The Religious Method

[Notedstrangeperson]

I disagree. As I clarified on the first page (I may need to edit the OP), knowing something through science doesn't preclude it from being known through religion. If someone claimed that God revealed unto them the chemical that would cure HIV/AIDS, and then science verified that this hitherto unknown chemical does indeed cure HIV/AIDS, that would fall into both categories as religious and scientific knowledge.

Yes, in your OP you asked "What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?" whereas now you're asking whether God has ever beamed knowledge directly into someone's head which was later verified using the scientific method. I think that caused a bit of confusion.

Well as I said back at the begining, no - I can't think of any case where that has actually happened.

I disagree that the first statement was ever made by me. In the OP I explicitly talked about how religion can act as motivation for science, and explained why that isn't what the OP is asking for.

When you mentioned science motived by religion (like a Christian scientist finding a cure for AIDS) I thought you meant it to mean a scientist motivated by the compassion his religion teaches, whereas I was looking at how theology was the basis for developing the scientific method.

If it's almost impossible to verify, do you believe it ever happens?

I'm not aware of any saint being gifted with the power of knowledge (foreknowledge of earthquakes, famine, etc), though such a thing could certainly be verified (obviously the saint is either right or wrong, and we can tell if he's just lucky or not), and, if verified, would certainly satisfy the OP.

I've never had much of an opinion on miracles attributed to the saints, mostly because it's not a big part of Anglicanism. That said I've often been interested by the idea of being able to predict the future (through either scientific or divine means) but that's probably another topic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've never had much of an opinion on miracles attributed to the saints, mostly because it's not a big part of Anglicanism. That said I've often been interested by the idea of being able to predict the future (through either scientific or divine means) but that's probably another topic.

Well, if a saint's miracles or a nun's prayers or God's revealed wisdom could predict the future, that would seem to be on topic. We have to be careful to not fall for self-fulfilling ("Israel will be reformed") or statistically skewed ("There will be at least one earthquake in 2013") prophecies, but such prophecies would count as religiously acquired knowledge, wouldn't you say?

 

[Johnnz]

Science has developed in the western world as it has due to Christian belief building upon Greek philosophy that was in contrast to the polytheist religions that have predominated throughout history. Lesslie Newbigin in "Proper Confidence' gives this historical background to Christianity's challenge to Greek dualistic thinking.

Of special significance for the subsequent development of Europe is the work done during the latter part of the fourth century by Christian theologians in discussion with the science of their day Christopher Kaiser, in his book Creation and the History DJ Science, has shown how the Cappadocian theologians developed four fundamental principles that were to shape the development of science through the centuries and up to the present day The important point to note here is that these principles were formulated on the basis of belief in the divine revelation given in Scripture and supremely in the work of Christ. In brief, these principles were as follows:

1. Because the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made us in his image, it follows that the cosmos is in principle comprehensible by the human mind. It is a coherent cosmos, not a chaos of random events. Therefore, (in contrast to important strands in Indian thought) there are no ultimate self-contradictions. It is not to be understood in terms of a yin-yang duality as in Far Eastern thought. It has an ultimate coherence, a coherence of which the central secret is made known in the Incarnation.
2. Because the cosmos is a creation by God as a free act of his will and not an emanation of God (as in some elements in Indian thought), the cosmos has a relative autonomy. Not everything that happens is the direct will of God. It follows, then,
that the way to knowledge of the cosmos is not opening the mind to ultimate reality through mystical contemplation. To discover how the cosmos works, we must investigate the empirical facts by careful observation.
3. Because Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the "heavenly bodies" are not (as Aristotle said) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth, but are, on the contrary; of the same substance. (It is one of the many ironies in the history of the later conflicts between science and religion that when Galileo, as a result of his use of a telescope, decided that the moon was made of the same substance as the earth, he was condemned by the church because the church had meanwhile co-opted Aristotelian philosophy into its doctrine.)
4. Because of the work of Christ in the incarnation, we may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. The implication of this was that the church did not have to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine; instead, it could use Greek medicine in the development of the healing ministry which was to be such an important part of its work in succeeding centuries.

These four principles, which were to provide the foundation for the subsequent development of science in Europe (a science which was destined to outstrip the far more brilliant thinking of India, China, and the Arab world), were based on faith in the biblical revelation. They were part of the whole reconstitution of thought necessitated by the new fact, the action of God, the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ.

