A Christian world without science

[Cmass]

What would the world look like if science had never developed?
One could assume we would still be wearing sack clothes and riding asses (so to speak) and chariots. No flight, no round earth, no solar system, no social or cultural science, no dentistry, no anthropology, no physics, just the same profound ignorance of the world.

Would the church have evolved in the same way it did? If not, in what ways might it be different?

[QED]

I agree with confused. Sure we are all what Richard Robinson calls "naive scientists" as we constantly perform scientific appraisals of the world we move around in. But without a concerted effort to organise and validate the science we get superstition. Then we go off in any direction - I'm thinking here of human sacrifice to appease the harvest Gods etc.

In other words I would say that individual humans are capable of some pretty poor insights and sloppy thinking if it is not rigorously checked. Pride often seems to get in the way of people accepting this, but I'd be the first to admit to finding myself developing superstitious thought patterns in spite of my critical appraisal of such things. It's not that there really are supernatural things going on on days like yesterday (Friday the thirteenth!), it's that my brain -- like all others --- is easily misled down such notional pathways.

I'm reading another interesting book titled The Magical Maze: Seeing the World Through Mathematical Eyes. In it Ian Stewart points out just how bad humans are at assessing probabilities. This can readily lead us into reading too much into coincidences. If anyone seriously doubts this I would recommend picking up this book. I was totally stunned by how far off my intuitions were when confronted with simple estimations like "how many random people need to be in a room to have a 50% probability that two or more share a birthday" (23!) and then "how many random people need to be in a room to have a 50% probability of sharing your birthday" (253!).

Without science as a rigorous check on the stuff we come up with I very much doubt if the Christian code would have seen us through the dark ages.

[Cathar1950]

Feed back it is always feed back. We are natural explorers. From the time we start sticking out toes in our mouth( I don't do it any more)
we are always testing the world we live in and I think there are millions of years of feed back built into us that save us a lot of time. Except toes of course.

[Jose]

But where does science actually begin in history?

This is a good question.
Anyone have a good answer?

Is it the first "scientist" - which would be after christianity started wouldn't it? Because I'm pretty sure Christianity started it off - at least for europe. Because it wasn't opposing anything the bible said. It only explored physical phenomena, and things like how the body is set out etc.

Or was it even before then - with the "eureka guy" (feeling REALLY stupid - I forget his name right now).

Or was it before then - farmers working out where to plant what crops for them to grow the best..... (hypothesis - That corn grows better here than there. Method. Plant corn everywhere. Result. It grew faster here, but had bigger cobs here etc)

Let me suggest the following, speaking as a scientist...

How does science work? You observe something. You try to explain it, based on all of the available evidence. You test your explanation, essentially, by assessing how well it fits with new information that comes up later. As long as it fits, it's what you accept as the "right answer."

So, let's cast our minds back a few thousand years. You see stars. You see the sun and the moon, rising and setting over what appears to be a basically flat landscape (maybe with mountains here and there, but it shore don't look none like a ball hangin' in no vacuum). What holds up the sky? Is it two really big guys holding long tent poles, with the sky-fabric draped on them? Could be. Is it an upturned bowl? Could be. What are the stars? Are they holes that Raven pecked in the upturned bowl to let the light in? Could be. What's above the sky? Is it some sort of "heaven"? What's below the earth? Must be some sort of "underworld."

What makes volcanoes happen? Tsunamis? Where do plagues come from? Why do some people get sick and die, and others survive, or not get sick at all when an epidemic comes along? Where do babies come from? Why are some boys and some girls? Hippocrates dissected rats, which have a uterus that splits into a left arm and a right arm, each of which can have several embryos implant in it. Humans don't have the "arms" of the uterus, just the common central part--so Hippocrates concluded that girls come from embryos that implant on the left side, and boys come from embryos that implant on the right side. Of course, he didn't know about implantation or embryos...he "observed" that humans start out as water (can't see it), then become plants (little thingies that don't look like animals), then become animals (look pretty much like cow embryos), and finally become humans. First, when they get past the water stage, they get the soul of a plant. Then, the soul of an animal is added. Then, finally, the soul of a human is added. He concluded that it's OK to perform abortions as long as the human soul has not yet been added.

