But they’re all a part of the same tree of Western Civilization, historically bound to its formation in a Christian context and sharing many of its humanistic ideals.

Yikes. Well, they’re also Jewish. Also, the foundations of many modern scientific principles are birthed from the medieval Catholic Universities, which were based in turn on the University of Constantnople which ran in the Byzantine Empire. The distinction between Medieval universities system (which we are still running under modified names but it’s the same basic system) and Byzantium is that in Byzantium, Rhetoric was the highest learning, of which other learning fed into whereas the University system segmented knowledge in to schools.

The influx of knowledge to the West from falling Byzantium during the failed Council of Florence (if I remember right), led to western scholars who until then were crippled by having only access to fragments of Aristotle, now suddenly had ALL of aristotle (taught in Byzantium for 1000 years) and Plato among others, which they eagerly translated into Latin and then vulgar languages.

All of this under Christianity.

Calvinism, with its very logical and rational system, was the birthplace of modern Scientific mindset. Everything could stay intact with the worldview with the simple substitution of Universe for God in the way of thinking, and you end up with Universal Laws rather than God’s Laws.

From there, the Calvinistic thinking grew in its own branch, still forever connected to its roots despite wanting to cut itself off from the tree it sprung from, first as an outgrowth of Philosophy (Natural Philosophy), and eventually formed its own branches in much the same fashion as the University system it’s a part of, leading to different schools of Science.

20th Century had about five major branches of Science and now in the 21st Century, there’s hundreds.

But they’re all a part of the same tree of Western Civilization, historically bound to its formation in a Christian context and sharing many of its humanistic ideals.

I suppose you could go to a dictionary that somebody wrote to make your case, but I prefer looking at history and the formation of things.

===

The tl;dr is that Modern Science didn’t magically fall from the sky. The way the “history of Science” is taught is a cherry-picked selective view of history that ignores all of the environments that cultivated it, preferring instead to pick this and that from history (with long empty stretches inbetween) as if these matching elements alone can form a way of thinking.

History’s far richer and more complicated than the simplistic narratives which attempt to pit “Science” and “Religion” as if they’re in some sort of never-ending battle for the brains of humanity.

But that’s based on 19th century rhetoric – politics basically – and has no foundation in reality.

==

Sorry for the long-windedness. It’s just that I have a lot of friends who are fans of Science as I am, but they’re also anti-religious, which I’m not. I’m agnostic but have no bad feelings about religions.

For a more appropriate view of history, abandoning the “Conflict Thesis” would be a good start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− three = 6

Leave a Reply