John
NZ

 

[Tomk80]

Well, if a saint's miracles or a nun's prayers or God's revealed wisdom could predict the future, that would seem to be on topic. We have to be careful to not fall for self-fulfilling ("Israel will be reformed") or statistically skewed ("There will be at least one earthquake in 2013") prophecies, but such prophecies would count as religiously acquired knowledge, wouldn't you say?

Also, the predictions need to be reasonably specific.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science has developed in the western world as it has due to Christian belief building upon Greek philosophy that was in contrast to the polytheist religions that have predominated throughout history. Lesslie Newbigin in "Proper Confidence' gives this historical background to Christianity's challenge to Greek dualistic thinking.

Of special significance for the subsequent development of Europe is the work done during the latter part of the fourth century by Christian theologians in discussion with the science of their day Christopher Kaiser, in his book Creation and the History DJ Science, has shown how the Cappadocian theologians developed four fundamental principles that were to shape the development of science through the centuries and up to the present day The important point to note here is that these principles were formulated on the basis of belief in the divine revelation given in Scripture and supremely in the work of Christ. In brief, these principles were as follows:

1. Because the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made us in his image, it follows that the cosmos is in principle comprehensible by the human mind. It is a coherent cosmos, not a chaos of random events. Therefore, (in contrast to important strands in Indian thought) there are no ultimate self-contradictions. It is not to be understood in terms of a yin-yang duality as in Far Eastern thought. It has an ultimate coherence, a coherence of which the central secret is made known in the Incarnation.
2. Because the cosmos is a creation by God as a free act of his will and not an emanation of God (as in some elements in Indian thought), the cosmos has a relative autonomy. Not everything that happens is the direct will of God. It follows, then,
that the way to knowledge of the cosmos is not opening the mind to ultimate reality through mystical contemplation. To discover how the cosmos works, we must investigate the empirical facts by careful observation.
3. Because Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the "heavenly bodies" are not (as Aristotle said) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth, but are, on the contrary; of the same substance. (It is one of the many ironies in the history of the later conflicts between science and religion that when Galileo, as a result of his use of a telescope, decided that the moon was made of the same substance as the earth, he was condemned by the church because the church had meanwhile co-opted Aristotelian philosophy into its doctrine.)
4. Because of the work of Christ in the incarnation, we may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. The implication of this was that the church did not have to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine; instead, it could use Greek medicine in the development of the healing ministry which was to be such an important part of its work in succeeding centuries.

These four principles, which were to provide the foundation for the subsequent development of science in Europe (a science which was destined to outstrip the far more brilliant thinking of India, China, and the Arab world), were based on faith in the biblical revelation. They were part of the whole reconstitution of thought necessitated by the new fact, the action of God, the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ.

John
NZ

I think the bit on Galileo is a good example of why science flourished in the West in spite of christianity. Ultimately, the scientific method was grudgingly accepted simply because it was shown to work.

 

[Tomk80]

I think the bit on Galileo is a good example of why science flourished in the West in spite of christianity. Ultimately, the scientific method was grudgingly accepted simply because it was shown to work.

I always think it is an interesting field of tension between science and religion, especially in the early days of religion. While I think there is merit in the claim that Islam and Christianity have been forces that enabled the development of science, these religions definitely have hampered the development of science as well, to an equal or perhaps even stronger degree.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I always think it is an interesting field of tension between science and religion, especially in the early days of religion. While I think there is merit in the claim that Islam and Christianity have been forces that enabled the development of science, these religions definitely have hampered the development of science as well, to an equal or perhaps even stronger degree.

Yes, the history of the development of science is fascinating. One aspect that tells against a straight "Christians building in Greek work" is the fact that absolutely nothing happened (science wise) for the first 1100 years if Christianity. It was only in the 12th century (?) with Bacon that the scientific method got started; and things didn't really take off until the RE-introduction of Greek texts and the appraisal of Islamic works.

A tangled, often confused, somewhat incestuous relationship - that of science and religion. And note: religion. Scientific breakthroughs have occurred everywhere: China, India, Arabia, Europe, under all kinds of religious thought. But the combination of factors that drove science to the point of a self-sustaining discipline occurred in Europe, and probably owes as much to cultural as to religious factors.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always think it is an interesting field of tension between science and religion, especially in the early days of religion. While I think there is merit in the claim that Islam and Christianity have been forces that enabled the development of science, these religions definitely have hampered the development of science as well, to an equal or perhaps even stronger degree.

