The BBC recently hosted a debate on the Catholic Church as part of its Intelligence Squared debate series. This installment considered the motion: “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.”
Arguing for the motion was Archbishop Onaiyekan of Nigeria and Ann Widdecombe, a British Conservative Party politician. The opposing ticket boasted bigger names: Christopher Hitchens and humorist Stephen Fry.
Both sides traded barbs, but Hitchens and Fry landed the better blows. The debate was a total shut-out, as even this Catholic blogger laments:
The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember.
For the record, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. There are things I admire about the Catholic Church, and other things I abhor. And despite my utilitarian sympathies, I doubt anyone could accurately measure the good and weigh it against the bad.
Anyway, the debate is fiercely fun to watch, so check it out. I provided the video below:
Content advisory: This debate will likely deplete what little respect a certain Catholic professor gained for Hitchens after his more muted performance in Collision.
Though I am not that into the discussion of whether Christianity is good for the world, I had blanked on the fact that I attended a conference that discussed this over the summer. The conference concerned the effect of Christianity on the west, with particular attention paid to the development of capitalism, democracy, and science. I’ll focus on the latter here.
There is something like a consensus among historians that real science arose only in Europe. China, India, ancient Greece, Islam, they all had sophisticated alchemy, but no science. Alchemy did not develop into chemistry in those places, only in Europe. It is worth considering why this great thing – science – arose only in Europe.
I don’t want to draw an direct line between Christianity and the development of science. But the Christian retrieval of Aristotle, the Christian intellectualist view of God and hence the intelligibility of nature, is essential to the intellectual development of the West. And, I would argue, it was the fertile soil out of which science was able to grow. This is unique – science did not arise in other cultures. Only in western culture, a culture which cannot be separated from Christianity. Christian culture made possible a conversation about man, nature, and politics that led to the development of democracy, capitalism, and science. It did not happen anywhere else.
One book on our conference reading list this summer was by Peter van Inwagen. It concerned not just the intellectual climate of Christianity, but also particular Christian beliefs that made scientific inquiry possible. I won’t try to improve on this nice summary of the text:
http://philosophicalmidwifery.blogspot.com/2007/07/christianity-and-rise-of-science.html
A general note that may surprise non-philosophers. If you read classical and medieval philosophy and then modern philosophy (the so-called “age of reason”), you will very quickly see that classical/medieval philosophers had a MUCH higher opinion of reason than do most modern philosophers.
“And, I would argue, [Christianity] was the fertile soil out of which science was able to grow. This is unique – science did not arise in other cultures.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but these strikes me as rather euro-centric. I mean, didn’t the Chinese for centuries have a technologically advanced civilization before the advent of Christianity? The Islamic world, too, enjoyed centuries of scientific progress before science took root in Europe.
I might also add that Mayan astronomy and architecture are almost unparalleled in their sophistication. And I’ve also read that the Incas were performing brain surgery before Pizarro showed up. From my understanding, all cultures have certain branches of science that they are good at. The Europeans happened to have advanced military technology, or technology that benefited their armed forces, thus their dominance over the rest of the globe.
This link might be somewhat relevant to the topic of the post.
Yeah, that’s a very Euro-centric statement. All societies have had some type of science, defined as observing, experimenting on and predicting their environment. At the very least, all societies have the seeds of something that could become the modern scientific method, and curious people know no boundaries.
The Chinese had a very large encyclopedia of nearly all human knowledge available in the 1420′s, when nine out of ten European books were Bibles. Any average person could buy a printed book on the streets of Beijing during this time, and the largest European library was a collection of 8 books owned by the richest merchant in Venice. Steam engines were independently invented in both Ancient Greece and the Ming Dynasty. Mayans had a knowledge of astronomy whose precision almost rivals modern measurements, and they almost invented calculus (just like Archimedes). The concept of zero traces to India, where metallurgy was already an ancient practice. Muslims in Caliphate Baghdad invented algebra, made many breakthroughs in civil engineering and architecture, laid the foundation for modern medicine, and are responsible for copying and preserving much of the old Greek manuscripts, which Europe later acquired. Indeed, much of the later progress Europe would make is due to them standing on the shoulders of the Arab Caliphate.
Basically, Europe had the luck of the political and economic draw for the formal system of modern science to arise there. It had almost arisen many other times before, in Greek Alexandria, Beijing, Cairo, Delhi, and Baghdad (and even to some extent in Babylon, Tikal, and Tenochtitlan). The reason it didn’t fully emerge in any of those cultures is better explained by the ebb and flow of peoples, politics and empires.
Here’s some fun reads:
http://www.seed.slb.com/subcontent.aspx?id=30658
http://www.crystalinks.com/indiascience.html
Mayan Math & Science (PDF)
http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Ellen/Museum.html
Oh no! “Eurocentrism”! What horror!! Bah. I think there is something exceptional about western civilization. I know that violates all of the unwritten pc taboos. I don’t really care.
I did not say that other cultures did not have sophisticated (for the time) technology. And I think people in other places are every bit as smart. But you stretch the meaning of “science” beyond repair to call what the Chinese (and others) were doing “science”. Most of the inventiveness of the Chinese and others were made by craftsman in the process of working out daily activities. What came about in Europe – what we all now call “science” – is different. It is an empirical study that is meditating on the laws of nature. This is not done solely for the advancement of practical purposes, nor is it intermingled with other spiritual and psuedo-scientific practices (as alchemy is).
Did Europe just have the “luck of the draw”? WHY did democracy and capitalism, almost uniquely, arise there? What was it about Europe and European culture that made it a place where such things could arise? Why was there a “European miracle”? Whatever these other cultures were doing, it did not turn into what we now call science. Why not? This demands an answer, does it not?
