That’s quite possibly true, but it was the adaptation of classical rationalism by Christianity that led to modern science. Greek rationalism was perhaps a necessary, but definitely not a sufficient, condition.

_ For christians it took more than a millenia [sic] to rediscover it_

That, I’m afraid, is utter nonsense. Do the names Augustine, Anselm, Lombard, Abelard, and Aquinas mean anything to you? Augustine developed his thought, modeled to a large degree on Plato, in the 5th century. Anselm wrote in the 11th, and Aquinas adapted Aristotle in the 13th. True, there’s about a 500 year gap between Augustine and the greatest Christian theologians of the Middle Ages, but a) that had more to do with barabarian depradations (including the Vikings) and time to recover from the collapse of Rome than it did with Christianity, and b) it was not a period of inactivity for Christian philosophy. Saint Benedict, for example, wrote in the 6th century. Missionaries to what is now Germany were combining classical ideas with Christian belief in those years. The idea that the years from 500 to 1500 AD were an age of darkness and superstition superceded by an age of recovery of lost knowledge that led to further supercession by the “Enlightenment” is a self-serving myth created by certain 18th century figures like Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, and Kant. Read a little history.

Well, that´s discusable. It was the greeks who first started to think in terms of natural causes, including in the field of medicine. So maybe without the thinking and philosophy of the greeks, the modern rational method of scientific rationality wouldn´t have been inveted at all. For christians it took more than a millenia to rediscover it, and couriously the moment that civilization started using it, it also started a path down into becoming a secularized one. So no, rationality does not depend on God, as much as christian theologians have tried – in vain- to link both concepts.

Silly me. I thought the roots of western medicine lied in ancient polytheistic Greece, with Hypocrathes as its father.

That seems discusable. I will change more by something like:

“It is a diverse and often merely tacit set of claims about our ultimate ends as human beings unified by the consensus that our final end is not necesarely to know and worship God”.

Or in other words, it is a consensus that people ought to be free from any consensus regarding religious matters, since that is a private election, not a public imposed one.