Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 10-05-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buridan

I have been following this debate for some days and would appreciate some info on which Historian of Science (or other Historian) or modern text book (in any language) it is that supports the highly negative view that has been expressed here on the Church's influence on the development of science (supporting stuff like the long left "warfare thesis" of White)?

The ones I have got on History of Science from any University Press from the last decades support Bede, so please help me find a serious study supporting what seems to be the infidel view to put on my reading list.

Let's try "The Outline of History" by HG Wells, 1940, my edition 1961

Quote:

We speak of these great religions of mankind which arose between the Persian conquest of Babylon and the break up of the Roman Empire as rivals; but it is their defects, their accumulations and excresences, their difference of language and phrase, that cause the rivalry; and it is not to one overcoming the other or to any variant replacing them that we must look, but to the white (sic) truth in each being burnt free from its dross, and becoming manifestly the same truth - namely, that the hearts of men (sic), and therewith all the lives and institutions of men (sic), must be subdued to one common Will (sic) ruling them all. "St Paul" says Dean Inge in one of his Outspoken Essays (italicised) "understood what most christians never realize, namely that the Gospel of Christ is not a (italicised) religion but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.

And though much has been written foolishly about the antagonism of science and religion, there is indeed, no such antagonism. What all these world religions declare by inspiration and insight, history as it grows clearer, and science as its range extends, display, as a reasonable and demonstrable fact, that men (sic) form one universal brotherhood (sic), that they spring from one common origin, that their individual lives, their nations and races, interbreed and blend and go on to merge at last in one common human destiny upon this little planet amidst the stars.....

Isn't the problem more that religion is not clearly defined by the proponents of no conflict, and the underlying assumptions of these historians about the value or not of religion are not explicit?

Philadelphia Lawyer · 10-05-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buridan

I have been following this debate for some days and would appreciate some info on which Historian of Science (or other Historian) or modern text book (in any language) it is that supports the highly negative view that has been expressed here on the Church's influence on the development of science (supporting stuff like the long left "warfare thesis" of White)?

The ones I have got on History of Science from any University Press from the last decades support Bede, so please help me find a serious study supporting what seems to be the infidel view to put on my reading list.

I honestly don't think there is any. I think part of the problem is that the writing of the history of the interaction between Christianity and science has, to some extent, been hijacked by Christian apologists. Even scholars who themselves are members of the "revisionist" school admit that this is a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hedey Brooke

Religious apologists have also fallen into the same trap as White and Draper in projecting backward a model—in this case of harmony—that, although consonant with their own reconstructed religion, may not fit the religious beliefs of the past. The danger consists in imagining some essence of Christianity for example, that, because it may be shown to be immune to scientific criticism today, is assumed always to have existed and therefore, properly understood, is always impervious to criticism.

link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindberg and Numbers

First, to insure that we will not be misunderstood, we wish to assert plainly that our displeasure with White's warfare thesis is matched by our aversion to its converse. That is, in denying that unremitting hostility and conflict have characterized the relationship between Christianity and science, we do not in any way mean to suggest that Christianity and science have been perennial allies. Such an interpretation, though widely held in some circles, particularly among Christian apologists, fails to pass historical muster.

link

Also, scholars like Lindberg and Numbers, who themselves decry apologetics posing as history, are, in my opinion, guilty of the nitpicking and oversubtlety that I described in some of my earlier posts.

Take the case of heliocentrism.

Quote:

White's picture of unremitting religious hostility to heliocentrism is no longer defensible-if, indeed, it ever was. If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him- Nicole Oresme (a bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicholas of Cusa (a cardinal) in the fifteenth-had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir. Indeed, various churchmen, including a bishop and a cardinal, urged Copernicus to publish his book, which appeared with a dedication to Pope Paul III. Had Copernicus lived beyond its publication in 1543, it is highly improbable that he would have felt any hostility or suffered any persecution. The church simply had more important things to worry about than a new astronomical or cosmological system. Although a few critics noticed and opposed the Copernican system, organized Catholic opposition did not appear until the seventeenth century. . .