I know you have all been told a story about the middle ages vs the enlightenment. The story you have all been told is largely wrong, but it has been peddled by an academic culture that despises religion. And it even comes with its own apologetics and dismissive name calling – which several of you just offered. What fun to see that atheists are every bit as capable of apologetics as the religious – particularly when a central dogma (that science and religion don’t mix) is called into question.
To be clear here — I am not suggesting that other cultures never did anything resembling science. I am not arguing that these other cultures were not, for a time, much more sophisticated in their understanding than the west. What I am arguing is the the synthesis of Greek thought (particularly Aristotle) and Christianity particularly in the late middle ages set the stage (in terms of culture, intellectual atmosphere, metaphysical and epistemological commitments, etc) for an explosion of progress in science (as well as democracy and capitalism) the likes of which is unrivaled anywhere else in the world. My argument is that this is not accidental, it is not a fluke. Christianity, or better, Christian intellectual commitments, were essential to this unique development of modern science, democracy, and capitalism.
By way of a concrete example:
Science in Islam never quite took hold, despite the fact that Islam was far head, in some respects, of the West for some time. One big reason, I think, for this is that Islam has a voluntaristic and “occasionalist” view of God. On this view, the universe is not governed by “autonomous” natural laws. Rather, God controls everything. God’s will is the cause of all effects. In a sense, there is no such thing as “secondary causes” on this view. On a occassionalist view of God, there is little incentive to do science because everything is just God’s immediate will.
Christianity is different. Christians have mostly (I think many Mormons have a voluntarist view of God) adopted an intellectualist view of God. This grounds the intelligibility of creation, and that intelligibility is its own proper order that can be studied on its own. The study of natural causes (science) is different than theology. This view allows for an independent study of natural laws.
I’m still not totally convinced that Christianity was the impetus for modern science, but I’ll concede the point. At best, all I’m forced to conclude was that some people’s Christian faith animated their thirst for knowledge of the natural world and this thirst contributed to “science.” I’m not sure to what extent the Catholic Church, as an institution, should get credit for science. With the exception of the Galileo controversy, I’m not familiar enough with the church’s early relationship with science. Let’s say the Catholic Church deserves a great deal of credit. If the Crusades were too past to be relevant to the question “Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?”, then surely so too is the advent of science.
Dr. Kleiner,
I can probably concede that there is something about Western philosophy (Christianity being a part of that) that’s contributed to the development of the scientific method. I will say that I’ve found, in my very limited study, that Western philosophy is probably more sophisticated then its counterparts in other cultures. For example, I’ve never heard about Confucius talk about epistemology (that might be due to my ignorance though).
My question then is this: do you think Aristotelian philosophy can account for this, or is Christianity part of the package? Or in other words, would the scientific method have developed without Christianity and just Aristotelian ideology?
However, from my understanding one of Confucianism’s fundamental tenets is that the universe is harmonious and orderly. You might find this unfounded without the Christian God, but nonetheless it was accepted as axiomatic and the Chinese moved on. Epistemology was never really undertaken from what I know. Thus, it would appear that they would also have a basis for something like the scientific method to develop like the Europeans did.
Another cop-out, but I am not well trained in eastern philosophy. Better for someone else to comment on those questions (I’ll try to look up in the reading list books from my summer conference what they say about it). Why ask me, the eurocentric?
I don’t think I said that the Catholic Church is off the hook for long ago sins. My past philosopher king John Paul II clearly did not think that, for if he had he would not have apologized for a number of long past sins by churchmen.
My claim is pretty moderate, like Jon’s most recent post. I find stronger claims to be at least distasteful (rather too triumphalist). I am not drawing a direct line from Christianity to science. My argument has been that the Western Christian intellectual climate and intellectual commitments were uniquely fertile soil for the growth of science.
But, if Jon were to look into it, I do think he would find that the Church – its members and as an institution – has made far more of a contribution to science than it has interfered with it. The handful of exceptional cases (albeit highly publicized exceptional cases) would lose in a landslide to the contributions of institutional members of the Church (monks, priests), persons working at Catholic funded universities, not to mention believing Christians.
Despite my “eurocentrism” above, I actually think some are guilty of overstating the Christian role, of drawing too direct a line. I find these arguments a bit distasteful; they strike me as rather too triumphalist. And I don’t really care about the argument of whether Catholicism has been a force for good or evil. But if I am going to entertain that argument I am going to argue that Catholicism has been a force for good, and that its role in the development of science is a part of that. I think it is a pretty convincing position.
Mike asks a very interesting question that I need to think more about — was it Aristotle or Christianity that did the trick? Can’t we say that, for some reason, Aristotelian philosophy by itself was not enough? If it were, then you would have gotten science in Greece and you would have gotten science out of the islamic world. My contention is that other commitments (particularly theological commitments) prevented Aristotelianism from being taken up in the most fruitful way by those cultures. I think design arguments (do NOT confuse Aquinas’ design argument with contemporary design arguments from complexity) helped. But I need to think more about that, and maybe write a paper on it.
Has anyone read the book Guns, Germs and Steel? I think it raises something of an answer to Dr. Kleiners question concerning European dominance and advancement. His answer is that the advances are largely due to geographic, and other natural windfalls.
Interesting point, Jordan. I didn’t read the book, but I saw the “Guns, Germs and Steel” documentary. I think Europe’s ascendancy was certainly aided by, as you say, “geographic/natural windfalls.” I’m not sure, though, how important those factors were to the development of science. Your point is worth pursuing though; I should revisit that book sometime.