Scientific Revolution without Christianity
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
"This idea has the slight problem that it was the society where Zeus was the dominant religion that produced the idea of natural law, and a thousand years of subsequent Judeo-Christian rule that repressed the study of natural law."
When did the Church start repressing science? Is there a specific time period, and what is that time period vis-a-vis the growing corruption of the Church?
Here's an article I found. It's from the Free Republic (a right-wing site you probably wouldn't like, and they even get on MY nerves sometimes). However, it's reprinted from www.acton.org, which is FAR more intellectual than the Freepers. The gist is that during the High Middle Ages, there was a lot of invention and innovation going around.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/964087/posts
You still haven't responded to my points about the Nestorian doctors, the fact that most of the "great scientists" were Christians, and how the areas where the most scientific innovation occurred were still Christian, even though they were outside of the control of the Roman Catholic Church.
When did the Church start repressing science? Is there a specific time period, and what is that time period vis-a-vis the growing corruption of the Church?
Here's an article I found. It's from the Free Republic (a right-wing site you probably wouldn't like, and they even get on MY nerves sometimes). However, it's reprinted from www.acton.org, which is FAR more intellectual than the Freepers. The gist is that during the High Middle Ages, there was a lot of invention and innovation going around.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/964087/posts
You still haven't responded to my points about the Nestorian doctors, the fact that most of the "great scientists" were Christians, and how the areas where the most scientific innovation occurred were still Christian, even though they were outside of the control of the Roman Catholic Church.
DISSIDENT
Banned
I've been considering this aspect for a No Christianity timelines. Basically, what I would propose for science and knowledge without an aggressive monotheism has several elements.
First off, in a Europe and Near East unaffected by Christianity, the primary vehicles of religious thought would be Neoplatonic philosophy, mystery cults, Gnostic sects and Zoroastrianism. Good and bad points here. Neoplatonism encouraged learning in a different sense. It was human-centered in cosmological thought, which was good, but like the Gnostic sects viewed the material world as ignorant. But again, it would at least encourage philosophy, and useful bits would be gleaned. The Church actively discouraged learning from Justinian onward. Science would continue as it always had in the Hellenistic world...many useful insights, but many mistakes.
My proposal, as I'm using in my ATL is as follows: From the beginning of the common era, religion continues as it had for awhile in Rome. Mystery religions such as Mithraism and the Cult of Isis would elaborate their theology as would the Neoplatonist philosophers, and each Emperor would favor a different sect. Without Constantine and the church as an organizing framework, Rome falls to the barbarians in 388 CE. But without the church, temples and libraries would survive in less heavily invaded areas, especially in Anatolia, Egypt, Syria and Judea which in this ATL would fall to the Sassanid Persians (the Eastern Empire depended on Christianity for survival). The Persians would keep quite a bit of learning alive, though not actively encourage it all that much. In Europe, there would be many mystery cults, sages, wandering mystics, seers etc. wandering around even as barbarian kingdoms form around the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Alemanni tribes. The barbarian kings would eventually sponsor the mystery cults for their "powers" and keep the sages etc. at court for the appearance of wisdom. As the kings rule many religions they adopt religious tolerance as a policy. The mystery cults will preserve writings for their ceremonies that will leak over time into the general populace. The sages and philosophers will form rudimentary philosophical schools sponsored by the kings that can form the basis for scientific inquiry later on. With surviving texts, perhaps different than OTL, slowly growing philosophical schools, and less atmosphere of orthodox intolerance, science gets an earlier but slower start. The big boost comes later. In this ATL, an expanded Persian Empire has butterflied Central Asian history to the point of altered nomad invasions. This allows the extraordinary economic and technological developments occuring in East Asia time to come to greater fruition. Nomad empires span from the edges of the Chinese Empire to central Europe in ATL, having invaded into much more of Europe than OTL after being deflected by a stronger China. These nomad empires spread Chinese technology and ideas into pagan Europe and the Zoroastrian Near East. This allows the combination of Buddhist ideas and Pythagoran mathematical mysticism, similar to Japanese mathematics. This allows an early invention of calculus, etc, but in a mystical context. No idea where I'm going with the ATL after that though.
