t f p g+ YouTube icon

Medieval Christianity and the Rise of Modern Science, Part 2

Bookmark and Share

October 31, 2012 Tags: Christianity & Science - Then and Now

Today's entry was written by James Hannam. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Medieval Christianity and the Rise of Modern Science, Part 2

In the first part of this essay, I argued that modern science stands as one of the great achievements of Western civilization. Moreover—and despite what we have often heard—it is certainly an achievement of the West, not of Islam, China or even ancient Greece. So what was it about the West in the medieval period that set the stage for the spectacular advance of science in the centuries to follow? To begin with, I’d like to describe the way the Church reframed the insights of Classical and Islamic culture as they recovered them, freeing European thinkers to explore the world God made in new ways, via both intellectual and experimental practice. Then we’ll turn to the way Christian theology presumed that the free, reliable and good God could be known and honored by looking at His works in creation.

Breaking with Aristotle

In 1085, the great Islamic city of Toledo in Spain fell to Alfonso VI, King of Castile (left). Christian forces captured its magnificent libraries intact and word soon spread about the fabulous riches contained therein. Europeans were well aware that they had lost much of the learning of the ancient world after the fall of Rome and they were keen to reacquire it. The resulting movement to translate Arabic and Greek scholarship into Latin meant that by 1200, Christians were back up to speed in science and math.

Initially, some churchmen were suspicious about all this new knowledge and feared that it would be misused to challenge the faith. When a nest of heretics was found in Paris and its environs, the resulting panic led to a temporary ban on Aristotle’s natural philosophy at the university there. Scholars were furious and demanded that the forbidden books were reinstated. So, after a decent interval, the Pope rescinded the ban and Aristotle took his place at the heart of Christian education.

As we saw before, the danger of Aristotle was in his method. It was bad enough that several of his conclusions contradicted revealed theology. But the problem went deeper than that. Because he had tried to arrive at results deductively, Aristotle made his conclusions seem logically necessary. His admirers did not just claim that he was right, they said he had to be right. In effect, Aristotle’s most dedicated followers were agreed that God Himself was bound by what Aristotle thought because, despite His omnipotence, even the Deity could not defy logic. But, in reality, most of Aristotle's natural philosophy was wrong. Science could go nowhere until the dead hand of the Greek sage was lifted from it.

The Church had to deal with this, even though it was primarily interested in theology and not science. In 1277, the bishop of Paris, with papal approval, issued a list of opinions, drawn from the work of Aristotle and his medieval followers, which he declared heretical. The effect was paradoxically liberating. All of a sudden, European philosophers were freed to think outside the Aristotelian box. No longer could they assume that the Greeks were always right. Thus, if God willed it, vacuums were no longer deemed impossible. There could even be more than one universe. Now natural philosophers could speculate on all sorts of things previously ruled out of court. The result was that the fourteenth century became a scientific golden age when much of the groundwork was laid for ideas that later ended up in the books of Copernicus and Galileo. Let me give a couple of examples.

Medieval sources of Renaissance discoveries

Copernicus, of course, is famous for proposing that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, rather than being stationary in the center of the universe, as Aristotle had taught. It is perfectly sensible to believe that the Earth is at rest, especially given that we cannot feel it moving. However, in fourteenth-century Paris, the philosopher John Buridan and his student Nicole Oresme developed the arguments (pictured right), later used by Copernicus, to explain why we cannot tell if the Earth is in motion. Aristotle proposed that the universe turns around the Earth each day. Buridan asked why it cannot be the other way around, realizing that what we observe would be exactly the same. He used the analogy of someone one a boat:

If anyone is in a moving ship and imagines that he is at rest, then should he see another ship, which is truly at rest, it will appear to him that the other ship is moved ... And so, we also posit that the sphere of the sun is everywhere at rest and the earth in carrying us would be rotated.

Compare that to the argument used by Copernicus in his book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres:

When a ship sails on a tranquil sea, all the things outside seem to the voyagers to be moving in a pattern that is an image of their own. They think, on the contrary, that they are themselves and all the things with them are at rest. So, it can easily happen in the case of the earth that the whole universe should be believed to be moving in a circle [while the earth is at rest].

