had been altered or abandoned. In the third century BCE a research institute was
established in Alexandria, Egypt, where Ctesibius and Philo completed the first
known scientific works in experimental pneumatics (the study of the behavior of
air and water); Eratosthenes invented the science of cartography and was one of
the first scientists in history to measure the diameter of the earth (he overshot by
only 15 percent) and analyze the effect of the moon on the tides; and Herophilus
became the first scientist to dissect human cadavers. In fact, Herophilus and his
pupil Erasi-stratis originated neurophysiology, establishing with detailed
experiments that the mind is a function of the brain and that specific mental
functions were controlled in specific areas of the brain, and they distinguished
motor from sensory nerves and mapped them throughout the body. Altogether,
their study of the human body and its bones, muscles, and organs, was so
thorough that we still use much of their anatomical terminology.
In Sicily, their colleague Archimedes was busy advancing the sciences of
mechanics and hydrostatics, and discovering, describing, or explaining the first
mathematical laws of physics. Shortly before that, Aristarchus began measuring
the distances of the moon, sun, and planets (with values that were increasingly
refined in subsequent centuries), and proposed the first helio centric theory. In
Rhodes a century later, Hipparchus discovered and measured celestial precession
(the rotation of the zodiac over a period of 25,800 years), observed the first
supernova, established the first detailed scientific star charts, made numerous
advances in planetary theory, and developed the first scientific system for
predicting lunar and solar eclipses. Seleucus of Babylon discovered the effect of
the sun on the tides, not just the moon, developing the first mathematical
lunisolar tide theory. Then, during the early Roman Empire, science reached its
pinnacle of achievement, producing works not exceeded until the Scientific
Revolution: from Dioscorides in botany, mineralogy, and pharmacology; Hero in
mechanics, pneumatics, and theatrical robotics; Ptolemy in astronomy,
cartography, optics, and harmonics; and Galen in anatomy, physiology, and
medicine. Just to name a few. There were many more whose work is now lost,
advancing fields as diverse as apiology and oceanography, to volcanology and
hydrostatics.
None were shackled to any "unrevisable framework" by Aristotlel' but freely
revised and debated all his physical assumptions. Heliocentrists debated static
and dynamic geocentrists; theories of inertia, pressure, and universal gravitation
competed with Aristotelian theories of natural places; visual ray theories
competed with particle theories of light, and so on.16 By the Roman period,
Aristotle's conclusion that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon was losing
ground to the correct view that they were planetary bodies on wide eccentric
orbits; Hipparchus had developed an increasingly correct theory of projectile
motion and refitted Aristotle's belief that the heavens never change; Herophilus
had refitted the Aristotelian theory that the soul resided in the heart, with precise
experiments proving all thought and sensation occurred in the brain-a conclusion
Galen then reinforced with a detailed study of the vocal system, demonstrating
that the brain controlled human speech; Hero had experimentally refitted
Aristotle's claim that a vacuum was impossible, and proven that wind was air in
motion, that heated air expands and rises, and that cold air contracts and falls;
and Ptolemy had abandoned Aristotle's assumption that planetary orbits had to
be concentrically circular and their velocities constant. Even Aristotle's theory of
a fundamental division between the sublunar and celestial realms was widely
challenged and often rejected by subsequent physicists, along with almost every
other doubtful aspect of his original physics.
Major advances in logic also occurred after Aristotle,17 as well as in
mathematics and physical concepts, such that almost everything credited as first
proposed by medieval intellectuals, had in fact already been conceived in
antiquity. For example, what we now call Ockham's Razor was already a
standard methodological assumption.18 Even Stark's dismissive "some
extensions of geometry" happened to include advanced conics, plane and
spherical trigonometry, and the rudiments of calculus. They even went beyond
geometry, developing combinatorics and an early form of multivariable algebra.
Yet medieval Christians showed such disinterest in these mathematical
achievements that some were barely preserved at all, while others were literally
erased from books so they could be replaced with hymns to Ood.19 In fact,
under Christian tenure almost all the scientific achievements of the ancients were
forgotten in the West and ignored in the East, or survived only in simplistic
caricatures. The few books that got copied enough to survive were rarely or
barely copied at all, often not understood, and never substantially improved upon
for nearly a thousand years.
