One of the Whopping Big Contributions of Christianity to Renaissance Humanism!

[Augustus]

I respectfully disagree. It is of course speculative, but it seems to me all but certain that without Christianity some other forms of ideology and organization would have arisen, and I see no indication that those would be less interested or less capable in the nurture of reason, rationality and science than Christianity was.

I generally agree with you that they most probably would have arisen at some point, although I don't subscribe to a teleological view of history so I can't say they certainly would. There are unlimited potential vehicles that could have transmitted such a worldview, it just happens that Christianity was one of them, not that this implies it has any 'magical' qualities.

Obviously we are both speculating and there is no right/wrong answer, given that whatever the preconditions were for the creation of modern science don't seem to have existed in the vast majority of historical societies, even quite advanced ones, what is your opinion on how quickly they would have arisen?

Despite its contributions, Christianity held back scientific progress and it would have emerged sooner?

(my view) Due to the randomness of history we have no way of knowing what European society would have turned into, but given these precursors seem to be incredibly rare, the balance of probabilities say if it occurred it would be later. This is because it is like waiting for a royal flush in poker, you are far more likely to get 'not a royal flush'.

Or is it just to random to be worth speculating on?

 

[sun rise]

This is an unusually interesting thread for RF and perhaps in a broader context.

Tyson's "naming" argument is well made. His point about the length of time that the Islamic civilization was open and supportive of science was well made.

I agree with the critique about al Ghazali.

And the point about him making an anti-religion, anti-God emphasis at the end was also important to note. I don't agree with this as very religious but non fundamentalist fanatic believers have and are continuing to make significant contributions to science.

To the OP itself, it was a bit TL;DR but here again the forces of innovation were stronger than the forces of superstition in science and especially in art.

 

[sun rise]

In a broader context, it's interesting to me how a wave of progress in many areas started in China, moved to the Middle East, then to Europe and then to the USA.

It also illustrates how cultures are like people - they have a lifespan with birth, a period of productivity and then they decline.

 

[LuisDantas]

I generally agree with you that they most probably would have arisen at some point, although I don't subscribe to a teleological view of history so I can't say they certainly would. There are unlimited potential vehicles that could have transmitted such a worldview, it just happens that Christianity was one of them, not that this implies it has any 'magical' qualities.

Agreed.

Obviously we are both speculating and there is no right/wrong answer, given that whatever the preconditions were for the creation of modern science don't seem to have existed in the vast majority of historical societies,

I don't know about that. The ancient mesoamericans and greeks, for instance, seem to have had significant ability on that regard.

even quite advanced ones, what is your opinion on how quickly they would have arisen?

Faster, probably way faster.

I flat out doubt that without the dogma and superstition promoted by Christianity and Islaam specifically we would be worse off in the historical development of science. Most other communities have more respect for reason and knowledge, IMO.

Despite its contributions, Christianity held back scientific progress and it would have emerged sooner?

Yes, that is indeed what I believe to be likely.

Christianity held tremendous political influence over at least two continents for several centuries, and benefitted from being lent the efforts of many of the best minds of those places and times. It could not reasonably have failed to be involved in some development unless it specifically wanted to.

Meanwhile, Islaam basically wants to. Rarely if ever has a comparably popular doctrine insisted so much on dogma for dogma's sake. Even Christianity is hard pressed to offer some competition in that regard.

(my view) Due to the randomness of history we have no way of knowing what European society would have turned into, but given these precursors seem to be incredibly rare, the balance of probabilities say if it occurred it would be later. This is because it is like waiting for a royal flush in poker, you are far more likely to get 'not a royal flush'.

Or is it just to random to be worth speculating on?

I don't think history is nearly as random as you seem to believe in the above paragraph, nor that societies capable of developing scientific knowledge are nearly as rare.

 

[Augustus]

The first universities were Islamic universities.

What is your reasoning behind this?

One common story I hear in regard to this relates to a woman called Fatima who founded a mosque in Morocco that (much) later became a university.

