Of course even if there were a causal connection between the Hebraic conception of God and the rise of science, that is not evidence for ID. But it is one more reason why we in the West ought to have a greater appreciation of the historical importance of the concept. History, not science, is the issue.

Wber was trying to explain why capitalism first arose in Europe instead of somewhere else. He never argued that others wouldn't adopt it once they saw it in action. Ditto for science.

What was distinctive about the Hebraic conception of God was that it had a vision of History which led to the idea of progress. To my knowledge no other civilization had that orientation, at least not until they saw what was being achieved in the West.

He never argued that others wouldn't adopt it once they saw it in action.

my point is that weber argued confucianism held the east back from capitalism. now confucianism is offered as a reason that the east succeeds. this sort of generalization (weber's arguemnt, stark's argument) is highly dependent on your a priori predispositions. as for the hebraic concept of god, as i've stated many, many, many, many times i want something more than patterns extracted out of the text. i am looking for cognitive evidence that this 'forward looking' mind set actually exists (even stark admits christianity isn't sufficient seeing as eastern christendom never distinguished itself much from other civilizations). we have had this argument, you and i, many times. you found stark convincing from what i recall and when i pointed out he was not particularly well versed in the history he claimed to interpret you suggested i was protesting too much. so i don't see the point of any discourse with you on this topic, we can't really meet in the middle. you are amazed by the christian god, and i am less than enthralled.

I think that monotheism is a natural intermediate step in the progressive deanthropomorphizing of our framing of the natural world. This is useful insofar as we fill in the cleared space with a conceptual map that correlates with the underlying reality. Without tools for surveying and recording what is reproducably measurable, anthropomorphism is a workable default.

Science begins with the Greeks, not the Hebrews.

mark,

one thing, stark does not consider greek science "science" at all.

Is Stark's opinion on this topic of interest beyond potential use for target practice? I'm sure it's possible to define science so as to exclude the accomplishments of the Greeks for the implicit purpose of excluding the accomplishments of the Greeks. What else is such a definition useful for?

well, _one true _god_ is short and sweet. if you want a flavor of his argument you might check it out. stark's talking points will be making it through the conservative religiosphere soon enough, so it might be worthwhile. the american enterprise institute generally likes his stuff too.

Thanks for the pointer. I skimmed into a few reviews of Stark's book, and while they shed no light specifically on how he frames science and the development of science, I got a general sense of where he is coming from. Not unreasonable on the surface. I generally agree with his "rational choice" theory for the growth of sects, the general preference of all but the intellectual elite for anthropomorphic gods and the unknowability of what is beyond knowing.

I think a case can be made that the Catholic Church created a nurturing environment for the reemergence of science after the Dark ages. However, a case can also be made that catholicism is polytheistic.

I think history could have taken a slightly different turn in the preChristian era with science as we know it growing directly out of Classical Greece, or emerging independently in China. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of thing.

Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of thing.

yep. i have problems with both sides, people like stark and michael novak that lionize religion (usually christianity) as the creator of all that is good, and those on the anti-religion side who hold religion totally and fundamentally accountable for all misdeeds or regressions. ideas and cultural systems have an influence on ppl, but we haven't really quantified it, and it isn't like humans are blank slates which cultures mold, there is a lot of reverse feedback (ie, perhaps christianity was rational because of other forces in the region where it took hold, everything didn't become rational because of christianity, just as evil in the name of religion wasn't due to religion, it was just evil that was going to happen and a religious pretense was handy).

Stark's and Weber's arguments are, may I say, starkly different. Stark certainly does not discount the possibility of other cultures adopting real science after the kind of change of consciousness typified by the Meiji restoration. The thesis reminds me of Julian Jaynes' arguments in The Emergence of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - stimulating even if not bulletproof.