The third question is whether science is born at the moment when all mankind or only a certain part of it emerges from the Middle Ages? If only parts, then maybe the medieval history of this particular part was somehow specific? If science is born at the end of the Western world from its Middle Ages, does this not mean that there was something in the Western Middle Ages (as opposed to the Indian or Arab) that contributed to the birth of science?

The fourth question is: if science contradicts Christianity, then why did other cultures not lead to the birth of science? Why did Christianity, with its supposedly profound anti-science, create a culture in which the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took place?

The fifth question is – if the scientific revolution takes place at the end of European culture from the Middle Ages, then what exactly did it take place at? After all, it is not enough to say that something happened when leaving the prayer room. It is interesting to know what kind of room began outside the threshold of the prayer room. Was there a dance salon or a library, a bathroom or a laboratory? Where was the one who was leaving?

All these questions boil down to one thing: why were Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Descartes Christians? Why not Buddhists? Not Muslims? Not Confucians?

Science is not where man is simply interested in nature. Science is not where a person even correctly records certain natural phenomena or expresses hypotheses that are then justified. A reindeer herder rides through the tundra and sings a song, composing it according to the principle "what I see, I sing about". Everything in this song can be true: the snow is really white, and the deer are really fast... But, despite all the truthfulness of this text, it cannot be called scientific. In science, it is customary to demonstrate not only the caught pike, but also the rod and bait with which the fish was caught.

Science is where clearly conscious, reflective methods of collecting and verifying information and judgments are proposed. In the study of nature, the first such methods were the method of experimentation and the method of mathematical modeling of physical processes. And both of these methods appear just at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries.

So why not earlier? Why not in another place, but in Europe? And – in which Europe? In Europe, still Christian, or in Europe, already secular, "unchristianized"?

In order to understand what was happening in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, we must turn to much more ancient times.

We know that the culture of the Middle Ages was Christian. Which means that it was based on the Bible. But the Bible is based on the message that the only significant connection (religion) is the connection between the soul and God. The God of the Bible is supermundane, that is, supercosmic. He is not part of the cosmos and not the personification of its elements. He is not the Sun, but the Creator of the Sun. He is not the Moon, but the Creator of the Moon.

The biblical prophets warn against idolatry, that is, against worshipping what is created, that which is not God. A pagan in every natural process presupposes the soul and action of a certain god. In order to wean people from animism ("everything is full of gods"), the Bible decides to sacrifice aesthetics to religion. First understand that the world and God are not the same and that your first love must be for the Creator. Not a single landscape sketch, not a single portrait is on the pages of the Bible. Her world was created by engineers rather than artists: there are instructions on how to build Noah's Ark – but there is no description of it; there are instructions on how to build the Temple of Solomon – but there are no impressionist notes on how it "looked"; There is a description of how the world was built in six days, but there is no description of the charms of this world.

There are no astral myths in the Bible, which are so organic in the world of pagan religions. There are no stories about where the Sun goes at night, whose face is on the Moon, about who spilled milk on the Milky Way, and about who gave birth to the Big Dipper. So, "when Christianity is equated with the wildest myths, I do not laugh, and I do not swear, and I do not lose my temper, I politely remark that identity cannot be considered complete" [1].

Here is the text from the first page of the Bible: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven [to give light to the earth, and] to separate the day from the night, and for signs, and times, and days, and years; and let them be lamps in the firmament of heaven, to shine on the earth. And so it was. And God created two great lights: a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; And God hath set them in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth, and to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning: the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19).

What is this text about? – Well, what a question: of course, this is the biblical myth about the creation of the Sun, the Moon and the stars. And that's not "of course". This is not a myth, but a polemic against a myth. In Egypt and Babylon, Phoenicia and Canaan, the Sun and the Moon are the greatest gods. And from the point of view of the biblical author, their religious status is so insignificant that they do not even need to be called by their names. So, "two luminaries". Two cheat sheets for people so that they know when to go to what work and when to celebrate the One God who created these light bulbs. The fact that the words "sun" and "moon" are not used in this text means that this is a profane text. What the myth spoke about in poetic language, the Bible refuses to talk about at all, demonstratively switching to engineering terminology: "And the architect also built in two lighting systems – one main ("at the beginning of the day"), and the other emergency ("at the beginning of the night")." All! After that, there is no longer the slightest desire to worship light bulbs. Luminaries are for people, and not man is for luminaries.

And nothing more can be learned about the stars from the Bible. This will allow Galileo to remind the inquisitors that the Bible does not even list the "seven luminaries" by name, and therefore "the Bible teaches us how to ascend to heaven, and not how heaven is arranged" [2].