Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_huckelberry]

Blixa, My original comment was directed only at policy of the official Soviet government. You seem to be speaking about everythng which may have in some way close or loosely been touched by marxist thought.

I am a bit suprised that you feel it necessary to point out that Rivera was not the only person left off the list, rather obvious. I was wondering what was the guiding principal in your long and varigated list. Ok you explained it was people who either lived in a communist or communist influenced country or themselves were in some way influenced by some marxist idea. Yes there is a lot of 20century art falling into that nice broad catagory. Was there anybody in the first half of the 20c involved in the arts that did not have some bit of marxist influence?

cont..

I was having a bit of depressed second thoughts, did I actually slip into some absurd statement that atheist couldn't produce good art? That is an indefensible proposal. It might stir up argument but is too obviously wrong. I have spent more time wondering if it was still possible to create a Christian art? I reviewed my comments and did not find the proposal that atheist could not produce good art. I will thus not feel oblieged to pretend to defend it.

There is a question that follows that one of whether it is possible to still create a Christian art, (I suspect the possiblities for overt Christian story content are pretty limited at present. Art has been much to concerned with personal experience to work easily with ancient stories. There is a question about painting of whether there is a lot of promise for it doing much at all in the near future. The 20 century saw a sort of peak period for American painting between 1945 and 1975. It seems to my, admittedly not all seeing, eye that little is happening since. I think that fits my simpler observation that art is not a matter of a talented person but is one where person context and ideas come together. The whole project of modern art was very idea driven. Most of those ideas were close to being style concepts as they were closely allied with how individuals experince things. Hmm, that fails to explain why there is nobody making a Picasso Matisse, Pollock, de kooning, Rauschenburg, Stella splash in the world these days.

[_Blixa]

Blixa, My original comment was directed only at policy of the official Soviet government. You seem to be speaking about everythng which may have in some way close or loosely been touched by marxist thought.

I am a bit suprised that you feel it necessary to point out that Rivera was not the only person left off the list, rather obvious. I was wondering what was the guiding principal in your long and varigated list. Ok you explained it was people who either lived in a communist or communist influenced country or themselves were in some way influenced by some marxist idea. Yes there is a lot of 20century art falling into that nice broad catagory. Was there anybody in the first half of the 20c involved in the arts that did not have some bit of marxist influence?

cont..

I was having a bit of depressed second thoughts, did I actually slip into some absurd statement that atheist couldn't produce good art? That is an indefensible proposal. It might stir up argument but is too obviously wrong. I have spent more time wondering if it was still possible to create a Christian art? I reviewed my comments and did not find the proposal that atheist could not produce good art. I will thus not feel oblieged to pretend to defend it.

There is a question that follows that one of whether it is possible to still create a Christian art, (I suspect the possiblities for overt Christian story content are pretty limited at present. Art has been much to concerned with personal experience to work easily with ancient stories. There is a question about painting of whether there is a lot of promise for it doing much at all in the near future. The 20 century saw a sort of peak period for American painting between 1945 and 1975. It seems to my, admittedly not all seeing, eye that little is happening since. I think that fits my simpler observation that art is not a matter of a talented person but is one where person context and ideas come together. The whole project of modern art was very idea driven. Most of those ideas were close to being style concepts as they were closely allied with how individuals experince things. Hmm, that fails to explain why there is nobody making a Picasso Matisse, Pollock, de kooning, Rauschenburg, Stella splash in the world these days.

There is much being done in painting that is interesting (Gerhard Richter would be one name to think of) despite the seeming eclipse of formal painting mid-century. And there are many making "big splashes" all the time. The Picasso/Pollock reputation was, I think, more a matter of its historical context than any indication of how much "bigger" or "better" such artists were than others. For one thing the entire institutional context in which art is produced and circulated has changed dramatically from the beginning of the 20thC. I agree that what "makes art art" is the way it is situated within a constellation of concepts (rather than being found in technique or personal style), but I don't think its necessarily accurate to describe it as 'closely allied with how individuals experience things" on a solely "individual expression" level---but perhaps you didn't mean that.

