including others participation.
However, when I went to the Summa and read the whole Reply to Objection 2 that he referenced here:
The theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.
(Summa theologica, I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2)
I was jolted by a force that brought forth a, “Wow”.
But, it must have been just a chemical reaction caused to occur on a circuitous route within my brain that is untraceable using current technology.
I understand Howard. Aristotle and Aquinas boggle the mind. Their understanding of method is a sure protection against being lost in the dialectic of imaginative abstractions/operational definitions/ and so reifications.
As for quotes I think I can go one better:
Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers;
so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.
– Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, Part I Q73 A1 reply3
I better chime in now;
I tentatively agree to your definition of science to see where this leads; in that we’re specifically discussing hard sciences while excluding soft sciences.
However, if this somehow excludes theoretical math or quantum mechanics; or limits the findings and conclusions to Classical Newtonian mechanics; then I would like to reserve the right to re-visit this definition.
Mjeck,
Thank you.
Insofar as we are referring to the birth of science as a self-sustaining enterprise, historians define it as I have. Newtonian mechanics preceded theoretical physics anyway and we’re talking about the beginning of science as a discipline.
Could you put your definition on the table then (so to speak)?
Good Science is provable and observable. More than this; it is practical and applicable. Otherwise, I am comfortable with the dictionary definition of Science
However, it seems there were three issues on the table;
1. The accomplishments of the Church; its further advancements of Science, beyond the Greeks and Romans
2. The Science of other cultures and religions, compared to the Churches development of Science at the same time
3. Modern Atheist Science
If you state which specific argument you are presenting; then I can give a better answer to your question.
Unless that is getting ahead of you, and you would like to save that for your next posting; which is why I would like to reserve my right to revisit this definition.
For example; are we only discussing science between 300AD to 1800AD?
If so, I am comfortable with discussing science in terms of Newtonian Mechanics and forgo Theoretical Math, Quantum Mechanics and Modern Atheist Science.
However, limiting the discussion to that time period would also mean you cannot invoke Greek or Roman Science as the Churches.
Greeks and Romans are another culture and religion, predating the Churches developments.
Mjeck,
I don’t mean to be stubborn (or maybe I do) but definitions should be dependent on the conclusion you want. When something is logically sound it can be deconstructed and reconstructed, even from one argument to another, without compromising the definition.
If definitions can change as you build arguments that’s like changing the rules as you play a game.
I’ve studied Jaki’s thesis and it was much of his life’s work. I simply couldn’t put it all in one post without boring the readers to death.
But yes, he dealt at length with the three questions you pose for all history of man. He dealt with the contributions of the Greeks and Romans, and other ancient cultures such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and Hindus. He describes, as mentioned, “stillbirths of science” showing how even though specific discoveries were made, they did not culminate in an establishment of *science* as a self-sustaining discipline. He shows how it is tied to the Christian mindset.
He also deals later with how science has become distorted by people who, in denying God, turn science into omniscience.
I can only summarize it for now, but I do have the details for future posts. It’s in the book (several of them actually).
Stacy,
I do like your new approach; to establish definitions first.
But can I ask for a second definition?
Can I ask that you define your argument in one sentence? Can you layout, clearly and concisely, what is it, exactly that you are debating?
I would like to know which side of the table I’m to sit on.
For example, are you debating;
A: The church advanced and refined Greek Science;
or;
B: ONLY the Church advanced and refined Science between 300AD and 1800AD
If you precisely define science and precisely define your argument; this will help the conversation immensely
I’ve heard this accusation often in these quarters, can we get a definition of what turning “science into omniscience” means, and some examples of atheist scientists who done so?
Oh, also, I’m curious about what “a self-sustaining discipline” means.
*Edit*
Accidentally a word.
Also accidentally a question.
Mjeck,
Hey, I’ve always tried to define terms first. New? No. Tsk, tsk.
Here is the claim:
Science (Modern Science as we know it today, as defined above, science of observation and quantity to discover the natural world and apply it to improving our lives, as a discipline unto itself) was born of Christianity.
Jaki’s book is titled The Savior of Science.
Here’s a synopsis I found.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Do you mean to say;
The scientific method was born from Christianity?
Or do you mean to say;
Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Mathematics, was born from Christianity?
