[Awar]

I hate the internet

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

Popular lore, movies, and children’s stories hold that in 1492 Christopher Columbus proved the world is round and in the process defeated years of dogged opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which insisted that the earth is flat. These tales are rooted in books like A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University. White claimed that even after Columbus’ return “the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray.”

The trouble is, almost every word of White’s account of the Columbus story is a lie. All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.

Well this is partially a lie of this author, because most
of the media about Columbus I come across DO NOT mention any conflict between the church and Columbus regarding earth's shape.

There was a confusion regarding the size of earth.

The religious figures who challenged Columbus and advised against funding him not only knew the earth was round, they also knew it was far larger than Columbus thought; they opposed his plan only on the grounds that he had badly underestimated the circumference of the earth and was counting on much too short a voyage. Columbus claimed that it was about 2,800 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan, when it is actually around 14,000 miles.

Ah, as I said. This is the only conflict mentioned, and usually it is said that BOTH parties were unsure of the exact circumference.

Had the Western Hemisphere not surprised him, Columbus and his crew would have died at sea.

Ah... unfortunately for Columbus' opponents, he came across some land there. Too bad for the author of this text also.

So, why does the fable of the Catholic Church’s ignorance and opposition to the truth persist? Because the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes and Andrew Dickson White through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith.”

The truth is, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science. Indeed, the fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science--a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic specialists.

Umm, nope, that's not true.

The theology itself only introduces us into set standards, which are the cause for dogma. If some scientists chose to disregard dogmas and to seek out knowledge while being funded by church-the institution, it's their achievment alone.

Many important and beneficial inventions were achieved by scientists working for this or that repressive and destructive regime. Usually, these achievments are credited to the scientist, not the regime.

Why should the achievments made by men who lived in an era when the church was politically at its peak be ascribed to the church?

Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a “Dark Ages” after the “fall” of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress,

Blatant lie.

by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world.

Another lie. Europe only surpassed the rest of the world thanks to industrial revolution which happened a lot later than medieval times,
and especially has nothing to do with the 'dark ages' which lasted circa 500AD - 1000AD.

Moreover, the so-called “Scientific Revolution” of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century.

So? First of all, the 16th century wasn't a part of the medieval times,
and ALL scientific inventions have roots in other, earlier scientific achievments.

Without the invention of the wheel, there'd be nothing worth mentioning,
so, are we supposed to worship the shamans of that age?

In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

Another lie. Science DID develop in all other civilizations on earth.
Whether it was called 'science' is besides the point.

Up until the 18th century, the Chinese were always way ahead of Europeans in all aspects of what can be called 'science'.
I say it's the benefit of living in an organized society, where knowledge is preserved and exceptional individuals who create are supported by institutions, so they can do their stuff.

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork.

So, is the author of this text a mind-reader?

How does he know if someone is truly a believer and a devout religious person?

At the time, it wasn't recommendable for a European not to be ( act as )
a devout christian.

My studies show that the “Enlightenment” was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science.

Ah, those damned organized militant atheists! Damn them to hell
Do I smell a conspiracy theory?

The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise--a pattern that continues today.

If religion = dogma, and if dogma = wrong in it's conclusions,
then religion = enemy of science.

Simple.

I find that through the centuries (including right up to the present day), professional scientists have remained about as religious as the rest of the population--and far more religious than their academic colleagues in the arts and social sciences.

Ah, the author is a mind-reader of masses of people living and dead.

Having immersed myself for some years in recent historical studies on this subject I can report that these conclusions now enjoy a consensus among historians of science. Yet these truths are almost entirely unknown outside narrow scholarly circles. If asked, most well-informed people would express their absolute certainty that most of this could not possibly be true--I used to share that view. What follows is my attempt to formulate a more accurate picture of the history of the association between theology and science. It has been an extraordinarily creative relationship.

Yuh... if I only could ask all those 'scholars' in person, they'd say they agree with the author, but I can't. I wonder why.

Science is not merely technology. A society does not have science simply because it can build sailing ships, smelt iron, or fashion porcelain dishes. Science is a method used to formulate systematic explanations of nature, always subject to future modification and correction.

Wow! The only true part of the entire article, it seems.

The technical innovations of prehistory, of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of Imperial China, do not constitute science. Even when they were built on careful empirical observation, they mostly lacked the explanations and accurate theorizing that distinguish science.

Of course science lacked in earlier times, it was incomplete, at its beginnings.

Sciences complement eachother, new tools bring more precision to old sciences, and create new sciences which help explain previously unknowable areas of other sciences.

Aristotle, for example, taught that the speed at which objects fall to earth is proportionate to their weight. That means a stone twice as heavy as another will fall twice as fast. A trip to any of the nearby cliffs would have allowed him to falsify this proposition.

So? Based on one flaw of Aristotle, the author tries to discredit all pre-christian-era science work. Nice try, Rodney, you almost had me going there for a minute.

It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy.

This all happened during times when the influence of the church was diminishing,
and sciences complemented eachother to a larger extent.

And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe--the so-called Dark Ages.

Nope, it mostly happened some 700-800 years AFTER the so-called Dark Ages.

I'll continue later...