There are also arguments that relate to some madrassas being early 'universities', although this starts to get into definitions issues so can become eye of the beholder stuff.

Some potential characteristics of a university: wider freedom of thought for the resident scholars (obviously still limited), as opposed to the 'schools of thought' approach that had existed for millennia. Qualifications that were granted, and reflected, the institution rather than the specific scholar in question. Also the purpose being education in general, rather than for the specific purpose of creating a bureaucratic or clerical class (as in China for example).

What, for you, makes a university?

Disagree, this does not reflect the history of the relationship between Christianity and science.

What would you say that history was?

Also, do you not agree that one had to study philosophy before they could study theology?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is your reasoning behind this?

One common story I hear in regard to this relates to a woman called Fatima who founded a mosque in Morocco that (much) later became a university.

There are also arguments that relate to some madrassas being early 'universities', although this starts to get into definitions issues so can become eye of the beholder stuff.

Some potential characteristics of a university: wider freedom of thought for the resident scholars (obviously still limited), as opposed to the 'schools of thought' approach that had existed for millennia. Qualifications that were granted, and reflected, the institution rather than the specific scholar in question. Also the purpose being education in general, rather than for the specific purpose of creating a bureaucratic or clerical class (as in China for example).

What, for you, makes a university?

Institute of higher learning that covers a broad scope of disciplines including philosophy and science. All early universities in the Islam and Christianity were theologically centered. Islamic universities included philosophy and science

There was indeed more than one university in the Islamic world before the Christian university

From: First University in the World - The Muslim Observer

First university founded in the world was by a Muslim! Not only a Muslim, but a Muslimah! Yes! It was a Muslim woman who established first institute of higher learning. In fact Muslim community can boast of, some of the oldest universities in the world.

1. University of Al-Karaouine: Located in Fes, Morocco, this university originally was a mosque founded in 859 by Fatima al -Fihri, a woman. It developed into one of the leading universities for natural sciences. It wasn’t until 1957 that the university added mathematics, physics, chemistry and foreign languages. This university is considered the oldest continuously -operating degree-granting university in the world by the Guiness Book of World Records.

2. Al-Azhar University: This university, located in Egypt, is the world’s second oldest surviving degree-granting institute. Founded in 970-972, this university serves as a center for Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning. Al-Azhar university concentrates upon a religious syllabus, which pays special attention to the Quranic sciences and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (s) on the one hand, while also teaching all modern fields of science.

3. Nizamiyya: This series of universities was established by Khwaja Nizam alMulk in the eleventh century in what is now present -day Iran. The most celebrated of all the Nizamiyya schools is Al -Nizamiyya of Baghdad, established in 1065 in Dhu’l Qa’da and that remains operational in Isfahan. But, this was just one of many Nizamiyyah schools — others were located in Nishapur, Amul, Mosul, Herat, Damascus, and Basra.

The Nizamiyya schools served as a model for future universities in the region, and al Mulk often is seen as responsible for a new era of brilliance which caused his schools to eclipse all other contemporary learning institutions.
We will explore The University of Al-Karaounie in more detail.

What would you say that history was?

The history of the relationship between Christianity and science is indeed a mixed bag. With a history of support, often selective to compliance with belief, and opposition. Even contemporary Christianity remains a mixed bag with numerous

religious agendas like Intelligent Design, opposition to the science of evolution and abiogenesis, and global warming.

Also, do you not agree that one had to study philosophy before they could study theology?

Yes, and the philosophies of the Greeks were up front dominant, and influences the advancemnt of science. The poemon Nature of Lucretius was found in their libraries, which a the reason it was preserved.

 

[Augustus]

nor that societies capable of developing scientific knowledge are nearly as rare.

This might be another one of those terminology issues. Scientific knowledge is as old as the hills and very common, 'modern' science is deemed to have emerged specifically in Europe during the 'scientific revolution' and has specific characteristics that were anything but common, historically at least.

You seem to have a teleological view of human history, whereas mine is chaotic, which gives you greater expectation of realising the necessary conditions.