“I don’t mean to be stubborn (or maybe I do) but definitions should be dependent on the conclusion you want.”
Lewis Carroll put it this way in Alice in Wonderland–”Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
Congrats–you’ve proven that you manipulate the argument, the facts, the definitions–to get the “conclusion you want.”
Complete intellectual dishonesty.
{blows raspberry}
Ipse exsufflat rubus idaeus, for email comments.
Mjeck is understandably anxious to lay out Jaki’s argument as a syllogism to figure out right now if it’s logically true or false. I say this as a compliment by the way. I totally understand the desire.
But that method only works well for math and predicate calculus because the major and minor premises are either self-evident or widely understood & accepted by participants, and are thus uncontroversial.
Jaki’s argument, if I’m not mistaken, will involve the dogmas, doctrines, and worldviews of historical cultures, especially Christian dogma and doctrine, and so it needs to be articulated carefully and with the of sophistication of a theologian.
This is why we have to give Stacy the breathing room to develop Jaki’s argument.
I would like to be here for moral support, and to offer little sidebars on amazing Catholic scientists from the “middle ages” like Buridan and Oresme whom the “enlightenment” “thinkers” shoved down the memory hole because their existence makes the arrogant “enlightenment” narrative of the history of science fall apart completely. Yes, completely. But that’s another topic perhaps for another day.
Thank you Jeff. Yes, Jaki mentions Buridan and Oresme! (Double !!) The connection of Buridan to Newton is one of those things that made me sit up straight in my chair and gasp.
Yes, Mjeck, I totally understand too the desire to know where this is going. That synopsis should give you an idea, and it’s in the book, but I have had to re-read that book over and over. That’s why I don’t want to trip ahead and misrepresent it.
Stacy,
1. If you’re saying that a whole bunch of great things came out of the Church to the benefit of Modern Science; you would have no argument with me.
2. If you’re saying that the scientific method was born of the Catholic Church; I would be intrigued to read your findings.
3. If you’re saying that all the hard scientific disciplines were born from the Church, without influence before or during, from any other culture or religion; this is an argument which requires a lot of evidence.
Currently however, I am unclear to you’re argument, question, hypothesis…
Instead of linking your definition with your findings (circular reasoning?), you might ask yourself a question first, then find evidence for, and against:
Step 1. Was [X] born from Christianity?
Step 2. Read all evidence for [X]
Step 3. Read all evidence against [X]
Step 4. Present evidence for review
We are talking about Science, correct? Shouldn’t we be using the scientific method?
Mjeck,
Working on Egypt now…
#1 – Okay, but it’s more than that. #2 – Not entirely, it was in use for far longer than most people realize, even during the days of natural philosophy. #3 – Not without influence, but they were born from Christianity. That is meant analogous to something vital developing and then being born dead, over and over, until a viable birth occurred and development sprang up robustly.
This is for fun and learning. As the NYT described on his death, he was a “relentless scholar.” He is known for his thesis about science and Christianity, and one of the reasons he won the Templeton Prize is because his thesis communicated to so many people. I want to understand him better.
I know you’ll demand that I am more critical, and if in the end if we’ve both learned something, then no time was wasted. I totally agree about applying the scientific method even to history. Jaki was not only a priest and physicist, he was also a historian.
It would be good to hear from other serious critics too.
Thanks Mjeck.
Yes there would be science without christianity.
I think you meant would there be science without god. God is not christianity.
I expect as usual I will be ignored by Stacy.
But if god created everything then god created science. God however is not only christianity.
So yes there would be science without christianity.
Alan, the key to understanding this whole explanation is the “Christian mindset”. Science is not a thing, but a pursuit within a knowable and law defined universe – created by God.
It is also not an ideology as is taught and worshipped by modern America.
Howard,
I don’t need to understand the “christian mindset” as it is not relevant to proving “would there be science without christianity”
If you want to prove it then you must do so without using the “christian mindset”
Perhaps Stacy meant to ask “would there be the study of science without christianity?” or “would the word science exist without christianity?”
Alan, it is not a particular mindset that you must have in order to understand.
Wait for it.
Howard
I will assume that your “wait for it” was meant in a good way rather than your usual sarcastic or biting way.
However I need wait for no mindset. I have already answered the question Stacy asked. My answer was Yes there would be science without christianity. That isn’t going to change.
