1686, with Newton proposing that objects in the heavens operated under the same rules as objects on Earth. I figure that’s the beginning, when the childish wish-fulfilment nonsense of religion started to get beaten back by reason.
So we should establish theocratic-like states and execute those we deem heretical or blasphemous?
Most of those chipped away at it; evolution was more like a charge of dynamite. Especially since it touched on the matter we care about the most. Newton was a close second though; not just for the laws but due to the concept of universal laws that applied everywhere, like Bryan Ekers points out. The idea that the same laws apply to everything is a big difference from the ancient idea that there’s the Earth with its rules, and the heavens with different ones. Notice how believers tend to feel compelled to add the claim that their god is an exception; they need to make it a special case explicitly instead of it just being assumed that the rules are different.
He is one of the wisest men and it is so good he is on Catholic Clips and Utube. When the world doesn’t seem to make sense to me I just watch one of his video’s and he makes perfect sense to me. He also had a good sense of humor as well as stage presence. One of my fav video’s of his is The Three Confessions which I leave for your enjoyment. 
I think it’s a naive, bias, or just ludicrious to think there are no or very few great thinkers within the religious community. The world in general is still predominatly religious and/or spritual among it’s population. Among that very high % do we really believe there are so few great thinkers?
What about folks like Ghandi and MLK? I’ve read a bit by John Selby Spong and I’d say he qualifies.
Yes. Religion just isn’t a profound or useful subject (except for manipulation and making excuses); however “great” they may be, standing in the intellectual kiddie pool limits them.
“Almost everything that distinguishes the modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to science, which achieved its most spectacular triumphs in the seventeenth century.”
– Bertrand Russell
I suggest it got a big impetus with the printing press. People could buy and read Bibles for themselves, in their own “profane” language. Once this happened, they could also come up with their interpretations. Some may have been good interpretations, some may have been bad ones. But, the Bible stopped being some sort of “monopoly” owned by the more educated classes (clergy and nobles).
This should factor in somewhere, along with the the “cancellation” of the geocentric universe, the Enlightenment, the theory of evolution, and the discovery of other galaxies.
This is the one that did it for me. Earth is so insignificant when you look at the big picture. So yeah, when enough people way more intelligent than me looked through a telescope for the first time.
That was my point- that intelligent believers are often less concerned with “re-inventing the wheel” of re-hashing the big Theological questions than with going out & actually doing practical work.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was saying.
Well, of the systems that were in place during the times of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Buddha, Confuscius, Mohammed et al, which one do you want to live under?
Honestly, I think the turning point wasn’t really about any of these great discoveries. It was about the Church’s reaction to discoveries and theories which challenged the accepted understanding of the universe.
The church stomped on science and punished scientists as heretics, without mking any serious attempt to understand the new ideas and reconcile them in some manner with its own teachings.
It became clear to Great Minds that the church was more interested in defending dogma than discovering truth. It became clear to Great Minds that the Church was in fact an obstacle to progress. The Church became something to avoid, and then to actively oppose. It was then that religion jumped the shark as far as Great Minds were concerned.
Well, I don’t think that Jesus, Paul, or Buddha were controlling any of the systems at the time. I would, however, like to live under a system constructed by Jesus & administered by Paul, and to some extent, I already do as a member of the general Christian Church.
If I may ask an obvious question: if there are great minds turning to theology, how will you notice if you aren’t studying theology? There are certainly esteemed professors at prestigious universities who study theology, but why would you ever know their names?
There was a time, for quite a while, when the physical and the metaphysical were essentially wrapped up as the same thing. All the way back to the Greek philosophers, that is the case. Aristotle’s writings, for centuries, were like the Wikipedia of the ancient and medieval worlds (and like wikipedia, he was often wrong). Distinctions between scientific and theological fact were not drawn particularly well, and philospohers (“lovers of wisdom”) engaged in physical sciences as well as philosphical/theological pursuits.
There were always skeptical thinkers, but it was really the Enlightenment period, and the development of scientific method, that science began to be disentangled as a discipline from philosophy and theology.
Science itself was then responsible for a lot of the intellegentsia’s movement away from trying to answer questions religiously. If you can do scientific experiements, you don’t need to look at the Bible anymore.
Name one besides Galileo and Giordano Bruno. Those are the only two scientists I ever hear named who were persecuted by the Church, and with Bruno, it had much more to do with his theology than his science.
Well that must be true since two of the people I mentioned, Gandhi and MLK, didn’t really accomplish anything of note.
The OP can correct me but the idea of being a great thinker isn’t just about science or theology.
It’s also about the nature of man’s relationship to his fellow man and issues of justice, equlaity, the nature of love, forgiveness, compassion, etc. Philosophy and sociology are are cousins to thier religious heritage.
The Jesuits continue to teach and mold a disproportionately high number of first-rate critical thinkers, so I question the validity of the OP’s assertion.