Again there is no way to 'prove' one of these is right or wrong, it's still fun to speculate though (although I do believe monotheism played a major role in spreading this teleology which is rare in most societies, but we probably wouldn't agree on that either ).

This is an interesting article on the idea of progress you might like regarding the development of this teleology from Ancient Greece onwards.

 

[shunyadragon]

This might be another one of those terminology issues. Scientific knowledge is as old as the hills and very common, 'modern' science is deemed to have emerged specifically in Europe during the 'scientific revolution' and has specific characteristics that were anything but common, historically at least.

You seem to have a teleological view of human history, whereas mine is chaotic, which gives you greater expectation of realising the necessary conditions.

Again there is no way to 'prove' one of these is right or wrong, it's still fun to speculate though (although I do believe monotheism played a major role in spreading this teleology which is rare in most societies, but we probably wouldn't agree on that either ).

This is an interesting article on the idea of progress you might like regarding the development of this teleology from Ancient Greece onwards.

The first basis for the scientific method originated in Islam.

Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method | RealClearScience

Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life, but historians believe he was born around the year 965, during a period marked as the Golden Age of Arabic science. His father was a civil servant, so the young Ibn al-Haytham received a strong education, which assuredly seeded his passion for science. He was also a devout Muslim, believing that an endless quest for truth about the natural world brought him closer to God. Sometime around the dawn of the 11th Century, he moved to Cairo in Egypt. It was here that he would complete his most influential work.

The prevailing wisdom at the time was that we saw what our eyes, themselves, illuminated. Supported by revered thinkers like Euclid and Ptolemy, emission theory stated that sight worked because our eyes emitted rays of light -- like flashlights. But this didn't make sense to Ibn al-Haytham. If light comes from our eyes, why, he wondered, is it painful to look at the sun? This simple realization catapulted him into researching the behavior and properties of light: optics.

In 1011, Ibn al-Haytham was placed under house arrest by a powerful caliph in Cairo. Though unwelcome, the seclusion was just what he needed to explore the nature of light. Over the next decade, Ibn al-Haytham proved that light only travels in straight lines, explained how mirrors work, and argued that light rays can bend when moving through different mediums, like water, for example.

But Ibn al-Haytham wasn't satisfied with elucidating these theories only to himself, he wanted others to see what he had done. The years of solitary work culminated in his Book of Optics, which expounded just as much upon his methods as it did his actual ideas. Anyone who read the book would have instructions on how to repeat every single one of Ibn al-Haytham's experiments.

"His message is, 'Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself,'" Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Surrey noted in a BBC4 Special.

"This, for me, is the moment that Science, itself is summoned into existence and becomes a discipline in its own right," he added.

Apart from being one of the first to operate on the scientific method, Ibn al-Haytham was also a progenitor of critical thinking and skepticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

This might be another one of those terminology issues. Scientific knowledge is as old as the hills and very common, 'modern' science is deemed to have emerged specifically in Europe during the 'scientific revolution' and has specific characteristics that were anything but common, historically at least.

You seem to have a teleological view of human history, whereas mine is chaotic, which gives you greater expectation of realising the necessary conditions.

That seems to be accurate.

Again there is no way to 'prove' one of these is right or wrong, it's still fun to speculate though (although I do believe monotheism played a major role in spreading this teleology which is rare in most societies, but we probably wouldn't agree on that either ).

Indeed. My take is very much the opposite.

This is an interesting article on the idea of progress you might like regarding the development of this teleology from Ancient Greece onwards.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I consider Islam to be a significant contribution to the Renaissance. Greek philosophy also had a significant influence on the Renaissance and the rise of Humanism. Christianity has an influence, but it is a more complicated reality, and I do not consider the contribution of Christianity to be Whooping Big. Roman philosopher Lucretius also influenced a natural view of our existence that Humanism later brought. These and other possible influences have a greater influence than Christianity.

Right on as far as Islam and Christianity both. The church at the time was lagging behind IMHO.