Just my ideas.
First off, in a Europe and Near East unaffected by Christianity, the primary vehicles of religious thought would be Neoplatonic philosophy, mystery cults, Gnostic sects and Zoroastrianism. Good and bad points here. Neoplatonism encouraged learning in a different sense. It was human-centered in cosmological thought, which was good, but like the Gnostic sects viewed the material world as ignorant. But again, it would at least encourage philosophy, and useful bits would be gleaned. The Church actively discouraged learning from Justinian onward. Science would continue as it always had in the Hellenistic world...many useful insights, but many mistakes.
My proposal, as I'm using in my ATL is as follows: From the beginning of the common era, religion continues as it had for awhile in Rome. Mystery religions such as Mithraism and the Cult of Isis would elaborate their theology as would the Neoplatonist philosophers, and each Emperor would favor a different sect. Without Constantine and the church as an organizing framework, Rome falls to the barbarians in 388 CE. But without the church, temples and libraries would survive in less heavily invaded areas, especially in Anatolia, Egypt, Syria and Judea which in this ATL would fall to the Sassanid Persians (the Eastern Empire depended on Christianity for survival). The Persians would keep quite a bit of learning alive, though not actively encourage it all that much. In Europe, there would be many mystery cults, sages, wandering mystics, seers etc. wandering around even as barbarian kingdoms form around the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Alemanni tribes. The barbarian kings would eventually sponsor the mystery cults for their "powers" and keep the sages etc. at court for the appearance of wisdom. As the kings rule many religions they adopt religious tolerance as a policy. The mystery cults will preserve writings for their ceremonies that will leak over time into the general populace. The sages and philosophers will form rudimentary philosophical schools sponsored by the kings that can form the basis for scientific inquiry later on. With surviving texts, perhaps different than OTL, slowly growing philosophical schools, and less atmosphere of orthodox intolerance, science gets an earlier but slower start. The big boost comes later. In this ATL, an expanded Persian Empire has butterflied Central Asian history to the point of altered nomad invasions. This allows the extraordinary economic and technological developments occuring in East Asia time to come to greater fruition. Nomad empires span from the edges of the Chinese Empire to central Europe in ATL, having invaded into much more of Europe than OTL after being deflected by a stronger China. These nomad empires spread Chinese technology and ideas into pagan Europe and the Zoroastrian Near East. This allows the combination of Buddhist ideas and Pythagoran mathematical mysticism, similar to Japanese mathematics. This allows an early invention of calculus, etc, but in a mystical context. No idea where I'm going with the ATL after that though.
Just my ideas.
Under Christianity, on the other hand, God was the supreme authority on everything and the Church was the very powerful and ubiquitous arbiter of his orthodoxy. On any major area of knowledge, there was an orthodox position backed up by religious authority, and anything dissenting from it was heresy.
That's not really true. The idea that the Catholic church demanded conformity in ALL areas of thinking is an exaggeration. The church was strongly influenced by Augustine, who believed that since the Bible was intended for the purpose of spiritual guidance, it was NOT intended by God to be an authoritative text on other subjects - such as scientific matters. Many medieval churchmen followed Augustine and interpreted some parts of the Bible more as allegory than as literal fact. This was reinforced by the separate set of ideas often called Scholasticism, which taught that faith and reason were not incompatible.
People have to keep in mind that Christianity, and even the Roman Catholic church in particular, were not monolithic entities that followed one set of beliefs exclusively. Throughout the Middle Ages, there were strains of though within the church that encouraged logic and science, and at the same time there were other strains of thought that discouraged it.
That's not really true. The idea that the Catholic church demanded conformity in ALL areas of thinking is an exaggeration. The church was strongly influenced by Augustine, who believed that since the Bible was intended for the purpose of spiritual guidance, it was NOT intended by God to be an authoritative text on other subjects - such as scientific matters. Many medieval churchmen followed Augustine and interpreted some parts of the Bible more as allegory than as literal fact. This was reinforced by the separate set of ideas often called Scholasticism, which taught that faith and reason were not incompatible.
