During the Renaissance and the Modern period, Martin Luther and many
early scientists and Thomas Hobbes believed that the transition from
relgion to science was a type of progress.  Explain why they felt like
this?  I need this answer no later than 10-15-04.

---

Clarification of Question by anniepannie-ga on 14 Oct 2004 10:19 PDT

I really don't understand the answer that pugwashjw-ga gave to my
question.  I need something specific and thought that was what I would
get when I agreed to pay $10.00.  According to your comments on how
much to pay to get a good answer, I thought $10.00 would work but I
guess I should withdraw the question if I am going to get answers like
that.  Please respond.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pinkfreud-ga on 14 Oct 2004 10:33 PDT

Anniepannie,

Pugwashjw-ga is not a Google Answers Researcher, and his remarks are
not an official Answer. Your account will not be charged for comments
made by site users. Anything that is posted in the "Comments" section
is free of charge. Both Researchers and non-Researchers may post in
that section, but only authorized Google Answers Researchers may post
an Answer (which, if posted, will appear above the Comments section.)

You can tell a Researcher from a non-Researcher by looking at the way
the username is displayed. Google Answers Researchers' names are
highlighted and "clickable," while other usernames are regular bold
text.

---

Clarification of Question by anniepannie-ga on 14 Oct 2004 12:26 PDT

Thanks for explaining the researchers/blue letters, etc.  I did not
understand.  I feel better now.  The research people for Google have
always been so helpful to me.  Thanks again.

This could be helpful:

LUTHER AND SCIENCE, by Donald H. Kobe (professor of physics at the
University of North Texas)
http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html

The Bible, although not exactly a geography textbook, is very accurate
in its description of the earth. Job 24;7.."He [God] is stretching out
the north over the empty places, Hanging the earth upon nothing".
Isaiah 40;22.."There is One [ God] who is dwelling above THE CIRCLE OF
THE EARTH, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is
stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out
like a tent in which to dwell".
The first is a very accurate picture of the earth from space, written
by Job under inspiration, at a time when knowledge of earths position
was just being guessed at.
The second is accurate in that from space, people on the earth cannot
be seen, and the earth is compared to a tract of land covered in a
swarm of grasshoppers. Only God would possess such knowledge.

Dear Annie Pannie, 

pugwashjw-ga did not give you an answer, but commented. There are
three sections in Google Answers:
- Your question
- The Answer, only a Google Answers Researcher could answer the
question (you can see that by the blue link in their usernames)
- the comments - everyone (including yourself, also in other
questions) could post a comment. Unlike an answer, that is supposed to
be well-researched, the fact that anyone could post a comment means
that some of them are biased/not well-researched/ or just
incomprehensible.

Annie,

If I understand the sense of your question properly, it touches upon a
number of areas: hermeneutics, systematic theology, natural theology,
and apologetics. The ultimate goal and usefulness of science would be
for a theologian to be able to apply systematic theology down to the
realm of natural theology: physical life and practical living. It was
also to accord natural theology with a systematic understanding of the
scriptures. But let me begin with apologetics.
In the realm of philosophy, the emergence of science would give rise
to a whole new means of apology, or at least to a degree that was not
possible before. Science was now capable of adding a level of
objective data to the various arguments of theism (i.e., cosmological,
teleological), and eventually would result in the ability to argue for
a cumulative case for theism. On the cusp of a whole new field, the
likely thought was that adding the arena of science would only add
objectivity, and the optimism of the Renaissance and early Modern
period believed it would fill all or many of the gaps in knowledge and
epistemology.
Regarding hermeneutics, the field which concerns the interpretation
and application of scripture, the whole of academia struggled to find
a proper means to interpret scripture. The past had been mired in
allegory (which I would define as individualistic, figurative,
unsubstantiatable interpretation). Authority was the elusive weapon of
hermeneutics. Although science would later supplant religion as the
queen of scholasticism, at that time, simply being able to more
substantively and objectively defend an interpretation was not only
intellectual one-upsmanship, but a means to validate their position
which they sought to defend to the death. More simply put, science was
seen as a potentially useful adjunct to interpreting scripture. The
key of hermeneutics is to find a regular means of interpreting
scripture that coherently balances the figurative and literal
interpretation. The sum of that interpretation (with even seemingly
small differences) would result in a systematic theology of
significantly different emphases from Catholic systematics, and among
each other.
This brings us to systematic and natural theology, which I will
mention together. But first, I must distinguish two understandings.
Naturalism is a natural theology of ontology stating that all that is
real is all that exists physically. This is not the area of major
concern. Natural Theology in ethical form is the belief that the
knowledge of God can be obtained by studying (hence, ethical) the
physical world. Ultimately, while systematics struggled to find a
normal hermeneutic, natural theology needed science to analyze and
interpret and make useful the physical world we live in. There was
likely an inkling that the two, systematic and natural theologies,
could be joined. Also, by transferral, the means of science could
inform systematics and their methodology.
Although Hobbes and Luther would not fall into the same circles of
thought in significant ways, they would both see the potential of
science to benefit their own field. Any person of sound mind would be
glad to see new and useful ways to see and explain life, whether
metaphysical or physical.

Hope you found some of this helpful!

You may find some of the links on this page helpful:
http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/themes/scholars.htm

I am only commenting, i.e. I am not intending to provide an answer.
But should you have any questions concerning my comments, please, do
ask.

Am I right in assuming that your question is being asked from a
philosophical point of view, i.e. not theological?

Yes, I am asking from a philosophical point of view.