 

[Augustus]

First university founded in the world was by a Muslim! Not only a Muslim, but a Muslimah! Yes! It was a Muslim woman who established first institute of higher learning. In fact Muslim community can boast of, some of the oldest universities in the world.

This is a very common story, but it seems hard to pin down the point at which it became a 'university', rather than a mosque.

This article features an excerpt from Ibn Khaldun circa 15th C that mentions the mosque but not any university.

Do you know who was the earliest source to confirm that there was a university there?

As regards the others, it's a question of definitions and eyes of the beholder which is probably intractable. Anyway, where the first university was isn't really that important to what I was saying about specific events in Europe.

The history of the relationship between Christianity and science is indeed a mixed bag. With a history of support, often selective to compliance with belief, and opposition.

There were obviously a few negatives, I tend to see them as significantly overstated compared to the positive contributions.

There really weren't many people at all who were persecuted for scientific beliefs (I don't think any during the Medieval period, and a handful during the Renaissance) and generally the church revised theological positions once scientific beliefs had become established. It is true that in the intermediate period where there were scientific disputes (as with Galileo), it could be limit the spreading of scientific ideas that would force a revision of theological understanding. I'm not sure how often this happened, but it was limited to a narrow range of scientific ideas and I don't think it was very common. How common do you think it was?

Given that the church was by far the biggest funder of scientific enquiry and a primary motivation for the study of nature (as expressed by the people themselves), the positives seem to significantly outweigh the negatives though.

Once such things had become established though, the relevance of Christianity declined to the point where it was obsolete in terms of positive contributions at least. It is no longer relevant in modernity outwith politics.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is a very common story, but it seems hard to pin down the point at which it became a 'university', rather than a mosque.

This article features an excerpt from Ibn Khaldun circa 15th C that mentions the mosque but not any university.

Do you know who was the earliest source to confirm that there was a university there?

As regards the others, it's a question of definitions and eyes of the beholder which is probably intractable. Anyway, where the first university was isn't really that important to what I was saying about specific events in Europe.

It may be a matter of definition, but not the my view as the beholder, both early universities in Islam and Christianity were intimately involved and controlled as religious institutions. Christianity centered on the church, and Islam on the Mosque. My argument hinges on the advancements in science, ie the scientific method, scientific literature on many subjects, and preservation of Greek philosophy by Islamic scholars. The scientific literature, and philosophy during the "golden age" of Islam are a clear witness to the Islamic universities.

See: Science in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Yet the theological fact (being true) disallows such a series to explain our known universe.

There were obviously a few negatives, I tend to see them as significantly overstated compared to the positive contributions.

There really weren't many people at all who were persecuted for scientific beliefs (I don't think any during the Medieval period, and a handful during the Renaissance) and generally the church revised theological positions once scientific beliefs had become established. It is true that in the intermediate period where there were scientific disputes (as with Galileo), it could be limit the spreading of scientific ideas that would force a revision of theological understanding. I'm not sure how often this happened, but it was limited to a narrow range of scientific ideas and I don't think it was very common. How common do you think it was?

I believe you are minimizes the conflicts between Christianity and science, and minimizing the positive influence of Islam and Islamic universities, which are documented prior to the advancement of science in Christian Europe,

Given that the church was by far the biggest funder of scientific enquiry and a primary motivation for the study of nature (as expressed by the people themselves), the positives seem to significantly outweigh the negatives though.

Once such things had become established though, the relevance of Christianity declined to the point where it was obsolete in terms of positive contributions at least. It is no longer relevant in modernity outwith politics.

You are also minimalizing the problems of the conflicts between Christianity and science in contemporary history, and as a fact throughout the history of Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

I believe you are..minimizing the positive influence of Islam and Islamic universities, which are documented prior to the advancement of science in Christian Europe.. The scientific literature, and philosophy during the "golden age" of Islam are a clear witness to the Islamic universities.

