With the conversion of the Roman Empire from pagan religion to Christianity came the problem of integration of ideas from two worlds of thought and the reconciliation of their contradictions. The pagan religion that had preceded Christianity had, to my surprise as I read Grant’s introductory chapter, stayed out of maters of natural philosophy, with a few exceptions (i.e. the story of Anaxagoras <pg. 15>). I was even more surprised to read that Aristotle’s idea of God (the unmoved mover theory), abstract as it may have been, was not condemned by the followers of the polytheistic religion it seemed to contradict on such a profound and fundamental level. In contrast, Christianity seems to have a much more difficult time, throughout history as well as today, of finding itself on the side of new scientific ideas, even though, in my opinion, contradictions between the two sides often can be reconciled with reason and open-mindedness.

My questions are the following: Why were the pagans so much more accepting of new ideas in science and philosophy than the latter Christians? Were Christians more devote to the letter of their religion? Was the letter of pagan religion simply more flexible, allowing scientific ideas to integrate more easily?