Christianity and Science

[Perun]

“….how did the dominance of Christianity affect the knowledge of, and attitudes towards nature? The standard answer, developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and widely propagated in the twentieth, maintains that Christianity presented serious obstacles to the advancement of science and, indeed, sent the scientific enterprise into a tailspin from which it did not recover for more than a thousand years. The truth, as we shall see, is far different and much more complicated.



One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was groadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition. Naturally enough, the kind and level of education and intellectual effort favored by the Church Fathers that which supported the mission of the Church as they perceived it….whether this represents a blow against the scientific enterprise or modest, but welcome, support for it depends largely on the attitudes and expectations that one brings to the question. If we compare the early church with a modern research university or the National Science Foundation, the church will prove to have failed abysmally as a supporter of science and natural philosophy. But such a comparison is obviously unfair. If, instead, we compare the support given to the study of nature by the early church with support available from any other contemporary social institution, it will become clear that the church was one of the major patrons – perhaps the major patron – of scientific learning. Its patronage may have been limited and selective, but limited and selected patronage is better than no patronage at all. But a critic to view the early church as an obstacle to scientific progress might argue that the handmaiden status accorded natural philosophy is inconsistent with the existence of genuine science. True science, this critic would maintain, cannot be the handmaiden of anything, but must process total autonomy; consequently, the “disciplined” science that Augustine sought is no science at all. The appropriate response is that totally autonomous science is an attractive ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. Many of the most important developments in the history of science have been produced by people committed not to autonomous science, but to science in the service of some ideology, social program, or practical end; for much of its history, the question has not been whether science will function as handmaiden, but which mistress it will serve.”

--David C. Lindberg The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 pg.149-51



“The contribution of the religious culture of the early Middle Ages to the scientific movement was thus one of preservation and transmission. The monasteries served as the transmitters of literacy and a thin version of the Classical tradition(including science or natural philosophy) through a period when literacy and scholarship were severely threatened. Without them, Western Europe would not have more science, but less.”

--inbid. pg.157

[Milesian]

To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress
(Motu-proprio, Ut mysticum, 14 March, 1891).


Apply yourselves energetically to the study of natural sciences: the brilliant discoveries and the bold and useful applications of them made in our times which have won such applause by our contemporaries will be an object of perpetual praise for those that come after us
(Leo XIII. Alloc., March 7, 1880).

[Ederico]

Thanks, I welcome more material on this vein.

[Cristoforo]

As long as any religion maintains a dogma, it will NEVER be compatible with science.

Said this, I am not denying that ironically the Church may have been crucial to start something that ultimately disproved her "truth" but the trouble brilliant people like Copernicus (who ironically was a Priest) and Galileo had to face makes me look with suspect at any religion.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

As long as any religion maintains a dogma, it will NEVER be compatible with science


Said this, I am not denying that ironically the Church may have been crucial to start something that ultimately disproved her "truth" but the trouble brilliant people like Copernicus (who ironically was a Priest) and Galileo had to face makes me look with suspect at any religion.

Copernicus and Gallileo did not face problems with their scientific theories from the Church, but rather from the prevaling scientific orthodoxy of the day.
Men such as Tycho Brahe and Lord Bacon for instance also rejected Heliocentrism.

Also Gallileo's work was published at the behest of senior Churchmen

[Awar]

I hope you realize how silly this all is.

I utterly respect the right of people to preserve their religious tradition,
but only up to a reasonable, common-sense level. For most of its time, the
christian churches were neither reasonable nor common sense.

The medieval times are a clear evidence of that.

If you say you want the return to absolute dogma, and absolute obedience to such an institution, I question your sincerity, and your progressive European orientation.

Religion is religion, respect your gods, but, please don't expect me to put trust in an institution that has no safety break. The scientific progress was stopped and even reversed during the times when the church was the most powerful institution on earth.
It only picked up with the weakening of the dogmas.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Awar

I hope you realize how silly this all is.

I utterly respect the right of people to preserve their religious tradition,
but only up to a reasonable, common-sense level. For most of its time, the
christian churches were neither reasonable nor common sense.

The medieval times are a clear evidence of that.

In what way?

If you say you want the return to absolute dogma, and absolute obedience to such an institution, I question your sincerity, and your progressive European orientation.

"In essentials - Orthodoxy. In non-essentials - Liberty. In all things - charity" - St Augustine

Religion is religion, respect your gods, but, please don't expect me to put trust in an institution that has no safety break. The scientific progress was stopped and even reversed during the times when the church was the most powerful institution on earth.
It only picked up with the weakening of the dogmas.

Examples?


Personally, I don't see Christianity being any more dogmatic than the self-annihilating faith of Scientism.