The details of Galileo's condemnation need not detain us long. Galileo's campaign on behalf of Copernicanism was halted abruptly in 1616, when the Holy Office declared the heliocentric doctrine heretical- though at the time Galileo faced no physical threat. Eight years later Galileo received permission from the new pope, the scholarly Urban VIII, to write about the Copernican system as long as he treated it as merely hypothesis. After many delays, Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appeared in 1632. In it, Galileo not only unambiguously defended the heliocentric system as physically true, but also made the tactical mistake of placing the pope's admonition about its hypothetical character in the mouth of the slow-witted Aristotelian, Simplicio. Although the official imprimatur of the church had been secured, Galileo's enemies, including the now angry Urban VIII, determined to bring him to trial. The inquisition ulti- mately condemned Galileo and forced him to recant. Although sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life, he lived comfortably in a villa outside Florence. He was neither tortured nor imprisoned-simply silenced. The Galileo affair was a multi-faceted event. Certainly it raised serious questions about the relationship between reason and revelation and the proper means of reconciling the teachings of nature with those of scripture. Nonetheless, it was not a matter of Christianity waging war on science. All of the participants called themselves Christians, and all acknowledged biblical authority. This was a struggle between opposing theories of biblical interpretation: a conservative theory issuing from the Council of Trent versus Galileo's more liberal alternative, both well precedented in the history of the church. Personal and political factors also played a role, as Galileo demonstrated his flair for cultivating enemies in high places.

Here is a link to an interview with Lindberg, in which he purports to debunk the Galileo "myth". See also, here.

All of this seems to slide over the essential facts. As for Copernicus, while it is true that he was not personally persecuted, his book "De Revolutionibus" was placed on the list of banned books in 1616, link. In the same year, the Church formally declared that heliocentrism was a "forbidden proposition". See this article at page 105 and page 3 of the pdf.

In the case of Galileo, despite all of the alleged "debunkings", the following essential elements of the "myth" about him remain undisturbed:

(1) That Galileo wrote a scientific book ("Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems") endorsing heliocentrism.
(2) That the official body of the Church in charge of censorship threatened him with imprisonment if he did not recant the views expressed in the book.
(3) That he did recant.
(4) That he was sentenced to home imprisonment (however comfy) and forbidden to discuss his ideas.
(5) That his book was added to the index librorum prohibitorum.

It might also be worth mentioning that Kepler's book defending heliocentrism was also placed on the index. See here. Copernicus', Galileo's and Kepler's books were kept on the index for the next 200 years.

According to Lindberg and Numbers, all of the above is somehow inconsistent with White's picture of "unrelenting religious hostility to heliocentrism." Certainly, one can agree that unearthing the details and nuances of Galileo's trial in particular and the heliocentrism controversy in general is interesting and useful work, and is the proper role of modern historians. But how has any of it disproven White's essential thesis: that the Church was hostile to the idea of heliocentrism and used the powers at its disposal to try to squelch it? I submit that it hasn't.

Turning to the controversy over the theory of evolution, here is what Numbers and Lindberg say:

Quote:

We are not suggesting that all was harmony-that serious conflict did not exist-only that it was not the simple bipolar warfare described by White. Recent scholarship suggests that Darwinism produced conflict in at least three different ways. According to James R. Moore, the Darwinian debates created conflict, not between scientists and theologians, but within individual minds experiencing a "crisis of faith" as they struggled to come to terms with new historical and scientific discoveries. It was, he writes, a "conflict of minds steeped in Christian tradition with the ideas and implications of Darwinism."

Neal C. Gillespie has argued that the conflict involved competing systems of science or "epistemes," the older of which rested on theological assumptions while the newer one, associated with Darwin, rejected religion as a means of knowing the world and insisted on an interpretation of nature that involved only natural, secondary causes. "Because the new episteme for science differed from the old in having within it no place for theology," he explains, "serious questions were thereby raised that made the conflict, sometimes dismissed as an illusion or a mistake, very real indeed." Such conflict, arising from transformations within science, had little to do with warring scientists and clerics.

Frank M. Turner has offered still a third way of viewing the Darwinian controversies. The "Victorian conflict between religious and scientific spokesmen," he claims, resulted not from hostility between progressive science and retrogressive theology, as White would claim, but from a "shift of authority and prestige ... from one part of the intellectual nation to another," as professionalizing scientists sought to banish the clergy from the scientific enterprise and end their control of education. According to Turner, the positivist episteme described by Gillespie

"constituted both a cause and a weapon. The 'young guard' agreed among themselves that science should be pursued without regard for religious dogma, natural theology, or the opinions of religious authorities.... The drive to organize a more professionally oriented scientific community and to define science in a more critical fashion brought the crusading scientists into conflict with two groups of people. The first were supporters of organized religion who wished to maintain a large measure of control over education and to retain religion as the source of moral and social values. The second group was the religiously minded sector of the preprofessional scientific community, which included both clergymen and laymen."

In Turner's view, then, the conflict had a social as well as an intellectual dimension.