Yes it did seem to me that you were arguing, or maybe more accurately were on the tip of arguing that "atheism couldn't produce good art". That and the common place equation of "communist art" with Stalinist "realism" was what prompted my intervention into this thread (by the way, EAllusion could have been making that equation, too, but his/her last comment left room for ambiguity). Either way, your follow up musings have made things clearer to me. As for whether it is still possible to create a "Christian art" that is an interesting question with many possible answers. You might find James Turrell interesting to investigate. I know I do.

[_dartagnan]

It's an introduction for those unaware.

It is a misleading intro because it assumes the trend is restricted to those "fundamentalists." Again Nietzsche blamed democracy on Christianity long before your target fundamentalists had ever thought of such a trend. The reality is that the tredn here has existed in academia for quite some time. Civilizations are accredited things that would otherwise not have existed, but Christianity has been the boogeyman for so long, finally people are starting to recognize there has been much we can be thankful for in Christainity. Of course, I don't expect the anti-Christian atheists on this forum to lift a brain cell to acknowledge this.

It's like over half the world doesn't even exist to you.

Did modern science explode out of the Far east? No it didn't, so I didn't bother mentioning them. We are constantly reminded how Islamic civilization gave us so much, and I am simply asking that we apply this logic and appreciate Christian civilization just the same. Obviously some atheists like LCD2YOU have no problems trying to praise Islam, but they can't for the life of them, bring themselves tos ay something positive about Christianity, despite the fact that they owe it more than they could possibly realize.

it's fairly clear that science in the modern sense developed out of nations with predominately Christian populations, sure.

And how was this so if Christianity was putting such a stranglehold on progress? It is just an inexplicable irony for you guys?

Your argument is a causal one and the mere fact that science developed among Christians is a far, far cry from showing a causal link between the two.

You're right, but that is not all the argument rests upon. Your arguments here have been that Christianity is inherently anti-science, yet so many fathers of modern science were not only Christians, but even Christian theologians to some degree.

Formal logic developed independently in Greece. They understood their religion in terms of their views on reason. That doesn't mean their religious views provided the necessary intellectual framework to understand logic. It just means they managed to come up with logic.

I never said Christainity invented logic. But it did preserve it. Ancient philosophical Greek texts were given to Islam via Christian scribes and while Islam did virtually nothing with them, Christians later did.

Yes, a sufficiently motivated Christian can see just about whatever it is they wish to think from their scriptures. We're on a Mormon message board, so you know, case in point.

Yes, but in the case of Aquinas, he did not place scripture above logic or science. He clearly saw it in harmony as many Christians today do just teh same. Such harmony cannot exist in Islam, which is why modern science was left dead in the Arab countries.

What matters is if this idea is something obviously found in Christian scriptures and it is not.

No, that isn't my argument and that isn't all that matters. During the end of the dark ages, only Christian civilization provided an atmosphere conducive to intellectual inquiry and scientific progress. And as has already been noted, Christians frequently represented the vanguard of the scientific community because unlike Islam, Christianity accepts the premise that God operates on imutable principles that can be discovered and studied. If your only explanation as to why science exploded out of Christian civilization, was that the Catholic Church lost its grasp on the people, then why didn't science explode out of China, where the Catholic church never had influence?

It is found in some Christian theology, though. If anyone can come up with this idea and then read it into their religion, that's not a big boon for Christians.

We're not just talking about anyone. You seem to think Christainity rejected Greek ideas from the get-go, when the exact opposite is true. The Church became hellenized almost immediately.

Do you think that science could not arise in a secular world

You're missing the point. I am not talking about what could have happened. I'm talking about what did happen. There was no secular world at that time - virtually every nation was predominantly theistic - so one can only speculate about what would have happened if there were such a world. I'm saying that only in the Christian west was science launched and only in the Christian west could it have happened and lasted as long as it has. Before dismissing Christainity as an uninvolved bystander, you need to explain why none of this happened in the rest of the non-Christian world.
If the explosion of science could be attributed to one man, you might be able to pass it off as coincidence or a freak accident that could have happened anywhere this person was born. But it is attributed to one scientist (usually of the Christian variety) after the other; a long tradition of intellectualism that formed the basis of what modern science came to be.

