Sunday, August 25, 2019

Did Christianity Suppress Science in the "Dark Ages?" - Part 2

The Synergetic Relationship Between Science & Christianity - Part 2
The "Dark Ages"

Science and Christianity have traditionally complemented each other – even in the so called “Dark Ages” - and have been intimately connected throughout history. In part 1of this post, I briefly showed with three examples how prominent Christian thinkers from the 5th century to the 8th century promoted science as a second way to know God’s truth. Augustine was confident that we could use our reason and experience to read the book of nature because it was created by God. He wanted the interpretation of scripture to stay consistent with the cosmology and physics of the classical tradition and used the natural sciences in his role as a theologian and Bible interpreter. The Roman Senator Boethius and the English Monk Bede both had Christian worldviews that were not at all in conflict with a mechanistic universe governed by natural cause and effect.[1]In part 2, I will continue to look at how the Christian view of God as a lawgiver, a rational mind, and as the Creator gave rise to modern science.
Beginning with the University of Bologna in 1088, followed by Paris and Oxford before 1200, the invention of the church supported university had much – if not everything – to do with the “Scientific Revolution.” These universities, and the Christians who supported and ran them, provided the stimulus to translate Greek and Arabic texts – many of which concerned the knowledge of nature - into Latin. “If European Christians had been closed-minded to the earlier work of pagans, as the [“Dark Ages”] myth alleges, then what explains this ferocious appetite for translations?”[2]

The Franciscan cleric and university scholar Roger Bacon read much of the newly translated work … By evaluating this past work and introducing some controlled observations – what we now call experiments – Bacon brought the science of light to its most sophisticated stage of medieval development.[3]

Roger Bacon’s work from the 13th century, Opus Majus, is evidence enough that medieval Christians did not “hold back science!” If you need more evidence, consider that thirty percent of the medieval university liberal arts curriculum addressed what we would call science.[4]
Most “histories” about the “rise of science” begin with Copernicus and how his work brought about a drastic change in how people thought about the universe. This fiction ignores the fact that Copernicus received an excellent education at some of the best Christian universities of the time (Cracow, Bologna, Padua).  It also assumes that the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun came to him out of the blue, instead of simply adding the next implicit step to what the Scholastic scientists had formulated and taught for the past two centuries.[5]
To the Greeks, continuous motion required continuous force; this thought about the heavenly bodies continued through Aquinas in the 13th century. Because of his belief that space was a vacuum, William of Ockham broke from this tradition in the 14th century by arguing that a body in motion may not require continuous pushing and once a body had been set in motion by God, it would remain in motion.[6]Jean Buridan, rector at the University of Paris, extended on this idea, anticipating Newton’s First Law of Motion.

[When moving the celestial orbs, God] impressed upon them impetuses which moved them without His having to move them any more … And these impetuses which He impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor corrupted afterwards because there was no inclination of the celestial bodies for other movements. Nor was there resistance which could be corruptive or repressive of that impetus.[7]

Buridan then proposed that the Earth turns on its axis. Objections to the Earth moving, such as why there is not a constant wind and why arrows do not land far away from their origin, were addressed in the 14th century by both Nicole d’Oresme and Albert of Saxony with explanations that sound a lot like Newton’s inertia.[8]Christian university professors began to teach that sunrise and sunset could be caused by the rotation of the earth; in the 14th century it was no longer necessary to assume that the sun circled the Earth![9]
Nicholas of Cusa took the next step in the 15th century:

[Nicholas] noted that, “as we see from its shadow in eclipses, … the earth is smaller than the sun” but larger than the moon or Mercury, Nicholas went on to observe (as had Buridan and d’Oresme) that “whether a man is on the earth, or the sun, or some other star, it will always seem to him that the position he occupies is the motionless centre, and that all other things are in motion.” It followed that humans need not trust their perception that the earth is stationary, perhaps it isn’t.[10]

All of the theorizing of Ockham, Buridan, d’Oresme, Albert, and Nicholas was known prior to Copernicus and taught at the Christian centered universities!  The scientific revolution did not begin with Copernicus, he simply took the logical next step.[11]
Science and Christianity have traditionally complemented each other and have been intimately connected throughout history. Science was not “held back” during the so-called “Dark Ages.” In fact, scientific thought continued to move forward, even foreshadowing Newton’s Laws and providing the scaffolding needed for Copernicus, a canon in the Catholic Church, to make his contribution to science.

