On the origins of technology
Peter Edman
In researching our forthcoming curriculum on technology, I am pleased to be running across more and more articles like this one, from The Chronicle of Higher Education.
In “How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science” (2 Dec 2005), Dr. Rodney Stark sets out the thesis of his new book, The Victory of Reason : How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random House).
When Europeans first began to explore the globe, their greatest surprise was not the existence of the Western Hemisphere, but the extent of their own technological superiority over the rest of the world. Not only were the proud Maya, Aztec, and Inca nations helpless in the face of European intruders, so were the fabled civilizations of the East: China, India, and Islamic nations were “backward” by comparison with 15th-century Europe. How had that happened? Why was it that, although many civilizations had pursued alchemy, the study led to chemistry only in Europe? Why was it that, for centuries, Europeans were the only ones possessed of eyeglasses, chimneys, reliable clocks, heavy cavalry, or a system of music notation? How had the nations that had arisen from the rubble of Rome so greatly surpassed the rest of the world?
The article is well worth the time. It also corrects some misperceptions about Southern Europe and Catholicism and takes issue with the whole concept that the Reformation was the sole source of capitalism. Several of our Fellows are talking about this topic, so expect to see more on this from us in the future.
And then, of course, are the unthinking atheists, the hyper-rationalists who have abandoned the Christian part of that tradition and would continue with mere reason. In fact, one merely wishes they would exercise their brains and use their own vaunted rationality, as Mark Steyn argues in this typically pithy (and accurate) article, “O come, all ye faithless,” the cover story of the 17 December 2005 Spectator:
It’s hard to persuade an atheist to believe in God. But unless he’s the proverbial ‘militant atheist’ — or, more accurately, fundamentalist atheist — the so-called rationalist ought to be capable of a rational assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different societies. If he is, he’ll find it hard to conclude other than that the most secular societies have the worst prospects. Rationalism is killing poor childless Europe. But instead of rethinking the irrationalism of rationalism, the rationalists are the ones clinging to blind faith, ever more hysterically.
Gleanings, Faiths and Worldviews, Science and Technology, Thu 15 Dec 2005