But when Christian rulers, reading Christian scriptures in far more obvious ways, justify their actions directly through Christianity we just talking about individual Christians not not Christianity or Christian society.

Well it depends. You have to take it on a case by case basis. This is certainly more responsible than making blanket assessments in the name of reductionism

So Christianity gives us science, but it doesn't give us vicious blasphemy laws.

I never said it gave us science.

Christianity gives us freedom, but not slavery or tyrannical rule.

Yes, this is demonstrable true. Slavery and tyrannical rule existed long before Christianity and teh Christian Church has an impeccable record of opposing slavery wherever it may exist. Even during the slave trades in Portugal and Spain, the strongest opponent was the Catholic Church, proving once again that the Church didn't have a "stranglehold" on the people in the 1500's as you guys like to imagine.

And by the way, aren't you going to support your bald assertions about the inquisitions killing thousands of atheists? I'm perfectly willing to learn about science from you guys if you're willing to be equally reciprocal and show some interest in self-correction on historical matters.

And mind you, the Bible doesn't provide any direct support of modern ideas on liberty, but it does have direct, unambiguous support of slavery and divine right of tyrants. It's an interesting world.

Oh so now you're a Bible expert? Christianity's primary text is the New Testament, while generally considering the Old Testament generally trumped, outdated or fulfilled. I know this drives you guys nuts because you rely primarily on Old Testament verses when attacking Christianity. The fact is Christainity is based on the principle that religion and state be divorced from one another. That pretty much represents a huge aspect of modern freedom, particularly appreciated by you and your fellow atheists. Is this land was discoevered by Muslims, no such division could ever be possible. Your efforts for scientific investigation would never get off the ground.

What there was was "less Christianity" in the sense of less theocracy

There never was a theocracy so you're exagerating here. The Pope was never the supreme ruler, except in Vatican City. Everywhere else in Europe the King had ultimate power.

The people who got together and executed people for being atheists or witches were inspired by Christianity just the same as people who got together and talked about experiments.

When you can tie connection with these acts and the Catholic Church, then maybe you have a case. Otherwise you're just highlighting the existence of idiots in an highly theistic society. This is a perfect example of a causal argument. Before you push this further, let's delve into your claims. This is the second time you've made this kind of assertion and you still haven't provided any references.

But in the case of former that's just the State, and in the case of the latter that's true Christianity.

Again, you're refusing to delve into the issue which is complicated and requires a bit of finesse and precision. You seem to be perfectly happy to sit back and throw about generalities.

And when we have a situation where atheists are flogged, executed, and pilloried for being atheists according to laws written and enforced by Christians

What is that, like the fifth time now you've said this without backing up with references?

that's "atheists faring well in Judeo-Christian society" because that doesn't count because that's the State.

It makes it easier to ridicule when you absolutely refuse to discuss the complexity of teh issue. Yes, these crimes were state crimes. It is an uncomfortable fact for you to acknowledge apparently, but it remains a fact nonetheless. And as a state crime, you cannot get away with pinning it on the Church when history proves the Church was doing everything it could to stop these types of injustices from occuring, hence the creation of the inquisition which was by far, the most enlightened form of judicial system in its day.

[_marg]

Having done a little research it came to my attention that the argument presented by Kevin is presented on the Net by Catholic apologists and it appears to be based upon a book by R. Spencer though I'm uncertain whether he presents an apolgetic argument though it certainly is being used by apologists as such.

Science evolved, there is no direct correlation of Christianity being a cause for the evolution of scientific theories as kevin argues.

It is a joke to argue that Christianity which promotes ideas which go against natural physical laws the most popular one being a superhuman individual we call Jesus who dies and comes back to life, who is born by a virgin..somehow promotes a God which exists and operates within the common physical laws we all know and are observable. There is nothing predicatable about such a God with such powers as he is given in the Bible. This whole argument simply boils down to Catholic apologetics which Kevin has latched onto for which he has attempted to take credit for.

I find it rather disingenous throughout this thread that Kevin presents this ludicrous argument as if it were his own.

The 2 sources I used are

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677

This is written as an interview with Peter BetBasoo in which he acknowledges getting his ideas from Robert Spencer in the book Religion of Peace and acknowledges with direct quotes and paraphrasing what is in the book.