It’s not to say that christianity didn’t have much to do with our understanding of science, or bringing science to the masses. I will give credit where credit is due.
Should I keep waiting?
Yes
then I guess you too must wait. I won’t say what for, but you should just wait.
I think you’re in for a surprise. Wait, I know you are in for a surprise.
Alan,
This is not a birthday party.
If you are in a hurry I would suggest this:
http://www.ragtag.info/2011/feb/2/history-world-100-seconds/
First of all…perhaps this is a test of patience for Lent?
I am guessing it is not a test of patience but I look forward to future installments. Having read the book “Victory Of Reason” by Rodney Stark I have, what I am guessing is a good idea where Stacy is headed. For those interested in the subject I highly recommend the book. What is even better is to read the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared M. Diamond first then read “Victory of Reason”.
Burke,
Yes! I looked up that book and it seems to be making the even bigger point — the ascendancy of the Catholic Church was the most liberating event in human history. It is *freedom* that was born with Christ, and that freedom allowed man to do so many things, science being only one of them.
1. Reason is above Faith; whenever Reason determines, through its legitimate procedures, a given point to be in contradiction to Faith, then it is Faith that must bend.
The above is the argument of all Catholics who reject the Biblical text of Genesis 1:1 (the difficult point in that verse are the three words “and the earth”) in its literal, and unanimously patristically attested, meaning.
2. Reason and Faith are equal. They cannot contradict each other. Therefore whenever Reason determines, through its legitimate procedures, a given point to be in contradiction to Faith, then it is necessary to re-interpret the meaning of the Faith, so as to incorporate the newly-acquired valid knowledge.
The above is the argument of the neo-Catholics, who also reject the Biblical text of Genesis 1:1 (the difficult point in that verse are the three words “and the earth”) in its literal, and unanimously patristically attested, meaning, but who wish to preserve the notion that the Faith is not actually *changed* by such contortions, only *developed*.
3. Faith is above Reason; whenever Reason determines, through its legitimate procedures, a given point to be in contradiction to Faith, then it is certainly the case that Reason has erred.
The above is the argument of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Popes up until very recent times.
It now represents the view of a tiny minority of Catholics.
And you say atheists have no hope, progress!
Soon you will all be atheists too, just one more to go
It appears that your #3 is worded this way by the 2 most recent popes.
CCC 159 Faith and science:
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”
“Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
Agreed, Howard.
If the hermeneutic of continuity is applied, then CCC #159 is in perfect accordance with #3.
A possible indication that the some of the explicit directives of VAT2 may yet be implemented.
About Pope Francis:
“While in the Basilica, he went and knelt in front of a tomb of a Pope. Which Pope?
Pope St. Pius V (1504-1572), the Pope who, being a Dominican, declared the Dominican St. Thomas Aquinas a Doctor of the Church and commissioned the first edition of his complete works. The He also patronized the sacred music composer Palestrina, and, in his the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum on July 14, 1570, promulgated the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal, making it mandatory throughout the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, except where a Mass liturgy dating from before 1370 AD was in use.
This “St. Pius V” form of the Mass remained essentially unchanged for 400 years until Pope Paul VI’s revision of the Roman Missal in 1969–70. It is this form of the Mass that many today call “the old Latin Mass,” or “the Tridentine Mass,” or, since 2007, the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass.
It seems clear that by kneeling and praying before the tomb of this great, and holy, Pope, Pope Francis was making a statement of respect for him and his work, and so, by implication, for the form of the Mass that he codified.
Note also that, as a cardinal, Pope Pius V gained a reputation for putting orthodoxy before personalities, prosecuting eight French bishops for heresy. He also stood firm against nepotism, rebuking his predecessor, Pope Pius IV, to his face when he wanted to make a 13-year old member of his family a cardinal.
For a Pope who wishes to end corruption, a prayer before the tomb of Pius V makes a certain sense.”
http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-47-to-mary
But we are off the subject and probably making Stacy nervous.
No, not at all.
Go ahead. I’m interested in your thoughts.
I am hopefull that we will see this implementation.
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.
It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.”
“an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies”
>> There it is.
“On Eagles’ Wings” can fit through that.
And did.
Yes I like that song very much. It does seem to be more “pop” than sacred and when I have heard it is usually accompanied.
