{"id":567,"date":"2008-03-28T21:15:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-28T20:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/epiphenom\/2008\/03\/no-christianity-is-not-the-root-of-modern-science.html"},"modified":"2014-11-14T05:36:45","modified_gmt":"2014-11-14T04:36:45","slug":"no-christianity-is-not-root-of-modern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/epiphenom\/2008\/03\/no-christianity-is-not-root-of-modern.html","title":{"rendered":"No, Christianity is not the root of modern science!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Medieval Europe was, on the whole, notable for two things: an large amount of Christianity and an absence of anything remotely resembling modern science. Given that the Christian Dark Ages were preceded by a pagan (OK Greek) enlightenment, it\u2019s tempting to see the two as connected. On the other hand, modern science developed in Europe against a background of Christianity \u2013 so perhaps modern science would never have developed without Christianity.<\/p>\n

Christians of course, would like to think so. In an article<\/a> in the April issue of Catholic Insight<\/span>, Donald DeMarco makes the case and, at least as he argues it, it\u2019s exceptionally weak.<\/p>\n

The bulk of the article is taken up with an \u201cAppeal to Authority\u201d style defence of the work of Pierre Duhem<\/a>, who in the first decades of the 20th century wrote a mammoth, 10 volume treatise on Medieval science \u2013 demolishing claims that the Medieval period was scientifically barren.<\/p>\n

Later historians have criticised his claims that there was a continuum of scientific development from the Medieval period through into the enlightenment, arguing instead that the renaissance represented a revolution (in Kuhnian terms, a paradigm shift). According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

At the beginning of an essay on void and infinite space, Koyr\u00e9 quotes a passage from Duhem that has become infamous: \u201cIf we were obliged to assign a date to the birth of modern science, we would undoubtedly choose 1277, when the Bishop of Paris solemnly proclaimed that a multiplicity of worlds could exist, and that the system of celestial spheres could, without contradiction, be endowed with straight line motion\u201d (1906-13, II.411; see also 1913-59, VII. 4). Koyr\u00e9 calls the two theses from the condemnations of 1277 \u201cabsurdities,\u201d noting that they arise in a theological context, and rejects Duhem\u2019s date for the birth of modern science; he remarks that Duhem gives another date elsewhere, corresponding to Buridan\u2019s impetus theory being extended to the heavens, but dismisses it also, saying that \u201cit is as false as the first date\u201d (1961, 37n). For Koyr\u00e9, the introduction of Platonic metaphysics, the mathematization of nature, marks a break with the Aristotelian Middle Ages.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The debate over when, exactly, the antecedents of modern science occurred is a fascinating topic, but it\u2019s bizarre that DeMarco should make it such a focal point of his argument. Whenever the modern scientific outlook took hold (and it\u2019s still far from being a majority opinion even today), it clearly did so against a background of Christianity. To argue that, therefore, science was born from Christianity is a classic case of attribution bias.<\/p>\n

You can see this from the arguments DeMarco put forwards to support the hypothesis that Christian theology somehow promotes a scientific outlook. Here they are in full:<\/p>\n