People have to keep in mind that Christianity, and even the Roman Catholic church in particular, were not monolithic entities that followed one set of beliefs exclusively. Throughout the Middle Ages, there were strains of though within the church that encouraged logic and science, and at the same time there were other strains of thought that discouraged it.
Matt Quinn said:
THere have always been at least three positions on science and learning in the church: one that assumes that understanding the world meant understanding God, and therefore should be encouraged, one that held that it was a useful tool for this life, and thus was more or less pleasantly irrelevant, and one that helds it was dangerous and evil, drawing the soul away from the contemplation of God. All three usually coexcisted, so there was never a time when 'the Church' suppressed 'science'. However, many prominent early christian leaders (including, but not limited to, my favorite hatefigure, St Cyrillos of Alexandria) discouraged and even suppressed learning of all kinds as pagan, and many medieval mystics (though after 1100 increasingly fewer theologians) considered it inappropriate and wasteful (roughly with the kind of distaste that a Victorian schoolmistress would have viewed romantic fiction). In the 12th - 14th centuries, thechurch had within its organisation some of the most fruitful and innovative intellectual bodies in Europe, though the ways of the church and the universities increasingly parted in later centuries. It was really only in the 16th - 19th centuries that an increasingly ossified and frightened hierarchy of the Catholic church (and several other churches, though the Catholic is the main culprit) decided it should make religious pronouncements on scientific issues and defend them against better evidence. The universal opposition of 'religion' and 'science', however, is a 19th centuery fiction (though it seems 20th century churches and preachers were trying their best to make it come true).
Eratosthenes?
Aristotle?
Democritus?
Pliny?
The compilers of the 'Great Encyclopaedia'?
Ibn Sina?
Ibn Fadlan?
Maimonides?
What about Einstein?
Oppenheimer?
I'd say the evidence shows that the great scientists of Christian Europe were mostly Christian. Which should not surprise us once we realise that Christianity is not inimical to science (and that not being Christian, in Europe, long meant not being allowed to be a scientist, or alive, for that matter).
"Eratosthenes?
Aristotle?
Democritus?
Pliny?
The compilers of the 'Great Encyclopaedia'?
Ibn Sina?
Ibn Fadlan?
Maimonides?
What about Einstein?
Oppenheimer?"
On the matter of those scientists you mentioned, my bad. I was thinking primarily of the Enlightenment-era scientists like Galileo. The ancient Greeks and modern figures like Eienstein totally slipped my mind. Point conceded.
"It was really only in the 16th - 19th centuries that an increasingly ossified and frightened hierarchy of the Catholic church (and several other churches, though the Catholic is the main culprit) decided it should make religious pronouncements on scientific issues and defend them against better evidence."
Other than Galileo and the guy who got punished for teaching the circulation of blood, what other things did the Catholic Church get annoyed about? I know there was a Pope in the late 19th Century who said that a free press and constitutional monarchies were sinful (provoking the secession of the "Old Catholics"), but that's far too late.
Hmmm...what are some examples from other denominations? I know that recently there's the "Creation Science" controversy, which is largely associated with the American Baptist (and other, more conservative) denoms, but I haven't heard of anything involving some of the others.
Aristotle?
Democritus?
Pliny?
The compilers of the 'Great Encyclopaedia'?
Ibn Sina?
Ibn Fadlan?
Maimonides?
What about Einstein?
Oppenheimer?"
On the matter of those scientists you mentioned, my bad. I was thinking primarily of the Enlightenment-era scientists like Galileo. The ancient Greeks and modern figures like Eienstein totally slipped my mind. Point conceded.
"It was really only in the 16th - 19th centuries that an increasingly ossified and frightened hierarchy of the Catholic church (and several other churches, though the Catholic is the main culprit) decided it should make religious pronouncements on scientific issues and defend them against better evidence."
Other than Galileo and the guy who got punished for teaching the circulation of blood, what other things did the Catholic Church get annoyed about? I know there was a Pope in the late 19th Century who said that a free press and constitutional monarchies were sinful (provoking the secession of the "Old Catholics"), but that's far too late.
