[Buddha-l] it's not about belief -= science & Christian religion

[Bob Zeuschner]

I would like to make two observations.
(1) It is my understanding that modern science is founded upon 
empiricism, and perhaps the strong empiricism of David Hume; if so, 
there wasn't anything quite like our idea of science prior to the 
development of empiricism as a philosophical (not Protestant) 
methodology in the 1700s (although it has been argued that the 'Axial 
Age' begins with a turning away from tradition and supernatural 
explanations to natural explanations).

(2) Modern science is concerned with finding out what is true and NOT 
assuming that we already know what is true.
During the middle ages, what passed for science was studying nature to 
determine what lesson god was teaching us.
When one already KNOWS the answer (because it is in god's holy book), 
then one examines the world for observations which confirm and reinforce 
one's knowledge (thus some Christians examine the world for evidence 
that the world is 6,000 years old; scientists examine the world to 
determine its age WITHOUT thinking that they know the answer in advance 
-- if the world turns out to be 6,000 years old based on observation, 
fine; if it turns out to be 4.5 billion years old, fine).
Ideally, modern science seeks DISsconfirming instances for each theory; 
Christian "science" looks only for what confirms the answers which are 
already known in advance of research.
Bob Zeuschner
Dept. of Philosophy


>>Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon all made use of the science of their day
> 
> 
> They made use of the knowledge of their day. But there was no science
> for them to make use of, at least not in the sense of the word "science"
> I have been discussing.
>