I do not have that book nor read it but there is an article apparently written by Robert Spencer in which the same ideas are presented as in the book.

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?archives=1&artid=507

So the main and original source appears to be Robert Spencer. His work appears to be used by Catholics writing apologies for Christianity, including Kevin apparently. Peter Betasoo confirms what is in the book. Peter BetBasoo is a Catholic who founded an agency to report on news and issues of Iragi Christians. According to wiki Robert Spencer is a Catholic American writer who specializes on criticising Islam.

I believe all the quotes I use come from Spencer and I’ll quote Spencer in the portions which Kevin plagiarizes from and bold Spencer's words. The link for Spencer is above. I include reference to BetBasoo what he says is so similar to what Kevin presents. They both rely heavily on Spencer.

First let’s begin with an appreciation of what plagiarism is. I’ll use wiki since it presents a succinct definition.

“Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.”

Notice it says “practice of claiming or implying” so it involves a deliberate implication or actual claim made. Notice the requirement is not about copying word for word but rather incorporating material of someone else’s written or creative work in whole or in part.

So let’s take a look at what Kevin said:

He states and asks: “There is a reason why science has flourished in Christianity and come to a complete halt under Islam.
Does anyone know what that reason is?”

After a few responses he says:

“The answer lies in the fact that in Islam, God's power is not limited to natural laws. Since God, according to Islam, is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound with rationality.”

"At Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI observed that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." ... from Spencer's article Spencer

Kevin writes: If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow.

"Accordingly, there was no point to observing the workings of the physical world; there was no reason to expect that any pattern to its workings would be consistent, or even discernable. If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow." ... R. Spencer article


Kevin writes: This is why Islamic science took a serious nosedive with Al-Ghazali, the Quranic scholar who repudiated all the philosophers before and after him, even calling for their deaths. He denounced the natural laws, the very objective of science, as a restraint on the free will of God, who if he chose, could make a round square, a frozen flame, a married bachelor, etc. These things he could do because no natural laws exist.

“Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest and physicist, explains that it was al-Ghazali, the philosopher that the authors of the Open Letter recommend to the Pope, who "denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah." " Spencer

TD asks Kevin: Do you think Christiantiy is limited to natural laws?


Kevin responds: No, what I am saying is that Christians in history have not been limited by a philosophy that says a truth isn't worth learning … Note there is not a mention of these ideas coming from anywhere but himself.


TD writes: I do not get the impression that at any time the Christian view of God limited "him" to natural laws.

Kevin responds again using same argument as presented by Spencer but no acknowledgement given to Spencer.

Kevin: “Well, according to Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic priest who was perhaps Christianity's most influencial thinker, "Since the principles of certain sciences - of logic, geometry and arithmetic, for instance - are derived exclusively from the formal principal of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not be predictable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles."

"St. Thomas Aquinas even goes so far as to assert that "since the principles of certain sciences - of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance - are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles." Spencer article


Kevin continues to TD : I agree with Rodney Stark, when he says Islam does not have "a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science. Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate."

And isn't that amazing so does Spencer agree...

"Social scientist Rodney Stark adds that 'it would seem that Islam has a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science. Not so. Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy in that they deny Allah’s freedom to act.'" R. Spencer

Note Kevin implies he is doing the research, he’s reading Stark and he's agreeing with Stark. meanwhile this is the exact argument presented by Spencer with exact quote of Stark.

Kevin writes: Robert Spencer touches on something significant when he says, "Christian mathematicians and astronomers believed they could establish scientific truths because they believed God had established the universe according to certain laws - laws that could be discovered through observation and study."

"Christian mathematicians and astronomers knew that their investigations would lead to knowledge of the truth, because they believed that God had established the universe according to certain laws - laws that could be discovered through observation and study." Spencer

He manages to give a little recognition to Spencer by quoting him but no indication previous work came from Spencer.