As a result, for many centuries Christians didn't even know scientists after
Aristotle had significantly expanded the experimental method and began
confirming mathematical laws of physics, which were predictively successful,
technologically useful, and thoroughly mechanical. The first correct
mathematical laws likely predate Archimedes, but his treatises on statics and
hydrostatics are the earliest surviving record of them. By then scientists knew
that levers obey the law D1W1 = D,W, (expressed geometrically) and that
objects don't float because (as Aristotle supposed) it's just their nature to, they
float because their density is less than the surrounding water, so the heavier
water pushes up the floating object, by an amount exactly entailed by the
mathematical difference in their densities, and that even sinking objects become
lighter, by an amount exactly equal to the weight of the water the body
displaces-which, incidentally, refitted Aristotle's notion that an object's lightness
was immutably innate. By Roman times, the correct laws of reflection were also
known, as well as their correct theoretical explanation (Hero proved they
followed from a principle of least action), and the laws of refraction were being
explored and approximated with detailed experiments. Ptolemy experimentally
measured the difference in indexes of refraction for materials like glass, water,
and air, discovered that the refraction angle increases with the incidence angle in
a progressive relationship, and attempted to ascertain a mathematical law of
refraction. Precise measurement even played a role in physiology, allowing
Galen to prove the correct theory of kidney function (and explain the entire renal
system) with a series of controlled experiments.20
Hutchinson defines modern science as an "emphasis on direct observation and
experiment, precise measurement, and the formulation of laws of nature," and
we've just seen the ancient pagans had all those things.21 Stark defines modern
science as "a method utilized in organized efforts to formula
te explanations of
nature, always subject to modifications and corrections through systematic
observations" such that "it is possible to deduce from [the resulting explanations]
some definite predictions and prohibitions about what will be observed." 22
That, too, accurately describes ancient science. Ancient scientists continually
developed and improved their methods-right up to the end: Galen, Hero and
Ptolemy all had a great deal to say about method and its improvement. Their
efforts were also organized. Ptolemy's Almagest shows astronomers shared
observations and created records for future colleagues, Galen's books repeatedly
show doctors working together on anatomical research and scientists in all fields
conferring with each other for information and debate, and there were many
formal scientific associations, including the Museum of Alexandria. And they all
aimed at producing explanations of nature, often correcting their theories with
systematic observations and controlled experiments, and deducing from their
theories exact predictions of what will or won't happen. Ptolemy's planetary
theory could predict the position of Mars to within a straw's width twenty years
in advance, and his law of refraction was almost as precise. Galen's theory of the
renal and vocal systems correctly predicted the effects of specific injuries and
disease as well as the normal behavior of the organs themselves. Hero could
predict the precise mechanical advantages of many machines and the general
behavior of air, water, and steam in the presence or absence of pressure or heat.
Menelaus could predict the specific densities of different fluids and solids and
their behavior in different suspending mediums. And on and on. All were
empirical, all linked theory to practice, and all tested at least some of their
theories against observed data. Yet Stark still maintains, with complete
confidence, that "in the end all they achieved were nonempirical, even
antiempirical, speculative philosophies, atheoretical collections of facts, and
isolated crafts and technologies-never... real science."23 As should now be
perfectly clear, not a single bit of that sentence is even remotely true.
HISTORICAL FANTASYNUMBER 2: "PAGANS HAD A MENTAL BLOCK"
Already Stark's first fact is so embarrassingly false it's a wonder he stays
employed. But it gets worse: he confidently declares reasons why his first fact is
true, even though his first fact isn't true, thus refuting his secondsince if those
causes obtained, they clearly didn't have the effect predicted. So, too, any other
"causes" other advocates allege for this nonexistent stagnation in ancient science.
All these "explanations" amount to claiming that pagans were suffering from
various mental blocks, which only Christianity could free them from. Stark picks
three popular examples:
First, their conceptions of the Gods were inadequate to permit them to
imagine a conscious Creator [so they couldn't imagine physical laws].
Second, they conceived of the universe not only as eternal and uncreated,
but as locked into endless cycles of progress and decay [so they couldn't
imagine scientific progress]. Third, prompted by their religious
conceptions, they transformed inanimate objects into living creatures
capable of aims, emotions, and desires-thus short-circuiting the search for
physical theories.24
Even if these claims were true, Stark's theory is already refuted, for as we just
saw, science flourished despite them, and it's Stark's contention that these three
facts would surely have prevented that. Since they didn't, Christianity can claim
no advantage in having abandoned them. Yet as Stark represents them, these
claims aren't even true, nor do they make any logical sense as barriers to science
to begin with. In fact, I contend they are so false or illogical, yet declared with
such confidence, that Stark can only be dishonest, delusional, or incompetent.
For even the most rudimentary fact checking and analysis would have exploded
every one.
Pagan Theology
Pagan theology supposedly got in the way, but Stark makes little sense of this.
He claims certain aspects of Platonic theology impeded science.'' But since all
ancient scientists were philosophical eclectics with strong sympathies for Stoic
and Epicurean physics, and for Aristotelianism, which from its very foundation
was anti-Platonist, it wasn't even possible for Platonism to impede the course of
ancient science, even if it did harbor any antiscientific tendencies.26
More generally, pagan theology supposedly prevented a conception of an
intelligible universe governed by natural laws. Hence, according to Stanley Jaki,
only Christianity could produce science, for:
The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal,
rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the
centuries of the High Middle Ages ... [providing] confidence in the
rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the
quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.27
Of course, as we just saw, the "scientific quest" had already found fertile soil in
pagan antiquity. But everything else here is false, too. Ancient scientists already
had confidence in the rationality of the universe (as we'll soon see), already
trusted in progress (as we'll see next), and already appreciated the quantitative
method (as we just saw). So Jaki's claim that only Christianity could inspire
these things is clearly false.
