Science and the church

Rev Hellfire

A common view put across here is the idea of organised religion and the scientific community are in conflict in present times, both been mutually exclusive.

The question I’m wondering about is if we exclude from the 20th century onward do you think science got where it is because of the church or in spite of it?

I'd be of the opinion that the is due to the very existence of the likes of the Jesuits and the catholic church that western Europe enjoyed the scientific advances which ultimately did not materialise in other parts of the globe.

Robbiethe3rd

I see how you can argue this either way, however the fact that whenever something was discovered which may contradict the church (eg Galileo) the church would intervene shows that the church although expecting to find the truth of God existing/creating the world etc, were not really willing to accept the truth.

In either case, I would not accept this as an argument of believing in the church/religion today when various religions are trying and to an extent succeeding in distorting and covering up various facts about the world (eg evolution, age of universe...) if thats where you're leading this thread.

Rev Hellfire

Robbiethe3rd wrote:

In either case, I would not accept this as an argument of believing in the church/religion today when various religions are trying and to an extent succeeding in distorting and covering up various facts about the world (eg evolution, age of universe...) if thats where you're leading this thread.

Its not where this is heading which is why I explicitly tied to past times. I'm simply curious if people think that the church (in its corporeal form) was a boon or hindrance to scientific enlightenment in times past.

Certainly we can look at Galileo for example as an example of the church setting science back, but it is worth nothing even on that, the scientists of the day also refuted his findings. Although he was for example supported by the Jesuits and Urban VIII for example encouraged Galileo in the writing of the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World System. So in that case it can be viewed both as a help and a hindrance.

Robbiethe3rd

I agree, the church founded many of the world's leading universities however may not have been entirely satisfied with some of the solutions their science departments produced.

Shane_C

I would say there was some indirect help from the church. Galileo for example would have had to be 100% certain of his theories before publishing them because of pressure from the church. This may have led him to put in that extra effort.
A kind of tough love if you will.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its not where this is heading which is why I explicitly tied to past times. I'm simply curious if people think that the church (in its corporeal form) was a boon or hindrance to scientific enlightenment in times past.

Certainly we can look at Galileo for example as an example of the church setting science back, but it is worth nothing even on that, the scientists of the day also refuted his findings. Although he was for example supported by the Jesuits and Urban VIII for example encouraged Galileo in the writing of the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World System. So in that case it can be viewed both as a help and a hindrance.

The Church certainly made life hell for Galileo, but their objection was that he was contradicting Aristotle, and thereby denying the accepted scientific orthodoxy of the day. This was because Aquinas and others had placed the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of Aristotle on an equal plane, and even above, Scripture.

It is significant that Galileo built upon the work of Nicholas Coernicus who, although a Catholic canon, had to get his works published by a Lutheran in a region of Europe that lay beyond the control of the Catholic Church. This is not because Protestants were any more tolerant, or any more science-friendly, but because they placed Scripture on a higher plane than Aristotle's science. Galileo argued that his theories were in harmony with Scripture, which indeed they were, but got in trouble because they were not in harmony with Aristotle.

So, contrary to popular myth, it was not Bible bashing fundamentalists who messed with Galileo, but rather a Church that for some weird reason saw itself as the guardian of scientific orthodoxy.

The lesson to be learned from this, IMHO, is that science and theology are two separate disciplines that rarely interact.

robindch

PDN wrote:

So, contrary to popular myth, it was not Bible bashing fundamentalists who messed with Galileo, but rather a Church that for some weird reason saw itself as the guardian of scientific orthodoxy.

What a novel way of interpreting the Galileo story!

Galileo was guilty of two things -- being rude about the pope and suggesting that the pope was wrong about some physical facts concerning the universe. "Scientific" orthodoxy did not exist at the time, as you well know, because the church(es) controlled the universities and through them, the church(es) were were the one and only, literal, orthodoxy. There was no other intellectual authority.

PDN wrote:

Galileo argued that his theories were in harmony with Scripture, which indeed they were, but got in trouble because they were not in harmony with Aristotle.

I take it you haven't read the Vatican's own documents on the topic. These make it quite clear -- heavens, I seem to remember that there was even an Irish bishop on the examining committee! -- that the bible was the authority on the shape of the universe, as it was for everything else, and Galileo was therefore a heretic for suggesting that the bible got the shape of the universe wrong.

The church could not tolerate such a threat to its legitimizing document and locked him up for life. Aristotle had little to do with it.

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm simply curious if people think that the church (in its corporeal form) was a boon or hindrance to scientific enlightenment in times past.

I believe the church did pretty much whatever it could to stifle any ideas which it believed could threaten its own existence, or more properly, its own specific ideas concerning the world. As such it was a complete hindrance. And, other than the progress in building techniques between ~1100 and ~1400, I can't think offhand of any developments which the church was directly responsible for, and these were more evolutionary developments, than out-of-the-blue intellectual leaps.

As PDN correctly points out, Aristotle was held in high regard, but he was held so because his philosophy didn't contradict what the church promulgated. Actually, it was quite the opposite - the church acquired as dogma a lot of Aristotelian ideas including the earth being the center of the universe (and therefore man being the center of the universe), ideas concerning the development of foetuses and more. Also, and possibly more importantly, Aristotle stressed the infallibility of his own domain-specific, but over-stretched, reason at the expense of reference through observation to the real world that the reason purported to describe. This idea was pretty much the in tune with the church's general view that "truth" was an internal quality which had been described perfectly through what you could vaguely call the "wisdom of the ancients" -- no further research required! Galen had a similar double-ended deadening effect in the field of medicine.

Between the two of them -- the church controlling the educational facilities (and the dissemination of information) and Aristotle leading physical thinkers up a black alley for ~1800 years -- they were the principal causes of the European intellectual stagnation from around 200 up until around 1500 or so.

The development of printing and the Reformation were the two main historical events which, er, resurfaced the intellectual playing field.