Well @Phil I may be presumptuous in arguing this (if so, do forgive me!)
The original exponents of proto-scientific empiricism were high medieval Christian natural philosophers (and arguably Muslims as well), who thought they were investigating God's plan for the universe by considering how His work functions.
Because their orthodox Nicene creed had compelled them to reject gnostic solipsism and emanationism, in favour of viewing the material universe as a real creation of God (albeit reflecting His eternal 'forms' in the Divine Mind where mathematics came from, as they thought), these Christian natural philosophers 'believed' in objective reality as a given. It would have been heresy for them in their Catholic culture to have denied it.
Beginning with a sixth century Byzantine scientist named John Philoponus, Christians broke with the Graeco-Roman world by performing actual experiments to test whether Aristotelian theories, then dominant in the ancient world, were right or wrong.
See:
That very nearly could have become the underlying philosophy of the Western world too, if the Gnostic Valentinus had succeeded in becoming Bishop of Rome in 143 CE. Valentinian Christianity was essentially a 'monistic' version of the faith, with Valentinus himself having taught that: "the entirety was inside of Him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who is superior to all thought." (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9). According to the respected scholar of Gnosticism Bentley Layton (1987), this sort of teaching implies a "cosmological model where all is enclosed by God and ultimately all is God". In contrast to the reality of the Father, "those things which are 'outside' of the Fullness have no true existence... These things are images of those which truly exist." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:14:3).
As a consequence of our ignorance of God, Valentinus concluded that humanity had fallen into an illusive understanding of reality ("error" or "deficiency"). According to Valentinus, "Ignorance of the Father caused agitation and fear. And the agitation grew dense like fog, so that no one could see. Thus error found strength" (Gospel of Truth 17:9-20). The metaphysics of the Valentinian school of early Christianity, therefore, assumed that the material universe we perceive with our senses is a mere illusion deriving from our ignorance of the Eternal Father, 'Bythos' the Depth of Supreme Being.
As the scholar Layton (1987) correctly notes, the Valentinian doctrine "is strongly anti-materialist, even illusionist, as regards the reality of material structures". Valentinus describes the "realm of appearance" as being akin to a bad dream "when one falls asleep and finds one's self in the midst of nightmares" (Gospel of Truth 29:8-10f) and enlightenment through Christ the Saviour is 'waking up' to what is "really" Real (i.e. the Pleroma, or Divine Fullness of God the Father). The author of the Treatise on Resurrection similarly describes the material world as follows, "Suddenly the living are dying - surely they are not alive at all in this world of apparition! - the rich have become poor, rulers overthrown: all changes, the world is an apparition" (Treatise on Resurrection 48:19-27cf Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:14).
So Christendom came close to having its 'Advaita' moment with the Pope Valentinus that never was, because he only narrowly lost the episcopal election of 143 CE by a very slender margin and his following in the second century, in terms of discipleship, had been enormous. Instead of becoming pontiff, however, his writings were ultimately declared heretical and lost to history, until some works from his school were uncovered in jars in the Egyptian desert near the cite of Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Now, I have to ponder: there are many things that might have worked for good had Valentinus the Gnostic been appointed Catholic Pope rather than Anicetus his rival, but what would the effect of his theology have been on Western science?
Whether a society "must" believe in an objective reality in order to 'do' science, I'm much less certain of that - all I can do is cite the historical record, which may be indicative that the answer to this question is 'aye'.
One of the greatest deficiencies of classical, Greco-Roman thought (for all its sophistication and profundity) was that they really lacked empiricism and any comprehension of the need for making testable predictions, and Platonism was becoming exceedingly popular - especially in its monistic, solipsistic 'Neoplatonist' form as a rival to Christianity by the third century CE.
If you believe that "nature is full of gods" and that magnets are propelled by active "souls" as Thales did or that the material universe is an illusion because there is only really the divine "Monad" (as Plotinus taught), then I think it does make it more difficult to engage in testable, experimental science because varying initial conditions (a necessity for conducting controlled experiments) would be viewed as violating the "static", cyclical divine order of nature or an 'illusion'.
