James Hannam

With respect, Brother Daniel, given the whole thrust of this thread is that something we learnt from High School/popular culture was wrong, bringing up another example from popular culture was extremely unhelpful. Furthermore, Stephen was using his bad example to make the point that the Catholic Church has generally been of detriment to science. This is another claim that is picked up from popular culture/high school and is usually based on false evidence (the flat earth myth) or a single case poorly understood (Galileo).

I've been fighting these prejudices for years now so perhaps I lack the patience that I should have. If Stephen was offended then I apologise. But the lesson that TV drama is not a good way to understand history should not still need to be taught. As for my own work, I agree, which is why I want to get my book published by a reputable publisher and not do it privately.

And no, Toto, the BBC is often not reliable on matters that touch on its own biases (which are broadly liberal and secular).

Best wishes

James (pka Bede)

Read Chapter One of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

James Hannam

I wish you were right! But TV producers main aim is ratings which means entertainment. It is easy to see how a conflict between the shadowy monk and the upright scholar would make the show more entertaining. After all, the subject matter was rather dry even if fascinating in its own right to you and I.

I'd disagree. I think the RCC's record on the support of science has been absolutely outstanding and without it we very probably would still be waiting for our Newton. The Galileo debacle is the exception rather than the rule (although not the only exception, I should hasten to add).

On the middle ages, you might find this interesting. For the later period, we need to turn to the history of the Jesuits in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Best wishes

James

Read Chapter One of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

James Hannam

The word protestant comes from the protest made by the German rulers sympathetic to Luther in 1529, so careful historians use the term evangelicals for before that date. Like many ecclesiastical terms, evangelical is very old but constantly reused.

Speaking as a Catholic, I am not aware of any of my co-religiousists being burnt for heresy by Protestants in Germany. Henry VIII of England burnt both sides but he was notoriously hard to please. And everyone burnt the anabaptists.

Best wishes

James

Roger Pearse

Unless I am mistaken, that is the term used at the time (anyone know for sure?). Today in Germany it would be synonymous with Lutheran, because of this (and thus not evangelical in the US, but the difference would be invisible originally).

Not that I know of, unless this was part of the atrocities in the 30-years war, but likewise I'm willing to be corrected.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Berthold

And, by the way, all of them hunted witches. Even Erasmus of Rotterdam, the much-revered luminary of humanism, was an armchair witchhunter. The witch craze proper began in the last mediaeval decades and continued rather full-force into the 17th century. It then petered out; a definitive, abrupt ending cannot be defined.

aa5874

Was Exorcism, Holy Water, making signs of the Cross, the belief in miracles and the inerrancy of sacred scriptures part of the RCC's outstanding support for science?
And can you show me where the sacred scriptures clearly states that the earth is a globe and has anti-podes?. Or where the bible states without doubt that the earth has no foundation, no end and is not on pillars.?

The RCC has propagated superstition, bogus science, for its entire history. Even today, they still claim a man was raised from the dead and went directly to heaven. Can anyone support science with that?

Chili

That is you opinion but I see it different. I would argue that they reached the historic high point of our civilization because scientific discovery was harnassed and this was done for the best of individuals and betterment of society as a whole.

One thing for sure is that they could read, and still can, because the bible never called Jesus a man. In fact, Pilate-the-non-Jew looked at "the man" and saw no fault whith him while the Jews looked at Jesus-the-Jew and convicted him according to their law. This distinction is repeated 3 times in the gospel of John so even the most hostile reader would trip over it. These passages are found in 18-29, 38, 19:5, and even in verse 7 the Jews claimed to have their own law by which this Jew was to be crucified because he was not the insurrectionist they were looking for, ie, the man of John 18 verse 40 that Pilate had isolated in verse 39.