Instead of an irrational universe created and ruled over by fickle and oft-competing gods—where mathematics that held true in Egypt had no reason to be true in Greece
Who believed that mathematics was not universal? Euclid wrote around 300BC. He has generally been recognised as having “looked on Beauty bare”. Before that, Plato in the Meno has Socrates demonstrating the universality of mathematical knowledge by eliciting a geometrical insight from a slave boy.
As for Christianity playing a role in science, in Moslem countries Islam played a role in science, and in Soviet Russia, no textbook was complete without a genuflection to Lenin in the preface. That is because religion and its near relations play a role in everything. That does not mean that religion can take the credit for all the things that its adherents have created, even if the religion is genuinely their motivation.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
Moslem countries Islam played a role in science
Islam never developed science. Islam, with a fickle, ever changing god, appears to be epistemologically incapable of developing science. I can find no suggestion in the Qur’an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. It is assumed that he often intrudes in the world and changes things as it pleases him. Most of the influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy for they deny Allah’s freedom to act.
That does not mean that religion can take the credit for all the things that its adherents have created, even if the religion is genuinely their motivation.
If a thing is created in only one way by only one religion that has the only world view that enables it to exist, I do not think it is unfair to say that this religion created it.
Who believed that mathematics was not universal?
I can think of no examples, nor did I intend to say that they believed that mathematics was not universal, but that they had no reason to believe that it was so. According to Aristotle, the heavenly bodies move in circles because of their affection for doing so; objects fall to the ground “because of their innate love for the centre of the world.”
There was no reason the motives of these objects would remain consistent for all people for all time—just as there was no reason that mathematics which was used to describe the motions would choose to remain consistent for all people for all time.
Who believed that mathematics was not universal? Euclid wrote around 300BC. He has generally been recognised as having “looked on Beauty bare”. Before that, Plato in the Meno has Socrates demonstrating the universality of mathematical knowledge by eliciting a geometrical insight from a slave boy.
As for Christianity playing a role in science, in Moslem countries Islam played a role in science, and in Soviet Russia, no textbook was complete without a genuflection to Lenin in the preface. That is because religion and its near relations play a role in everything. That does not mean that religion can take the credit for all the things that its adherents have created, even if the religion is genuinely their motivation.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
Islam never developed science. Islam, with a fickle, ever changing god, appears to be epistemologically incapable of developing science. I can find no suggestion in the Qur’an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. It is assumed that he often intrudes in the world and changes things as it pleases him. Most of the influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy for they deny Allah’s freedom to act.
If a thing is created in only one way by only one religion that has the only world view that enables it to exist, I do not think it is unfair to say that this religion created it.
I can think of no examples, nor did I intend to say that they believed that mathematics was not universal, but that they had no reason to believe that it was so. According to Aristotle, the heavenly bodies move in circles because of their affection for doing so; objects fall to the ground “because of their innate love for the centre of the world.”
There was no reason the motives of these objects would remain consistent for all people for all time—just as there was no reason that mathematics which was used to describe the motions would choose to remain consistent for all people for all time.