Hi Mark:
You write: "As our evolution progresses some features of past evolutionary necessity will be superseded by new adaptations required for the continued survival of the species. Rationality is one of these characteristics."
I agree, but I want to note that the time spans we are talking about - maybe ten thousand years - are too short for biological evolution to be at play. Rather, what is happening is learning, both individual and social.
Science typifies a modern high speed learning process. It powerfully combines both reasoned thought - theory, model building, conjecture - with empirical testing. The "wisdom of crowds" approach - the driving force behind Google - is another.
Very clearly, religion has some catching up to do, bit it too has evolved an important and powerful role to play, But, it is very big, and very slowly moving, except when a new prophet shows up every thousand years or so. That doesn't mean that it is inherently anti-rational, but it certainly can get that way at times.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Three more posts to Russell Blackford's site:
Hi Russel:
You write:
"There is just a history of science not finding religion-based causes fruitful. ... preformationism of the kind that says God created an infinite set of individuals inside each other dating back to the Garden of Eden was not a fruitful hypothesis. ... Likewise, diluvian geology is now known to be false (this was well-established during the 19th century)."
Best be careful here. Neither of these are notably religious in origin, although I understand the temptation to see as them as such. The later, of course, was a specifically western European hypothesis inspired by the historical genius of Judaism which became a part of an extraordinarily fruitful iteration of thought that prefigured modern geology and of course evolution.
What is of religious origin, history shows, is science itself. The history of astronomy is a case in point. (The history of astronomy, to a surprising degree, IS the history of science).
Starting from Egyptian and Babylonian religious concerns, astronomy was merged into Greek number mysticism with its belief in the sacredness of pure geometrical form. Ptolemy's superb writings took this astronomy and made it into common currency in the Islamic world.
In Islam, the world was considered a sign of God, meaning that to study the world was to glorify God, an approach that encouraged the growth of empiricism and mathematics. For astronomy, extraordinary mathematical, engineering, and observational advances resulted from this empirical bent, leading to a full and rich scientific literature that became the foundation of European astronomy and its subsequent flowerings.
I think the broader thrust of all this may be the following:
The idea of unsophisticated and superstitious supernatural explanations as the religious perspective is pretty much a red herring. Yes, creationism and ID are such things, but delving into their history suggests that are due more to a "high church/low church" political struggle. The "high church" side has morphed into a science-based secular elitism.
In the 17th century, leading religious thinkers were NOT contemplating supernatural acts of God as explanations - that was the domain of the polemicists and fanatics of the war between religionists. Rather, they were doing the opposite. People like the Jesuit-trained Descartes who were setting up science as a truth-seeking way to create unity and an alternative to conflict.
Hi Athena:
I would agree that most people have a simplified view of science, which is why the danger I warn of is so real.
The danger, and the evidence for it is increasing, is of individuals or groups taking simplistic interpretations of science and turning them into philosophical dogma and recruiting ideological followers. The "accommodationist" discussions on the internet which Russell describes are a skirmish in the ugly cultural war this has engendered. I think it is very dangerous to underestimate the appeal of being an authority.
For (2), you are probably thinking of a different century than I am. Western European slavery was not abolished until the 19th century - and yes, it didn't happen easily. Christianity - this time Protestantism - played a major role in its abolition. If you are a Marxist, I suppose you could say that the factory worker or the immigrant became a serf. Is this what you mean?
Hi Mark:
You write:
"Through the scientific method we have come to know that there is no supernatural. Even if we come to discover other dimensions or universes, these would be part of the natural order of things."
Let me propose a radically different way to think about the supernatural, one that turns your conclusion around 180 degrees. If you understand it, you can understand religion.
My observation, and yes, I'm a working scientist, is that the scientific method has demonstrated very clearly that there is a supernatural. We use it every day - or should - in our work and research.
It is, of course, that which enables to grasp the scientific method, that which enables us to use scientific methods, and that which enables us to understand things.
