23 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent reading on the history of science., March 8, 1999
By A Customer
This book is about the history of science, particularly the origin of science as we know it. Written from a Christian perspective, Jaki argues that Jesus himself is ultimately the savior of science. Jaki's review of ancient cultures such as Greece, Eqypt, China, and India is fascinating, as he explains how theological errors were the key factor that inhibited the development of science that came about in the Christian world. Fascinating reading.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
24 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Crotchetty and unsatisfying., June 26, 2005
This review is from: The Savior of Science (Paperback)
As a Christian historian, I tend to agree with many of Jaki's points. He also owns a certain intellectual brilliance -- I found myself ear-marking many pages, to return and write down juicy quotes. The problem is, Jaki refuses to support his arguments with enough facts. The book often comes across as crotchety, dismissive, and even egotistical. Jaki is brilliant perhaps, but he doesn't give critical readers a chance to be persuaded. Instead, he rambles relentlessly, skipping from Justice Bork to Darwin to Arianism to sollipsism. Not always does he explain his point clearly, and seldom does he back it up with enough solid facts. Part of this follows from attempting two thousand years of history in 230 pages. But like G. K. Chesterton, Jaki also seems to feel an actual aversion to detail, though without Chesterton's humor, good-naturedness, or psychological acuity.
I found Jaki's point about the rise of science weak as an argument, though possibly true. Are wrong worldviews to blame for the stillbirth of science in ancient non-Christian civilizations? That is a provocative thesis, worth exploring. But a few paragraphs of dismissive and elusive discussion (6 for Egypt, 10 for India, 15 for China, 4 for Babylon, 8 for Greece, 5 for Islam) should not be enough to satisfy even fellow believers. Given that science did in fact happen to rise in the West, of course one can find post hoc reasons why this should be so; but to prove that it HAD to be so would take a far more in-depth and detailed argument.
I was even less satisfied when I noticed that, while he got some things right (about ancient theism, for instance), he made a few errors about one civization I know fairly well, China. I think Jaki overstates the influence of Confucianism and Taoism on public Maoism; of all the books Mao sold as a young man, only one came from traditional China; all the rest were Marxist and foreign. Jaki is just ignorant when he asks, quoting Bertrand Russell, "if . . . this youthful vigor in the Chinese mind was in fact very old, why was it 'often very difficult to interest even the most reforming Chinese in afforestation?' And if the answer was that . . . reforesting vast tracts of bare hillsides was 'not a subject for ethical enthusiasm,' how could Confucius . . . be presented as a model of modern, reform-minded Chinsese?'" In fact Confucius' greatest disciple, Mencius, wrote passionately about protecting the environment, including forests. (Taoists also described the stripping of the environment as a sin.) If modern Chinese have not followed their example (and they haven't, until recently), neither did many other early industrial societies. Jaki's attempt to reduce this question to theology is either simplistic (if I understand him) or vague (because I am not sure that I do.) Marx and others reduced civilizational causation to material forces, and that is wrong; but we should not respond with an equally simplistic argument reducing everything to spirituality.
Jaki's take on modern science is also titilating as an appetizer, but unsatisfying as a full meal. His discussion of Buridan, a name I did not know, is interesting, when he finally comes to it. But his grumpy discussions of Descartes, Darwin, Einstein, etc, seem longer on invective (and on airy and sometimes insightful assertions) than on convincing evidence.
All in all, I doubt anybody who did not already agree with Dr. Jaki would be persuaded by this book. It is probably worthwhile to read, if you hold Jaki's many insights in your hand without grasping. But if we're going to persuade the world of the life-giving value of the Gospel, I think we need to speak more generously, and in more detail. Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, and Peacey and Thaxton's The Soul of Science, fill in some of the missing detail, though admittedly with less flair. On the larger cultural argument, see also the works of Vishal Mangalwadi, and (also very brief) chapter 7 of my Jesus and the Religions of Man, entitled "How has Jesus changed the world?"
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
blasts the imaginary conflict between faith and science, September 29, 2001
This review is from: The Savior of Science (Paperback)
There is much nonsense afoot that would have one believe that religion, especially Christianity and the Catholic Church, has always been hostile to science and greatly innhibited its progress. This view is plainly contrary to the facts. Many of the greatest scientists were sponsored and paid by the Church. In fact, many were members of a clerical order.
Consider this. If one were to take a wall map and draw an outline of the areas of the world that have seen the most scientific progress over the past 1000 years, and then draw an outline of the area of what one might call Christendom, one will find that the two outlines match up very closely. This could certainly not be the case if Christianity was hostile to science. Rather, just the opposite is true. If one wants to understand how this is so, Jaki's work is a great place to start.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
