Religion vs. Science: A False Dichotomy

[Lithp]

Medieval scholars and philosophers revered the ancient Greek philosophers. We wouldn't even know about many of them today if it weren't for medieval christian monks laboriously copying older manuscripts by hand. In many cases, what held medieval science back wasn't blind adherence to church doctrine, but blind adherence to the ideas of Greek philosophers (like the concept of humors).

I admittedly don't know how commonplace this was.

Also, the plague put the brakes on scientific advancement in Europe for a while.

Well, yeah.

Sure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.

Inspires people to do science sometimes, but was not the progenitor of modern science as we know it.

And medicine, physics, mathematics, geometry, architecture... pretty much every pre-modern field of study was inspired in many researchers by faith and often supported by the church. If we look beyond christianity, I'm sure the same could be said of a lot of religions. The islamic world for example produced a lot of mathematical and medical advances in the middle ages.

I wouldn't classify anything that doesn't involve some prototypical form of the scientific method as science. Otherwise, every form of knowledge could be "science." Islamic findings I would consider to be much more scientific, but also much more independent of its spiritual successor.

For a start.[/quote]

I got to 15 minutes without having any idea what I was supposed to be looking for. That wasn't even a particularly good case for alchemy alone being scientific. What about the fact that it produced the prototypical Periodic Table? Or made developments with refining gunpowder? Transmuting gold & producing the elixir of life is their best foot forward? Really?

And yeah, we can do something nowadays that's like transmutation. It's also completely unrelated to the alchemical theory.

This even says that knowledge was only considered useful insofar as it brought you closer to God. This is a terrible criterion, especially if God was actually not real the entire time.

[Askold]

Sure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.

Inspires people to do science sometimes, but was not the progenitor of modern science as we know it.

But "religion is the progenitor of science" is not what JohnE is trying to argue for. At least I didn't get that impression.

[JohnE]

Sure, but if the scientIST is not only religious but sees his/her religion as motivation for doing science, then it's not fair to say that religion doesn't inspire science.

Inspires people to do science sometimes, but was not the progenitor of modern science as we know it.

But "religion is the progenitor of science" is not what JohnE is trying to argue for. At least I didn't get that impression.

Your impression is accurate.

I wouldn't classify anything that doesn't involve some prototypical form of the scientific method as science.

But that's exactly what much medieval scientific research had, an early (not yet fully developed) form of the scientific method.

According to Wikipedia:

According to Pierre Duhem, who founded the academic study of medieval science as a critique of the Enlightenment-positivist theory of a 17th-century anti-Aristotelian and anticlerical scientific revolution, the various conceptual origins of that alleged revolution lay in the 12th to 14th centuries, in the works of churchmen such as Aquinas and Buridan.

[...]

Grosseteste [13th century bishop] was the founder of the famous Oxford franciscan school. He built his work on Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning. Concluding from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again: from universal laws to prediction of particulars. Grosseteste called this "resolution and composition". Further, Grosseteste said that both paths should be verified through experimentation in order to verify the principals. These ideas established a tradition that carried forward to Padua and Galileo Galilei in the 17th century.

This even says that knowledge was only considered useful insofar as it brought you closer to God. This is a terrible criterion, especially if God was actually not real the entire time.

But seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.

[Lithp]

Your impression is accurate.

The problem is, when you trace this line of conversation back, the point that I was directly responding to was, "The thing a lot of people forget is that religion really was our first attempt to make rational sense of an apparently irrational world, by ascribing intent and personality to otherwise terrifyingly random occurrences. Looking back, one can see how inevitable it was that religion should result in science...."

But that's exactly what much medieval scientific research had, an early (not yet fully developed) form of the scientific method.

My retort wasn't about there not being a prototypical scientific method at all, but that even today, not every academic field should be considered "science" because it either doesn't make use of a scientific method, or makes very diminished use of one. Essentially, a field should be considered science if it always uses naturalistic observation & explanation, & usually uses experimentation. This is simply a matter of classification.

According to Pierre Duhem, who founded the academic study of medieval science as a critique of the Enlightenment-positivist theory of a 17th-century anti-Aristotelian and anticlerical scientific revolution, the various conceptual origins of that alleged revolution lay in the 12th to 14th centuries, in the works of churchmen such as Aquinas and Buridan.

It would help to know which article this comes from.

But seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.