Hmmm...what are some examples from other denominations? I know that recently there's the "Creation Science" controversy, which is largely associated with the American Baptist (and other, more conservative) denoms, but I haven't heard of anything involving some of the others.
Religion vs Science?
I think that the controversy between "religion" and "Science" stems from the apparant controversey between the stated, religious theology writen in the book of GENESIS, and observed facts!
This is where you get the idea of "creationism" vs the ideas of Darwin. The ideas of Copernicus and Kepler were opposed because they seemed to place the Earth, not at the very center of creation, but as just another speck of dust in the universe.
The concepts regarding the size and nature of the known universe, age of the earth, origin of life, the nature of how living things work, and many many more all offer explanations which often go in apparant disagreement with "official religious thought!" and as such, are roundly condemned by those in religious authority as a challenge to the truth and veracity of the entire theology! If someone were to make an assertion that perhaps the Earth was created in a great deal more than six days and a lot longer ago than 6750 years, it appeared to likewise challenge ALL of the beliefs stated in the same Bible. Anything that did that was something to be oppressed ruthlessly!
In other words, the Church oppressed what appeared to them to be a challenge to the very basis of their own authority, and like most political authorities of those times, they did not react well to these "challenges"!
Today, there IS no real religious "authority" with the political clout to enforce "official church doctrine". If there were, politicians who favor abortion would be in serious trouble. Still, church opposition to a lot of scientific ideas does exist! Darwin and evolution are still doing battle with the Book of Genisis!
I think that the controversy between "religion" and "Science" stems from the apparant controversey between the stated, religious theology writen in the book of GENESIS, and observed facts!
This is where you get the idea of "creationism" vs the ideas of Darwin. The ideas of Copernicus and Kepler were opposed because they seemed to place the Earth, not at the very center of creation, but as just another speck of dust in the universe.
The concepts regarding the size and nature of the known universe, age of the earth, origin of life, the nature of how living things work, and many many more all offer explanations which often go in apparant disagreement with "official religious thought!" and as such, are roundly condemned by those in religious authority as a challenge to the truth and veracity of the entire theology! If someone were to make an assertion that perhaps the Earth was created in a great deal more than six days and a lot longer ago than 6750 years, it appeared to likewise challenge ALL of the beliefs stated in the same Bible. Anything that did that was something to be oppressed ruthlessly!
In other words, the Church oppressed what appeared to them to be a challenge to the very basis of their own authority, and like most political authorities of those times, they did not react well to these "challenges"!
Today, there IS no real religious "authority" with the political clout to enforce "official church doctrine". If there were, politicians who favor abortion would be in serious trouble. Still, church opposition to a lot of scientific ideas does exist! Darwin and evolution are still doing battle with the Book of Genisis!
JLCook,
If the "days" of creation in Genesis are taken as time periods rather than days (and the Hebrew yom is used to describe time periods--"the day of King David" being his reign, for example), you can harmonize it with the evolutionary process and end up with something resembling the "intelligent design" hypothesis (God guiding evolution).
It's not necessarily an either-or thing.
If the "days" of creation in Genesis are taken as time periods rather than days (and the Hebrew yom is used to describe time periods--"the day of King David" being his reign, for example), you can harmonize it with the evolutionary process and end up with something resembling the "intelligent design" hypothesis (God guiding evolution).
It's not necessarily an either-or thing.
going back to the first post, did Stirling say specifically Christianity or monotheism in general? IIRC, he said that monotheism, not specifically Christianity, was necessary for scientific advancement because it put all the mystical/religious focus in one place rather than a host of religious spirits/demigods/etc. spread out all over. I don't know if this is true or not, but rather than focusing on Christianity vs. science, maybe we should be looking further back.... compare polytheistic cultures vs. monotheistic ones back in antiquity....