“More pop than sacred”.
A fitting encomium to the post conciliar liturgical reform if ever there was one…………
Amen
“So first, tell me, do we agree on terms?”
>>Question about that below. You provide:
“Science: In modern use, this word is treated as synonymous with Natural and Physical Science, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws.”
>>So far so good. I would add, following Popper:
” restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, *and are ultimately subject to experimental falsifiability*”.
If it ain’t experimentally falsfiable- that is, if one cannot conceive of some possible experiment which might possibly falsify the scientific theory/hypothesis- then it ain’t science.
“This is the dominant sense in ordinary use that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives. It is a systematic body of knowledge about nature gathered by sense experience and organized by reason. This is Modern Science.”
>>I think an important element is subsumed, too much, under the phrase “gathered by sense experience and organized by reason”.
Organized how?
Organized in exactly this way:
Observations must be subjected to a creative hypothesis, in the form of an hypothesized universally valid organizing principle, which subsumes all of the observations under a single organizing principle.
Crucially, *this organizing principle cannot itself, ever, have been obtained through sense experience. It is always and characteristically a non-sense object. It is always a mental object*.
Gravity, for example, organizes everything from an artillery barrage to a planetary orbit under just such an organizing principle.
So, while observations are sense-based, scientific theories/hypotheses- the real source of scientific progress- are never sense based.
Interesting.
Other than that, I would say the definitions are adequate.
To summarize:
1. Science is restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, and are ultimately subject to experimental falsifiability.
2. Modern science is a systematic body of knowledge about nature gathered by sense experience and organized by reason, in the specific form of a crucial experimental hypothesis of universal physical principle, which hypothesis is capable of resolving all contradictions in sense-based observations.
3. Every scientific hypothesis is itself subject to future falsification, in the face of anomalous experimental observation.
4. Scientific progress consists in the successive overthrow of previously-adequate hypotheses, in the face of new, contradictory observations, which then in turn are subsumed under a new, crucial experimental hypothesis, which accounts for the new, anomalous observations, as well as all previous observations.
5. This process has no end.
6. All scientific knowledge is, therefore, contingent.
7. No scientific theory or hypothesis, therefore, is capable of addressing the nature of existence itself. These questions are proper to the domains of metaphysics and theology exclusively.
In other words, what she said?
Umm, no actually.
What she said, plus what I said.
You do see the difference………
Don’t you?
“…systematic body of knowledge about nature…organized by reason.”
The obvious implications are:
It is reasonable to expand upon an initial observation or inspiration.
It is reasonable to explain results in an organized manner.
It is reasonable to try and make sure you are right.
It is reasonable to recognize various degrees of doubt or certainty.
It is reasonable……………..
“gathered by sense experience…”
It is reasonable to assume that the immaterial cannot be gathered.
“It is reasonable to expand upon an initial observation or inspiration”
>>”Expand upon”? What does this mean? In science, one *hypothesizes in order to explain observations, uniting them all under a single experimentally verifiable principle*. As above.
“It is reasonable to explain results in an organized manner.”
>> Explaining results in an organized manner is inadequate. One must explain the results under the organizing action of a principle. As above.
“It is reasonable to try and make sure you are right.”
>> In science, that is called “experimental test of crucial hypothesis.” As above.
“It is reasonable to recognize various degrees of doubt or certainty.”
>> In science, one has certainty once one has experimentally tested the hypothesis, and found it to explain all observations. This certainty is always contingent; it is certain only so long as new observations which do not fit the hypothesis do not show up. As above.
“It is reasonable to assume that the immaterial cannot be gathered.”
>> Actually, it is not reasonable to so assume. One can gather, for example, a list of every single experimentally verified scientific hypothesis, and one would have gathered a whole bunch of immaterial things:
Hypotheses.
As above.
>>”Expand upon”? What does this mean? In science, one *hypothesizes in order to explain observations, uniting them all under a single experimentally verifiable principle*. As above.
It means that when you see a clock you go to work creating a hypotheses about the structure of the universe.
>> Explaining results in an organized manner is inadequate. One must explain the results under the organizing action of a principle. As above.
Would you not say that physical laws, as she referred to, are the same as principles you want to have explained in an orderly manner. Science also just presents miscellaneous facts without any hypotheses involved, like discoveries or observations of the characteristics of insects. This stuff must be catagorized.