And pseudoscience.

[JohnE]

It would help to know which article this comes from.

Science in the middle ages

But seeking knowledge through science as a way to get closer to god is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that religion can and throughout history has inspired science.

And pseudoscience.

Sure, but that's entirely beside my point. You seem to think I'm trying to say that religion is just as good or better at advancing scientific research than pure naturalism. That's not the case at all. I've been responding to one specific point you made:

science was inspired mostly by naturalism, not religion.

IMO, that's not true for most of history. For centuries, science was inspired by religion, by people who wanted to get closer to god by learning more about his/her/its/their creation. And in that search, they laid a lot of the groundwork for the modern scientific method. Now, religion has ALSO inspired a lot of pseudo-science, superstition, and all sorts of other things, but none of that contradicts the former.

TBH, I'm not sure where I stand on the overall question of whether science and religion are inherently enemies or not. What I do know is that modern religious institutions and movements need to leave the science to the scientists. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and in the past religious people and institutions have played an important part in moving science forward.

[Lithp]

You seem to think I'm trying to say that religion is just as good or better at advancing scientific research than pure naturalism. That's not the case at all.

I really don't know what you're saying, because much of it is seemingly contradictory or not related to what I said. For instance, if I said that science is mostly the result of naturalism, as opposed to religion, & you say that is untrue, then how are you not saying that religion is just as good as or better than advancing science? You seem to keep referring to the fact that I used the term "inspire," but when taken in context, I don't see how my usage was confusing. It's also kind of Forest for the Trees territory.

It is also not true that all of the pseudoscience is totally irrelevant to the point. Pseudoscience detracts from "real" science by being unscientific but presenting itself as science, suppressing & obscuring the more legitimate information. This is especially the case when it is thought of as credible. "Their hearts were in the right place" doesn't change that objective fact.

If we're going to try to qualify the sum total contribution of religion to science, which is admittedly a nebulous debate prone to generalizations & confusion of terms, then we can't just look at the pro-science parts. That's only considering half of the story, & obviously if we're only paying attention to the scientific developments, then we're going to come to the conclusion that religion was beneficial to the development of science by definition. Or, back to using addition as a metaphor, we can't just take only the "positives" & ignore the "negatives," because the negatives change the answer.

And this includes throwing out any answer that couldn't be construed as leading towards GAWD.

TBH, I'm not sure where I stand on the overall question of whether science and religion are inherently enemies or not. What I do know is that modern religious institutions and movements need to leave the science to the scientists. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and in the past religious people and institutions have played an important part in moving science forward.

I can't conceive of a purely scientific religion. Again, it seems that the more you commit to naturalism & empirical explanation, the more the "religious" aspect shrinks, until you either stop trying to mix them, or the religious part disappears altogether, & you're just left with science.

I believe in giving both credit & blame where it is due.

[JohnE]

I believe in giving both credit & blame where it is due.

As do I, but you seem entirely focussed on blaming, and unwilling to give due credit.

if I said that science is mostly the result of naturalism, as opposed to religion, & you say that is untrue,

That's not what you said, though. You asserted that science was mostly inspired by naturalism, which I took to mean that people were mostly motivated by naturalism, rather than by religion. That's what I claim to be untrue. Someone can be motivated by religious conviction to study science using naturalistic methods.

then how are you not saying that religion is just as good as or better than advancing science?

Because I was never arguing that religion is better overall at advancing science. Rather, I've been arguing that religion can and has inspired (i.e. motivated) scientific research.

I've also been making a secondary point that religious institutions have not always been as antagonistic to legitimate scientific research as they so often are today, although admittedly that's a whole other can of worms.

"Their hearts were in the right place"

Actually, I think their hearts were in the wrong (or at least, not the ideal) place, but at times, it lead them in the right direction, i.e. laying the groundwork for the modern scientific method.

If we're going to try to qualify the sum total contribution of religion to science, which is admittedly a nebulous debate prone to generalizations & confusion of terms, then we can't just look at the pro-science parts. That's only considering half of the story, & obviously if we're only paying attention to the scientific developments, then we're going to come to the conclusion that religion was beneficial to the development of science by definition. Or, back to using addition as a metaphor, we can't just take only the "positives" & ignore the "negatives," because the negatives change the answer.

Neither can we ignore the positives because they don't fit our nice neat little "science vs. religion" narative.