On Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:02:51 -0500, Michael Smith wrote: > Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. > Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, > Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. > They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was > a reflection of those qualities of its creator. > And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the > mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his > creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a > lower level. > > So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even > call science "practical theology" since these men believed their > investigative activities were glorifying God through the application > of one of his crowning gifts: reason.
One problem with "shallow" explanations like that provided by Prof. Smith is that it fails to recognize that others may have made similar sorts of claims but (a) as a negative indictment of using Catholicism/Christianity as a basis for science and (b) there are arguments that such a basis is inferior to that provided by other religions. Consider the curious case of the mathematician C. K. Raju. I assume that most people are unfamiliar with Raju (Chris Green should have some familiarity with him and his opinions since we are both on a mailing list where Raju occasionally posts -- Chris might be able to provide more information about Raju) and I suggest that one take a look at his Wikipedia entry for background on him though I would warn that the "yada-yada"/standard disclaimers should be taken very seriously here; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Raju Perhaps Allen Esterson can comment on one of Raju's claims such as the following; quoting from the Wikipedia entry: |Raju built on E.T. Whittaker's beliefs that Albert Einstein's theories |of special and general relativity built on the earlier work of Henri Poincaré. |Raju claims that they were "remarkably similar", and every aspect of |special relativity was published by Poincaré in papers between 1898 |and 1905. Raju goes further, saying that Einstein made a mistake that |much of physics has been built on;[8] he proposes corrections to the |equations, [9] and says that physics needs to go through a major |reformulation.[10] It is my understanding the Raju's opinion is very much a minority position and that most scientists and historians of science may find it questionable. But I am not a physicist and cannot assess the merits of Raju's argument. Of relevance to Prof. Smith's post is the following cryptic quote from the Wilipedia entry: |Through his research, Raju has claimed that the philosophies that |underlie subjects like time[11] and mathematics[12] are rooted in the |theocratic needs of the Roman Catholic Church.[13] Raju has his own website and blog where he expands on his positions (Amazon sells two of his books). A blog entry that goes more into the issue of the Christianity's influence in the development of Western Science is available here where he responds to a reviewer's criticisms of one of his books: http://drckraju.blogspot.com/2009/03/yellow-learned-journalism.html Quoting from his blog: |Perhaps the reviewer wanted to suppress my point that Newton's |understanding of the calculus was influenced by his religious belief |that mathematics is perfect, and that his physics failed for that very |reason. (Newton thought, like his contemporaries, that "the Bible is |the word of God and the world is the work of God" written in the |language of mathematics which must be perfect.) We speak of |Newton's "laws" and not "hypotheses", because his contemporaries |accepted his claim that the "laws of God" had been revealed to him. |Therefore, to be able to use the time derivative in his second "law", |Newton needed to "perfect" the calculus. He hence made time |metaphysical, in his Principia, and his philosophical error is shown |by the way his physics failed (philosophically) and had to be replaced |by the theory of relativity based on a new understanding of time. | |The point is: Newton's religious beliefs influenced both his mathematics |and physics, and led to errors in them. We must recall that the impact |of Newton's religious beliefs on this mathematics and physics could |not be assessed to date just because Western historians have dishonestly |suppressed Newton's real religious views and his 50 years of scholarship |leading to his 8-volume History of the Church. (He had documented the |changes in Christian doctrine and the Bible after the Nicene council.) |My book explains how the early Western philosophy of mathematics |was not only explicitly religious, but it agreed with pre-Nicene Christianity. |This early (Platonic-Neoplatonic) philosophy of mathematics was |transformed during the Crusades, using concoctions like Euclid (for |which see below). It was this post-Crusade theology that led to Newton's |erroneous religious beliefs about mathematics and physics. (The successful |part of Newton work related to the computational technique, the calculus, |borrowed from India.) Raju has argued that a number of scientific concepts were first developed in India and appropriated by Westerners. The Catholic church looms large in this framework because, as Prof. Smith notes, many scientists were religious but in a Christian framework. Consider the possibility that alternative frameworks based on other religions might serve as serious rivals to western scientific theories. Consider the following which quotes Raju's previously mentioned blog entry: |-Let us turn now to the two chapters of the book that the reviewer |claims to have read. The second chapter advances a straightforward |argument already stated above. Namely, present-day formal mathematics |is concerned with proving theorems. These "proofs" assume 2-valued |logic; changing logic would change the theorems. But why should logic |be 2-valued? The choice is either a (a) cultural or (b) an empirical matter. |If logic is chosen on cultural grounds, then 2-valued logic is not universal |for Buddhist and Jain logics, for example, are not two valued. If logic is |chosen on empirical grounds, one must rely on physics, and quantum |logic is not 2-valued. The reviewer says this argument is very weak. |So, what is his counter-argument? The reviewer's counter-argument is |that logic need not be decided empirically! | |Clearly there are two parts to my argument. The nature of logic could |be decided (a) culturally OR (b) empirically. But the reviewer reduces |my argument to only part (b), pretending that the first part does not exist. |That shows that he is unable to contest the real argument at all, and either |has an excessively weak understanding of it, or found it necessary to |dishonestly distort and misrepresent my argument. | |The reviewer should have pondered for a moment before giving such a |farcical "counter-argument". If logic is decided purely culturally, AND |this choice does not fit into what Buddhists and Jains think, that makes |formal mathematics non-secular and a matter pertaining to a particular |religion. Anyway, formal mathematics and theorem-proving (unlike |arithmetic calculation) has no practical value at all. So this sort of mathematics |should be banned from school education in countries like India and US |which are obliged by law to be secular. That, incidentally, is exactly |what I have told the National Knowledge Commission in India. (Formal |mathematics could, of course, continue to be taught in university departments |of theology or culture; I have suggested that too.) My interpetation of Raju's argument is: If mathematics can be shown to be based on religious beliefs, then, in the U.S., mathematics and any disciplines based on those mathematics would have to be taught in departments of theology because to do otherwise would be to promote one religious viewpoint over another, at least in public schools and/or institutions supported by federal funds. One can understand why such a veiwpoint might be "controversial", especially at universities that don't presently have departments of theology (mathematicians, physicists, and other mathematically oriented disciplines would probably disagree that they are promoting a particular religious viewpoint but the real question is how do we establish this?). So, one should be cautious of trying to link mathematics and the sciences to a particular religious framework. Such a position has legal consequences and it might turn out to be the case that the relevant religion might not be that one wants to promote (e.g., Buddhism instead of Christianity). So, is Raju's perspective and arguments valid? I'm not a historian of science or a mathematician or a physicist and can't argue from a factual basis about their validity. He may be a crank, a gadlfy, and/or a promoter of Indian culture and science over Western culture and science. But he also serves as a lesson about the problems of trying to associate religion with science especially if that religion is not your own. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu P.S. I can hear Prof. Smith laughing. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4926 or send a blank email to leave-4926-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