I disagree with this. Not that I disagree with the idea about scientific advances (I was discussing them earlier in the thread), but that these necessarily relate to universities as we conceive them. Also, the translation movement, while funded by Muslims, was predominantly carried out by Christians. That's not to diminish the original insights that were added to and built on these by Muslims (and others) though.

The ancient Greeks didn't have universities, but they made many advances also, same with the Persians, Chinese, etc.

I believe you are minimizes the conflicts between Christianity and science,

What do you see these as being though?

You are also minimalizing the problems of the conflicts between Christianity and science in contemporary history

Please don't take this as me being rude, just a statement of my personal interests. I really don't care about this topic. I'm just not interested in the last 100 years of Christianity and science. Post Enlightenment I get more interested in the effects of Enlightenment philosophies on science and society.

I'm more interested in the history of ideas, than any particular religion, and Christianity simply becomes a sideshow at this point.

 

[Baroodi]

We know the principles of early renaissance in science were founded by Islamic scientists who almost were non Arabs. Major loss of this heritage followed the Mogul invasion of Baghdad, upon the massacres and arsons they did against the Muslims. Still Islam faces undeclared war from some new imperialists. No one should forget the role of the missionaries in the invasion of the so called third world. Big divisions in these communities happened after that on the bases of conflicts around religion, tribe, race etc...

Nations are so tolerant and peaceful all over the world, but the elite politicians and the influential big shots religiously or financially, are leading us into havoc and retreat. The principles of current world order is unjustly. Nations need to move to set a new order so all nations can live in harmony and prosperity. Religion and race should not be the fuel to burn everything.

 

[blü 2]

I am of the alarming and insufferable opinion that the Renaissance begins on April 26, 1336 with Petrarch's attaining the summit of Mont Ventoux.

With the opening chords of Also Spracht Zarathustra booming down the valleys, I trust.

I'd be inclined to say the Renaissance probably started when someone in France translated a book of Roman or Greek learning that the Moors had kept, and first showed above water in the 13th century with the Schoolmen, Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, R. Bacon, Duns Scotus, Ockham, all those dudes a century earlier on whose shoulders Francesco stood.

Petrarch effectively makes humanity (i.e. "the human soul") the source of all value in this world.

Then he'd likely been reading Peter Abelard's work. Abelard was following a strand of Christian thinking about humans being made in God's image, and the what-we'd-now-call humanist consequences of that.

Second, he ascribes the view that humanity is the source of all value, not to Christian theologians, but to "Pagan philosophers". Thus, the Renaissance has sometimes been seen by low and scurrilous sorts of people as merely a rebirth of ancient Grecco-Roman humanism.

The reason he could do this is because Christian scholars ─ pretty much the only scholars, back then ─ had been rediscovering Classical thought, particularly via Spain and the Moors.

... Renaissance humanism, although heavily inspired and informed by humanistic Grecco-Roman philosophies, etc, also owed a lot to Christianity. Bushels and bushels, in fact!

Bear in mind that Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek thought to start with. It's written in Greek, it gets its ideas about the soul and post-mortal judgment and heaven and hell from Plato, the eucharist is based on a Greek practice (consuming bread and wine in conscious honor of Demeter and Dionysos), taking your staff, walking the roads, encountering people and talking to them, and trusting in providence for your food and drink is pure Cynic teaching, and so on. As a result of the Renaissance, Christian thought became even more heavily neo-Platonist, and their cosmology even more Aristotelian until (Copernicus and) Galileo.

The notion that everyone is equal on the level of the soul (and somewhat later on the notions that everyone ought to be equal before the law, have equal opportunities in life, etc, etc.) would have been inconceivable to classical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Those thinkers accepted as fact that some lives -- usually the lives of the poor and powerless -- were of less worth and value than other lives -- usually the lives of the rich and powerful.

No doubt about that. Everyone who mattered back then equated equality with anarchy. Paul in effect says as much.

But there's likewise no doubt that Athenian democracy was seized on by humanists and waved as a flag once things got political. (Not so much the Roman republic, whose fall brought in the Golden Age of Empire and the Caesars and founded modern Europe.)