So...where does religion fit into this? It's a first-round scientific explanation for the world and its history. It's an explanation based on only those things that can be experienced with the unaided human senses, with stories filling in the invisible parts. It's an explanation that invokes "things we know" writ large to explain things we can't fathom--like an all-powerful white man creating a white man in his image, and then deciding to make Man a Playmate. It's an explanation that attributes the unknowable--plagues, floods, different languages--to acts performed by this all-powerful guy. That's OK. In the absence of any information to suggest otherwise, this was a fine explanation. It took almost two thousand years to develop instruments that could provide enough information to test this explanation.

If we take away "science," we have to take away "scientific thinking," which is the act of making sense of observations, and developing explanations for things that happen. If we take this away, we lose religion altogether. A world without science, without scientific thinking, would be a world that is very much like that of chimpanzees. Immediate causation would be understandable, but very little would be passed from generation to generation. Everyone would do things the way the elders show them how to do them, or as instinct dictates, or as responses to immediate events warrant. But there would be no attempt to understand why the world is like it is. It would not be a "Christian world," but would be something very different.

[Cmass]

Is it the first "scientist" - which would be after christianity started wouldn't it? Because I'm pretty sure Christianity started it off - at least for europe

Really?

So...where does religion fit into this? It's a first-round scientific explanation for the world and its history.

Really?

[Cathar1950]

A Christian mob did burn down the library in Alexandria and helped Europe into the dark ages but I think the Muslims gave them the Greek classics and math. Also they shared the idea of soap with the Europeans. According to Christians Jesus even said you didn’t need to wash your hands.

[methylatedghosts]

Is it the first "scientist" - which would be after christianity started wouldn't it? Because I'm pretty sure Christianity started it off - at least for europe

Really?

I heard (no idea where - sorry) that christianity supported and funded early scientists because it didn't oppose what the bible said. These scientists were looking at things in nature and trying to find out more about them. And because it wasn't the easiest thing to do, it confirmed for christianity the wonder of the world and how complicated it is, so god must have made it.

And, thanks to christianity, we have Universities as we know them. The idea that people could learn what they needed to become doctors etc - instead of being a "doctors apprentice" for example. And a place people could go to learn without having to live at home - they could move out and still be learning. Although, they were much more strict - uniforms, no mixed-gender flatting unless you were married etc.

[bernee51]

And, thanks to christianity, we have Universities as we know them..

The key phrase is "as we know them".

Nalanda University in Bihar (India) dates around the 5th century BCE. It conferred academic degree titles to its graduates, while also offering post-graduate courses.

[Jose]

Is it the first "scientist" - which would be after christianity started wouldn't it? Because I'm pretty sure Christianity started it off - at least for europe

Really?

So...where does religion fit into this? It's a first-round scientific explanation for the world and its history.

Really?

I'm afraid "Really?" doesn't provide much information. It's hard to tell whether you mean "Really? Wow! I hadn't thought of it like that before. I agree entirely." Or, do you mean "Really? I think you're full of hot air. There's nothing scientific about religion. In fact, religion is as anti-scientific as it is possible to be."

I heard (no idea where - sorry) that christianity supported and funded early scientists because it didn't oppose what the bible said. These scientists were looking at things in nature and trying to find out more about them. And because it wasn't the easiest thing to do, it confirmed for christianity the wonder of the world and how complicated it is, so god must have made it.

Yeah--it's that Natural Theology school of thought. "Let's describe everything we can in the world, the better to understand the glory of god's creation." The interesting thing is that, as the description became more complete, it became harder and harder to explain it with Christian theology. Geologists like Lyell saw that it just didn't make sense that a single flood could have created geology as it exists. Biologists like Darwin saw too many relationships to believe that species are invariant. So, yeah--the church's acceptance of Natural Theology led directly to the understanding of the great age of the earth and of evolution. Fortunately, most Christians have accepted this as being perfectly reasonable, and see Genesis in a more allegorical/metaphorical way than people did when there were no additional data to compare it to.

[Cmass]

I'm afraid "Really?" doesn't provide much information. It's hard to tell whether you mean "Really? Wow!

Not every statement I make is packed full of great insight - just most of them!

I am fishing for more information while being very surprised by the statement.
On the whole I would tend to agree with this:

There's nothing scientific about religion. In fact, religion is as anti-scientific as it is possible to be.

Religion is dogmatic. Dogmatism is is "anti-scientific". I see science used by the church today as a way to prove something they already believe.

[jjg]

I think the real question is would there be modern science without the Church.
The answer is an obvious no.

The whole scientific method developed from the church. Technology developed from the church.

The Library of Alexander was burned by Julius Ceaser.

It was the Catholic Church that kept all the Classical writing and anything from civilization alive by monastries copying out all the books and writings.