Of course, like other Renaissance writers, Copernicus never acknowledges his debt to his medieval predecessors. Rather, he quotes a line from Virgil’s Aeneid, giving his argument a wholly bogus classical gloss. For what it’s worth, Copernicus also used the fruits of Islamic mathematical astronomy without attribution. As the fashion of his time demanded, he would only admit to using Greek and Roman sources.

Despite his correct argument about relative motion, John Buridan eventually decided that the Earth was not moving. He imagined that if it was rotating, an arrow fired straight into the air would land some distance away because the Earth would have moved before it reached the ground. His pupil, Nicole Oresme, realized this argument was false because the arrow inherits the motion of the Earth when it is fired. So, the Earth, bowman and arrow are all rotating together. Galileo covers these thought experiments in great deal in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (for which he was put on trial by Pope Urban VIII). But you would never guess from Galileo’s text that his arguments are actually rather old hat.

Even Galileo’s most important work, Dialogues on Two New Sciences, contains strong echoes of ideas developed in the fourteenth century. The formula he derives for the motion of a uniformly accelerating body was really discovered in fourteenth-century Oxford at Merton College. And the diagrammatic proof that Galileo provides for this theorem was first illustrated by Nicole Oresme himself.

There can no longer be any doubt that the pioneers of early modern science were far more indebted to their medieval predecessors than they were inclined to admit. But by the sixteenth century, humanism, the political correctness of its day, meant that it was respectable to acknowledge the influence of the classical world while denigrating the Middle Ages. To a great extent, this is still true today.

Science as practical theology

The importance of medieval science extends beyond simply providing the theories that early modern scientists exploited. Medieval Christian theologians also developed the metaphysical framework within which it made sense to practice science at all.

Given today’s perceptions of a conflict between science and religion, it is surprising to find that Christianity has proved to be uniquely accommodating to the study of nature. While there is little in the Bible that could be called science, the book of Genesis is very clear about where the universe came from. Contrary to Aristotle’s view that it is eternal, the Bible says that God made the world at the beginning of time. Christians believe that the world was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. God did not have to work from pre-existing material that resisted His purposes. This meant, as Genesis affirms, that the creation turned out ‘good’ and as God wished it to be. Christian theologians held that He had also allowed the world to develop freely through natural laws which He had ordained. The order of nature followed these laws rather than God personally having to manipulate each atom.

The twelfth-century, William of Conches had already realized this when he wrote:

I take nothing away from God. All things that are in the world were made by God, except evil. But He made other things through the operation of nature which is the instrument of divine operation.

Another feature of the Christian God was is reliability. He is not capricious like the Olympians of ancient Greece or entirely beyond human comprehension, like Allah. This meant that natural philosophers knew that they could depend on the laws that He had laid down. Nature itself should reflect her creator by obeying His commandments. This gave Christians good reason to believe that science was a practical venture; that nature did follow fixed laws that could be discovered. This view was expressed by Thierry of Chartres, another theologian of the twelfth century:

Because the things in the world are mutable and corruptible, it is necessary that they should have an author. Because they are arranged in a rational way and in a very beautiful order, it is necessary that they should have been created in accordance with wisdom. But, because the Creator, rationally speaking, is in need of nothing, having perfection and sufficiency in himself, it is necessary that he should create what he does create only through benevolence and love.

Science was also a theologically righteous path to pursue. Since the world was created by God, exploring how it works does honor to its Creator. And because science studies the ordinary course of nature, it was not necessary to worry about the rare occasions that God does intervene directly through miracles. John Buridan explained in the fourteenth century, “it is evident to us that every fire is hot, even though the contrary is possible by God’s power. And it is evidence of this sort that suffices for the principles and conclusions of science.”

Nonetheless, because God was free to do as He pleased, Christians realized it was impossible to work out the laws of nature from rational analysis alone. The only way to discover His plan was to go out and look. This principle of God’s freedom and absolute power was asserted by the bishop of Paris in 1277. It meant that science could not rely on pure reason to generate theories, still less Aristotle’s “logically necessary” conclusions. God created the world in the way He wished to, not the way Aristotle said He had to.