>> In science, that is called “experimental test of crucial hypothesis.” As above.
Unnecessary verbiage.
>> In science, one has certainty once one has experimentally tested the hypothesis, and found it to explain all observations. This certainty is always contingent; it is certain only so long as new observations which do not fit the hypothesis do not show up. As above.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as degree of certainty or to say it another way, estimates of possible error?
>> Actually, it is not reasonable to so assume. One can gather, for example, a list of every single experimentally verified scientific hypothesis, and one would have gathered a whole bunch of immaterial things:
We are talking about gathering data for analysis.
Thanks for giving me a break from my book. Got to go to bed now.
Getting that posted today. Family life has been — interesting. Never a dull moment.
As given by the OED online:
“science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”
By Merriam Webster online:
“Definition of SCIENCE
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”
Dictionary.com:
“sci·ence
[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
systematized knowledge in general.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”
I. My Definition
It seems clear to me, from these examples, that “science” is not a well defined term like “integral calculus,” say, or “perihelion.” As a working definition, I can’t think of anything substantively wrong with the wikipedia first line:
“Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]”
II. Your Definition
I promise I am not being intentionally obtuse, but I have a hard time following your definition. You say that science is “a systematic body of knowledge.” In the immediately following sentence you state that “we do not mean … [that] science in the general sense of the word … means a ‘body of knowledge.’”
I’m jiggling your words around in the quotations, but I’m trying to tease out something intelligible to me. If I understand you correctly, you’re trying to say that when you use the word “science” you’re excluding theology, medicine, art and law, while including the knowledge of things reasoned and checked against experience.
III. The purview of Science
I disagree that Science cannot comment about “immaterial things”, and depending on how you define “spiritual” I may also disagree. As to “proving” the existence of supernatural beings positively or negatively, I would agree only insofar as you make the contention that those supernatural beings don’t interact with the observable universe. Science has nothing to say about the existence (or the lack thereof) of the fourty three dancing leprechauns I swear exist just to the left of our space-time-continuum.
” Science cannot comment on anything that is not:
1. material,
2. therefore, in motion, and
3. thus, observable and quantifiable.”
Quickly I want to get back to something; the second line of the wiki article on science says:
“In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).[2]”
I believe that in modern use, the “dominant,” “ordinary” sense of the word “science” conjures an image of a guy in a lab coat with a beaker “doing science.” But this implies all of the knowledge that buttresses the endeavor of the chemist, which goes all the way back to our first recorded “scientific” thinkers, the Greeks. It seems to me that there are honest debates between passionate people about whether or not mathematics are “science,” in a strict hypothesis-experiment-observation sense of the word. But I doubt very much that if you asked the “average,” “ordinary” person if math was science that the “dominant” answer would be “no.”
Reason and math are fundamental to science and the scientific method. Without abstraction and imagination, interpretation and extrapolation (and probably some more -tions), science (whatever we end up calling it) would be impossible.
If this is granted, then stating that science “cannot comment on anything that is not material” doesn’t make sense to me. Math, energy, probabilities, fields, forces…
Longshanks,
That’s old material around here, man.
Weren’t you the same Longshanks who wrote this when I explained in another post what the classical definition of the word meant?
“But you said that it started with Aristotle. You said it was unified in the 12th century. Maybe my science isn’t truncated, maybe yours in concatenated.”
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-does-theology-protect-science/#comment-24611
So which is it?
1. I am sorry to hear that you think that my discussion and intellectual honesty are old around here.
2. Yes, I am.
3. Which is what? I’m not understanding the dichotomy you seem to have found.
Longshanks,
It’s just that we’ve covered that already. It was said (written?) in jest.
Which is it – Aristotlian classical definition of science as any body of knowledge (what you called previously a “concatenated” definition) or the Modern Science empirical definition (what I called the truncated definition)?
To begin with, I have done us both a disservice. When I read
“Not all theologians or historians of science agree with him, but I think I do. This plunge into the topic is as much for my own learning as it is for anyone else, so argue away.”
I saw the honesty and critical thinking that keeps making these threads difficult to pull away from. For me too, this is a learning experience. I had meant to bring it up earlier.