He steal Spencer’s research, his quotes all the while presenting it as if it’s all his ideas.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think we owe the liberties we enjoy in Western civilization to Greece and Rome at least as much as to Christianity. From the very beginning, Christian thinkers adapted Christian beliefs for a Greek and Roman audience, which meant subjecting the category of faith to the rigors of reason, science, and philosophy. When the Roman Empire was co-opted by Christianity, such that it gained ascendancy over reason, the Western world became scientifically and civically stagnant for a substantial period of time. The Renaissance and Reformation broke Catholic Christianity's stranglehold, once again subjecting religion to reason and thereby opening new horizons for Western civilization. These changes came as much on the backs of the Greek and Latin philosophers and fathers as on the back of the Bible.

[_marg]

I think we owe the liberties we enjoy in Western civilization to Greece and Rome at least as much as to Christianity. From the very beginning, Christian thinkers adapted Christian beliefs for a Greek and Roman audience, which meant subjecting the category of faith to the rigors of reason, science, and philosophy. When the Roman Empire was co-opted by Christianity, such that it gained ascendancy over reason, the Western world became scientifically and civically stagnant for a substantial period of time. The Renaissance and Reformation broke Catholic Christianity's stranglehold, once again subjecting religion to reason and thereby opening new horizons for Western civilization. These changes came as much on the backs of the Greek and Latin philosophers and fathers as on the back of the Bible.

The Roman Empire was not co-opted by Christianity. Constantine made Christianity a state religion probably because with one God, was beneficial for any ruler to use as a power mechanism. More than one God dilutes the power anyone can gain from using that God as an authority. Those promoting Christianity co-opted Judaism and adapted it for a Greek and Roman audience.


There are many factors which would go into an argument as to why science evolved and there are factors why with some cultures science would be stagnant.

Critical to knowledge expanding is that education was available at least to some. People learned to communicate using written form and information which could be passed from person to person and preserved. Once that was available knowledge could much more easily be passed over to more people. Universities were set up and financed by the Church with the purpose being to teach theology, but universities expanded into other areas. With the advent of printing mechanisms, written works could be made available to the public. by the way the church did not allow distribution of written work to the public in the early stages of printing. That in itself is a story. A factor which did aid education is that the Church was motivated to have an elect educated group in the church heirarchy, a group which could argue for religion, argue against those who opposed. The church was motivated to have one Bible which was consistent for all priests and bishops to use, instead of poorly written conflicting bibles and so Constantine commissioned the bishops to produce one accepted Bible. But in the early stages The Church didn't want the Bible available in the common language of the people, they only wanted it available in latin which educated priests and bishops could read. The writers of the N.T. had Greek texts available to them to learn from. And the Hebrew Bible and N.T. was a good resource of literature to study and learn from.

The argument presented by Kevin is that there is something within Christianity which sparked the development of science. That the Christian god adhered to natural physical laws, and was consistent. That is nonsense, the Christian God does not adhere to natural physical laws and is not consistent. The Christian God has the power to do whatever he wishes. If anything the main difference as to why science would evolve in any culture is whether there are opportunities and resources available with which to evolve with. Religious belief in the supernatural does nothing to promote science. I''m not saying it hinders it, but it doesn't support it. And the Church did its best until there was separation of Church and state to prevent the mass populations from becoming educated. They did not want people to be educated. I believe it was Tinsdale who they executed for printing bibles to be given to the people. The details of that I will have to look into as I forget at this point.

[_dartagnan]

by the way Kevin if you are referring to you being upfront today...stating now that you relied upon others that is too late. I'm already establishing that.

What the hell? Are you saying that I went back and inserted references to Spencer just after you posted this thread? If not, then how in the hell did you figure you "established" it is "too late" to claim I mentioned Spencer? The post is intact as it was when I first posted it two months ago. I haven't edited it since.

The first post in the thread was just a thesis I threw out, and it wasn't something I even borrowed from Spencer in teh first place. This was something I had been arguing long before Spencer's book was published. You can find several MADB threads where I argued teh same thing. Spencer's book was published just last year. His book did make some good points, which I decided to use when I was asked to explicate further, in the very next post.

So how in the heck does this show that I tried to "imply" this knowledge came to me ex nihilo?

What kind of idiot interprets it this way? Don't answer.

In that thread you presented an argument as if you had done the research, you had found sources to support the argument ie.Aquina & Stark, when in fact that all comes from Spencer.

