rob117

And don't forget Higher Criticism- up until about the mid-19th century, any attempt to use literary criticism to determine when, where, and by whom the biblical books were written was explicitly forbidden by the Catholic Church. See opening section of Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman for a brief history of this. For a much more detailed history, there was actually a pretty decent episode on the History Channel about it, although I forgot which show it was.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Right. And I suppose it's just a coincidence that after he became a priest in 1675 he never wrote another book, even though he lived until 1686. Steno appears to have been on the verge of refuting the Flood myth, when he mysteriously ceased writing. As it stands, his work can be seen as shoring up the Flood myth. Having stopped short of blasphemy, he can now be regarded as a safe, "pet" scientist by the Catholic Church, which wants to cannonize him for his geological work (he does not appear to have been a particularly distinguished cleric). In addition, Answers in Genesis wrote this little love note to him. I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to be lauded (rather than persecuted) by Christianity for your scientific work, it's best to know when to stop digging.

GakuseiDon

Here is an interesting article, which suggest that the political climate rather than religious one was one of the factors affecting scientific development. But people tended to express their political views through religious institutions. Interestingly, he claims that, had Darwin published in the 1780s, his views would have had provoked less antagonism than had he published in the 1830s, when he first developed his theory.

From here (my emphasis throughout): http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect1.htm
The author suggests that there was a desire to link the new science with orthodox religion from the end of the 17th century:

spin

The history in BC&H is strictly related to the areas covered by biblical literature.

I must concur with Chris Weimer.

Moderators: This thread doesn't seem to be related to BC&H.

Philadelphia Lawyer

I'm not sure how this is responsive to the point I was making, which was that Christianity rewrites history to show that it "always accepted" scientific advances which it in fact fought against every step of the way. Are you now claiming that the attacks on Darwin were politically, as well as religiously, motivated? If so, then I agree. The two were, and continue to be, related. Anti-scientific religious dogmatism and reactionary politics go hand in hand. For example, Wilberforce was the bishop of Oxford. He held office in an established Church and at a university reserved for Anglicans. To the extent that Darwin's theory contradicted Christianity (including Anglicanism), it attacked the grounds for his exalted standing and priveleged social position. From the same article you quoted:

Again, I'm not sure how this is responsive to my point. From the material you quoted:

Sure, the new "natural" theologians preferred to have a theology that could (a) appeal to reasonable people and (b) reconcile science with scripture and religion generally. Why wouldn't they? The problem is what happens when this becomes impossible without either suppressing science or changing the meaning of supposedly "timeless" scripture and religion.

On a broader level, I cannot help wondering what it is that you and Bede are arguing for. We are talking about a religion (Christianity) whose dominant institution (the Roman Catholic Church) maintained a list of banned books for over 400 years (from the 1500's until 1966). On this list were not only some of the great works of science, but also those of philosophy, history, literature, etc. I have always assumed that two of the pre-requisites for the scientific method are free thought and unfettered inquiry. Is this not so? If it is, then how is that reconcilable with a list of banned books?

I concede that, prior to the Renaissance, the Church did not seriously impede science. I don't agree with the view of the O.P. that Christianity suppressed the wonders of Greek and Roman science and set progress back a thousand years. I also concede that by preserving some level of literacy and learning through the Dark Ages, and by establishing universities, the Church actually facilitated the take off of scientific thought that began with the Renaissance.

What I don't get is how you can maintain that Christianity has done anything but hinder science since the Renaissance. Once the scientific explosion unleashed by the Renaissance started to challenge Christian dogma, the Church reversed itself. It started to censor and persecute. It tried to control thought with methods that can only be described as totalitarian. Why do you deny this?

From perusing Bede's site and looking at some of the "revisionist" literature, it seems to me that there are basically two lines of argument. One is nothing more than the presuppositionist argument that we see all the time around here. Namely, that there is something unique about Christianity that entitles it to lay claim to the historical development and use of logic and empiricism. As usual, this argument ignores the facts that all cultures use logic and empiricism, and that the formal system of logic was developed by the ancient Greeks centuries before Christianity was invented. The second line of argument seems to focus on the fact that the scientists themselves were at least nominal Christians, and that theology and science were not unrelated in the earlier centuries. As for the first point, what else could the scientists be? As it was, they were risking trouble just by coming up with theories that challenged Christian dogma. What chance would they have had of staying alive, let alone publishing, it they publicly proclaimed themselves heretics? As for the second point, what is its significance? Yes, science was related to theology. You might even say that it grew out of theology. But once it did so it became a threat to Christian orthodoxy, which then tried to suppress it.

Beyond this, all I'm seeing is nitpicking and casuistry. Such and such scientist wasn't burned at the stake for his science, but for his theology. Such and such book wasn't banned because it challenged Christian dogma, but for some technical reason. Such and such scientific theory wasn't opposed for theological reasons (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary), but on scientific grounds. And so on.

Toto

At the time it was changed from "Biblical Criticism and Archeology" to "Biblical Criticism and History" the mandate of this forum was defined to include Christian history up to medieval times. The Renaissance and more modern times are stretching it, but there is no other forum for this topic.

Wads4

This is all very true;the barbarians played a very significant role. I believe many of them though, like the Goths were themselves Arian Christians and therefore had no interest in maintaining an earthly (Roman) empire, as they expected soon to be in the next life. Also the Roman army was depleted by hordes of fit young men refusing to join up, and instead becoming monks in the desert. Then there were persecutions of pagans and pagan learning by Theodosius and Justinian in particular, who finally ruined classical learning by closing the pagan temples and academies. I myself have seen some Egyptian temples where the images have been defaced and large quantities of hieroglyphic writing (hymns to the gods) have been methodically chiseled out once the go-ahead was given by the new Christian rulers.

Wads4

Depends what you call "scientific"; Science was originally Natural Philosophy.

Bede

Dear Mr Lawyer,

I'm a final year PhD student with a full state scholarship in History of Science at one of the world's leading universities. As for you.... if you really are a lawyer I hope you don't take such a cavaleir attitude towards evidence as you are here.

I know we historians are felt to be a bit flaky compared to scientists but we do have standards. Among them is not using century old popular histories that have been utterly debunked by our coleagues. Here's what a few current professional) historians think of Mr Lawyer's contention that the church opposed science every step of the way:

Here's what they think of Andrew Dickson White:

From Lindberg and Numbers, here:

On the contrary, I've provided schoarly authorites that refute these claims. You have simply waved your arms and shouted profanities as if that helps your case.

You answer Trexmaster's question rather well. He asked, where did the conflict myth come from? Answer: hard core anti-Christians invented it and now cling to it despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is part of the atheist creation myth that seeks to put science on a pedestal and denigrates religion. They keep the myth going in popular books and shouting louder than the scholars who have refuted it. The process has been studied and found to date back from the anti-Church writings of Voltaire, D'Alembert and other French philosophes.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Wads4

Oh I'm sure. Christianity prides itself on it ability to adapt-at least according to its own definitions. One day we may perhaps see another book added to the Bible.. "Behold I raise up my servant Charles Darwin my dearly beloved Son and true prophet who has confounded the Creationist nay-sayers. Thou shalt honour and obey him, lest ye be cast into everlasting hell-fire, where there is a wailing and a gnashing of teeth."