I believe God initiated the Babel incident because science was growing too quickly.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

One aspect that tells against a straight "Christians building in Greek work" is the fact that absolutely nothing happened (science wise) for the first 1100 years if Christianity. It was only in the 12th century (?) with Bacon that the scientific method got started; and things didn't really take off until the RE-introduction of Greek texts and the appraisal of Islamic works.

What are you talking about? There were many inventions during the so-called Dark Ages: the hourglass, the heavy plough and the water mills for example. And the Greek texts you mention come from the "Hellenistic" Christian theologians, who date from the middle of the 2nd to the ealy 5th centuries. Islam didn't even exist back then.

While I think there is merit in the claim that Islam and Christianity have been forces that enabled the development of science, these religions definitely have hampered the development of science as well, to an equal or perhaps even stronger degree.

Like what exactly? Everyone makes such a fuss about the Galileo case, when all that really happened was that he was put under house arrest for insulting the Pope. The idea that the church promoted the idea that the Earth was flat was also a myth made up by 18th and 19th century historians. Christianity does have a history of book-burning, but this was mostly due to matters of religion rather than science.

People like to say that the contributions religion (or rather Christianity) has made to science is overshadowed by all the times it has held it back, but most of these claimes are grossly exaggerated. Heck, the very idea that religion and science are eternally at war can be attributed to books such as History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickenson White - which nowadays is generally regarded as outdated and discredited.

 

[tonybeer]

I believe God initiated the Babel incident because science was growing too quickly.

Surely the Babel tower story just a way of early man coming up with a way of explaining why there are multiple languages? I thought Christians took these clearly made up stories as fables . Do some people actually take it as history???

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely the Babel tower story just a way of early man coming up with a way of explaining why there are multiple languages? I thought Christians took these clearly made up stories as fables . Do some people actually take it as history???

You might want to wake up and smell the coffee, eh?

Christianity is alive and well on Eretz Earth.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Surely the Babel tower story just a way of early man coming up with a way of explaining why there are multiple languages? I thought Christians took these clearly made up stories as fables . Do some people actually take it as history???

You haven't met many creationists have you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I always think it is an interesting field of tension between science and religion, especially in the early days of religion. While I think there is merit in the claim that Islam and Christianity have been forces that enabled the development of science, these religions definitely have hampered the development of science as well, to an equal or perhaps even stronger degree.

At once we are told that christianity proposes a rational universe, but then we are told that God is mystery, and that miracles can and do happen against all rational expectations. We are told that some things are only for God to know, and yet we are told that christianity created science to look at these very things:

Ecclesiastes 11:5
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.
​

Well, we can know those things, and we DO know those things. We are told that we can not understand the work of God, and yet we are now being told that we can know that work. So which is it?

 

[Tomk80]

Like what exactly? Everyone makes such a fuss about the Galileo case, when all that really happened was that he was put under house arrest for insulting the Pope. The idea that the church promoted the idea that the Earth was flat was also a myth made up by 18th and 19th century historians. Christianity does have a history of book-burning, but this was mostly due to matters of religion rather than science.

People like to say that the contributions religion (or rather Christianity) has made to science is overshadowed by all the times it has held it back, but most of these claimes are grossly exaggerated. Heck, the very idea that religion and science are eternally at war can be attributed to books such as History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickenson White - which nowadays is generally regarded as outdated and discredited.

As I said, I think religion has both contributed as well as held back science. Religion and science go along well enough when no religious doctrines are threatened. But it should be clear enough that this stops as soon as these doctrines are in danger of dismanteling. Examples of this are clear, such as heliocentrism (the history of which and it's conflict with Christianity goes back further than just Galileo), evolution, but also the disinformation of the catholic church when it comes to AIDS.

The main reason I think it has held science back more than it contributed, is that I think religion really has not contributed that much to science.

 

[Johnnz]

I think the bit on Galileo is a good example of why science flourished in the West in spite of christianity. Ultimately, the scientific method was grudgingly accepted simply because it was shown to work.