Of course, medieval natural philosophers no more had in mind the development of modern science than the ancient Greeks had. Christians practiced science to serve theology, just like pagan natural philosophy had served ethics. Specifically, scholars of the Middle Ages wanted to understand the universe in a way that made sense of their religious beliefs. They saw the world as a place that was God’s creation but one which also had its own freedom and integrity. It was a place where human beings could make real moral decisions that had real consequences. It just so happens that their metaphysical were especially conducive to science.

Given the advantages that the religion provided, it is hardly surprising that modern science has only developed within a Christian milieu. Although it is possible that other religious traditions could have provided a similarly fertile metaphysical ground for the study of nature, none that we know of have actually done so. Nor is it startling to find that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo worked within the framework of medieval natural philosophy, rather than in a transplanted ancient Greek tradition. It seems fair to conclude that Christianity was an important cause of the unique development of western science, the only science which has consistently produced true theories of nature.


James Hannam took a Physics degree at Oxford before training as an accountant. He enjoyed a successful career in the City, mainly financing film production, but harboured ambitions to write about the history of science. In 2001, he started a part time MA at Birkbeck College, London in Historical Research. In 2003, he began his PhD program at Cambridge in the History and Philosophy of Science, and wrote his thesis on the decline of medieval learning during the 16th century. His book for general readers, God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundation of Modern Science, was published by Icon in 2009. It is titled in the U.S. as The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. The book was shortlisted for the Royal Society Prize for Science Books in 2010.

< Previous post in series


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
Roger A. Sawtelle - #74032

October 31st 2012

It is good to hear that the early scientists were not emabled by ancient philosophy, but impeded by it.  The popular myth is that the Bible impeded science but the facts point otherwise.

The example of the relative motions of ships reminds me of the “thought experiments” of Einstein which helped him develop his Theory of Relativity.  It is unfortunate that people today do not understand the implications of relativity which would generate a philosophical revolution even more important the Copernican revolution.  

  


Merv - #74035

October 31st 2012

Thank you, Mr. Hannam, for these insightful history lessons.

Being very sympathetic, myself, with “corrective” history that doesn’t go so far out of its way to denigrate Christianity as some scientific folklore has, I yet wonder if we can still swing too far the other way in congratulating our own heritage for its fertile encouragement of the sciences.  I have read other histories (thinking of Jared Diamond—not a Christian, but not a militant anti-religionist either) that spell out quite convincingly the role of petty competition among feuding western-European powers that fostered their voracious appetite to acquire anything that might bring them military advantage.  In contrast, China was a nearly monolithic empire to itself with very centralized control, in which an emperor could for example, sink the entire Chinese navy developed by his predecessor, and do this on the principled notion that China should not be polluted by interaction with other cultures  European powers weren’t quite so principled as all that.  Where competition for knowledge is full-blown, the same is pursued with more vigor.

Other examples of the less noble motivations of military or economic nature could be discussed, but I simply give one to illustrate that Christianity by itself probably shouldn’t take too much credit (or responsibility?) for science.

Mr. Hannam’s essay also dovetails nicely with a previous essay on Biologos in which it was pointed out that the eradication of all the gods from the nooks and crannies of nature was necessary before scientific thought could even become viable, and Genesis accomplished this eviction—of all but the one true God over all.  Atheists, of course, agree that this was the right direction to go but they think Christians got off the bus one God too soon and should have evicted them all.  But eviction is a little difficult when you discover you’ve been confused about who the real landlord is.

-Merv


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74045

November 1st 2012

Marv,

Part of the Western heritage is individualism.  The question one should ponder is, “From whence did individualism come?”

Most historians point to the great African theologian Augustine indicating that individualism grew out of peculiarly Western Christianity or the Augustinian understanding of the Trinity. 

I would maintain that western culture, esp. western science, grew out of Western Christianity, however science has lost its intellectual foundation, because Western dualism is no longer an adequate substitute for triune thinking.

Thus Western science is based on Western Christianity, so the best way to reconcile Science and Christianity is to go back to the beginning, which is the Augustinian Trinity.    


austin.zeiler - #74046

November 1st 2012

James,

I’m sorry to say, but these two posts are absolutely filled with misinformation and straw men about Aristotle.  It is no less true that Aristotle’s philosophy impeded scientific progress than the Bible or the Church.