As the Israeli physicist and philosopher of science Max Jammer explained in a 1997 study:
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics In The Light Of New Technology: Selected Papers From The Proceedings Of The First Through Fourth International Symposia On Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics
The original exponents of proto-scientific empiricism were high medieval Christian natural philosophers (and arguably Muslims as well), who thought they were investigating God's plan for the universe by considering how His work functions.
Because their orthodox Nicene creed had compelled them to reject gnostic solipsism and emanationism, in favour of viewing the material universe as a real creation of God (albeit reflecting His eternal 'forms' in the Divine Mind where mathematics came from, as they thought), these Christian natural philosophers 'believed' in objective reality as a given. It would have been heresy for them in their Catholic culture to have denied it.
Beginning with a sixth century Byzantine scientist named John Philoponus, Christians broke with the Graeco-Roman world by performing actual experiments to test whether Aristotelian theories, then dominant in the ancient world, were right or wrong.
See:
The Experimental Revolution
Though the ideas of the Greeks, as expressed by Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE), persisted until the time of Galileo, there were many who seriously questioned much of it, and even did experiments to show that Aristotle was wrong. John Philoponus (490–570) (John the Grammarian) experimentally disproved Aristotle's assertion that heavy bodies fall faster than lighter ones. This experiment (dropping heavy and light balls from a height) was repeated by others, including Simon Stevin (1548/49–1620). Their work constituted a gradual revolution in how physics was done, one that showed the importance of deliberate experiments designed to study natural processes. Previous physics had mostly relied on passive observation of phenomena.
Though the ideas of the Greeks, as expressed by Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE), persisted until the time of Galileo, there were many who seriously questioned much of it, and even did experiments to show that Aristotle was wrong. John Philoponus (490–570) (John the Grammarian) experimentally disproved Aristotle's assertion that heavy bodies fall faster than lighter ones. This experiment (dropping heavy and light balls from a height) was repeated by others, including Simon Stevin (1548/49–1620). Their work constituted a gradual revolution in how physics was done, one that showed the importance of deliberate experiments designed to study natural processes. Previous physics had mostly relied on passive observation of phenomena.
John Philoponus - Wikipedia
John Philoponus, a Christian philosopher, scientist, and theologian who lived approximately from 490 to 570, is also known as John the Grammarian or John of Alexandria.
Although the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition was the source of his intellectual roots and concerns, he was an original thinker who eventually broke with that tradition in many important respects, both substantive and methodological, and cleared part of the way which led to more critical and empirical approaches in the natural sciences...
He used the same didactic methods of reasoning that modern science uses and thus performed genuine experiments...
Philoponus' theological work is recognized in the history of science as the first attempt at a unified theory of dynamics.
He used the same didactic methods of reasoning that modern science uses and thus performed genuine experiments...
Philoponus' theological work is recognized in the history of science as the first attempt at a unified theory of dynamics.
Now, it hasn't escaped my notice that the so-called 'Scientific Revolution' in 17th century Europe and the 'Experimental / Empirical' movement in natural philosophy which presaged it in the medieval period (both in Christendom and the Islamic world), did not emerge in any of the otherwise highly sophisticated cultures - such as Mahayana Buddhist countries and Advaita India - where the concept had become deeply rooted (owing to a certain mystical-religious heritage) that objective reality was maya "illusion" i.e. for we are all really 'Atman' (Self) behind the veil of the phenomenal world.John Philoponus, a Christian philosopher, scientist, and theologian who lived approximately from 490 to 570, is also known as John the Grammarian or John of Alexandria.
Although the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition was the source of his intellectual roots and concerns, he was an original thinker who eventually broke with that tradition in many important respects, both substantive and methodological, and cleared part of the way which led to more critical and empirical approaches in the natural sciences...
He used the same didactic methods of reasoning that modern science uses and thus performed genuine experiments...
Philoponus' theological work is recognized in the history of science as the first attempt at a unified theory of dynamics.
He used the same didactic methods of reasoning that modern science uses and thus performed genuine experiments...
Philoponus' theological work is recognized in the history of science as the first attempt at a unified theory of dynamics.
