“...the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than damaged, the development of the natural sciences.”
The quote above is entirely accurate. In 'Galileo goes to Jail and Other Myths...', there is a good and detailed record of why this statement is true. There is no doubt that an objective observer, not one immersed in the apocrypha of the poorly named 'Enlightenment', or the post modern claptrap of cultural Marxist relativity, including the nonsense that Moslems invented everything [including fire, at least twice]; recognizes the veracity of the claim. This is not to say that only Western European traditions formed science; or that only Western European efforts are worthy of the name science. The very definition of science is in dispute, it is not metaphysics and hand-waving [evolution, globaloneywarming]; nor is it operational and technological innovation [manufacturing processes, design improvements, new technologies]. But it is entirely correct to say that modern science was formed only in Catholic Western Europe.
Naturalism or naturalist 'science', was long debated by Christians. As this book relates, going back to the 2nd century AD, Christian philosophers, well versed in Aristotle and Plato, were arguing over pagan theories about nature, the cosmos, and observed phenomena. Every educated person knew that the earth was a sphere, that unlike Aristotle's belief it moved, and that there was a cosmological rotation of planets in certain orbits. No one however, either pagan or Christian, knew why. Christians attempted to find out:
“[detailed study of naturalism from] Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) to Saint Augustine (354-430) and beyond, Christian scholars allied themselves with Greek philosophical traditions deemed congenial to Christian thought.”
The Greek philosophers were not blindly accepted as 'experts' by Christians. Unlike Moslems, the Christians threw a healthy and heavy skepticism into pagan claims and beliefs. Today of course, the very term 'scientist' means one has to fall to the knees and scream in adulation. Not so with real science and philosophy. Justin Martyr was a Jewish convert, murdered by the Romans for his beliefs [how very tolerant]. In particular he was killed by the Romans for daring to assert that reason and faith are bound together, and that Christianity espousing this belief was no threat to the Roman state, and in fact would aid man in understanding nature:
“In the first part of the First Apology, Justin defends his fellow Christians against the charges of atheism and hostility to the Roman state. He then goes on to express the core of his Christian philosophy: the highest aspiration of both Christianity and Platonic philosophy is a transcendent and unchangeable God; consequently, an intellectual articulation of the Christian faith would demonstrate its harmony with reason. Such a convergence is rooted in the relationship between human reason and the divine mind, both identified by the same term, logos (Greek: “intellect,” “word”), which enables man to understand basic truths regarding the world, time, creation, freedom, the human soul’s affinity with the divine spirit, and the recognition of good and evil.”
In the name of tolerance the pagans killed the man who wrote the above.
In 'Galileo goes to jail and other Myths', there is a nice passage about Tertullian, another Christian who married reason with faith, in the 2nd century AD:
“Tertullian presented, and to a very significant degree he built it out of materials and by the use of methods drawn from the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. He argued, for example, that the precise regularity of the orbital motions of the celestial bodies (a clear reference to the findings of Greek astronomers) bespeaks a "governing power" that rules over them; and if they are ruled over, they surely cannot be gods. He also introduced the "enlightened view of Plato" in support of the claim that the universe must have had a beginning and therefore cannot itself partake of divinity; and in this and other works he "triumphantly parades" his learning (as one of his biographers puts it) by naming a long list of other ancient authorities.
Tertullian and many other Christian writers [some of whom were called Montanists, largely orthodox and ascetic]; had no issues with pagan philosophy and its relevance. Basil of Caesarea (ca. 330-379), carried on some of Tertullian's ideas, and had similar attitudes toward the classical sciences. He sharply attacked philosophers and astronomers who "have wilfully and voluntarily blinded themselves to knowledge of the truth."
“But while attacking the errors of Greek science and philosophy-and what he did not find erroneous, he generally judged useless-Basil also revealed a solid mastery of their contents. He argued against Aristotle's fifth element, the quintessence; he recounted the Stoic theory of cyclic cosmological conflagration and regeneration; he applauded those who employ the laws of geometry to refute the possibility of multiple worlds (a clear endorsement of Aristotle's argument for the uniqueness of the cosmos); he derided the Pythagorean notion of music of the planetary spheres; and he proclaimed the vanity of mathematical astronomy...”
Who can possibly argue with the above ? It is common sense and correct. Today sci-fi parading as science vomits out theology about pregnant black holes, dark matter and multi-verses. Maybe these non-scientists can revisit Basil, laws of geometry and even Aristotle.
What the early Christians knew, and what we have forgotten in our age of the cult of science; is that science itself is a metaphysical enterprise. Whatever your world view is, will shape your so-called science. Augustine in the late 4th century knew this. His very influential view, was that the knowledge about our world is not a legitimate end in itself, but a means to other ends. In other words, your philosophy imbues your reason. In this vein the classical sciences must accept a subordinate position as the handmaiden of theology and religion. This philosophy is still used today but in the reverse. The metaphysics of 'science', now controls other 'faiths'.
“Augustine's handmaiden science was defended explicitly and at great length, for example, by Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century, whose defense of useful knowledge contributed to his notoriety as one of the founders of experimental science.
Augustine and others like him applied Greco-Roman natural science with a vengeance to biblical interpretation. The sciences are not to be loved, but to be used. This attitude toward scientific knowledge was to flourish throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period. Were it not for this outlook, medieval Europeans would surely have had less scientific knowledge, not more.”
This is very true. Without the handmaiden concept, “medieval Europeans would surely have had less scientific knowledge, not more.” When your world is random chaos, when you believe you are evolved algae, when you scream that there is no meaning, no reason to live, and that all is without purpose, your world view and your society do not develop reason, nor science, but a cult of social chaos, relativity, lamentation and death. There is no reason to the current post-modern dogma and cult of 'science', which is anything but scientific.