If the medieval church had intended to discourage or suppress science, it certainly made a colossal mistake in tolerating – to say nothing of supporting – the university. In this new institution, Greco-Arabic science and medicine for the first time found a permanent home, one that – with various ups and downs – science has retained to this day. Dozens of universities introduced large numbers of students to Euclidean geometry, optics, the problems of generation and reproduction, the rudiments of astronomy, and the arguments for the sphericity of the earth.[12]





[1]Michael Newton Keas, Unbelievable, ISI Books, 2019, page 35
[2]Ibid, page 37
[3]Ibid
[4]Ibid
[5]Rodney Stark, For The Glory of God, Princeton University Press, 2003, page 135
[6]Ibid, page 136
[7]Ibid
[8]Ibid, page 137
[9]Ibid
[10]Ibid, page 138
[11]Ibid
[12]Michael Shank, as quoted by Michael Newton Keas, Unbelievable, ISI Books, 2019, page 37

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Did Christianity Suppress Science in the "Dark Ages?"

The Synergetic Relationship Between Science & Christianity - Part 1
The "Dark Ages"

In the Middle Ages, as most people believe, it is correct that some of the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, & Galen (the “Classical tradition”) caused suspicion, hostility, and condemnation from the church.  But more often, critical reflection about the nature of the world was tolerated and even encouraged by medieval religious leaders. Many of the church fathers had been educated in the classical tradition before converting to Christianity and had acquired habits of rational inquiry. They used these tools to help develop Christian doctrine and to help defend the faith against detractors.[2]For example, Aristotle’s philosophy could be used to rationally argue the existence of God.

Consequently, many of the church fathers expressed at least limited approval of the classical tradition.  For example, the second and third century writers Athenagoras, Clement, and Origen all found Greek philosophy a useful tool in the defense of Christianity.  Athenagoras marshaled the authority of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics in favor of monotheism.  Clement attacked the earliest Greek philosophers for their atheism. But he [Clement] also acknowledged that certain philosophers and poets bore testimony to the truth, and that within the philosophical tradition there is a “slender spark, capable of being fanned into flame, a trace of wisdom and an impulse from God.” Tertullian himself viewed Christian religion as the fulfillment of Greek rationality, and he both advocated and engaged in philosophical activity.[3]

Medieval Scholastics deeply valued Aristotle and his writings and believed that his teachings on reason could be incorporated into church theology.  Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine), one of the most important Christian church fathers during the 4thand 5thcentury, wrote at length about the connection between the Genesis account in the Bible and the natural sciences contained in the classical tradition. Augustine had no problem using natural science to help interpret scripture.  Roger Bacon agreed with Augustine.  

His goal was to demonstrate that the pagan learning of the classical tradition was a vital resource, capable of offering essential services to theology and the church; and moreover that it posed no insuperable religious threat, that suitably disciplined and purged of error, it would serve as a faithful handmaiden of religion and the church.[4]

Augustine was confident that we could use our reason and experience to read the book of nature because it was created by God. He wanted the interpretation of scripture to stay consistent with the cosmology and physics of the classical tradition and used the natural sciences in his role as a theologian and bible interpreter. Christians should think of Scripture and Creation as two “books” that should be read together for understanding of the fullness of God’s self-revelation; science is a God-given tool for discerning the handiwork of God in Creation and is fully compatible with God’s Word revealed in Scripture. In terms of actual science, Augustine argued in Confessionsthat time itself is part of the created order and that the universe was created out of nothing;[5]two ideas that modern science didn’t agree with for over 1500 years.
Another Christian in the late 5thand early 6thcentury, the Roman senator Boethius established a foundational scientific concept that we now call “natural laws” by expressing how inanimate nature obeys God’s rules.[6]Work done by the English monk Bede in the late 7thand early 8thcentury “became a model for a purely physical description of the results of the divine creation, devoid of allegorical interpretation, and using the accumulated teachings of the past, both Christian and pagan.”[7]Both Boethius’ and Bede’s Christian worldview was not at all in conflict with a mechanistic universe governed by natural cause and effect.[8]
Science and Christianity have complemented each other – even in the so called “Dark Ages” - and have been intimately connected throughout history. In part 2 I will continue to look at how the Christian view of God as a lawgiver, a rational mind, and as the Creator gave rise to modern science.

[2]David C. Linderg, When Science and Christianity Meet, University of Chicago Press, 2003
[3]David C. Linderg, When Science and Christianity Meet, University of Chicago Press, 2003, page 12
[4]ibid, page 24
[5]Kenneth Richard Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers, Reasons to Believe, 2019
[6]Michael Newton Keas, Unbelievable, ISI Books, 2019, page 35
[7]Bruce S. Eastwood, “Early-Medieval Cosmology, Astronomy, and Mathematics,” in Cambridge History of Science: Volume 2, 307
[8]Michael Newton Keas, Unbelievable, ISI Books, 2019, page 35

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Has Science Pierced the Truth of Christianity?

