Home
Science and Christianity: Bnet Members Speak!
Loose Canon correctly anticipated that Beliefnet members could go to town discussing two pro-Christianity quotes (you may read them here) from Rodney Stark’s new book, “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.”
Even Swami, often so manifestly unhappy, rose magnificently to the occasion. In a post headlined “Loose Canon’s Challenge: Name One great thing Jesus didn’t do,” Swam writes:
“Gotta feel really bad for LC, who writes:
Do I sometimes detect a soupcon of hostility toward the singular achievements of Western civilization among those who post comments on Loose Canon?
“I assume she means on her message boards, where a random reading does reveal considerable hostility. Most of it seems directed at LC herself.”
Well, I laughed out loud—Swam is right, I do have my—um—detractors among those who express themselves in the comments. A goodly number of the 40 posts were interesting and thoughtful. A few highlights are in order. Basileus writes:
“One final note, LC: if you detect a soupcon of hostility towards the singular achievements of Western civilization, I don't think it's due to those achievements themselves. Indeed, the achievements are profound. It's how you come across with it: like it's the only civilization ever to produce anything and it is just innately superior, just because...it's the West!”The West would not have gotten where it was today if it didn't piggyback on civs before it and sometimes even outright borrow or steal.”
I quite agree—of course, Western civilization has appropriated the achievements of other civilizations. The stream contains elements from desert tribes and highbrows who philosophized on the Acropolis. The point in the Stark book (I think) is that it is only in the much-maligned Western society that science arose. One reason for this is that the Christian West believed in a rational god who created the world. Here is another smidgen from Stark to get your engines running:
“As Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread ‘faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.’ Whitehead’s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published. How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark "Principia Mathmatica" (1910-13), make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific inquiry?
“Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else.”
Christianity postulated a rational deity and a universe about which mankind could learn. “As conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was,” writes Stark, adding that therefore Chinese intellectuals pursued “enlightenment” rather than explanations.
Beliefnet member mercmisfire wrote:
“I stated that it [is?] the opposition of Christianity to science [that is?] is at least as valid a historical fact as the importance of Christianity to science, and that at this point the former has more practical usefulness (that is, that at this point, dwelling on the past successes of christianity is useless -- it has served its purpose and glorifying its past is less helpful than realizing the danger it poses to science NOW because the present it just a more useful focus in this situation). I must admit I don't really know that I need to defend this ... is it not obvious at this point ? Look to the bunk of intelligent design or creationism, to the opposition to stem cell research, cloning, materialism/naturalism, etc. and you will see all the proof I need.”
I, of course, believe that the purpose of Christianity is eternal. But I must admit that merc was hot on the trail of one of the reasons I had chosen these two quotes from Stark—I thought that if Beliefnet members could see that Christianity is not anti-science, they might be willing to entertain some of the cautions Christians throw out about the uses to which modern science is put—cloning, for example. I guess I was barking up the wrong tree.
Beliefnet member Cheryl writes:
”Christianity has fought tooth and nail against the advances that our gossip columnist now right pundit LC would have us believe were innovations of the faith.” However, the big-picture issue here is Ms Hayes [sic] and her supreme insistance that white is right. I'm glad that Bnet pulled her ‘the Crusades got a bum rap’ post, but she has posted things in the past that have gotten through, like a similar post to this awhile back, and the shameful post that no one should mourn the loss of the Mayan civilization because they didn't add anything to the world anyway (posted right after a devastating hurricane killed hundreds of Mayan descendants).”
I am glad you brought this up—I do not believe white is right. Forget race and color—this about creed, Cheryl. The point made in the Stark book is that Christianity—the thought processes it introduced, not the people who happened to embrace it—is responsible for the rise of science.
And I am glad that you brought up my ill-fated Crusades post—it was a technologically inept Loose Canon, not her editors at Beliefnet, who removed the post—accidentally. I might have said that the Mayan civilization ranked below, say, fifth-century Athens, but I never said that the deaths of Mayan descendants in a hurricane should not be mourned.