[Milesian]

"When such a critic says, for instance, that faith kept the world in darkness until doubt led to enlightenment, he is himself taking things on faith, things that he has never been sufficiently enlightened to doubt. That exceedingly crude simplification of human history is what he has been taught, and he believes it because he has been taught. I do not blame him for that; I merely remark that he is an unconscious example of everything that he reviles."

"The other day a well-known writer, otherwise quite well-informed, said that the Catholic Church is always the enemy of new ideas. It probably did not occur to him that his own remark was not exactly in the nature of a new idea. It is one of the notions that Catholics have to be continually refuting, because it is such a very old idea. Indeed, those who complain that Catholicism cannot say anything new, seldom think it necessary to say anything new about Catholicism. As a matter of fact, a real study of history will show it to be curiously contrary to the fact. In so far as the ideas really are ideas, and in so far as any such ideas can be new, Catholics have continually suffered through supporting them when they were really new; when they were much too new to find any other support. The Catholic was not only first in the field but alone in the field; and there was as yet nobody to understand what he had found there."


G.K. Chesterton

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

In what way?

http://www.suu.edu/scps/courses/hist1010/topic11.htm

"In essentials - Orthodoxy. In non-essentials - Liberty. In all things - charity" - St Augustine

The wisdom of the individual is irrelevant when the entire institution
is acting like a power-hungry animal.

Examples?

There was a long example which lasted from the early medieval times,
right up to today. If we're talking about all Christian churches, you can see nice examples in the US "bible belt", or, if we're talking about all religions, then the entire world.

Personally, I don't see Christianity being any more dogmatic than Scientism.

It isn't any more dogmatic. That's just human nature, and the way various institutions become through time. If the church should want a role as the leader of humanity, then it sould reform itself in such a way that it would be impossible for it to fall victim to its own bureaucracy, and the subsequent corruption.

Power doesn't only corrupt, it also attracts individuals prone to corruption,
if the internal structure of an institution isn't immune to such corruptions and manipulations, then it shouldn't be revered.

It's like if we had a member who's an employee of Microsoft who is emotionally attached to the gigantic corporation which stiffles free progress of IT everywhere in the world, just to make a buck more.

I understand that you all have a great love for your religion, but, there
are many things which should be improved with it, not turned a blind eye to it.

Or, we're destined to repeat the mistakes from past, up until the punishment becomes execution.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

"When such a critic says, for instance, that faith kept the world in darkness until doubt led to enlightenment, he is himself taking things on faith, things that he has never been sufficiently enlightened to doubt. That exceedingly crude simplification of human history is what he has been taught, and he believes it because he has been taught. I do not blame him for that; I merely remark that he is an unconscious example of everything that he reviles."

"The other day a well-known writer, otherwise quite well-informed, said that the Catholic Church is always the enemy of new ideas. It probably did not occur to him that his own remark was not exactly in the nature of a new idea. It is one of the notions that Catholics have to be continually refuting, because it is such a very old idea. Indeed, those who complain that Catholicism cannot say anything new, seldom think it necessary to say anything new about Catholicism. As a matter of fact, a real study of history will show it to be curiously contrary to the fact. In so far as the ideas really are ideas, and in so far as any such ideas can be new, Catholics have continually suffered through supporting them when they were really new; when they were much too new to find any other support. The Catholic was not only first in the field but alone in the field; and there was as yet nobody to understand what he had found there."


G.K. Chesterton

Would you please elaborate on that, Mr.Chesterton

You whine about being persecuted because of your 'new ideas', and whine about others' oversimplification of history, but you do the same oversimplification yourself.

So, Mr.Chesterton, what were these New Ideas of the Catholic church ?
Why be so vague about it? What lasting good have these ideas brought unto Europe? Who oversimplified history, and in what way?

Mr. Chesterton, from this, and your previous statements, I gather that you'd say anything to support your church. While I find nothing wrong with supporting your loved ones, I do find your character to be questionable.

[Awar]

btw. I really don't see why you guys quote Chesterton and Belloc, when both of you are infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than either of them. Very pompus and self-righteous, but rarely on-point and truly wise.

It's like pulling out quotes from Grimr, or something.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Awar

http://www.suu.edu/scps/courses/hist1010/topic11.htm

What I see here is mostly a way of life which was contemporary with those times. It is wrong to judge past events through modern sensibilities.
I do not argue that there was some political ambition amongst some of the Popes. The Popes are not personally infalliable, in fact we have had some downright rotten Popes - a fact confirmed by Popes themselves.

But I don't see they acted any worse than the majority of temporal rulers anyway.

Despite the ambitions of some individuals, the teaching has always been the Temporal and Spiritual powers working in concert for the good of all

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

The wisdom of the individual is irrelevant when the entire institution
is acting like a power-hungry animal.

