You know what the "Interfaith"-concept reminds me of? Conspiracy-theorists.

[DetlefK]

19. Of course, experimental trial-and-error preceded that. But science also concerns theoretical models.

China developed gun-powder, but I doubt that they had a theory of chemical reactions.

The Arabs developed optical lenses, but I doubt that they had a theory on the nature of light.

The Vikings had "sunstones" (polarization-filters made from crystal that allowed them to locate the sun even when it's cloudy). But that doesn't mean they had a model of what solids are made of.

Otto von Guericke made famous vacuum-experiments mid-17th century, but he had no theory on the nature of gases.



What's critical here is the philosophical step that humans are even capable of using the laws of nature for their own ends. This was a clear step away from "God wills it."

Another critical component is a mindset that ceased to exist with the end of the Renaissance:
"Anything old is better than anything new. The present is a poor, corrupted offshot of a golden past. Old explanations are best and only fools would doubt them or even try to replace them with new explanations."
There wasn't even the mindset that theories should be tested and treated according to their abilities to make accurate predictions! Old theories were automatically considered correct, because they contained the wisdom of the elders. The older, the correcter.

Nowadays we have the mindset "newer is better" and the other mindset seems thoroughly alien to us.