Sigh. . . I hate having to correct folks who are on the atheist side. As I pointed out in my previous post, scientific and medical progress were not “outright halted” during the Middle Ages (roughly 476 to 1400), which is far too simplistic a view. Certainly, Western Europe lagged behind the rest of the world in technology and science after the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, but that’s due less to religious influence and more to greater political stability in Muslim Spain, Tang China, and Constantinople, where strong government and trade-driven economies allowed science to flourish. Western Europe’s subsistence-level agricultural economy, political instability, and state of near-constant warfare simply did not leave enough leisure and resources for scientific experimentation. You’ll note that when Charlemagne established a measure of peace and tranquility in the ninth century, he hired Alcuin of York to create schools and lead educational reform in the Frankish empire. There followed a renaissance of learning that unfortunately ended when Charlemagne’s empire collapsed after his death.
If religion in any form whatsoever is completely inimical to scientific progress, how do you account for the discoveries in astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, and medicine made in the Cordovan Emirate, a highly religious Muslim state in Spain? How do you account for the discoveries made by deeply religous scientists, like Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel?
Now I will grant that Christian establishment in Western Europe did retard some progress, such as forbidding the study of human anatomy and clinging to Galen and Aristotle as infallible authorities and the generally retrograde influence of neo-Scholasticism, but to claim that Christianity as a whole is a monolithic block to all progress is to ignore the complexity of the history of science.
He wrote Letters from the Earth latter in his life, and that by no means is writing “softer concerning spiritual events.” It had to be published posthumously. Anyway, if someone specifically has a credible source of Twain taking reincarnation seriously, I wish they would be forthcoming with it. Zoe have you found a source?
when was the Dark Ages?
what plunged Europe into the Dark Ages?
what institution preserved the learning of Greek & Roman
civilazation?
how did Europe emerge from the Dark Ages?
when was the Renaissance?
when did the actual Witch Hunt hysteria emerge?
what was the role of clergy in encourage & discouraging the Witch Hunts?
“These questions, and many more, will be answered on the next episode of Soap”
Sorry to make light of your questions, FriarTed, but it might be better if you asked these questions, individually, in General Questions to avoid the hijack to end all hijacks.
Slight hijack – the church gets a bum rap in the Galileo affair. It isn’t quite the “englightened science” vs. “close-minded religious dogma” dispute that it is usually painted as.
Galileo was hardly alone in embracing the Copernican theory, and indeed that theory was gaining traction within the church. Indeed, Galileo enjoyed a good reputation within the church during his early exposition of Copernican motion.
Where Galileo went wrong was in insisting that science and only science comprised a valid means of looking at the universe. That assertion was one the church clearly could not countenance, for fairly obvious reasons.
Galileo basically insisted – loudly – that the church accept Copernicanism and reinterpret scripture accordingly. The church offered a third option, that Copernicanism be treated as a valid hypothesis that needed further proof (which at the time was, in fact, correct: Galileo reasoned that Copernicanism was correct based on his observation of celestial movements, but there would not be any direct evidence that his reasoning was the correct explanation for those movements until long after his death). Galileo refused, and rather than leaving things as purely scientific matter, insisted on debating the theological ramifications of Copernicanism.
Galileo also didn’t do himself any favors by insulting those who might have been sympathetic to his position.
This is not to say that the church is blameless, or that there weren’t smallminded individuals involved. One of Galileo’s early accusers, a priest named Thomas Caccini, really was an antiscience demagogue. And the church’s ultimate condemnation of Galileo was certainly both overreaching and incorrect. But the church never declared scientific inquiry in general nor heliocentric theories in particular to be heretical. Other prominent scientists continued to develop Copernican theory without struggle. It is a mistake to describe the Galileo affair in simplistic terms of reason versus religion.
You haven’t actually read any of Samuel Clemens’ later works, have you?
In his old age, Clemens became increasing pessimistic and bitter about human nature (with good reason). His stories and essays increasingly became examinations of the flaws and deficiencies in human nature – several of these were only published years after his death because they were considered too dark to be accepted.
Try reading The Mysterious Stranger, or Was it Heaven, or Hell?, or The Man Who Corrputed Hadleyburg, before you go around stating what Clemens did and did not think about spiritual matters.
The Catholic Church had developed a dogma that everything in the heavens revolved around Earth because of the centrality of human beings in God’s Creation. The Church also claimed that Earth was imperfect and mutable while the heavens were perfect and unchanging. These beliefs aren’t found in the scriptural texts, or in the doctrines of Christianity. They have no fundamental religious basis. They were claims about the nature of the universe that reflected the Church’s biases and acquired beliefs about itself and humanity.
Galileo found that when he observed Jupiter through telescopes, he could see that it had moons. He found that Earth’s moon wasn’t “perfect”, as theologians had claimed, but that it was covered with mountains, valleys, chasms, and what we now known to be impact craters.
Galileo reasonably claimed that we couldn’t deny the evidence simply because it contradicted what we had previously believed to be true. Church officials insisted that he had to be wrong, and refused to even look through Galileo’s telescopes.
The Church had developed a doctrine that it was infallible. It was therefore incapable of admitting error.
Religion asserts that things are true; it focuses on WHAT.
Science examines the ways in which we show that things are true; it focuses on WHY.
Dewey, that’s a fascinating discussion on the details of Galileo’s interaction with the church, and I would really like to read that book oneday. But I think delving into details obscures the overall points, especially with regard to the OP:
[ul][li]Galileo proposed a theory based on science that was contrary to contemporary Church teaching[]He was censured by the Church and almost executed for his viewpoints[]The Church thought so little of subsequent scientific development that it rushed to recant 400 years later[/ul][/li]To sum up that summary: The church did not encourage analysis of matters which could be scientifically pursued (I contrast this with philosophical arguments, although Martin Luther was opposed on those grounds).
