Ray Moscow

Historically churches have held back medical progress in various ways, such as opposing better birthing procedures because women were "supposed" to suffer in childbirth, or by claiming that sick people were suffering because of sin or lack of faith (instead of the actual naturalistic causes), or by forbidding important research and training aids such as dissection of corpses.

Some modern versions of this anti-medical tradition are the churchs' opposition to birth control and abortion and of course their opposition to the fetal stem-cell research. (There are of course some fortunate exceptions from more liberal churches.)

Churches -- and particularly the RCC, to take a large example -- even spread medical misinformation about the role of condoms in preventing the spread of STD's, and thereby condemn millions of people to a painful, needless death.

As you might know if you have studied the much admired "missions" of Mother Teresa, nothing much is done to alleviate suffering, despite the resources to do so -- its mission is to teach people to embrace or turn to "God" in their suffering.

This is quite consistent the church's history in such matters.

There is no mystery as to why they take this approach: Churches do well when people suffer, and not so well when they do not.

Ray

James Hannam

Sigh. Did you even read my previous post? Oh well, no matter. More unsubstantiated myth and rumour.

Best wishes

James

Ray Moscow

James, let me get this straight: you are claiming that the church(es) never opposed medical progress, and even helped promote it throughout their long reign over the western world?

If so, why did the world have to wait until the church's power wained before medicine improved?

You are berating me for not doing primary historical research, but surely you have to know that the RCC forbade any dissection on human corpses whatsoever, upon pain of excommunication (and sometimes worse)? This held back medical progress for centuries.

Ray

Apsu

Well, I'm far from making up my mind, but I appreciate the responses from James and Antipope, and will continue to keep an open mind on the subject. I hope to read the rest of your book when it is published, and hope to hear more argument from both sides in this thread. Its an important topic on many levels, particularly if James is right.

Roger Pearse

This is not an anti-medical position but a moral position. Yes, the churches DO oppose Dr Frankenstein and his ilk. So did everyone until a few years ago. Is it now the case that atheists have obediently decided to conform to the new eugenics? Really?

Ahem. It is certainly not faithful Roman Catholics who die of STD's, is it? Come now, we all know why those in power want condoms, and scream abuse at the RCC for resisting. It has nothing to do with concern for other people and everything to do with promoting the sexual revolution.

Now I have no reason to take a position on condoms, and I am not an RC. But I have never, ever, heard any explanation or discussion of the RCC's position on the mass media. All I hear is this sort of statement, which you too have clearly heard and repeat here (and is not your own). That one-sidedness alone tells me -- should tell us all, surely? -- that we're dealing with propaganda put out by those who govern us.

Myself, I don't trust these people. But even if we do, surely we want to see their opinions stated honestly and advanced by reason and evidence, rather than by distortion and misrepresentation, and censorship of any other view? And what else is this, but that?

IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ray Moscow

From James' website:
Read the first chapter of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

To take one contrary example to your thesis, what about the papal bull of Boniface VIII?

Wow. If only Galileo had known that he was in no danger whatsoever.

Seriously -- I've read most of these sort of thing on Catholic apologetics sites. I didn't know it was taken seriously in academia.

Ray

Ray Moscow

Yes, of course it is, among many others. Catholics are just as suspectible as anybody else -- and more so, thanks to this sort of misinformation.

Condoms are very useful for preventing the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy. That's why they are a very good thing.

It's also why the RCC is very bad for promoting misinformation about them.

I disagree, and I think the RCC gets plenty of secular press room to discuss their "position" on these things.

NGO's do most of the whining about the RCC's abuses on these things. I can't remember a western government criticising the RCC on this stuff -- can you?

Lógos Sokratikós

We all know that neither Roman Catholics nor their children "sin".


Evil sexual revolution.

The silent RCC. Never promotes anything, no pulpits, radio stations, channels, broadcast media coverage, schools, printed media, nothing. The silent RCC. You can hear a pin drop.

Ok, not silent RCC, the RCC under martial law censorship. Poor RCC.

Toto

This forum does include the middle ages, but discussion of the RCC's current role in society is a little bit beyond our scope. Please stick to the subject, or move it to another forum.

Thanks

Toto

Lógos Sokratikós

I think James' point or strategy is to take every believer's good idea and label it "Idea from the Church". Two basic problems with this approach:

• In those times anyone who valued their life would never dream of not belonging to the Church.
  
• Even today there are countless believers who contribute with science (contribution in terms of secular ideas from secular, not religious, sources).

The better method would be (1) to determine what was the church's official position on the ideas, (2) the church's acts towards people with unorthodox ideas (the kind of ideas that actually create epsitemologic progress, that make science work), and (3) some sort of SWOT (albeit anachronic version) or pro-con analysis of the church's role in promoting and stopping scientific progress.