That's not quite right I reckon. Science flourished because of Christian beliefs. At times some aspect of religious belief has been challenged by scientific discoveries, such as with Galileo or prohibitions against investigation of the human body which hindered medical advances. But the overall framework that Christian concepts supply made scientific investigation possible. That was not an outcome that Greek and Eastern thinking could allow, as matter was seen as a hindrance to true enlightenment and spirituality. The low status given to any work by the Greeks prevented any empirical investigation of matter; no right minded person would stoop to such levels.

John
NZ

 

[Tomk80]

That's not quite right I reckon. Science flourished because of Christian beliefs. At times some aspect of religious belief has been challenged by scientific discoveries, such as with Galileo or prohibitions against investigation of the human body which hindered medical advances. But the overall framework that Christian concepts supply made scientific investigation possible. That was not an outcome that Greek and Eastern thinking could allow, as matter was seen as a hindrance to true enlightenment and spirituality. The low status given to any work by the Greeks prevented any empirical investigation of matter; no right minded person would stoop to such levels.

John
NZ

I have yet to see convincing evidence that Christian beliefs had anything to do with the flourishing of science. Empirical research was long looked down upon during Christian times, science as practiced up until the 16th century was highly aristotelian. This attitude really only began to change with galileo and scientists like him, who were both craftsmen and "philosophers". They began using advanced instruments, mathematics and experiments and gave rise to the modern science as we know it. By my knowledge this was more a result of the combination of scientific thought with increased skill in instrument making. The church had little, if anything, to do with this development.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What are you talking about? There were many inventions during the so-called Dark Ages: the hourglass, the heavy plough and the water mills for example. And the Greek texts you mention come from the "Hellenistic" Christian theologians, who date from the middle of the 2nd to the ealy 5th centuries. Islam didn't even exist back then.

Like what exactly? Everyone makes such a fuss about the Galileo case, when all that really happened was that he was put under house arrest for insulting the Pope. The idea that the church promoted the idea that the Earth was flat was also a myth made up by 18th and 19th century historians. Christianity does have a history of book-burning, but this was mostly due to matters of religion rather than science.

People like to say that the contributions religion (or rather Christianity) has made to science is overshadowed by all the times it has held it back, but most of these claimes are grossly exaggerated. Heck, the very idea that religion and science are eternally at war can be attributed to books such as History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickenson White - which nowadays is generally regarded as outdated and discredited.

Please read for comprehension. I talk science, you talk engineering. And the reintroduced texts were Greek, not Christian.

 

[Johnnz]

I have yet to see convincing evidence that Christian beliefs had anything to do with the flourishing of science. Empirical research was long looked down upon during Christian times, science as practiced up until the 16th century was highly aristotelian. This attitude really only began to change with galileo and scientists like him, who were both craftsmen and "philosophers". They began using advanced instruments, mathematics and experiments and gave rise to the modern science as we know it. By my knowledge this was more a result of the combination of scientific thought with increased skill in instrument making. The church had little, if anything, to do with this development.

My post 63 gave some background. Ideas have foundations and roots. Christianity provided a major starting point absent from all surrounding cultures, for the development of science. Don't confuse origins (why people believed matter could be investigated) with processes (how that is done).

John
NZ

 

[tonybeer]

You haven't met many creationists have you?

I've only ever met one over here (UK) and he was Dutch. He also believed in chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracy, water powered cars and a whole load of other rubbish. I don't think I'd heard of creationism until a few years ago. Even though we were taught bible stories at school, I'm pretty sure they didn't teach ones like the Babel tower as fact.

This guy even tried to use the banana argument! I explained why it was nonsense and he then said it was a bad example. Why use it then? I also asked him to explain how he thought evolution works and he obviously had not understood it at all. Nutcase!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I've only ever met one over here (UK) and he was Dutch. He also believed in chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracy, water powered cars and a whole load of other rubbish. I don't think I'd heard of creationism until a few years ago. Even though we were taught bible stories at school, I'm pretty sure they didn't teach ones like the Babel tower as fact.

This guy even tried to use the banana argument! I explained why it was nonsense and he then said it was a bad example. Why use it then? I also asked him to explain how he thought evolution works and he obviously had not understood it at all. Nutcase!

I think it is almost an impossibility for American creationists to understand how religion is viewed in the UK.