Grey Wolf said:
Um, influence of religion how? Maybe this isn't as common a subject in the UK, but most Americans became at least vaguely familiar with stereotypical Japanese culture when there was a big bit of economic Japanophobia in the 80s. Japanese culture (Chinese and Korean are similar in this respect) are significantly more conformist, and emphasize responsibility to others rather than individuality, cooperation over competition. This is basic to the whole culture. I don't quite see how it's a "product of religion" - Japan, for example, is a country where most people would actually be seen, by western standards, as atheists who happen to sort of believe in ghosts.
I didn't say "logical AND NON-RELIGIOUS" thought. Emphasizing simple logical, cause-and-effect thinking in everyday matters is not incompatible with being quite religious.
Grey, you are really starting to rant all over the place lately, what's up?
Matt Quinn said:
Well, the Calvinists burned Michel Servet for suggesting there might be other worlds other than earth.
Other than that, quite a number of scientists faced religious objections (by no means exclusively Catholic) to their work - Cuvier (on the issue of the age of the earth), Lamarck and Darwin (on the question of species evolution vs. creation) or wossname who came up with chloroform (it was argued that the pain suffered during surgery or - especially - childbirth was part of the divine plan). I also remember dimly (though can't swear to a source) that a number of scientific theories and views (such as the existence of female ova) were systematically excluded from Catholic school curricula.
Not to mention the "undisputed fact" that condoms can't protect you from AIDS. Enough to make you sick, no?
But again, the image of a powerful block of obscurantism is as wrong as the shining image of quiet, godly scholarship. Catholics are people, too...
The list was extremely long. Literally - the Catholic Church had a large list of banned books, the Index, which caused an overwhelming flight of scholarship and printing out of the Catholic countries following the Reformation.
Matt, you really should read up on this era of science. As I've mentioned before, one great classic in the field is Eisenstein's "The Printing Revolution" (there is an abridged version which has most of the good stuff but is only about 300 pages long).
The basic problem with the Catholic Church was that they were enforcers of a central orthodoxy, and conceived of that orthodoxy based on established, approved knowledge. Through the Middle Ages, the Church was the leading center of scholarship in the west. But this scholarship wasn't particularly scientific - it consisted largely of preserving, interpreting, and commenting on scholarship from the Greek and Roman era. The Church accepted the legitimacy of Greek knowledge of the natural world. When the Renaissance started, it was initially just the rediscovery and spread of large amounts of Greek and Roman knowledge. The Church was on board with that. For example, the idea of Earth being the center of the universe wasn't based on the Bible, but on Aristotle. Early in the Renaissance, the Church accepted the validity of the rediscovered Aristotelian cosmology as doctrine.
The problem was, any such big subject - such as cosmology - was still seen by the Church as one where it needed to establish and enforce a doctrine. The Church accepted Aristotle's cosmology - but this meant that anyone who proceeded to disagree with Aristotle's cosmology was guilty of violating Church doctrine. Unlike Galileo, most who disagreed didn't get to the point of being put on trial - their books would be put on the Index (banned), and they would go underground or flee beyond the reach of the Church.
The result was an extremely pronounced movement of science, and especially the printing industry, to Protestant countries. Many thinkers who chose to remain in Catholic countries had to have their books published anonymously in England, Switzerland, or the Netherlands, and then smuggled back into the Catholic nations.
"Well, the Calvinists burned Michel Servet for suggesting there might be other worlds other than earth."
The Catholics burned some guy whose name escapes me (I think it was Guy) for the same reason. Ouch.
"The list was extremely long. Literally - the Catholic Church had a large list of banned books, the Index, which caused an overwhelming flight of scholarship and printing out of the Catholic countries following the Reformation."
The Index of Forbidden Books. What sort of thing went on it? A Catholic friend said the Bible was on it for awhile (probably a vernacular translation; they were picky about that), and I figure Copernicus got on there too.
"Matt, you really should read up on this era of science. As I've mentioned before, one great classic in the field is Eisenstein's "The Printing Revolution" (there is an abridged version which has most of the good stuff but is only about 300 pages long)."
I'm going back to college in a few days. That's going on the books-to-get-from-the-library list (there are 13 thus far...one more can't hurt).