Again, it could be said that this is based on the ambitions of some individuals. The Popes of then were Temporal rulers as well and acted as such oft-times

There was a long example which lasted from the early medieval times,right up to today

I'm afraid that's too vague.

If we're talking about all Christian churches, you can see nice examples in the US "bible belt",

Depends if you class them as Christians. I tend to think of that as a situation peculiar to America

or, if we're talking about all religions, then the entire world.

That's a very sweeping comment

It isn't any more dogmatic. That's just human nature, and the way various institutions become through time. If the church should want a role as the leader of humanity, then it sould reform itself in such a way that it would be impossible for it to fall victim to its own bureaucracy, and the subsequent corruption.

What would you propose?

Power doesn't only corrupt, it also attracts individuals prone to corruption,
if the internal structure of an institution isn't immune to such corruptions and manipulations, then it shouldn't be revered.

Nothing on earth if completely free from corruption, therefore nothing is worthy of being revered?
Also at work is the adage - "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"

It's like if we had a member who's an employee of Microsoft who is emotionally attached to the gigantic corporation which stiffles free progress of IT everywhere in the world, just to make a buck more.

But again, that's working on the belief that the Church stifled knowledge and enlightenment when in fact it was involved in many breakthroughs

I understand that you all have a great love for your religion, but, there
are many things which should be improved with it, not turned a blind eye to it.

I don't turn a blind eye. That's why I criticise the current heirarchy.
I simply feel the need to counter claims if I feel they are not fair or are unwarranted

Or, we're destined to repeat the mistakes from past, up until the punishment becomes execution.

Some day, you may be remembered for that astute quote, St AWAR

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

What I see here is mostly a way of life which was contemporary with those times. It is wrong to judge past events through modern sensibilities.

Exactly. I don't judge the people from the past, I just don't think such times should repeat themselves.

My sensibility has nothing to do with anything really. To me, it's obvious that ( for example ) the repression of sexuality brought unto these modern times a spread of decadent oversexuality.

Sex was put under 'taboo' in the past, and then it exploded, and for that reason was put on a piedestal by the people. There was no limit as to the level of which it was under-rug-swept in the past, and now, there's no limit to how overbloated its importance became.

That's what I'm talking about. Fine tuning of what is revered, and what is
forbidden/suggested-against. So nothing becomes hidden, and nothing becomes overbloated.

Humans have short lifespans, compared to the long-term causes and effects which apper during the lifespan of a civilization. What we choose today will affect our descendants, just like the choices of our ancestors
affect us today in more ways than we can cope with.

I do not argue that there was some political ambition amongst some of the Popes. The Popes are not personally infalliable, in fact we have had some downright rotten Popes - a fact confirmed by Popes themselves.

But I don't see they acted any worse than the majority of temporal rulers anyway.


Again, it could be said that this is based on the ambitions of some individuals. The Popes of then were Temporal rulers as well and acted as such oft-times

This is the nature of all true rulers. The idea is to put a safety break onto them

Despite the ambitions of some individuals, the teaching has always been the Temporal and Spiritual powers working in concert for the good of all

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

The teachings are always OK, it's the interpretations which screw it all up.
Not only that, but the firmly oligarchic rule which doesn't really give a toss for the teachings, unless it serves their selfish purposes.

Depends if you class them as Christians. I tend to think of that as a situation peculiar to America

It's also a cut-out from Europe's past. They were cut from Europe's soil centuries ago, and pasted onto US soil, where they remained on the same level.

What would you propose?

Would take too long to explain.
Let's just say healthy basis, with tradition as root, and ratio as the future.

Nothing on earth if completely free from corruption, therefore nothing is worthy of being revered?
Also at work is the adage - "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"

I encourage you to revere God.

But again, that's working on the belief that the Church stifled knowledge and enlightenment when in fact it was involved in many breakthroughs

While it could have produced many many more, and done much more good than it did. The church should be an institution which hungers for doing good, not just a good act

I don't turn a blind eye. That's why I criticise the current heirarchy.
I simply feel the need to counter claims if I feel they are not fair or are unwarranted

Well, I can only really comment on the Serbian Orthodox church, whose involvement in our history was mostly catastrophic.

Some day, you may be remembered for that astute quote, St AWAR

Thanks St.Milesian. It's comforting to know that my mumified remains will be sold as lucky charms

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Milesian

But again, that's working on the belief that the Church stifled knowledge and enlightenment when in fact it was involved in many breakthroughs

I believe that such a belief is mostly a generalisation resulting mostly from Anti-Clerical thought streams. However, if you are up to it, to prove that what I stated is correct, do highlight the breakthroughs involving the Catholic Church as a direct and indirect agent of intellectual and scientific development. Links/Quotations/Anything would help.