If you understand what it is, and keep in mind that "super" means above, not superman, and that natural means "nature", not organic, then you can figure out religion, and maybe even break free of all the imagery - the gods, the images - that so bedevils people who don't understand it.
Stephen Friberg • Mountain View, CA, USA • Jun 21, 2009
Hi Russel:
You write:
"There is just a history of science not finding religion-based causes fruitful. ... preformationism of the kind that says God created an infinite set of individuals inside each other dating back to the Garden of Eden was not a fruitful hypothesis. ... Likewise, diluvian geology is now known to be false (this was well-established during the 19th century)."
Best be careful here. Neither of these are notably religious in origin, although I understand the temptation to see as them as such. The later, of course, was a specifically western European hypothesis inspired by the historical genius of Judaism which became a part of an extraordinarily fruitful iteration of thought that prefigured modern geology and of course evolution.
What is of religious origin, history shows, is science itself. The history of astronomy is a case in point. (The history of astronomy, to a surprising degree, IS the history of science).
Starting from Egyptian and Babylonian religious concerns, astronomy was merged into Greek number mysticism with its belief in the sacredness of pure geometrical form. Ptolemy's superb writings took this astronomy and made it into common currency in the Islamic world.
In Islam, the world was considered a sign of God, meaning that to study the world was to glorify God, an approach that encouraged the growth of empiricism and mathematics. For astronomy, extraordinary mathematical, engineering, and observational advances resulted from this empirical bent, leading to a full and rich scientific literature that became the foundation of European astronomy and its subsequent flowerings.
I think the broader thrust of all this may be the following:
The idea of unsophisticated and superstitious supernatural explanations as the religious perspective is pretty much a red herring. Yes, creationism and ID are such things, but delving into their history suggests that are due more to a "high church/low church" political struggle. The "high church" side has morphed into a science-based secular elitism.
In the 17th century, leading religious thinkers were NOT contemplating supernatural acts of God as explanations - that was the domain of the polemicists and fanatics of the war between religionists. Rather, they were doing the opposite. People like the Jesuit-trained Descartes who were setting up science as a truth-seeking way to create unity and an alternative to conflict.
Stephen Friberg • Mountain View, CA, USA • Jun 21, 2009
Hi Athena:
I would agree that most people have a simplified view of science, which is why the danger I warn of is so real.
The danger, and the evidence for it is increasing, is of individuals or groups taking simplistic interpretations of science and turning them into philosophical dogma and recruiting ideological followers. The "accommodationist" discussions on the internet which Russell describes are a skirmish in the ugly cultural war this has engendered. I think it is very dangerous to underestimate the appeal of being an authority.
For (2), you are probably thinking of a different century than I am. Western European slavery was not abolished until the 19th century - and yes, it didn't happen easily. Christianity - this time Protestantism - played a major role in its abolition. If you are a Marxist, I suppose you could say that the factory worker or the immigrant became a serf. Is this what you mean?
Stephen R. Friberg • Mountain View, CA • Jun 22, 2009
Hi Mark:
You write:
"Through the scientific method we have come to know that there is no supernatural. Even if we come to discover other dimensions or universes, these would be part of the natural order of things."
Let me propose a radically different way to think about the supernatural, one that turns your conclusion around 180 degrees. If you understand it, you can understand religion.
My observation, and yes, I'm a working scientist, is that the scientific method has demonstrated very clearly that there is a supernatural. We use it every day - or should - in our work and research.
It is, of course, that which enables to grasp the scientific method, that which enables us to use scientific methods, and that which enables us to understand things.
If you understand what it is, and keep in mind that "super" means above, not superman, and that natural means "nature", not organic, then you can figure out religion, and maybe even break free of all the imagery - the gods, the images - that so bedevils people who don't understand it.
This is a post that I made to Russell Blackford's Blog at IEET
COMMENTS
Hi Russell:
You are wading into contentious territory, and doing so carefully, and I commend you both for your boldness and your care.
A central claim you are making might be summarized as follows: science has an equal claim to moral authority as does religion, suggesting that NOMA is wrong.