"The result was an extremely pronounced movement of science, and especially the printing industry, to Protestant countries. Many thinkers who chose to remain in Catholic countries had to have their books published anonymously in England, Switzerland, or the Netherlands, and then smuggled back into the Catholic nations."
True. I don't recall denying that happened.
All this stuff about the Catholic Church during the Reformation period shows the dangers of ANY sort of centralized authority, be it religious, governmental, etc.
"Not to mention the "undisputed fact" that condoms can't protect you from AIDS. Enough to make you sick, no?"
What exactly did they say? Condoms fail about 20% of the time. Did they say they failed 20% of the time, or did they say that they're totally ineffective against AIDS? IIRC there was a controversy about a Catholic saying the AIDS virus was small enough to pass through the condom pores (it's small virus-wise, but I don't think it's THAT small). If in the latter case, that's stupid.
The Catholics burned some guy whose name escapes me (I think it was Guy) for the same reason. Ouch.
"The list was extremely long. Literally - the Catholic Church had a large list of banned books, the Index, which caused an overwhelming flight of scholarship and printing out of the Catholic countries following the Reformation."
The Index of Forbidden Books. What sort of thing went on it? A Catholic friend said the Bible was on it for awhile (probably a vernacular translation; they were picky about that), and I figure Copernicus got on there too.
"Matt, you really should read up on this era of science. As I've mentioned before, one great classic in the field is Eisenstein's "The Printing Revolution" (there is an abridged version which has most of the good stuff but is only about 300 pages long)."
I'm going back to college in a few days. That's going on the books-to-get-from-the-library list (there are 13 thus far...one more can't hurt).
"The result was an extremely pronounced movement of science, and especially the printing industry, to Protestant countries. Many thinkers who chose to remain in Catholic countries had to have their books published anonymously in England, Switzerland, or the Netherlands, and then smuggled back into the Catholic nations."
True. I don't recall denying that happened.
All this stuff about the Catholic Church during the Reformation period shows the dangers of ANY sort of centralized authority, be it religious, governmental, etc.
"Not to mention the "undisputed fact" that condoms can't protect you from AIDS. Enough to make you sick, no?"
What exactly did they say? Condoms fail about 20% of the time. Did they say they failed 20% of the time, or did they say that they're totally ineffective against AIDS? IIRC there was a controversy about a Catholic saying the AIDS virus was small enough to pass through the condom pores (it's small virus-wise, but I don't think it's THAT small). If in the latter case, that's stupid.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I've heard these claims as well, that condoms can't protect you from AIDS. My understanding was that they were at least 95% effective with regards to the AIDS virus, and that spermicidal lubricant brings that total close to 100%.Matt Quinn said:
The priest(s) making these claims, however, may be the victim(s) of a simple misunderstanding. Condoms have been proven ineffective in preventing HPV, which, to someone with as cultivated an ignorance about sexual matters as many priests, might sound like HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HPV is the virus that causes genital warts. As it happens, HPV is very contagious and can be transmitted by oral-genital or even skin to skin contact. Needless to say, it would be very ignorant to advocate abandoning prophylactics on account of this fact.
In my own experience, I've only had a condom break once, slip off once or twice, and I've never gotten anyone pregnant or transmitted a VD, AFAIK. In the last ten years or so I've had maybe a dozen sexual partners, so I'd have to say that condoms are pretty effective.
Leo,
I don't think anyone is for abandoning prophylactics...I think many people are trying to say that condoms are not infallible be-all end-alls as some tout them to be.
I don't think anyone is for abandoning prophylactics...I think many people are trying to say that condoms are not infallible be-all end-alls as some tout them to be.
Leo Caesius
Banned
My impression was that all forms of birth control, including condoms, are not permitted according to the strictest Catholics. Even some of the more strict protestant sects here in the States would like to prevent minors from getting access to condoms, under the assumption that teenagers would abstain from sex if they couldn't find a condom. This is a very ignorant assumption.
"My impression was that all forms of birth control, including condoms, are not permitted according to the strictest Catholics."
True. The Catholic Church opposes birth control, period.