A second acknowledgment: I oscillate between writing ironically and earnestly. My sarcasm got me into the weeds earlier, so perhaps I have been attempting to write, and have been reading others’ posts, too seriously. Jest is good.
With that said, I’ll lay out what I think I have said in the past, as I think I’ve been misunderstood.
I. Science, the search for truth about the universe, starts (recorded) with the Greeks (not simply Aristotle). {Original Science}
II. Christianity becomes the definitive political/cultural mindset of the Mediterranean, during the next thousand years of its hegemony, Christendom almost completely eradicates the knowledge of the pagan thinkers who came before. After reacquiring this knowledge, translated through the muslims, Christian Universities amalgamate it into a mishmash of theology and science. Science is expanded at these institutions in spite of this.
{Original concatenated with Dogma}
III. Galileo heralds the beginning of the Enlightenment, detaching the search for truth from the “scaffolding” and/or “cage” of religious dogma.
{Original Science}
This is how I understand your point of view:
I. Pre-Christians use god-given abilities to search for his truth, find glimmers, starting with the Greeks.
{Truncated Science}
II. One thousand years after the god-man lived and died for us, through the turmoils and troubles of the post-Roman period, god’s plan for revelation to his only created species on the only planet in the universe, his church obtains writings of the pre-christian thinkers. These show that humans are made in god’s image, as even before the incarnation or outside the influence of the Hebrews, man was finding god naturally. Christian universities build on these writings to form the Scholastic tradition, which purifies and codifies earlier undisciplined thinking into rigorous scientific knowledge, securely in its
place in the hierarchy under theology.
{Full Science}
III. Galileo rebels, heralding the beginning of the ascendancy of the devil in the world, as the people of god turn away from him they trust in themselves instead of his grace. Pure reason and empiricism are hobbled without the grounding in metaphysics and theology offered by the church.
{Truncated science}
All that above is a clunky way of explaining what I was getting at with “So, as far as I can tell, you’re trying to say that “science” as I seem to be using it, is a “truncated” form of the ideal you posited at the beginning, a united hierarchy of science and theology. You’re saying that my science is the same as your ending science, just excised from its previous position inside a hierarchy with theology, right?
But you said that it started with Aristotle. You said it was unified in the 12th century. Maybe my science isn’t truncated, maybe yours in concatenated.”
You:
Aristotle (Truncated) -> Scholastic (Full) -> Modern (Truncated)
Me:
Aristotle (Full) -> Scholastic (Concatenated) -> Modern (Full)
Longshanks,
I understand what you mean. Thanks for the explanation. I hope I can clear up that dogma is not opposed to science. If the two do not agree, then we don’t have the full truth yet.
Galileo is often very misunderstood and misrepresented in the history of science. He can be credited to an extent for the genius observation that motion and time are connected (rate of free fall experiments), and for showing that celestial bodies are made of matter just as things on earth are. Usually people focus on his claim about the solar system. The Church did push back on that because they basically said that if something in science were demonstrably proven to be true, but conflicted with scripture, then the Church would have to reconsider her interpretation of that scripture. So, they asked Galileo for proof. Reasonable, right? He did not have any proof, he kept promising it. All the Church asked him to do was to stop insisting that our understanding of the entire universe be reconsidered until he had proof.
“…stating that science “cannot comment on anything that is not material” doesn’t make sense to me.”
Evidence is meant as being material, math is an abstraction, not the thing itself.
“….what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.”
Also
“I am a determined materialist.”
Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford U.
So math and evidence are both “material”? Are we using that word to mean anything having to do with the physical world, anything to do with reason and logic, deduction, induction etc?
(Why are you quoting Dawkins?)
“So math and evidence are both “material”?”
How did you derive that meaning from what I said?
Dawkins is a (if not the) champion of a modern understanding of science.
It would be proper to use an indefinite article when referring to Dawkins, yes.
I apologize for the misunderstanding, that’s the best I could figure from “Evidence is meant as being material, math is an abstraction, not the thing itself.”
I took you to be saying that evidence (words, graphs, etc) and math, while not being directly physical in themselves (ie. information), are both entwined with the physical world such that the adjective “material” would apply to them both. I see I was mistaken, could you elucidate please? Evidence is material, and fit for science to comment on, but maths are not?
Longshanps,
These are not my words and I try and understand them before I comment or debunk.