Oh you're so full of crap. This thesis has been on the table for many years and it is one I had always agreed with. Did I invent it? Of course not. Did I say I did? NO. Did anyone think I thought I did? Only if they're among the galactically stupid.

Again, I don't claim to have invented algebre simply by teaching it to my kids. Educators read books and pass along knowledge as they acquire it. To sit there and expect every single thing to be postmarked with a citation and page number, is to be completely out of touch with reality.

The thesis was axiomatic to anyone who wants to read the history and see it for what it is. Spencer's book was simply a response to this axiom as he agreed with it. The same holds true for Thomas Woods, who wrote a book about it three years ago.

And I don't care that you didn't read that article Kevin, that article was based upon the book.

Which brings up another interesting point, you have to rely on the web to verify what books say because like JAK, you 're not inclined to research anything beyond the web.

I also don't care that you used notes...where in that thread do you acknowledge this was not your research your work, where do you acknowledge that you relied upon Spencer?

In the very next post when TD responded to my opening post. Initially I threw outa thesis and when challenged, I provide the relevant scholarship backed with citations. That is precisely what I did. It is painfully obvious to anyone reading that thread that I had already established the fact that I was taking from Stark and Spencer.

[_dartagnan]

The argument presented by Kevin is that there is something within Christianity which sparked the development of science. That the Christian god adhered to natural physical laws, and was consistent. That is nonsense, the Christian God does not adhere to natural physical laws and is not consistent. The Christian God has the power to do whatever he wishes. If anything the main difference as to why science would evolve in any culture is whether there are opportunities and resources available with which to evolve with. Religious belief in the supernatural does nothing to promote science. I''m not saying it hinders it, but it doesn't support it. And the Church did its best until there was separation of Church and state to prevent the mass populations from becoming educated. They did not want people to be educated. I believe it was Tinsdale who they executed for printing bibles to be given to the people. The details of that I will have to look into as I forget at this point

All this does is show how ignorant you are of Christianity. It is the same exact problem Dawkins has.

You still have to come to grips with the fact that modern science emerged from a predominantly Christian premise, developed predominantly by Christian scientists who were operating on assumptions that were developed and influenced by their Christian background.

[_marg]

by the way Kevin if you are referring to you being upfront today...stating now that you relied upon others that is too late. I'm already establishing that.

What the hell? Are you saying that I went back and inserted references to Spencer just after you posted this thread? If not, then how in the hell did you figure you "established" it is "too late" to claim I mentioned Spencer? The post is intact as it was when I first posted it two months ago. I haven't edited it since.

Kevin quite simply post where you acknowledge Spencer as the source behind your Aquinas quote and your Stark quote. And post where you acknowledge Spencer and the source behind the thrust of your argument.

You haven't done that yet. I've established that you essentially use all of Spencer's sources, his ideas, and quotes. You've not yet established given him acknowledgment for his work you used.

[_marg]

All this does is show how ignorant you are of Christianity. It is the same exact problem Dawkins has.

All you have done kevin is attack..you've presented no argument as usual. I can understand now why the people at MAD got rid of you, you are intellectually dishonest it's that simple.

You still have to come to grips with the fact that modern science emerged from a predominantly Christian premise, developed predominantly by Christian scientists who were operating on assumptions that were developed and influenced by their Christian background.

Kevin, practically everyone back in the 1500 to 1800s were Christian they had little other choice. Churches controlled universities. I mentioned the printing of the Bible ..the Church wouldn't allow it to be printed in English and they burned at the stake Tyndale for doing so. The church inadvertently helped by educating certain people within the heirarchy for their own purposes and by making sure bibles were copied and available to Church leaders. But that was never with the intent of promoting education for the masses that was simply a by-product of an interest in promoting and maintaining their power over the masses.

And by the way Kevin you've established no cause and effect between Christianity and science. You not established how it was a key factor. The question to ask if, if Christianity wasn't around and yet people had the means to print large quanties of book to the masses, had opportunities to be educated..whether or not science would progress. Also to consider is whether or not science would have progressed faster without the restrictions placed upon christian societies controlled by the church in which the Church's goal by their actions was to keep the masses ignorant.