True. The Catholic Church opposes birth control, period.
Matt Quinn said:
The claim takes a dual approach. One: that the HIV viruis can pass through pores in the latex and two: that manufacturing flaws in condoms are so frequent that semen can pass through most of them. This is supported in a study published by the Vatican (I don't recall which of the publishing authorities, and I haven't actually read most of it, but it's available from Catholic college libraries - or at least was before the BBC investigated it and shot it full of holes...)
Note, also, that the information contained thereion is not intended for widespread publication in Europe or the United States. It is not that easy to even come by here. Its primary target audience is Africa, but also South and Southeast Asia and Latin America, where an abstract was mass-mailed to clergy in some dioceses.
Écrasez l'infame, non?
Matt Quinn said:
The notion of a single power ruling over the universe already existed in the Pagan period, among both Stoics and Neoplatonists. The idea that the universe was governed merely by divine whim was already fading by the Hellenistic, and was quite dead during the Roman period. Moreover, there were equlivalent concepts in the vast majority of Pagan religions. A universal law is very important, for example, to Sophocles and other Greek dramatists. Likewise, the concept of the universe as _cosmos_, an orderly whole, was central to Greek thought even before that. The idea had lost much importance due to the evolution of Greek religion, which was much influenced by Middle Eastern forms of ploytheism in which divine whim was very important. But even here, we should be careful. Mesopotamiam Paganism, for example, had enough of a concept of cosmic order to invent astrology.
In most forms of Indo-European religion concepts of cosmic law are of central importance, ranging from the early Celtic concept of wirjânjâ, to the Hindu idea of dharma. The idea of a mighty and just sky-God enforcing cosmic law, justice, and an orderly nature is central to Indo-European spirituality.
Science arose due to a wide variety of factors. The revival of Classical scholarship was one. Though this was helped along by the Scholastics, it was not created by them, and in various ways the Scholastic approach hindered scientific progress. An emphasis on practical, empirical research also played a big role. With the exception of a few mavericks like Archimedes, Greco-Roman thinkers really were mostly engaged in a kind of parlor game. This had very little to do with Paganism, but a great deal to do with a slave economy. By contrast, a good number of medieval thinkers were seeking solutions to practical problems. Gunpowder also played a role. Much of modern mathematics was invented by engineers trying to aim primitive cannon. Their work then became absolutely essential to science. The spread of Indian/Arabic numerals was also vital. Without decimal numeration, the kind of detailed mathematical description of phenomena that is the hallmark of scientific thinking would have simply been impossible. Finally, improved technology also played a huge role. Without better glass and improved grinding methods, neither the telescope nor the microscope would have been made.
Christianity played very little role in this process, either for bad or for good. In the late Roman period, it was responsible for the closing of numerous institutions of learning (all of the major institutions of higher learning, actually), and the destruction of many works of scholarship. However, it is rather doubtful that the lack of this destruction would have triggered an earlier scientific revolution. Nor, given the economic, technological, and social realities of the time, is it likely that a scientific revolution would have been possible for centuries after the fall of Rome. The Church, both Catholic and Protestant, did at times persecute learning through the Middle Ages into the early modern period, but was largely ineffective. Giordano Bruno, for example, died at the stake, yet his ideas continued to be read. Likewise, the Church silenced Galileo, but only after his major discoveries were made. A lack of Church persecution might have allowed a Scientific Revolution some decades of advancement over OTL, but probably not anywhere near a century.
The efforts of the Church to support learning largely just replaced secular efforts that had existed before. Church scholars, important as some were, would almost certainly have been replaced by secular scholars or those associated with various philosophical schools. The Church was important in the spread of literacy, and might here have made a genuine contribution. This, together with the importance of healing in the Christian tradition, explain the Nestorian doctors. Another genuine contribution was in the development of clockwork to mark the canonical hours. This, however, may be greatly overstated. A good deal of evidence has surfaced that the Romans, at least, and probably the Greeks before them, had a much better understanding of clockwork than we have previously thought. If so, than the idea of a clockwork universe would have been entirely possible to derive in a Pagan context.