First of all, the authors admit that conflict, and serious conflict at that, existed. But, in contrast to White, the authors strain to frame the issue in a way that does not involve a conflict between science and religion.

Their first proposed alternative, that the conflict actually occured within individual minds, is merely a trite truism. All conflicts of ideas are situated within, as well as among and between, individuals. What's important for our purposes is how the conflict played out in a social and political context, not how particular individuals made up their minds as to which "side" of the controversy to join. But, even on its own terms, the alternative is still positing is a conflict between science and religion, even if existing within the minds of individuals. And, needless to say, it was the work of organized religion which accounts for the minds of individuals being "steeped in the Christian tradition" in the first place.

The second alternative, while a little obscurely presented, seems to point to a conflict within the scientific community between those committed to empiricism and those still wedded to recieved, theological ideas. I don't think the "conflict theory" has to be seen as so singleminded an attack on clerics and the official church per se as to exclude the possiblilty of some scientists themselves having internalized (again, through the work of organized religion) what we might call unscientific attitudes.

The third alternative explanation is not really an alternative at all. As far as I can tell, it seems to be saying that the conflict was not between science and religion, but between scientists and clergymen. This seems to be a distinction without a difference. No conflict over idealogy is fought by the ideas themselves, nor by abstractions (like "science" and "religion"), rather, such conflicts are pursued by the spokespersons of those ideas and the representatives (institutional and otherwise) of those abstractions.

As with case of heliocentrism, the authors are guilty of dismissing White's thesis without actually disproving the basis of it. In the case of heliocentrism, they simply add factual details that do not go to the heart of White's claims. In the case of evolution, they merely restate his thesis in more subtle terms.

A lot has been made on this thread of the consensus of modern historians. However, a historiographical consensus is not Holy Writ. Such things are open to challenge, and have been known to change over time. Another thing to keep in mind is that the history of science is not exactly a field with an enormous number of practitioners. Historians studying the interaction of science and religion constitute a smaller subset of this field, and historians working on questions of Christianity and science a still smaller group. It is not impossible that such a field could be hijacked by Christian apologists, as the quotes at the opening of this post suggest. Moreover, it seems clear that intelligent, "liberal" Christians have a strong motivation for demonstrating that their version of Christianity (which is not dependent on the Genesis stories) is compatible with science. Such Christians are appalled that their co-religionists cling to the Adam and Eve and worldwide flood stories despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Even worse, the fundamentalists, inerrantists, creationists, and Young Earthers insist that belief in these stories is essential for all Christians. The liberal and intelligent Christians have a strong interest in showing that the fundamentalists are wrong today. Such a showing is buttressed by demonstrating that the claims of the fundamentalists were not important to Christians in the past, even if such a demonstration is not well-grounded. This is a threat, as Brooke stated, to the integrity of the process of writing history.

Moreover, the sub-discipline of the history of Christianity and science is likely to attract practitioners (such as Lindberg appears to be) who, while not outright apologists, are liberal Christians with scientific backgrounds. Such people tend to want to reconcile science and Christianity. Unlike their fundamentalist co-religionists, they do not agree with White that science and Christianity are natural enemies. This can lead to a subtle bias creeping into their work. Unlike their apologist colleagues, they are not going to claim that science was absolutely dependent on Christianity for its development and growth. On the other hand, they have a strong motive to "play down" the obvious conflicts between Christianity and science in cases like heliocentrism and the theory of evolution. This leads to the nitpicking, overconcentration on detail, and distinctions without differences that I have tried to examine in this post. They can't see the forest for the trees, not because there is no forest, but because they don't want there to be one.

Clivedurdle · 10-05-2005, 03:32 PM

An example of the view of a modern historian to contrast, but I suppose Michael Wood as a BBC presenter doesn't count!

Quote:

"I'd be very careful about historical kernels if I were you," said Yair Zakovitch with a twinkle in his eye. "The whole story sounds very much like a fairy-tale to me."

(About the Queen of Sheba)

Philadelphia Lawyer · 10-05-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

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.

There is a difference between "refusing to even look" at modern scholarship and refusing to uncritically swallow it whole. From the very post in which you presented the work of the revisionists I have tried to respond to their arguments. You, on the other hand, seem to take the attitude, that, since the consensus of modern historians supports your position, you must be right and everyone who disagrees with you is a fool and a fundamentalist.

Philadelphia Lawyer · 10-05-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

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.