I disagree with the moral authority claim for reasons that strike me as obvious. However, I agree with your distrust of the NOMA doctrine.
- First of all, science makes no claim to moral authority, nor should it be expected to.
- Second, when moral claims have been drawn from science, they have been often disastrously and dangerously wrong. Social Darwinism and the murderous uses it was put to is a case in point. Communism, with its claimed-for basis in scientific materialism, is another.
- Thirdly, a very small percentage of the population are scientists, so any system that ascribes - or attempts to ascribe - authority to science creates a priestly structure empowering "those who know", in this case the scientists. Others therefore have to follow, in this case everybody else.
Religion, which clearly has it failings in living up to its stated goals, is different.
- First of all, it directly focuses on moral issues as a central, if not the central, component of what it does. And, literally for billions of people, it focuses on moral issues such truthfulness, honesty, fairness, compassion, and the need for education as central to its teachings.
- Second, it is for everybody, and at least since Christianity, directly says so. It is phrased so it is accessible to everybody. It does not require a 4 years of undergraduate school and 5 years of graduate school and a Ph.D. thesis.
- Thirdly, it has, and continues to have a track record of tremendous success in achieving moral goals. The elimination of Western European slavery being but one of them. That record continues to expand.
However, there is an important sense in which science is an integral part of addressing moral issues, one which dovetails very well with the moral focus of religion and which suggests that NOMA is inadequate.
And that is that the principles of religion can neither be well-understood nor put into action without the empirical, rational, and pragmatic approaches that science - divorced of its theological trappings - brings to bear.
A case in point is the need to address ecological concerns for the world of our children and their future. Both science, which can supply accurate information and evaluation of various methods to address the problem, and the moral willpower of large numbers of people, mostly folks who are not scientists, are needed ingredients.
This, I think, shows NOMA to be wrong. Both science AND religion working together are needed.
COMMENTS
Stephen Friberg • United States • Jun 20, 2009
Publish Post
Hi Russell:
You are wading into contentious territory, and doing so carefully, and I commend you both for your boldness and your care.
A central claim you are making might be summarized as follows: science has an equal claim to moral authority as does religion, suggesting that NOMA is wrong.
I disagree with the moral authority claim for reasons that strike me as obvious. However, I agree with your distrust of the NOMA doctrine.
- First of all, science makes no claim to moral authority, nor should it be expected to.
- Second, when moral claims have been drawn from science, they have been often disastrously and dangerously wrong. Social Darwinism and the murderous uses it was put to is a case in point. Communism, with its claimed-for basis in scientific materialism, is another.
- Thirdly, a very small percentage of the population are scientists, so any system that ascribes - or attempts to ascribe - authority to science creates a priestly structure empowering "those who know", in this case the scientists. Others therefore have to follow, in this case everybody else.
Religion, which clearly has it failings in living up to its stated goals, is different.
- First of all, it directly focuses on moral issues as a central, if not the central, component of what it does. And, literally for billions of people, it focuses on moral issues such truthfulness, honesty, fairness, compassion, and the need for education as central to its teachings.
- Second, it is for everybody, and at least since Christianity, directly says so. It is phrased so it is accessible to everybody. It does not require a 4 years of undergraduate school and 5 years of graduate school and a Ph.D. thesis.
- Thirdly, it has, and continues to have a track record of tremendous success in achieving moral goals. The elimination of Western European slavery being but one of them. That record continues to expand.
However, there is an important sense in which science is an integral part of addressing moral issues, one which dovetails very well with the moral focus of religion and which suggests that NOMA is inadequate.
And that is that the principles of religion can neither be well-understood nor put into action without the empirical, rational, and pragmatic approaches that science - divorced of its theological trappings - brings to bear.
A case in point is the need to address ecological concerns for the world of our children and their future. Both science, which can supply accurate information and evaluation of various methods to address the problem, and the moral willpower of large numbers of people, mostly folks who are not scientists, are needed ingredients.
