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?

[Jose]

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.

Agreed--dogmatism is anti-scientific. I would argue, however, that the use of science to prove something the church already knows is, in fact, not using "science." It's using a misconceived caricature of science--imagining that "data" is information you find to support your theory (ignoring non-supporting data), rather than information from which you derive your theory (requiring that the theory fit all of the data).

Still, I maintain my argument, that "scientific thinking" is developing explanations for observations. At present, we have enough observations (data) that we come up with expanding universes, billion-year-old earth, evolution, etc. But thousands of years ago, there wasn't enough information to come up with anything but plausible-seeming stories that involve all-powerful intelligences to do the "hard stuff." From this, grew religion, as the stories were handed down from generation to generation, entrusted to Special Men to remember, and embellished with Cultural Rules.

It is important not to mix current religion and what-things-were-like-when-religious-ideas-were-first-conceived. I'm thinking of the latter.

[Cathar1950]

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.

I have to do some stuff so I am pressed for time but the Christians burned the library down in the 4th century. Sure Caesar did it too. They also burned the Gnostic Priestess.
They got rid of anything and anyone that disagreed with the ones kissing Constantine’s butt and ridding themselves of heretics within they didn’t bother spreading Christianity, they were just interested in gaining power and control. Before it was the state religion the high posts in the church were already being coveted and bought. You have no idea what you’re talking about as far as Technology, the scientific method and the church. The monasteries were usually in little clusters that ended up getting reeled in by church power.
Many scholars understand that it was the eastern orthodox non Roman Catholic that did the real work in the far west.
Where do you get you info?

[jjg]

Christians never burnt the Library at Alexandria. It was burned by Ceaser a long time before Christians were around and that's when they lost a lot of the writings.

When the dark ages began, barbarian invasions destroyed the cities and people forgot how to live and run cities and the library fell into ruin.

A library at Pergamum was burnt by Christians for different reasons.

It was barbarian invasions that caused the split between east and West. It was all basically the same faith, but Constantinople was as beiseged as Rome.

It was only through monks converting the barbarian tribes that Western Civilization was restored. The western shore of Ireland is where Western civilization was kept intact.

Soon after the council of Nicea, Constatine started favoring Arian bishops and the whole mess ensued again causing more separation between Church and state.

[McCulloch]

Christians never burnt the Library at Alexandria. It was burned by Ceaser a long time before Christians were around and that's when they lost a lot of the writings.

It appears as if the library survived Caesar's attacks. It's final destruction is a matter of some controversy, yet few historians can claim conclusively that the Christians did or did not do it.

A library at Pergamum was burnt by Christians for different reasons.

What is a good reason to burn a library?

[jjg]

Maybe their overdue fees were too high.

[Cathar1950]

I thought it was the Gnostic Priestess and the bad books there. They dragged her out and burned her too.
I guess I could look it up.
Maybe they had books on evolution or "the Catcher in the rye"?

[Cmass]

Still, I maintain my argument, that "scientific thinking" is developing explanations for observations.

You might want to restate this. I don't imagine you actually believe that developing an explanation for something is "scientific thinking".

[Confused]

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?

If science didn't exist, we would attribute all things to supernatural events, not necessarily "God". As it stands now, religion remains popular for two predominate reasons:
1) where did man/universe come from
2) what happens to the soul (if it exists) after death.

Other than those, science can be used to theorize (though maybe not always prove) the rest.

[Noachian]

I am a Christian (new member of the forum), It is obvious that science has skulpded the modern world and since Christianity invented Science inbetween 1001-Now, we see a clear picture that Christianity would be very grim if science was not used, the great Creationist movment wouldnt have taken off etc. I could imagain that Christians would be quite controlive and the goverment most '1stworld' countries would be Theocraticel (alough this isnt a bad thing).

If you really think about it we've always been using science even before it was decleared a profetion by the Church in the late medieval times. Man has always been using some sort of science in a way, for e.g. Philosiphy was just a primitive Science and Jewish scolers used studied nature aswell as the Scriptures so Science would never have seiced to exist but if in some alternate reallity it never came about we'd be abit thick, Only God could guid us.

[micatala]

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?

Yet another good OP by CMass.

We can, of course, but speculate.

I would make a couple of initial comments.

As has been suggested in some sense above, I think we might want to be more precise about what we mean by 'science' and perhaps a bit careful about what we ascribe to science per se, and what we might ascribe more generally to 'reasonable thinking' or even 'common sense.' See for example QED's comments.

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!).

I particularly like the probability example. I do this in most of my classes (I teach math) every semester, and yes, most people way overestimate the first probability. (180 is a common answer).

f 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.

This would be a pretty general definition of science. I find it hard to believe that humans as we know them could exist and not engage in this 'general form' of scientific thinking.

I will propose we use science to describe 'formal science' and perhaps (if this is not too radical a suggestion) think of Galileo and his more able contemporaries and successors as the first 'real scientists'. What do you all think?



As a final comment, I would argue that some technological developments could have arisen without 'formal science'. Certainly the chemistry examples cited previously could not have, but 'engineering' sorts of things might have. Trebuchet's and catapults, for example, are not in my view due to science per se.