“Hillsong Worship Leader [Marty Sampson] Announces He Wants No Part in Christianity Anymore.”[1]Marty says in the interview, “I am not in any more. I want genuine truth. Not the ‘I just believe it’ kind of truth.  Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion.”[2]

Is that true? Has science poked holes in Christianity? 

The year is 1953. Watson and Crick have just discovered the structure of DNA. Contrary to what the Bible had taught for thousands of years, almost every scientist still thought the universe to be static and eternal. We had only discovered – at most – five characteristics of the universe that have to be fine-tuned for life. The Oparin-Haldane idea of life originating from a warm little pond was alive and well with the recently complete Miller-Urey experiment. 

What has happened since 1953?  Have the last 65 years seen a flood of evidence from nature making Christianity less reasonable; “piercing the truth” of the essential tenets of the faith?

To answer this, I will focus on three basic beliefs of the Christian faith that can addressed by science:
1.    The universe was created by God. Does current cosmology agree?
2.    The universe was designed for us.  Does current physics agree?
3.    God created life.  Does current biology – specifically origin of life research - agree?

The universe was created by God. Does current cosmology agree?
The creation of the universe is supported by the most tested and confirmed scientific theory – General Relativity.  The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 provided the last piece of evidence to convince the scientific community that the universe had a beginning; the data since has continued to point to a creation event. The current standard model for the universe includes an absolute beginning to time, space, and matter – which of course supports the first tenet that the universe was created. Alexander Vilenkin, physics professor at Tufts University, said in 2012 that “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”[3]This, of course, agrees very well with the first verse in Genesis.

The universe was designed for us.  Does current physics agree?
The design of the universe is becoming so accepted that the question is no longer if the universe is fine-tuned for life, but instead has become, “who or what is responsible for the fine-tuning?” The second tenet is support by current science.  Paul Davies, physics professor at Arizona State University wrote an entire book in 2006 addressing the question, “Why Is The Universe Just Right For Life?”[4]He starts chapter eight with this quote, “Scientists have long been aware that the universe seems strangely suited to life, but, they mostly chose to ignore it. It was an embarrassment – it looked too much like the work of a Cosmic Designer.”[5]Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe has been keeping track of the number of characteristics of the universe, galaxy, solar system, and earth that must be fine-tuned for us to exist.  His number has climbed from around five in the 1960’s to over 1000 today – in every area of scientific study.[6]  We continue to find increasingevidence that we are part of the purpose of the universe; this design supports what is taught in the Bible.

God created life. Does current biology – specifically origin of life research - agree?
Origin of life research since 1953 has made the creation of life on earth more reasonable and a materialistic explanation of life less reasonable.  Since 1953 we have determined that there was no pre-biotic chemical soup (no warm little pond).  As we do more research, organic synthesis under the conditions of the early earth of the large molecules needed for life has become more and more difficult.[7]  Also, chemists having to intervene to do these synthesis reactions in the lab actually provides evidence for an intelligent mind needing to be involved in the creation of life. The organic synthesis reactions required for life to begin all require a researcher to control some aspect of the experiment to get the needed result. Evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris has pointed out, “Many of the experiments designed to explain one or other step in origin of life are either of tenuous relevance to any believable prebiotic setting or involve an experimental rig in which the hand of the researcher becomes for all intents and purposes the hand of God.”[8]An intelligence is necessary every time we duplicate origin of life chemistry; materialism predicts that these reactions should occur on their own.  The more origin of life research we do, the more evidence we find for a creator!

Since the discovery of DNA in 1953, we continued to uncover how amazing the chemical code for life actual is.  DNA is information.  It has been said to be a language and a super advanced computer code; the more we investigate, the more complex it shows itself to be! Since the only source of information is a mind, the evidence we find as we research DNA increasinglysupports that life was created.

Instead of science piercing the truth of Christianity, virtually every discovery and major advance in science over the last 65 years has supported Christianity and made the existence of God more reasonable!
1.    The universe was created by God.  Supported by current cosmology!
2.    The universe was designed for us.  Supported by physics and almost every area of science!
3.    God created life. Supported by origin of life research and the discovery that DNA is information!



[1]Charisma News, Jenny Rose Spaudo, 8/12/2019
[2]ibid
[3]https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
[4]Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, First Mariner Books, 2006
[5]Ibid, page 151
[6]https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2004/06/07/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004
[7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg
[8]Fazale Rana, Creating Life In The Lab, Baker Books, 2011, page 195