For one, you are misreading (if you even have read) Aristotle quite disasterously.  When Aristotle made the observation that motion requires a “mover,” what he actually meant was all change.  If you understood the metaphysics underlying the observation, you would see that quite obviously.  He differentiates between act and potency, and observes that it requires another object acting on something to change it from potency to act.  This could be an object beginning to move, an object stopping from motion, an object heating up, an object cooling down, etc.

Second, you seem to be combining Aristotle’s physics with his metaphysics.  Just because his physics was mistaken, does not mean that his metaphysics was.  Your comment here shows how mistaken you are:

His admirers did not just claim that he was right, they said he had to be right. In effect, Aristotle’s most dedicated followers were agreed that God Himself was bound by what Aristotle thought because, despite His omnipotence, even the Deity could not defy logic. But, in reality, most of Aristotle’s natural philosophy was wrong. Science could go nowhere until the dead hand of the Greek sage was lifted from it.”

Do you believe God can defy logic?  Do you believe humans can defy logic?  Have you found a case where the Law of Non-contradiction does not hold?  How about the Law of Excluded Middle?  These were the laws of logic that Aristotle articulated, and I hate to break it to you, but they hold true even to this day.  A coin is either “heads” or “not-heads”... it cannot be both “heads” and “not-heads” in the same time and in the same sense.

While the abandonment of Aristotlian metaphysics did parallel an increase in scientific knowledge, this is only because the focus changed drastically.  The focus prior to the enlightenment was to study nature as a means to discover deeper metaphysical truths.  The enlightenment abandoned that concept to instead focusing on harnessing the power of nature to advance technologically.  While this was good in some senses, it was damaging in others.  The replacement of Aristotlian formal and final causes with the mechanistic-cum-materialistic worldview held by the enlightenment thinkers was what created the so-called mind-body problem, along with many others.  I could go on forever, but I think in summary, I will just say that you are hugely unfair to Aristotle and the medieval thinkers who followed him.  It would do you good to read Aristotle and Aquinas directly, and then perhaps some commentaries.  For an easier read, I would recommend Ed Feser’s “The Last Superstition.”


HornSpiel - #74074

November 2nd 2012

austin.z

Thanks for your contribution. I am often concerned that for the great majority of us who neither have the time nor perhaps the inclination or intellect to become experts in a topic, we necessarily rely on trusted authorities to guide our thinking. Moreover, when we do that, we tend to trust those with whom we agree.

Your contrary view is thus welcome and much needed.

I’m sorry to say, but these two posts are absolutely filled with misinformation and straw men about Aristotle. 

I do hope Dr. Hannam is available to respond to your assertion.

However, one thing even an layman can do, when evaluating a stated opinion, is look for internal inconsistencies and misreadings of the opposing opinion. When a writer has an over abundance of these, or refuses to acknowledge them when they are pointed out I, for one, tend to discount them as lacking intellectual integrity and discount their entire agenda.

In that spirit, I want to point out what I consider a misinterpretation of Dr. Hannam when you critique him saying:

Do you believe God can defy logic?  Do you believe humans can defy logic?

This certainly is not what I read Hannam as suggesting. He was referring to Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy (or Physics as you call it) which he claims was based in large part on deductive reasoning rather than observation and inductive reasoning. Moreover, it was not really a critique of Aristotle himself, but of the way Aristotle was used as an infallible source of truth by some medieval philosophers who gave Aristotle’s conclusions about the natural world the same status of certainty as mathematical or logical theorems.

You say Hannam was unfair to medieval thinkers. Fair enough, and I hope he responds to your criticism. However considering his CV, I feel your condescending tone particularly in the last paragraph, is entirely inappropriate.

—HornSpiel


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74050

November 1st 2012

Indeed we have the mind-body problem, which only the triune worldview can resolve.


austin.zeiler - #74081

November 2nd 2012

Hi Hornspiel,

 

Fair criticism on your part.  I was perhaps, overenthusiastic.  I did not intend to be condescending, but you are right that it is nevertheless so.

