sorompio

OK, no problem. For the sake of literallity, I can say that "Most scientific advances were made against the Church and religion". We are talking about a conflict seventeen centuries long, so obviously we'd find some exceptions.

But nobody could express himself clearly and defying openly the orthodox view of religion. Descartes always clang to orthodoxy and flattered eclesiastics, and yet had problems with religion in France and even in Holland. He never published his book "Le Monde" because it included two heretical theories that would have lead him into serious trouble: rotation of the Earth and infinity of the universe. In Holland, the most liberal country at the time, he would have been persecuted by protestants who claimed that his opinions led to atheism if the intervention of the Ambassador of France and the Prince Of Orange wouldn't have prevent it.


Just regarding the attitude of the Churches towards scientific advances, this paragraph tries to give an explanation of why Newton was an exception. Other authors suggested otherwise. Stephen Jay Gould praised the unprecedented period of open minds of the Reform in his posthumous book, but probably he does not handle any proof either.

What restrictions? How many items in astronomy can you mention that were baptized after Christian icons?
Arabic and Greek astronomy could have been known to an educated european astronomer, but that would not prevent them for using new denominations for recent discoveries.

Buridan

Anyone able to help?

Desty Nova

I personally think the planet Earth would be a great place to visit, but one could live in many places because we would long have jumped off Earth into space. We would have needed to, because the untold millions of people killed in xian wars/crusades (including the millions killed by the xian Hitler) would have survived most likely, and also lived to breed offspring, instead of being killed for "jesus".

In other words, christianity has cost ALL of us at least 14 centuries of scientific heritage.

Actually, this completely contradicts everything I have ever read, discussed, or been taught my entire life. I once (when I was 12 or so) had a teacher who (somewhat angrily) stated that everyone whould have had their own personal flying jets a THOUSAND YEARS ago if it wasn't for religion in general, and christianity in specific. Since then, I personally have adopted that statement to make a point when dealing with Fundys.

How anyone can claim the "Church was a major sponsor of science" when RIGHT NOW xians are still trying to replace science with mysticism in public schools is beyond me. :huh:

No offense, but I had to post the above quote in the "Humor" forum. I do hope this wasn't inappropriate.

-Desty

Buridan

Interesting. I have been asking several times now for relevant studies and literature about this and you seem to have read some (as I guess you don't base this on any mystical experience...).

So, which serious newer studies do you have in mind that others can learn from? What among this "everything" are works you would recommend of modern scholarly works and Historians of Science?

Beth Phillips

Maybe I am pointing out the obvious, but one thing to take note of is, if Christianity had never existed, then everyone on this forum, and the many others like it, would not have something so huge to debate/argue about! Or maybe we would, it would just be a very different 'something'!


(I know this is a serious debate, I am just attempting to lighten the load a bit...)

andrewcriddle

In evaluating Giordano Bruno, one of the issues is whether or not one agrees with the claim of the historian John Bossy in 'Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair', that Henry Fagot a pseudonymous double agent in Elizabethan London in the 1580's, (an apparent catholic sympathiser actually working as a spy for the English government). was really Giordano Bruno.

Andrew Criddle

Buridan

Interesting, again. This very much touches one aspect of Yates biography that noone has brought up so far (I guess everyone speaking about Bruno has read the standard biography, or one would not write with so much authority on him), that one reason he was executed was simply for treason.

Bede

Hi Lafcadio,

When do you date the enlightenment? I think if you want to demonstrate the Catholic Church holding back science then the period 1600 - 48 is by far your best bet. You have Bruno, Galileo and Campanella falling foul of the inquistion as well as a good deal of mystical thought appearing on the index. It would still be a tough case to prove as Galileo is the only genuine example but you can run the heliocentricism debacle quite a long way if you try hard enough (Descartes dropping his De mundo, etc). Before 1600 the Church was certainly active in support of almost all natural philosophy. After 1648 it is hard to see how it could have held back science even if it wanted to. Also, given that the centre of scientific advance in the eighteenth century was Catholic and absolutist France, it is hard to maintain that even the Index made a lot of difference.

I would not advise saying you agree with Mr Lawyer as he seems to have very little idea what he is talking about. He started this thread claiming all scientific advances were opposed by the church and has since refused to provide any documentation or references for any of his claims. He dismissed modern scholarship as 'Orwellian revisionism'. The similarity between some posters on this thread and biblical fundamentalists who refuse to even look at modern critical scholarship (which might upset a few of their cherished beliefs) is quite striking.

Best wishes

Bede

Johann_Kaspar

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Thank you, thank you very much for mentioning Descartes!
First, you are not without knowing that Descartes was not in France when he wrote almost all - if not all - his books. He was in Holland most of the time, he was in Bavaria, he died in Stockholm. But why didn't he stay in his own country...

Second, you are quite right when you wrote "in about the same period"... you know also quite well that in about the same period Galileo was condemned by... hmmm ... I cannot remember by whom... oh, but that is not important, I think... I guess... well, he was condemned in 1633. You are also not without knowing that in about the same period (well I am sure that you will tell us: from 1629 to 1633) Descartes was writing a book Traité du Monde et de la lumière. And where did he write this book Oooohhh but this is it: in Holland! Well, to make a long story shor, it happened that Descartes got notice of the fate of Galileo. So what did he do? Please, please, tell us the end of this very interesting and enlightening story...

Oh and by the way, you did not answer my previous question about whom Bruno did copy... Come on, I am sure that with all your knowledge this is an easy job.

Johann_Kaspar

You know what happened in 1277, don't you?