“To comment on” I take to mean to the area of existence that has mass. Anything else is either a tool to use in acquiring an understanding or used to propose an understanding. To comment in general is of course what we are doing now in a comment box. Proofs are provided by material evidence or measurement of the physical. Unless the immaterial or spiritual is measureable or seeable it cannot be evidenced by traditional methods.
If you can provide a better word or phrase that would be nice.
As Dawkins says, “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”
Any comments about the validity of Stacy’s next essay should wait until it is actually seeable.
Howdawg,
“These are not my words and I try and understand them before I comment or debunk.”
I wonder why you would take up the standard of the blog-owner and comment, in some sense, for her. If these are not your words, then are they not your view point? If they’re not you view point, how and why are you articulating and defending them? As to whether or not anyone else tries to understand the words on their screens; rest your wearied head! You are not alone in this, be not afraid.
“Any comments about the validity of Stacy’s next essay should wait until it is actually seeable.”
Here I take you to be referring to this (http://www.acceptingabundance.com/would-there-be-science-without-christianity/#comment-27442).
I can see how you would think that I am pre-empting Stacy’s future post, which had not yet been “seeable.” I was not, or not intending to. I was earlier accused of flip-floppery, shimmy-shammying, of being a fliberty jibbit…of trying to have it both ways. (http://www.acceptingabundance.com/would-there-be-science-without-christianity/#comment-27428)
My comment was meant to contextualize my previous statements. (http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-does-theology-protect-science/#comment-24611)
Since this has been an active discussion about a single topic, we are necessarily re-tracing some steps in the aim of clarification, but I was not trying to put words in her mouth, merely explain the ones coming out of mine.
Now, aside from those challenges, I think we’re homing in on something interesting. As far as I can tell, you seem to be (either in defense of someone else’s ideas, or your own, I cannot tell which) advancing that science is in the business of exploring the material universe using material means. This is what I was getting at with “So math and evidence are both ‘material,’” under correction, I understand you to be saying that maths are not “immaterial” since they are simply abstractions of directly measurable phenomena. Science must concern itself with facts and constructions which have their basis in reality.
LS,
“I wonder why you would take up the standard of the blog-owner and comment, in some sense, for her. If these are not your words, then are they not your view point?”
TRUTH is the goal. Truth about what someone says. The truth about what I believe.
I choose when to disagree. I actually answered you in another thread when I said that I am not 100% in agreement with this understanding. I don’t think anyone would accuse me of not having opinions. Spewing can be relieving, but is not necessarily wise.
She is, as I am, trying to come to agreement on a generalized meaning of the word science in the modern world. If we write paragraphs on the definition alone we defeat our purpose by including refinement that will come later. This is her blog, not mine. Personally I think the definition exists as a working truth for the current generation. As with most views of this generation I would feel decapitated adopting them.
“Here I take you to be referring to this..”
Actually I was reminding Alan and Mjeck and anyone else for the need for patience to get to the end of a complicated subject, and you for your propensity for this:
“As I understand it, christians lost and/or actively destroyed the pagan works of the Greeks, which you only got back through tortuous paths, aided by Arabs, one thousand years after your cult monopolized the politics and culture of the mediterranean.”
I will give you much deserved credit for subsequent restraint.
“I understand you to be saying that maths are not “immaterial”
Math is immaterial, try and pick up a concept with your hands. It is not the SUBJECT of science as it is thought of today except that math and the physical can correlate, when they DO NOT the calculations must be changed. It’s very existence is derived from the physical world. Result derived from mathematics is not evidence of the physical, just an indication that that same thing might be there in nature. If the opposite were true we would not need to go beyond checking the arithmetic. As a discipline I suppose it could be loosely called “A” science. A separate pursuit understood to be “scientific” in that it is accepted as such and uses sets of rules. My view of modern science, is that it uses math as it uses a telescope or a computer or language – only to inspect and explain nature.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science
science [ˈsaɪəns]
n
1. the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
2. the knowledge so obtained or the practice of obtaining it
3. any particular branch of this knowledge the pure and applied sciences
4. any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner
5. skill or technique
Howdawg
Hope these are helpful in some way.