This, I think, shows NOMA to be wrong. Both science AND religion working together are needed.
Friday, June 26, 2009
My comment in the Wall Street Journal to Dr. Krauss:
Dr. Kraus weighs in less feverishly than some of his colleagues, notably Jerry Coyne who would cast out all believers from doing science. Certainly, his measured and moderate words are reassuring.
Nonetheless, it is bothersome, as well as inaccurate, to hear him say that "Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science."
More honesty - including intellectual honesty - would be welcome here. Professor Krauss, of course, is making a theological statement, not a factual statement or a scientific statement. (In the vernacular, these are known as "opinions.") What are his definitions of "activist God?" Is he at all familiar with the hugely vast religious literature on these issues?
I have to ask, how is it that atheists such as Professor Krauss have acquired a direct and innate knowledge of the nature of God, a knowledge unavailable to religious believers, such that they can answer these question so clearly and resolutely without thought? Is their knowledge of God, because of lack of belief, somehow more true and direct?
Be that as it may, a more reasoned and historically correct answer to the question about the relationship between an activist God and modern science is that an activist God is the Lawgiver, the Creator, and the Maintainer of the universe and everything within, and that understanding those laws by the scientific method is an act of worship just as much as is prayer. Note: the method that was evolved - most definitely first in the Islamic world - included something called "empiricism", an approach which better sidestepped worldly delusion and the false "idols" of ignorant and irrational superstition.
Or to put in another way, modern science came out of, and is a consequence of religion and reasoned faith through and through. And yes, its roots are Islamic as well as Hellenistic, a point that had consequences, first good, and then bad, in its struggle to put down roots in late medieval Europe.
Nonetheless, it is bothersome, as well as inaccurate, to hear him say that "Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science."
More honesty - including intellectual honesty - would be welcome here. Professor Krauss, of course, is making a theological statement, not a factual statement or a scientific statement. (In the vernacular, these are known as "opinions.") What are his definitions of "activist God?" Is he at all familiar with the hugely vast religious literature on these issues?
I have to ask, how is it that atheists such as Professor Krauss have acquired a direct and innate knowledge of the nature of God, a knowledge unavailable to religious believers, such that they can answer these question so clearly and resolutely without thought? Is their knowledge of God, because of lack of belief, somehow more true and direct?
Be that as it may, a more reasoned and historically correct answer to the question about the relationship between an activist God and modern science is that an activist God is the Lawgiver, the Creator, and the Maintainer of the universe and everything within, and that understanding those laws by the scientific method is an act of worship just as much as is prayer. Note: the method that was evolved - most definitely first in the Islamic world - included something called "empiricism", an approach which better sidestepped worldly delusion and the false "idols" of ignorant and irrational superstition.
Or to put in another way, modern science came out of, and is a consequence of religion and reasoned faith through and through. And yes, its roots are Islamic as well as Hellenistic, a point that had consequences, first good, and then bad, in its struggle to put down roots in late medieval Europe.
In the Wall Street Journal on June 26th, 2009
LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
-- J.B.S. Haldane
"Fact and Faith" (1934)
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?
I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Brinkman, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."
Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith," and Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion."
These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false -- witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.
Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy." These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.
This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow "atheist absolutists" who remain in a "cultural and historical vacuum" -- in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.
But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.
J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.
Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.
While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."
When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.
Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.
So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.
Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide.
Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is "Hiding in the Mirror" (Viking, 2005).
Thursday, June 25, 2009
If you have faith in science its no longer faith, its being superior or special
This a a post I made to Chris Mooney's excellent Intersections blog on Discover
127. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
127. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Coyne writes:
“Instead of beefing about our “militancy,” why don’t accommodationists start addressing the question of whether faith can tell us anything that’s true?”
Neat trick, this accomodationist bit. Its like what the radical right did with the word liberal. First you label them, then you try to get rid of them.
Can faith tell us anything that’s true? I sincerely hope so. I believe in evolution because I have faith in the scientific community that thought it true. I certainly didn’t do all the legwork myself. The same holds true for anyone who believes in any scientific result whatsoever that they haven’t repeated (and not just repeated, but repeated several times).