Like other recent advocates of this new delusion, Stark emphasizes the
"rationality of the universe" angle: unless you believe in a rational Creator, who
made everything from nothing, you won't have any reason to believe the
universe is rational or obeys discoverable laws of physics. But not only is this
false, it's not even logical. D'Souza insists "the presumption" that "the universe is
rational [is] quite impossible to prove" and therefore requires theological
justification.28 But that the universe is rational is observed. So it doesn't have to
be proved. Such a belief requires no faith or theology because it rests entirely on
evidence. Pagans responded to this observation in either of two ways: exactly the
same way later Christians did, or exactly the same way modern atheists do.
Neither marked any impediment to science.
Those who didn't believe in intelligent design had to explain where all this
observed consistency and order then came from, which compelled them to
scientific inquiry, precisely to discover the real causes. Hence ancient doubters
and pantheists, like Strato, Erasistratus, Epicurus, or Asclepiades sought
explanations in the inevitable interaction of natural laws and forces. They didn't
use our "law" metaphor but others instead, like "physical necessity" and the
"inherent nature" of things, but these amounted to the same thing: objects floated
on water, for example, because of the inevitable interaction of innate forces in a
discernible pattern. No God needed. No belief in Creation required. All is just
the outcome of natural causes. Hence
even atheism could be no impediment to
science. To the contrary, it all but entails it, since there is no other way for
atheists to explain what they see.
And most likely, if you weren't an atheist, you were a creationist. Most
intellectual polytheists believed in a Creator who had intelligently ordered the
cosmos, that this order could be discovered by the human mind, and that such
discovery honored God. Scientists like Galen and Ptolemy were thus motivated
to pursue scientific inquiry by their religious piety, exactly as Stark claims
Christians were, and for exactly the same reasons. In Galen's scientific tour de
force On the Uses of the Parts, a multivolume survey of human anatomy that
remains one of the most empirically persuasive defenses of intelligent design
ever written, he declares his pagan motives for conducting all the meticulous and
exhaustive handson research the book documents: "I am composing this sacred
discourse as a true hymn of praise to our Creator. And I consider that I am really
showing Him reverence not when I offer Him" countless expensive sacrifices
"but when I myself first learn to know His wisdom, power, and goodness and
then make them known to others.1129 Most philosophers agreed. Seneca argued
scientific inquiry was a pious enterprise superior to the sacred mysteries of
pagan religion, and Cicero argued God actually designed us to pursue scientific
knowledge.30 We can find many more examples of pagans declaring theological
motives for scientific inquiry.31 So when D'Souza claims a religious "impulse"
to pursue science "came originally from Christianity," we can plainly see that's
false.32 Pagan theology provided just as ample a motivation, as did atheism or
pantheism.
Cyclical Theory of Time
Stark's claim that anyone who believes the world is locked in "endless cycles of
progress and decay" can't conceive of "progress" is illogical: if they believe in
cycles of progress and decay, they obviously believe in progress. You almost
have to be delusional to miss such an obvious contradiction. Nevertheless, Stark
irrationally insists the Greeks "rejected the idea of progress in favor of a never-
ending cycle of being."33 Not only is this illogical, it's false.
Belief in scientific progress is so well evidenced in ancient literature, it's a
wonder anyone ever claimed the contrary.34 How can Stark claim the opposite?
By not checking the scholarship on the subject, or even his own evidence. To
support his claim all Stark provides are various irrelevant quotations that fail to
demonstrate any connection at all between ancient theories of time and a belief
in progress. In fact, the ancient idea of eternal cycles could be based on a belief
in progress: it was assumed the universe was eternal (lacking any evidence to the
contrary), but it was observed that society had not reached a perfect state of
advancement in all the arts and sciences, but it would have if it had been
advancing for all infinite time; therefore, periodic catastrophes must destroy
civilizations and all record of their achievements, forcing men to start over from
scratch. Aristotle believed some scarce oral lore might survive each catastrophe,
but all written record and advanced knowledge must have been lost, otherwise
we would still have it.35 Believing this in no way entails believing there is any
end to progress, other than the destruction of your entire civilization-or, of
course, the whole world, whose end the Christians believed was so imminent we
should sooner ask why they would believe in progress, as to them it should seem
futile.36 The pagans at least expected many thousands of years, even tens of
thousands, in which to continue their advance.
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 53
