Disclaimer: I haven't read this book but based on its accolades should be an accurate account. https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-Christian-Scientific-Revolution/dp/1596981555
Alternatively find a syllabus for the history of science at a good university.
> To my opinion unless you can come up with facts and repeatable experiments
>I ask if its peer reviewed and have been looking for references or studies done writing this book.
I want to make sure I'm understanding you properly, and that this isn't a misstatement. Are you actually stating that experiments and scientific studies need to be performed for historical work to be valid?
If you'd like an interesting take on the how science developed (and the relationship of the Catholic Church to the development of science) check out Jame's Hannam's "The Genesis of Science." It provides an interesting take on the topic, and Hannam earned a PhD in the History of Science from Cambridge. The book I mention above is well cited.
This book is good and should for the basis of an informed response. Or you could go around recommending it to people.
I like how your sources are a wiki and Wikipedia. Come on, man.
I suggest reading Royal Society Prize winner James Hannam. You can read his book on how modern science arose from early Christianity .
If you're lazy, you can read this article.
Here's a large quote from a Stanford publication.
>Several historians (e.g., Hooykaas 1972) have argued that Christianity was instrumental to the development of Western science. Peter Harrison (2009) thinks the doctrine of original sin played a crucial role in this, arguing there was a widespread belief in the early modern period that Adam, prior to the fall, had superior senses, intellect, and understanding. As a result of the fall, human senses became duller, our ability to make correct inferences was diminished, and nature itself became less intelligible. Postlapsarian humans (i.e., humans after the fall) are no longer able to exclusively rely on their a priori reasoning to understand nature. They must supplement their reasoning and senses with observation through specialized instruments, such as microscopes and telescopes. As Robert Hooke wrote in the introduction to his Micrographia:
>
>every man, both from a deriv’d corruption, innate and born with him, and from his breeding and converse with men, is very subject to slip into all sorts of errors … These being the dangers in the process of humane Reason, the remedies of them all can only proceed from the real, the mechanical, the experimental Philosophy [experiment-based science]. (1665, cited in Harrison 2009: 5)
>
>Another theological development that may have facilitated the rise of science was the Condemnation of Paris (1277), which forbade teaching and reading natural philosophical views that were considered heretical, such as Aristotle’s physical treatises. As a result, the Condemnation opened up intellectual space to think beyond ancient Greek natural philosophy. For example, medieval philosophers such as John Buridan (fl. 14th c) held the Aristotelian belief that there could be no vacuum in nature, but once the idea of a vacuum became plausible, natural philosophers such as Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647) and Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) could experiment with air pressure and vacua (see Grant 1996, for discussion).
>
>As further evidence for a formative role of Christianity in the development of science, some authors point to the Christian beliefs of prominent natural philosophers of the seventeenth century. For example, Clark writes,
>
>Exclude God from the definition of science and, in one fell definitional swoop, you exclude the greatest natural philosophers of the so-called scientific revolution—Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, and Newton (to name just a few). (2014: 42)
>
>Others authors even go as far as to claim that Christianity was unique and instrumental in catalyzing the scientific revolution—according to Rodney Stark (2004), the scientific revolution was in fact a slow, gradual development from medieval Christian theology.
But yes, science does owe some to Greek scholars and Islam. Here's the relevant paragraph from that same Stanford article:
>Claims such as Stark’s, however, fail to recognize the legitimate contributions of Islamic and Greek scholars, to name just a few, to the development of modern science. In spite of these positive readings of the relationship between science and religion in Christianity, there are sources of enduring tension. For example, there is (still) vocal opposition to the theory of evolution among Christian fundamentalists.
You can read the whole article here.
I never said modern science is only rooted in early Christianity. But to say it's not is quite literally ignorant.
Hopefully I taught you something. Cheers.
Edit: formatting issues.