So, Coyne has apparently made up his own definition of faith. If you have faith in science its no longer faith, its being superior, or special, or something higher than those who have faith in other things, like, say, democracy, truth, love, those kinds of things.
I don’t get it!
Claiming apples (allegories about spiritual truths) to be oranges (scientific fact statements)
Here is a post I made on Sean Carroll's Discover Magazine Blog (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/) . There were a lot of good responses to Sean's post.
There was only one to mine which I include at the end along with my response.
44. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 am
June 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
There was only one to mine which I include at the end along with my response.
44. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hi Sean:
Yes, I happen to be a physicist. And I understand religion too, something which I’ve found many scientists don’t. (Hi e.pierce, ex-Baha’i).
You write:
“The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look.”
and
“Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.”
I like to think I’m a fair-minded person, and as U of R trained physics Ph.D., I would like to think that I’ve got a reasonably good scientific education. So, do I think your claim makes any sense? To the analysis.
Point 1. Your claims about fact statements.
You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,” “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and conflating them with scientific fact statements.
I grade this as a D-, not quite an F. I don’t give you an F because I know that many religionists do as you just did, so I want to give you a little credit.
Another type of truth claim you discuss is “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden”.
Given that neither you nor I have died, I’m not quite sure where you get your data on this. But still, I give you a C-. Here, you seem to inch in the direction of recognizing that religion might make truth claims that are different than scientific facts.
Conclusions:
Overall, as a “fair-minded person who cares to look”, I conclude that the incompatibility you suggest is not at all evident from the examples you present. Rather, they suggest you are claiming apples (allegories about spiritual truths) to be oranges (scientific fact statements) and skirting the real issues.
Point 2. Oh forget it. If you don’t get point 1, you are not going to get point 2.
82. Phillip Helbig Says:June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 am
“You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,” “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and conflating them with scientific fact statements.”
The historical fact is that no-one considered these to be allegorical until science started making
them look very unlikely. YOU say they are allegorical. Why?
I answered Phillip on June 25th, 1:41 PM.
126. Stephen Friberg Says:June 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
On June 24th, Phillip Helbig quoted me as saying:
>“You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,”
> “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and
> conflating them with scientific fact statements.”
He then made an interesting comment and asked an important question:
> The historical fact is that no-one considered these to be allegorical until
> science started making them look very unlikely. YOU say they are
> allegorical. Why?
Let me try to answer. This is an important issue because a very common argument against religion these days is that it is a kind of pre-scientific science and that it’s truth statements are primitive - and wrong - truth statements of a scientific type. Carroll is making this type of argument in saying that science and religion are incompatible.
Clearly, many religionists, including such distinguished early Christian church figures as Saint Augustine and medieval authorities such as Thomas Aquinas did not mistake allegorical truth for scientific fact. The historical record is very rich on the issue of the relationships between “natural philosophy” and religious allegory, and indeed it is one of the main topics of study in fields like medieval studies, Islamic studies, or late classical studies.
So it is simply a mistake to assume that religious allegory was always interpreted as science. However, it is highly probable that the poorly educated did so.
If you are interested in European history, you might consider looking into the emergence of modern science in the so-called scientific revolution in the 17th century. Galileo was a major figure in that scientific revolution.
Galileo’s fight was not with allegorical religious truth - he seems to have had no problem at all with it. Rather, his fight was with Aristotelian science and Aristotelian philosophy that had been absorbed into Catholicism as unassailable dogma. In other words, the big fight was between old science and new science, not science vs. religious allegory.
Another thing you might consider looking into was the relationship between religious allegory and Hellenistic science in the late classical age. Judaism and especially Christianity came of age in cultures permeated with Hellenistic rationalism, the precursor to modern science. What this means is that for classically educated Christian - and later Islamic - elites the difference between allegory and what then considered natural philosophy was no great mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
- 15 minutes ago
Show this comment +