That very nearly could have become the underlying philosophy of the Western world too, if the Gnostic Valentinus had succeeded in becoming Bishop of Rome in 143 CE. Valentinian Christianity was essentially a 'monistic' version of the faith, with Valentinus himself having taught that: "the entirety was inside of Him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who is superior to all thought." (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9). According to the respected scholar of Gnosticism Bentley Layton (1987), this sort of teaching implies a "cosmological model where all is enclosed by God and ultimately all is God". In contrast to the reality of the Father, "those things which are 'outside' of the Fullness have no true existence... These things are images of those which truly exist." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:14:3).
As a consequence of our ignorance of God, Valentinus concluded that humanity had fallen into an illusive understanding of reality ("error" or "deficiency"). According to Valentinus, "Ignorance of the Father caused agitation and fear. And the agitation grew dense like fog, so that no one could see. Thus error found strength" (Gospel of Truth 17:9-20). The metaphysics of the Valentinian school of early Christianity, therefore, assumed that the material universe we perceive with our senses is a mere illusion deriving from our ignorance of the Eternal Father, 'Bythos' the Depth of Supreme Being.
As the scholar Layton (1987) correctly notes, the Valentinian doctrine "is strongly anti-materialist, even illusionist, as regards the reality of material structures". Valentinus describes the "realm of appearance" as being akin to a bad dream "when one falls asleep and finds one's self in the midst of nightmares" (Gospel of Truth 29:8-10f) and enlightenment through Christ the Saviour is 'waking up' to what is "really" Real (i.e. the Pleroma, or Divine Fullness of God the Father). The author of the Treatise on Resurrection similarly describes the material world as follows, "Suddenly the living are dying - surely they are not alive at all in this world of apparition! - the rich have become poor, rulers overthrown: all changes, the world is an apparition" (Treatise on Resurrection 48:19-27cf Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:14).
So Christendom came close to having its 'Advaita' moment with the Pope Valentinus that never was, because he only narrowly lost the episcopal election of 143 CE by a very slender margin and his following in the second century, in terms of discipleship, had been enormous. Instead of becoming pontiff, however, his writings were ultimately declared heretical and lost to history, until some works from his school were uncovered in jars in the Egyptian desert near the cite of Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Now, I have to ponder: there are many things that might have worked for good had Valentinus the Gnostic been appointed Catholic Pope rather than Anicetus his rival, but what would the effect of his theology have been on Western science?
Whether a society "must" believe in an objective reality in order to 'do' science, I'm much less certain of that - all I can do is cite the historical record, which may be indicative that the answer to this question is 'aye'.
One of the greatest deficiencies of classical, Greco-Roman thought (for all its sophistication and profundity) was that they really lacked empiricism and any comprehension of the need for making testable predictions, and Platonism was becoming exceedingly popular - especially in its monistic, solipsistic 'Neoplatonist' form as a rival to Christianity by the third century CE.
If you believe that "nature is full of gods" and that magnets are propelled by active "souls" as Thales did or that the material universe is an illusion because there is only really the divine "Monad" (as Plotinus taught), then I think it does make it more difficult to engage in testable, experimental science because varying initial conditions (a necessity for conducting controlled experiments) would be viewed as violating the "static", cyclical divine order of nature or an 'illusion'.
As the Israeli physicist and philosopher of science Max Jammer explained in a 1997 study:
Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics In The Light Of New Technology: Selected Papers From The Proceedings Of The First Through Fourth International Symposia On Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics
Greek science was not experimental science. During the twelve centuries, from Thales to Philoponus, virtually no serious experiment had been performed. In fact, the very idea of an experiment was unacceptable to the Greek mind.
The world of nature, according to Greek metaphysics was a world alive and divine...Any interference with the course of nature was for the Greek an act of violence...The performance of an experiment performed under artificial or unnatural conditions could consequently never increase knowledge of nature.
The world of nature, according to Greek metaphysics was a world alive and divine...Any interference with the course of nature was for the Greek an act of violence...The performance of an experiment performed under artificial or unnatural conditions could consequently never increase knowledge of nature.
Last edited: