The Church and Science

[laconicstudent]

The attacking is from the Christian side. The scientists merely report what they observe. Are you suggesting that an expert in a field shouldn't smirk when a layman tells him how to do his job? Like I mentioned earlier, you don't seem to have any problems with theories that don't conflict with your biblical views which points to you being biased. I don't care if we came from fairy farts as long as it can be proven. Nevertheless, you have certainly convinced me that evolution is wrong, but alas what are we against the thousands of biologists who are convinced otherwise?

Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific". Please tell me you misspelled "dictionary" and "meaning" on purpose for comedic effect.

Scientists should smirk when a layman who is completely ignorant of the matter he is discussing tells the scientist that he is quite obviously wrong and all his data is a lie. Its much healthier then verbally shredding them or grinding your teeth in irritation.

Though personally I think its funny, there was one time on this forum when I was told my field was demonic, so I have a little foretaste of whats in store.

 

[MattRose]

Scientists should smirk when a layman who is completely ignorant of the matter he is discussing tells the scientist that he is quite obviously wrong and all his data is a lie. Its much healthier then verbally shredding them or grinding your teeth in irritation.

Though personally I think its funny, there was one time on this forum when I was told my field was demonic, so I have a little foretaste of whats in store.

Ok, I give... what's your field?

 

[AlexBP]

You're splitting hairs. The church then (as it does now) had absolutely no problem with any new scientific theroies that agree with church teachings. It's smart to be cautious, but even the Catholic church was against (or refused to comment on) the teaching of evolution until around 1950. In fact, most US churches still think it's fiction.
The point here is not that the church suppresses science, it's the fact that the church vets all science with what they think the bible (or church doctrine) says about the subject. The church gets it wrong sometimes and it's annoying to some people that the church doesn't admit to being wrong. In protecting the Catholic church on this Galileo issue I feel you're using the same argument that some Southerners (USA) use to claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Technically it was about states' rights, but the underlying reason was salvery. They don't want to admit that their side was proslavery so they try to muddy the waters.

The description that I posted of the Galileo case is exactly in line with mainstream historical scholarship on the issue. It is not an attempt to twist and rewrite anything. As mentioned in the second article I linked to, the claim that the Church tried to suppress the Copernican view of the solar system was made up centuries after the fact in a book, History of the Warfare between Science and Religion, that is now known to be a hoax. Unfortunately, that version has found its way into many history textbooks, but it's still wrong. The plain fact is that Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman, as were many others who did important work on astronomy in that period, and none of them ever faced censorship for their work from the Church. Galileo ran afoul of the Church not because he supported the heliocentric theory, but because of an academic dispute. While no one would argue that the Church handled the case perfectly, it was not an attempt to shut down scientific research.

You say "even the Catholic church was against (or refused to comment on) the teaching of evolution until around 1950." But which is it? Was the Catholic Church opposed, or not commenting? In most cases, the Catholic Church has no reason to comment on scientific findings, nor does any other church. They have reason to comment when scientists attack the freedom and dignity of the human race, as in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century or harmful medical treatments such as lobotomy.

 

[laconicstudent]

Ok, I give... what's your field?

Psychology.

 

[MattRose]

The description that I posted of the Galileo case is exactly in line with mainstream historical scholarship on the issue. It is not an attempt to twist and rewrite anything. As mentioned in the second article I linked to, the claim that the Church tried to suppress the Copernican view of the solar system was made up centuries after the fact in a book, History of the Warfare between Science and Religion, that is now known to be a hoax. Unfortunately, that version has found its way into many history textbooks, but it's still wrong. The plain fact is that Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman, as were many others who did important work on astronomy in that period, and none of them ever faced censorship for their work from the Church. Galileo ran afoul of the Church not because he supported the heliocentric theory, but because of an academic dispute. While no one would argue that the Church handled the case perfectly, it was not an attempt to shut down scientific research.
.

You are doing a excellent job of dancing, but I don't get why you have such a hard time admitting the Catholic church's past suppressions of science. This article Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia mentions several writings, decrees, bans etc. that clearly show that the Catholic church suppressed science. Here are the 2 best examples:

1. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[63] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.
If they dropped the prohibition they must have earlier prohibited something, right? Doesn't this count as suppression?

2. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis, and he said: "If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me." —Koestler (1959), p. 447–448
Here the church is protecting itself by coming up with a method of "explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary". In other words: We goofed in intrepreting the bible so how can we best save face and say we agree with these new discoveries and also that the bible supported them all along?

I read the article you had linked and couldn't find anything in it that supported your views. It basically says the church didn't suppress science and then doesn't mention anything that shows the church suppressed science. Bravo! I wish we all could prove our points using that method. In this reply I have given you the actual catholic writings that show suppression.

 

[singpeace]

I know most Christians will say that many scientists back then were Christians and godly men who started a lot of great ideas and new discoveries about science. However, they just happen to be Christians because of the times. Consider the vast amount of knowledge we have today they probably would re-think their Christianity.

Superman,

That is a provocative statement; however, it is not correct.


Some of today's Scientists who have been convinced (and quoted) again and again that there is a Divine Creator (this is a very short list):

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)

Paul DaviesAlan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)

George Greenstein (astronomer)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) Tony Rothman (physicist)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics)

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): Ed Harrison (cosmologist)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist)

Barry Parker (cosmologist)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel
Prize in physics)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)

Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist, author, lecturer, and founder of reasons.org)

Furthermore, should Christians also worship the Greek Pantheon too since so much of knowledge we know about math and philosophy derived from their knowledge? How about the Muslims that made huge contributions to mathematics and global travel? How about other race like the Chinese who change the course of mankind through their discoveries? Being in a certain religion does not make one smarter, the Christian scientists back then knew well enough to leave God out of their scientific work, and only report what they find in their earthly senses. They even got branded as heretics, and even the Church accepted evolution as fact. Every other denominations such as the protestant were just a spin off that came out of the catholic church.

No one should worship another human being; as man did not come first, nor does all knowledge emanate from any single human being.

Any Christian that esteems himself higher or better than anyone has become the least of Christians. No one of any religious belief should look down on even those who are lowly.

You are right that being Christian doesn't make anyone smarter. There are a lot of really dumb Christians out there just as there are a lot of brilliant Atheists and Evolutionists.

You are mistaken that the early Christian scientists left God out of their scientific work. They first believed in God - science became a calling and a passion which only strengthened their belief in the Creator of the Universe.

Galileo (1642) regarded his science as illuminating the work of the Creator. For all his quarrelling with the church he remained a devout Christian until he died.

Kepler, a contemporary of Galileo regarded his study of the physical universe as "thinking God's thoughts after him". In The Secret of the Universe he wrote:

"Here we are concerned with the book of nature, so greatly celebrated in sacred writings. It is in this that Paul proposes to the Gentiles that they should contemplate God like the Sun in water or in a mirror. Why then as Christians should we take any less delight in its contemplation, since it is for us with true worship to honor God, to venerate him, to wonder at him? The more rightly we understand the nature and scope of what our God has founded, the more devoted the spirit in which that is done.

There was also Newton, Augustine, Whitehead, Ockham, Boyle and others who were openly devoted to Christ.

The Catholic church persecuted some of them and tried to stop the progress of scientific discovery.

The Church was wrong to persecute them.

 

[berachah]

The attacking is from the Christian side. The scientists merely report what they observe. Are you suggesting that an expert in a field shouldn't smirk when a layman tells him how to do his job? Like I mentioned earlier, you don't seem to have any problems with theories that don't conflict with your biblical views which points to you being biased.

All scientists interpret what they observe, from a viewpoint developed by their belief system. And why is a scientist who believes in creationism automatically a layman?

And have you not seen the ongoing attacks on this forum towards any group that supports Creationism. And that is from so called Christians. What do you suppose what take place if a secular newspaper ever dared to print an article by Christian scientists.....? But every paper will routinely print opinion and "fact" by evolutionists......No my friend that wheel has long turned.

And how do you suppose you know what I have a problem with from a few posts I have made on particular topics. The only way I have settled on my doctrine is by challenging every truth of the Bible. But I do not simply give into the majority opinion or to he who shouts loudest....

I don't care if we came from fairy farts as long as it can be proven. Nevertheless, you have certainly convinced me that evolution is wrong, but alas what are we against the thousands of biologists who are convinced otherwise?

Every new development and advancement of mankind has not been made by the masses...but by those individuals who dare to stand by their convictions and who have challenged the thinking of the masses...

Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific". Please tell me you misspelled "dictionary" and "meaning" on purpose for comedic effect.

nope, just my bad spellink......

 

[MattRose]

Every new development and advancement of mankind has not been made by the masses...but by those individuals who dare to stand by their convictions and who have challenged the thinking of the masses...

Finally we agree that the brave Darwin dared to stand by his convictions and challenged the thinking of the masses.

Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific". Please tell me you misspelled "dictionary" and "meaning" on purpose for comedic effect.
nope, just my bad spellink......

Well unless you're training to be a professional "straight man" don't misspell "dictionary" when you're advising someone else to consult one.

 

[singpeace]

My bad. This was a goof-post so I deleted it.

 

[MattRose]

My bad. This was a goof-post so I deleted it.

They're often the best ones. LOL

 

[eugler]

And the non believing scientific community does no such thing....!

The facts are:
The study of science originated with Christians. Go back further than that and you will find advanced learning such as universities and colleges were started by Christians. In fact formal schooling was started by Christians as well.

Well, that is simply not true. Ever heard of Antiquity? Does Aristotle ring a bell? Archimedes? Euklid? Plato? Thales of Milet? The library of Alexandria? The list is enormeous and that's just the people that we know of today. The old schools of Greek philosophy were forbidden by Christian authorities during the fall of the Western Roman Empire, then there was nothing. Christian Science took most of the knowledge aquired earlier then filled the vacuum it had created itself. The only way it could reaquire the natural philosophy of antiquity was by reimporting it from the arabs who had saved and used the knowledge that the Church had so eagerly sought to destroy. No secrets there, just simple Church history easily verifyable with any serious book on the subject and undisputed among Christian scholars.

That the church erred in quashing thought they felt contradicted the faith is indisputable. Rather they should have intensified their own study of science and the Bible and they would ultimately have found harmony.

What we have now is a godless cabal that has hijacked science and declared it contrary to the Christian faith when it is not. Further than that they have hijacked the public space and now freely declare much evolutionary theory as fact even when it is clearly unscientific. Dare anyoe suggest otherwise and they are considered lunatics or fools. Any further debate on the matter has been destroyed with this devilish tactic.

Evolution has not been scientifically proven neither can it be. To be a scientific fact it must be;
- observable
- reproduceable
Neither has happened, nor will ever.

Evolutionists have managed to merge natural selection with evolution and used this lie to accuse and oppose Christianity. In fact many weak willed Christians now even accept evolution as a fact, rather than the Word of God.

I for one would love to know how the incredible process of reproduction managed to evolve, before the creature itself died out.......scientific answers only please....

The rest is just Creationist blabla

 

[AlexBP]

You are doing a excellent job of dancing, but I don't get why you have such a hard time admitting the Catholic church's past suppressions of science. This article Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia mentions several writings, decrees, bans etc. that clearly show that the Catholic church suppressed science. Here are the 2 best examples:

1. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[63] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.
If they dropped the prohibition they must have earlier prohibited something, right? Doesn't this count as suppression?

You've just given a classic example of why one shouldn't trust Wikipedia, but should instead seek out reliable sources. Now you claim that you've read the articles I've linked to, in which case you've seen plentiful evidence that the Catholic Church did not suppress the heliocentric theory. The strongest evidence is simply the fact that the heliocentric theory was developed largely by Catholics, in many cases clergymen, who never suffered any bans or prohibitions:

Nicolas de Cusa was among the first scholars in European history to hypothesize that the earth rotates around the sun. He was a Catholic cardinal.

Nicolas Copernicus is the same most commonly associated with the invention of the heliocentric theory. He was a Catholic clergyman in the Third Order of Saint Dominic. His book On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs was published in 1543, almost a century before the Galileo trial, and the Church never attempted to stop its publication.

Christopher Clavius was a scholar who studied mathmeatics, physics, and astronomy. Initially rejecting heliocentrism, he eventually changed his mind after learning about and duplicating Galileo's observations. He also played an important role in other discoveries. He was a Catholic priest.

Many more examples could be given, but the point is clear. There was no prohibition on believing in heliocentrism, advocating for it, or publishing books about it. In regards to the decree that you mention, it's important to distinguish between the different levels of pronouncements that exist within the Catholic Church. Not everything that the Church says is mandatory and binding on all Catholics, and much is more likely a recommendation. But regardless of what the Catholic Church said in that particular document, actions speak louder than words. We've seen that many scholars including clergy wrote books advocating heliocentrism before, during, and after the life of Galileo, hence it must be incorrect to say that the Church prohbited all books advocating heliocentrism. Case closed.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, that is simply not true. Ever heard of Antiquity? Does Aristotle ring a bell? Archimedes? Euklid? Plato? Thales of Milet? The library of Alexandria? The list is enormeous and that's just the people that we know of today. The old schools of Greek philosophy were forbidden by Christian authorities during the fall of the Western Roman Empire, then there was nothing. Christian Science took most of the knowledge aquired earlier then filled the vacuum it had created itself. The only way it could reaquire the natural philosophy of antiquity was by reimporting it from the arabs who had saved and used the knowledge that the Church had so eagerly sought to destroy. No secrets there, just simple Church history easily verifyable with any serious book on the subject and undisputed among Christian scholars.

I find it ironic that most of classical Greek thought was preserved and made to to Christendom by Islam.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

All scientists interpret what they observe, from a viewpoint developed by their belief system. And why is a scientist who believes in creationism automatically a layman?

Science holds the ideal of objectivity, peer review, and self-criticism. While this doesn't always happen perfectly, it usually works quite well.

You say that the evidence scientist observe is interpreted based on their subjective, biased belief system. There are certain aspects of genetics and evolutionary theory that I find difficult to interpret any other way.

For example, in this issue of National Geographic there was a big article on dinosaurs and the fact that they are feathered. If you look through the fossil record there is a large volume of fossilized dinosaur bones that are feathered. If you examine their bone structures it is not difficult to see the linkage to today's modern birds. There is also quite good documentation of the evolution of flight in dinosaurs with some fairly striking transitional fossils.

Similarly, it is quite possible to observe a population of bacteria evolve to become resistant to an antibiotic in a petri dish in a lab. This evidence of changing gene frequencies can be extrapolated to larger populations over larger time frames. Any scientific endeavor involving the past will no doubt involve extrapolation of the data that we are currently observing and if you can't accept that assumption, then it quickly devolves into Last Thursdayism.

Science does not have all the answers to how evolution works because science is always a work in progress. Anti-science advocates seem to see this as a weakness while scientists see it as a strength which I always find ironic. Just because science hasn't figured out how sexual reproduction developed does not debunk evolutionary theory.

And have you not seen the ongoing attacks on this forum towards any group that supports Creationism. And that is from so called Christians. What do you suppose what take place if a secular newspaper ever dared to print an article by Christian scientists.....? But every paper will routinely print opinion and "fact" by evolutionists......No my friend that wheel has long turned.

There are lots of Christian scientists. I bet there's a good number of scientists that get quoted or published in newspapers and magazines that are in fact Christian, or at least believe in some kind of deity. The newspaper just doesn't print it: "So, Professor Dinkle recently discovered a new gene that may help in the development of cancer therapy. By the way, Professor Dinkle is a devout Christian." The newspaper just has no reason to even bring that up. There are many Christian scientists as I've said, they just don't happen to agree with you on the evolution issue and so you've labelled them as "fake Christians".

The only way I have settled on my doctrine is by challenging every truth of the Bible. But I do not simply give into the majority opinion or to he who shouts loudest....

How exactly did you challenge said doctrines?

Every new development and advancement of mankind has not been made by the masses...but by those individuals who dare to stand by their convictions and who have challenged the thinking of the masses...

Yep. And what if that individual with his brilliant idea has some idea which doesn't line up with your beliefs? Let me guess, you wouldn't believe in his idea....

My example of the dinosaur feathers above is the perfect example of scientists changing their opinions based on evidence gathered by a few forward-thinking individuals. 30 years ago, the idea of birds evolving from dinosaurs would be ludicrous and today it is widely accepted. It required many paleontologists to shed their preconceptions and biases based on new evidence. Are you willing to do the same? Or if evidence comes about that contradicts your preconceptions and biases, will you be the one passing it up as ludicrous?

 

[MattRose]

You've just given a classic example of why one shouldn't trust Wikipedia, but should instead seek out reliable sources.

I knew you would pull the Wikipedia card. I don't trust Wikipedia. I did check out the references though. It's called research. I look for examples both pro and con to support my theories. Then I try to objectively determine... oh I shouldn't bore you with something you'll never try.

In regards to the decree that you mention, it's important to distinguish between the different levels of pronouncements that exist within the Catholic Church. Not everything that the Church says is mandatory and binding on all Catholics, and much is more likely a recommendation. But regardless of what the Catholic Church said in that particular document, actions speak louder than words. We've seen that many scholars including clergy wrote books advocating heliocentrism before, during, and after the life of Galileo, hence it must be incorrect to say that the Church prohbited all books advocating heliocentrism. Case closed.

You're quick to close cases. Is it now time to burn me at the stake, or did your church not do that either? I never said they "prohibited all books advocating heliocentrism". In fact I was specific in using the phrase general prohibition of books. Your dance has become frantic. You're desparately clutching at straws by explaining that the church has different levels of pronouncements. Sheesh, be a man for once in your life. The church suppressed science over and over again. If they had power today, they would still be doing it. Admit when you're beat. Don't worry... we atheists almost never burn people at the stake.

 

[AlexBP]

I knew you would pull the Wikipedia card. I don't trust Wikipedia. I did check out the references though. It's called research. I look for examples both pro and con to support my theories. Then I try to objectively determine... oh I shouldn't bore you with something you'll never try.

If you don't trust Wikipedia, then why did you link to Wikipedia? Why not instead link to a reliable source? Could it be that there isn't any reliable source which backs up your claims?

You're quick to close cases. Is it now time to burn me at the stake, or did your church not do that either?

My church has never burned anybody at the stake.

I never said they "prohibited all books advocating heliocentrism". In fact I was specific in using the phrase general prohibition of books. Your dance has become frantic. You're desparately clutching at straws by explaining that the church has different levels of pronouncements.

I am "desperately clutching at straws"? Are you saying that it's untrue that the Catholic Church uses and has always used different levels of pronouncements with different levels of authority? If so, a quick look at any introductory book or website for Catholics will prove you wrong. On the specific question of the meaning of the "general prohibition of books" that you copied off the Wikipedia page, I would refer you to the book The Sun in the Church, by Berkeley historian of science J. L. Heilbron, which says this on the topic:

Contemporaries appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo had no general significance. Commentators like Gassendi and Fabri understood that the reference meant [heliocentrism] was only "provisionally not accepted". Gassendi, in 1642, observed that the decision of the cardinals did not amount to an article of faith; Riccioli, in 1651, that heliocentrism was not a heresy; Mengoli, in 1675, that interpretations of Scripture can only bind Catholics if agreed to at a general council; and Baldigiani, in 1678, that everyone knew that heliocentrism was accepted: "Galileo is not condemned for his theories about the sun and the earth. Even if it is said that there is a heresy against scripture, people are given to understand that the only dispute is over the manner of Galileo's promotion of the ideas, no dispute about the scientific matter."

Heilbron goes on to give evidence that in the rare cases where scholars had trouble printing books in Rome, they simply got them printed in other nearby cities without trouble. So in short, the "general prohibition of books" that you proudly refer to was not a general prohibition at all, and did not in any way hinder or affect scientific research.

That, however, is not really necessary. The larger point, as I said in my previous post, was the the bulk of scientific research on astronomy at the time came from Catholics, and much of that from the clergy. (The rest from Protestants.) So you're begging the question: if the Catholic Church was suppressing science, then why did the Catholic Church produce so much science, including nearly all the theoretical and experimental work that lead to the heliocentric model of the solar system? Until you can answer that question, your claims that the Catholic Church suppressed science will be tough to take seriously.

Sheesh, be a man for once in your life. The church suppressed science over and over again. If they had power today, they would still be doing it. Admit when you're beat.

I will believe that the church suppressed science over and over again if you can name examples of the church suppressing science over and over again. I will believe that the church suppressed science on one occasion if you can name one occasion on which the church suppressed science. Thus far you haven't named a single instance, so it seems pretty safe to believe that you're unable to do so. As for your insults and childish phrases such as "be a man", those just suggest that you're getting angry at me because I keep refuting your Wikipedia pages with links to real books and articles by real scholars.

Don't worry... we atheists almost never burn people at the stake.

Indeed. When atheists killed Antoine Lavoisier, the greatest chemist of the eighteenth century, they did it by cutting off his head as opposed to burning at the stake. I'm sure he appreciated their generosity.

 

[eugler]

I find it ironic that most of classical Greek thought was preserved and made to to Christendom by Islam.

So do I, especially when you consider that they were the enlightened ones back then and now it seems to be the other way round. Only took a thousand years...

 

[MattRose]

If you don't trust Wikipedia, then why did you link to Wikipedia? Why not instead link to a reliable source? Could it be that there isn't any reliable source which backs up your claims?

My church has never burned anybody at the stake.

We have been debating the catholic church's supression of science. We could make it unlimited and use all christain sects, but it would make this debate vulnerable to extreme examples from both sides and I'm not interested in playing "whack a mole" with you. You can't jump ship and claim you're not part of that particular religion when it suits you. Lay some ground rules to make it easier on yourself if you need to, but let me know what sect you are defending, or this debate will be even more futile that I expected. Catholics are infamous for burning people who disagree with them. Either defend the catholics or pick another sect that has a meaningful (suffficient for debate) written history.

Indeed. When atheists killed Antoine Lavoisier, the greatest chemist of the eighteenth century, they did it by cutting off his head as opposed to burning at the stake. I'm sure he appreciated their generosity.

The people who were in charge during the Reign of Terror were not atheists. They considered themselves good christians, much like you.

Heilbron goes on to give evidence that in the rare cases where scholars had trouble printing books in Rome, they simply got them printed in other nearby cities without trouble. So in short, the "general prohibition of books" that you proudly refer to was not a general prohibition at all, and did not in any way hinder or affect scientific research.

Right, so you claim that if the church won't allow a book to be printed in Rome, people would get them printed elsewhere. No suppession there. Let's see, I can't read or write anything in Rome that the church prohibits. Most of us in the 17th century only travel 10-20 miles from where we born during our entire lives. Hmmm, I live in Rome. I guess I won't be reading any books that the church bans here.

This isn't rocket science. The catholic church suppressed science and tried Galileo for heresy. If I can't get you to admit to this obvious example, it's pointless to move on to other examples. Actually it's pointless altogether, but your dance is so sexy I have to watch.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

but your dance is so sexy I have to watch.

I find that's the case a lot here...

 

[AlexBP]

We have been debating the catholic church's supression of science. We could make it unlimited and use all christain sects, but it would make this debate vulnerable to extreme examples from both sides and I'm not interested in playing "whack a mole" with you. You can't jump ship and claim you're not part of that particular religion when it suits you. Lay some ground rules to make it easier on yourself if you need to, but let me know what sect you are defending, or this debate will be even more futile that I expected. Catholics are infamous for burning people who disagree with them. Either defend the catholics or pick another sect that has a meaningful (suffficient for debate) written history.

I'm merely responding to the statements you make. I'm an Episcopalian, as you can see from my icon, not a Catholic. However, I am quite willing to defend the Catholic Church against false charges regarding their history.

The people who were in charge during the Reign of Terror were not atheists. They considered themselves good christians, much like you.

The French revolution was an anti-Catholic movement, and violently so. In the first couple years in power, the National Assembly sezied the property of the Catholic Church by force. Aggression against Catholics mounted throughout the revolution, and under Robespierre's it culminated with thousands of clergy being executed, imprisoned, or driven from the country. It is true that the revolutionaries were not uniformly atheist, but came from a range of beliefs across atheism to deism to Christianity, but the general tone of those in power throughout was hostile to the Catholic Church and Christians generally. It is also true at one point in 1793 Robespierre pretended to be sympathetic to Christians as part of his politican maneuvering; however, after reaching total power he turned violently against them. Only after Robespierre himself was executed did the mass murder and imprisonment of clergy end. A detailed history of government actions against the Church during the revolution can be found here.

Right, so you claim that if the church won't allow a book to be printed in Rome, people would get them printed elsewhere. No suppession there. Let's see, I can't read or write anything in Rome that the church prohibits. Most of us in the 17th century only travel 10-20 miles from where we born during our entire lives. Hmmm, I live in Rome. I guess I won't be reading any books that the church bans here.

This isn't rocket science. The catholic church suppressed science and tried Galileo for heresy. If I can't get you to admit to this obvious example, it's pointless to move on to other examples. Actually it's pointless altogether, but your dance is so sexy I have to watch.

First of all, it's not me claiming that scholars could get their books printed outside of Rome. I just quoted a book by a historian of science, J. L. Heilbron's The Sun in the Church. Second, I mentioned two points from that book, and you only responded to one. The first point was that no one interpreted the Church decree as ban on all books on the heliocentric theory, as evidenced by the many books on that theory published before, during, and after Galileo's time. That alone is enough to shoot down the claim that the Catholic Church suppressed the heliocentric theory. The additional fact that anyone could get a book published outside Rome if not inside Rome is just icing on the cake. While it may be true that a typical person didn't travel far in those days, a typical scholar did; they were very cosmopolitan. So, while I was wrong to say that the charge against Galileo wasn't heresy, I'm quite right in saying that there was no suppression of science by the Catholic Church, ever. If you'd like to argue otherwise, why not start by answer the question that I already asked: if the Catholic Church was suppressing science, then why did the Catholic Church produce so much science, including nearly all the theoretical and experimental work that lead to the heliocentric model of the solar system?