Here is Bede's take on the index. Besides being factually incorrect (Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler did figure on the list, Brahe was a geocentrist), it shows the flippant attitude he takes toward free inquiry and free expression. For some background on the index, see here. Notice especially the last sentence of the article. This states that the "moral obligation" of Catholics not to read the banned works continues to this day.

Neverthless, the "consensus of modern scholars" is that the Catholic Church is an institution dedicated to free thought, freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry. . .

spin · 10-05-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

This one's sort of on the par of christianity was invented by the Romans.

Perhaps one believes that while Bruno was living in Germany, he traveled to Paris just to send a Henry Fagot letter to England.

We're supposed to believe that Bruno had enough encouragement for the English after his writings indicate to the contrary that he would work for Walsingham?

spin

andrewcriddle · 10-05-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This one's sort of on the par of christianity was invented by the Romans.

Perhaps one believes that while Bruno was living in Germany, he traveled to Paris just to send a Henry Fagot letter to England.

We're supposed to believe that Bruno had enough encouragement for the English after his writings indicate to the contrary that he would work for Walsingham?

spin

Have you read the Bossy book ?

It's many years since I did, and it's not a period I'm at all expert in but at the time I found it reasonably convincing. (As I said it's a long time since I read it, I may try and reread it to see if I still find it plausible.) My main reservation is that Bossy seems hostile in general to Bruno in a way that might possibly be distorting his judgment here.

As to the problem of a conflict between Bruno's acknowledged writings and his alleged spying for Walsingham, that is part of the issue. IF Bruno was involved in this type of deception, it calls into question how far his acknowledged writings can be taken at face value.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 10-05-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Have you read the Bossy book ?

No, I haven't. The logistics as I noted above didn't augur well for the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

As to the problem of a conflict between Bruno's acknowledged writings and his alleged spying for Walsingham, that is part of the issue. IF Bruno was involved in this type of deception, it calls into question how far his acknowledged writings can be taken at face value.

Isn't this a case of trusting the accuser when the accused contradicts him and the accuser has made no substantive case that GB was Henry Fagot, who was writing in French IIRC, though Bruno was a native of Nola near Naples without any early French training?

While there is the odd possibility that he was a spy, I don't really know what Bruno did that merited this sort of attack.

spin

guy_683930 · 10-05-2005, 08:28 PM

Since this is a discussion of Christianity and its relation to science, I'm surprised how noone has mentioned here that Christianity is viewed as a "revealed" religion. Why weren't these scientific concepts revealed by Jesus or any of the old/new testament prophets, or by any of the popes/church councils for about 1400 years:

1. Heliocentricity/Acentricity
2. Atomic theory
3. Germ theory of disease
4. In general, somatogenic theory of disease
5. Theory of evolution, especially relating to humans
6. General relativity/Quantum Field Theory
7. Uniformitarianism

Not only are these issues not dealt with by the bible/church, many of these ideas are contradicted for a very long time by the church, and declared heretical.

GakuseiDon · 10-06-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Lawyer

Neverthless, the "consensus of modern scholars" is that the Catholic Church is an institution dedicated to free thought, freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry. . .

Why does it have to be either extreme? Either what you wrote above, or what you wrote earlier regarding: "the obviously true statement that the Church has opposed science every step of the way from the Renaissance to the current day."

I think it is well established that the Church persecuted Galileo, so we know that there was some hindrance. But OTOH there is not much evidence that there was persistent opposition "every step of the way". Is it possible that the conflict between science and religion is largely (though not completely) a myth?

But when you write this below, isn't that creeping into conspiracy territory?

the sub-discipline of the history of Christianity and science is likely to attract practitioners (such as Lindberg appears to be) who, while not outright apologists, are liberal Christians with scientific backgrounds. Such people tend to want to reconcile science and Christianity. Unlike their fundamentalist co-religionists, they do not agree with White that science and Christianity are natural enemies. This can lead to a subtle bias creeping into their work.

Isn't this what creationists say about scientists today?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2005, 08:28 PM	#149
guy_683930 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 75	Since this is a discussion of Christianity and its relation to science, I'm surprised how noone has mentioned here that Christianity is viewed as a "revealed" religion. Why weren't these scientific concepts revealed by Jesus or any of the old/new testament prophets, or by any of the popes/church councils for about 1400 years: 1. Heliocentricity/Acentricity 2. Atomic theory 3. Germ theory of disease 4. In general, somatogenic theory of disease 5. Theory of evolution, especially relating to humans 6. General relativity/Quantum Field Theory 7. Uniformitarianism Not only are these issues not dealt with by the bible/church, many of these ideas are contradicted for a very long time by the church, and declared heretical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.