Christians, on the other hand, saw everyone as equal before God.

Er, throughout the Renaissance Europe was ruled by monarchies, all of whose monarchs, with the enthusiastic backing of the Church, declared themselves God's Anointed Ruler. The Vatican is still an autocracy with clearly defined lines of hierarchical authority. And the Brits were singing 'The rich man in his castle, / The poor man at his gate, / He made them high or lowly, / He ordered their estate', a verse from 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' that was quietly dropped but not till the 1950s or so. The British, French, Yankees and more were enthusiastic slave-owners and traders, including Jefferson while penning 'All men are created equal', and they all found more than ample support from both the Torah and Paul.

So equality in the West is a confused picture, in which Classical learning, its offspring humanism, strands of Christian teaching, and the rise of nonconformism within Christianity, played a part.

Oh, and as for the equality of women, all but nothing happens till the 20th century, and Christianity has hardly been their friend along the way. Kinder, Küche, Kirche, as the Germans say, or used to.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Sunstone your OP is full of useful information. It can also show why I have sometimes stated humanism will not ultimately survive without theism. Humanism cannot ground the worth of individual beings in arbitrary feelings. It isn't a strong enough foundation. Wonder why humanism is declining and giving way to selfish consumerism? I say look no further...

Without theism or some kind of transcendence IE: Ultimate Reality- humanism is left weak and entirely based on feelings.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree with this. Not that I disagree with the idea about scientific advances (I was discussing them earlier in the thread), but that these necessarily relate to universities as we conceive them. Also, the translation movement, while funded by Muslims, was predominantly carried out by Christians. That's not to diminish the original insights that were added to and built on these by Muslims (and others) though.

The historical evidence of the sciences in Islam tell a different story.

What do you see these as being though?

Principaly the belief in a literal genesis history an description of the universe.

Please don't take this as me being rude, just a statement of my personal interests. I really don't care about this topic. I'm just not interested in the last 100 years of Christianity and science. Post Enlightenment I get more interested in the effects of Enlightenment philosophies on science and society.

Take this this rude if you like. You cannot separate the history in compartments as you claim. The belief in a literal Genesis in Christianity has always been a disruptive influence on science since Christianity dominated the culture of Europe.

I believe the Greek philosophy, Islamic science and Humanist movements in this period had more influence than Christianity.

I'm more interested in the history of ideas, than any particular religion, and Christianity simply becomes a sideshow at this point.

Then it maybe concluded that Christianity was a sideshow in the course of the history of the advancement of the sciences.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Sunstone your OP is full of useful information. It can also show why I have sometimes stated humanism will not ultimately survive without theism. Humanism cannot ground the worth of individual beings in arbitrary feelings. It isn't a strong enough foundation. Wonder why humanism is declining and giving way to selfish consumerism? I say look no further...

Without theism or some kind of transcendence IE: Ultimate Reality- humanism is left weak and entirely based on feelings.

Even though, I am not a humanist, but the above argument is weak. Humanism is not really declining, despite your wishful thinking. It actually has a more rational argument than ancient religious worldviews. Nonetheless many Buddhists are sectarian humanists as in Zen of Japan.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Humanism is not really declining, despite your wishful thinking.

I don't wish it was declining. Sorry I wasn't more clear

I take certain trends in present society as indicators it is declining, but perhaps you're right. It'd be nice if you're right.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't wish it was declining. Sorry I wasn't more clear

I take certain trends in present society as indicators it is declining, but perhaps you're right. It'd be nice if you're right.

I believe the present trend indicates that the religious right is increasing at the expense of religious moderates, religious views are hardening, and the polls indicate that the humanists are not decreasing, and possibly increasing. Recent polls showing those who have no religious belief is increasing to an all time high of 20%, at the expense of establishment beliefs. Other alternate beliefs is holding steady at 5-7%.

Religion

If it were not for the Baha'i Faith I would be in the 'none' category, with Buddhist philosophical leaning.