LC enjoyed the comments and regrets that she cannot mention all.
Even Swami, often so manifestly unhappy, rose magnificently to the occasion. In a post headlined “Loose Canon’s Challenge: Name One great thing Jesus didn’t do,” Swam writes:
“Gotta feel really bad for LC, who writes:
Do I sometimes detect a soupcon of hostility toward the singular achievements of Western civilization among those who post comments on Loose Canon?
“I assume she means on her message boards, where a random reading does reveal considerable hostility. Most of it seems directed at LC herself.”
Well, I laughed out loud—Swam is right, I do have my—um—detractors among those who express themselves in the comments. A goodly number of the 40 posts were interesting and thoughtful. A few highlights are in order. Basileus writes:
“One final note, LC: if you detect a soupcon of hostility towards the singular achievements of Western civilization, I don't think it's due to those achievements themselves. Indeed, the achievements are profound. It's how you come across with it: like it's the only civilization ever to produce anything and it is just innately superior, just because...it's the West!”The West would not have gotten where it was today if it didn't piggyback on civs before it and sometimes even outright borrow or steal.”
I quite agree—of course, Western civilization has appropriated the achievements of other civilizations. The stream contains elements from desert tribes and highbrows who philosophized on the Acropolis. The point in the Stark book (I think) is that it is only in the much-maligned Western society that science arose. One reason for this is that the Christian West believed in a rational god who created the world. Here is another smidgen from Stark to get your engines running:
“As Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread ‘faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.’ Whitehead’s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published. How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark "Principia Mathmatica" (1910-13), make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific inquiry?
“Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else.”
Christianity postulated a rational deity and a universe about which mankind could learn. “As conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was,” writes Stark, adding that therefore Chinese intellectuals pursued “enlightenment” rather than explanations.
Beliefnet member mercmisfire wrote:
“I stated that it [is?] the opposition of Christianity to science [that is?] is at least as valid a historical fact as the importance of Christianity to science, and that at this point the former has more practical usefulness (that is, that at this point, dwelling on the past successes of christianity is useless -- it has served its purpose and glorifying its past is less helpful than realizing the danger it poses to science NOW because the present it just a more useful focus in this situation). I must admit I don't really know that I need to defend this ... is it not obvious at this point ? Look to the bunk of intelligent design or creationism, to the opposition to stem cell research, cloning, materialism/naturalism, etc. and you will see all the proof I need.”
I, of course, believe that the purpose of Christianity is eternal. But I must admit that merc was hot on the trail of one of the reasons I had chosen these two quotes from Stark—I thought that if Beliefnet members could see that Christianity is not anti-science, they might be willing to entertain some of the cautions Christians throw out about the uses to which modern science is put—cloning, for example. I guess I was barking up the wrong tree.
Beliefnet member Cheryl writes:
”Christianity has fought tooth and nail against the advances that our gossip columnist now right pundit LC would have us believe were innovations of the faith.” However, the big-picture issue here is Ms Hayes [sic] and her supreme insistance that white is right. I'm glad that Bnet pulled her ‘the Crusades got a bum rap’ post, but she has posted things in the past that have gotten through, like a similar post to this awhile back, and the shameful post that no one should mourn the loss of the Mayan civilization because they didn't add anything to the world anyway (posted right after a devastating hurricane killed hundreds of Mayan descendants).”
I am glad you brought this up—I do not believe white is right. Forget race and color—this about creed, Cheryl. The point made in the Stark book is that Christianity—the thought processes it introduced, not the people who happened to embrace it—is responsible for the rise of science.
And I am glad that you brought up my ill-fated Crusades post—it was a technologically inept Loose Canon, not her editors at Beliefnet, who removed the post—accidentally. I might have said that the Mayan civilization ranked below, say, fifth-century Athens, but I never said that the deaths of Mayan descendants in a hurricane should not be mourned.
LC enjoyed the comments and regrets that she cannot mention all.
<< Loose Canon Home