Randi’s point, IIRC, is that disciplines like astrology, homeopathic medicine, dowsing, etc., discourage rigorous testing of their basic beliefs using scientific methods. So do religions. In that respect they are much alike.
This is patently untrue. Indeed, the church acknowledged every bit of the scientific observation Galileo and others had accumulated (indeed, Galileo’s telescopes were greatly praised by the Catholic church).
What they disputed was Galileo’s interpretations of those observed movements. Others, like Tycho Brae, had developed alternative explantions for those movements. And at the time, there was no way of proving or disproving one explanation over the other.
In fact, the church did not, as you claim, insist that Galileo must be wrong. They instead insisted that he wasn’t necessarily right. They gave him the option of continuing to teach Copernicanism as a possible explanation for planetary movements, so long as it was taught as one possibility among others (he turned them down). The church clearly wasn’t looking to stamp out Copernicanism.
This too is patently untrue. Other scientists were hailed within the church and given audiences with the Pope for their discoveries. Even Galileo was favored until the latter parts of his career. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in drafting what was essentially the first statement of church position on Copernicanism, wrote that it was acceptable as a working hypothesis, but required better proof to be taken as absolute fact (i.e., requiring scriptural reinterpretation). Hell, Nicholas Copernicus himself was a churchman.
** That is patently untrue. Galileo’s telescopes were praised when he restricted himself to looking at the Earth. It was when he turned his attention to the heavens that problems began.
Church officials suggested that the Galileo’s observations were due to faults and imperfections in the telescopes themselves. That’s the primary reason Galileo became so incensed.
** Stretching credulity here…
Fascinating. Your account contradicts virtually every historical work I’ve ever read. I’m going to need a cite, here.
Dewey, the details and specific claims you are making exceed my knowledge of history and I’m afraid the amount of research I would have to do to prove or disprove you exceeds the amount of time I wish to devote to the subject. If you are a university history professor in a non-religious institution, I will give considerable weight to your interpretations.
But if you are relying on the two cites you gave and similar ones like this, look who is doing the talking. All of these cites are supported by obviously religious groups, and I can’t help but think they are slanted more towards apologetics than solid, neutral history. They do have an ax to grind. They want to prove that the Inquisition wasn’t as bad as it sounds.
I don’t know why Copernicus didn’t lock horns with the Church; maybe distance, maybe they thought he would just go away. But two of his followers, Galileo and Bruno, were not ignored, and Bruno was tried by the Inquisition, convicted, and burned at the stake for espousing Copernican-derived ideas.
So some were persecuted, some ignored by Church. Still, religion is hardly known for historically funding or embracing science unless it seems to serve their purpose (“Archeologists find the lost city of Ai! This proves the bible was right!”). And this attitude reminds Randi and me of astrology, ESP and dowsing. Q.E.D.
It’s worth pointing out that the Copernican system worked less well than the Earth-centric models that had been developed at the time. Copernicus indulged his fancy in creating the heliocentric hypothesis for utterly non-scientific reasons: he thought it was more aesthetically appealing than the complex epicycle model.
It wasn’t until well after Copernicus’ death that the final problems with his model were worked out (basically, Copernicus considered all orbits to be circular because the circle was the perfect form – when it was realized that the orbits were actually ellipses, many of the problems vanished).
And besides, Copernicus took care to present his idea as a mere supposition. He never actually pointed out that the Church was wrong.
Again, false. For example, Jesuit astronomer Christopher Clavius, though initially skeptical, confirmed Galileo’s observation of Jupiter’s moons. **
Some churchmen suggested that the observation of sunspots was attributable to faults in Galileo’s lens. Nevertheless, that was not the principle basis for church’s objections to Galileo. **
Cites provided earlier in this thread. Most notably to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which, in spite of its commission, is a serious compilation by academics.
More notably, I’d be interested to hear what “contradictions” you’ve read elsewhere. I don’t think my description contradicts the commonly-known facts, it just fleshes them out and makes clear that the issue is not so simple as many often think.
If you want to cling to the kindergarten version of Galileo’s trial, fine. But the whole story is considerably more nuanced than just “science good, church bad.”
Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia, first published in 1908, is a legitimate source for citation. Its editors were scholars at academic institutions. Its contributors were principally laymen. It was highly praised by the secular press upon publication. Quibbling over this as a source is a little like telling me I can’t cite to a history professor at Notre Dame. **
Actually, we do not know the actual basis for Bruno’s execution. A better explanation, one espoused by popular athiest websites, is that he was executed for promoting the idea of the universe as infinite, not for promoting Copernicanism. This is particularly true since, at the time of his execution, teaching heliocentrism was not proscribed by the church. Furthermore, Bruno was more of a poet than an astronomer, contributing very little to the field and generally disdained by the likes of Galileo. If the church was out to discredit Copernicanism, they’d have probably preferred to keep Bruno around.
The truth is that astronomy then was not accurate enough to decide between an earth-centered and sun-centered system. Nonetheless, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church (along with many other scholars at the time) was slowly moving towards accepting this new vision of the heavens, and it is likely that the whole conflict could have been avoided if Galileo himself had been a bit less arrogant.
That’s nice. How does that actually contradict what I said, again?
Gee, and that couldn’t be a biased source.
Your description is incomplete and misleading.
The Church had developed the doctrine that the heavens were perfect, and Galileo showed that astronomical objects were just as “imperfect” as the Earth was. He saw objects orbiting Jupiter, which contradicted the doctrine that the Earth was the center of everything in Creation. More to the point, it made the Copernican model more credible.
If you want to cling to the Sunday School version of the misunderstood institution that was unfairly blamed for questioning a heretical scientist, fine.