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/ti99/ashley.htm
“Stanley Jaki advises a similar reliance on metaphysics rather than natural science and takes a very negative view of the Aristotelian tradition for its failure to keep science and metaphysics clearly distinguished.”
http://www.charlesdekoninck.com/natural-science-as-philosophy/
“Dr. Adler asserts that ‘philosophy and science are independent branches of knowledge, each with its own object and its own method.’ ….I cannot go along with this parallel.”
From Alan Aversa’s scholastic realism page.
P.s. [De Koninck is just reminding that the modern restricted use of the word philosophy can't bear the light of perennial philosophy - but it's used for convenience in our primitive times]
P.p.s [Fr Ashley is arguing: "Too many Thomists have assumed that the proof of the existence of God or of any kind of immaterial being is a task of metaphysics itself, thus producing a circular argument in which metaphysics proves the existence of its own subject. Aquinas provides the way out of this vicious circle. He explicitly maintains that the required proof of the existence of immaterial being is provided not by metaphysics but by physics, that is, natural science whose proper subject is not "being as such" but changeable being, ens mobile.]
Thanks Martin, I’ll read those. Father Ashley actually gave the DVD lecture for the same course (Philosophy for Theologians) that required me to read Jaki’s book. Father Ashley mentioned a few of those theologians in mentioned also in the essay you linked and I remember him pointing out some reasons he disagreed with some of their conclusions. I’ll have to think about this metaphysics distinction. Thank you again.
I would encourage anyone who wants to get a view of events practically as they happen in Rome and has none now, to get the eNewsletter subscription (free) to the http://themoynihanletters.com/ from Dr. Robert B. Moynihan. Much has been said of this Pope’s dedication to the poor, and we all are sizing him up because he has not written in English and not much is known about him the further you get from him. My Bishop for example has met him once on a trip to Argentina but knows little about him.
The following is from Dr. Moynihan.
“But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, the dear and venerated Benedict XVI, called the ‘dictatorship of relativism’…”
–Pope Francis, March 22, 2013 (today), in the Vatican, speaking to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, citing words spoken by Pope Benedict XVI eight years ago on the eve of the previous Conclave.
If one were to summarize in a phrase, one might say that Francis today said: “I stand with Pope Benedict.”
But on what, precisely?
Francis today said he stands with Pope Benedict on the Christian conception of truth: that the truth of the Christian faith, the truth of the Christian vision of man, leads mankind toward life, more abundant life, toward justice, toward true joy.
“Too many Thomists have assumed that the proof of the existence of God or of any kind of immaterial being is a task of metaphysics itself, thus producing a circular argument in which metaphysics proves the existence of its own subject.”
God is not the subject of metaphysics.
Being is the subject of metaphysics.
It is certainly the case that being cannot be metaphysically accounted for in the absence of God, and so metaphysics relies not upon itself, but upon theology, for proof of the existence of its own subject.
“Aquinas provides the way out of this vicious circle. He explicitly maintains that the required proof of the existence of immaterial being is provided not by metaphysics but by physics, that is, natural science whose proper subject is not “being as such” but changeable being, ens mobile”
>> But the argument from motion is itself a metaphysical argument.
Agreed Rick, here’s a very recent talk, clearly presented I thought (such that I’ve now got a good grasp of it !) of the argument from change (I understand Aristotle restricts motion to that which can be measured by time – change of quality, quantity and place [local motion], substantial change – generation/corruption – is considered instantaneous ) http://vimeo.com/60979789
And Fr Mullady OP and Fr Weisheipl OPare helping me with the order of the sciences and the Posterior Analytics.
“The key to reading Aristotle and Aquinas on natural science is a good understanding of the Organon and especially the Posterior Analytics (which by the way deals with the kind of questions which today are commonly called ‘philosophy of science’).” http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/
Here’s the next! http://stacytrasancos.com/why-wasnt-science-born-in-egypt/
It’s at the new place. I want to know too if you like the Disqus comment system. It’s supposed to be better and faster.
Dietrich Bonheoffer, the German Lutheran theologian was bold to say in his thesis that the developed world came about because of Christianity and true progress was more evident in these Christian societies/cultures. Bonheoffer was not alone this viewpoint as many other scholars have stated the same thing. Even though a case can be made for the advancement of science because of Christianity, the skeptics abound. But one can objectivity conclude that we, meaning Christians, are certainly not anti-science.