As for your specific criticism, you are correct that I misunderstood.  I apologize to Mr. Hannam for that.  However, I still think he is off base, especially when the quote is expanded:

As we saw before, the danger of Aristotle was in his method. It was bad enough that several of his conclusions contradicted revealed theology. But the problem went deeper than that. Because he had tried to arrive at results deductively, Aristotle made his conclusions seem logically necessary. His admirers did not just claim that he was right, they said he had to be right. In effect, Aristotle’s most dedicated followers were agreed that God Himself was bound by what Aristotle thought because, despite His omnipotence, even the Deity could not defy logic. But, in reality, most of Aristotle’s natural philosophy was wrong. Science could go nowhere until the dead hand of the Greek sage was lifted from it.

 The problem is that this doesn’t entail that his conclusions are logically necessary—they are only logically necessary if the premises are true.  Aristotle based his premises on observation.  All one would have to do to prove his conclusions wrong, were to show that his observations were wrong.  This is exactly how science is done now.  It is, at base level, determined by empirical evidence, and then conclusions are often drawn deductively (eg. all theoretical physics).  Where Mr. Hannam should have been criticizing Aristotle’s premises, he was instead criticizing his method.

Lastly, my first criticism is still true.  What Aristotle meant by “move,” was really something more like change. 

Once again, I apologize for my condescension and over-enthusiasm.


HornSpiel - #74094

November 2nd 2012

a.zeiler,

Well replied. I certainly agree that observation, expecially a carefully planned and executed observation such as an scientific experiment, is the best way to identify false premises.

However, you said:

All one would have to do to prove his conclusions wrong, were to show that his observations were wrong. This is exactly how science is done now.

The point here is that not only might the observation that is the basis of a premise be wrong, so also might some of the steps in the logical deduction. This follows from the fact that that what seems self-evident to even a careful observer, may not actually be so. Reality is often, if not always, more complex than we realize. Therefore it is not so much the premise that must be verified by observation but the conclusion.  Theories—which are the conclusions, not premises, of observations—are tested by futher observations. That is actually the way science is done now.

—HornSpiel


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74102

November 3rd 2012

That is actually the way science is done now.

Except when it comes to Darwinian natural selection. 


John Werneken - #74603

November 21st 2012

What have you got against Darwinian natural selection? It is abundantly evident that it happens now, all around us. It is highly likely that when what we can ourselves not only observe but also cause and direct produces certain sorts of results with great reliability, and we see a world comprised of a huge number of similar results, that the world got the way it is from wherever it started by similar if not identical means. Then, there is the fossil evidence, and further, the basic identity of every known present or past earthly life form so far discovered or even conjectured. RNA all the way, amino acids all the way, DNA almost all the way….

And while no one has yet figured out exactly how to make RNA from natural elements directly, there are plausible theories about that. Probably one day we will find one we can make work all by ourselves, and/or reasonable other grounds for believing we do know of one method that, had something else not done it first, would have made RNA when there was none before.

Whether one prefers to believe that the Universe created itself or that God did it, is a question entirely previous to all those other questions, as they all assume that there is a universe with its laws or designs available in which Life could then come to exist, whether through the ‘evolution’ of the universe by ‘natural’ means, by laws instituted by God, or by direct Divine action, really has not much to do with the actual steps taken. Those, we have pretty much worked out, at least from here back to RNA, and from the Big Bang forward to amino acids. It is getting TO the Big Bang, and getting from amino acids to RNA, that remain gaps in our knowledge; the former might be unknowable but knowing the latter is probably only a matter of time.

 


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74685

November 25th 2012

John Werneken,

What I have against Darwinian natural selection is the same thing that Albert Einstein had against Newtonian gravity.  It does not fit the scientific facts as we know them. 

My argument is not against natural selection per se as you seem to assume.  If I meant natural selection, I would have said natural selection, but I meant a particular understanding of how natural selection works, based on Malthusian population theory, which has not been scientifically verified.

Darwinian NS has led to all sorts of bad thinking such as Social Darwinism and libertarianism, which are very much alive and well in our world today. 

It is my understanding that science is always looking for a new ways to better understand the universe.  For some reason this does not seem to apply to evolution and Darwin.  Most people now seem to thank that Darwin’s understanding the natural selection is the last word in how humans understand evolution.   

If you want further information, check out my book, DARWIN’S MYTH.     


Page 1 of 1   1