Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Christian Contribution To Scientific Progress


Vigile

Recommended Posts

Shouldn't this be in the humor section? You can hardly blame Christianity for the decline/fall of Rome's empire. Besides, why aren't we frustrated with Rome? We could have been way more advanced if the bloody Romans hadn't been using a backwards numbering system. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny but you got to wonder how they are measuring scientific progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this be in the humor section? You can hardly blame Christianity for the decline/fall of Rome's empire. Besides, why aren't we frustrated with Rome? We could have been way more advanced if the bloody Romans hadn't been using a backwards numbering system. :P

 

Christians burned libraries, forced scientists like Galileo to recant, etc... Yes the graph is meant to be humorous but the point is legit. It wasn't until the age of Enlightenment that the world started to see progress once again and that at the behest of challenging idiotic church inspired dogma such as the divine right of kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I disagree. The role of the church and of monasteries (and of some Islamic institutions..) was essential to the preservation and continuation of knowledge during the middle ages. To put this all into perspective, imagine that the European landscape of 600BCE looked similar to the scenery of Fallout 3. Death, chaos, and more death. There are many reasons why this happened, but I think that the *edit: final* cause was the Chinese. They expelled the huns, the huns expelled the visigoths, the visigoths expel the celts, all upon a weakened empire. 200 years later at 600BCE, the official 'early midle ages' era begins, because that's when pretty much nothing is remaining but a very disorganized but resilient church network.

 

Christianity was actually the very best thing that population had going for them: it (attempted to) control behavior, it preserved texts(those that survived, that is..), it created schools (schools were initially centers of monastic education, but later (1150/1250) saw changes in curriculum), connected territories (it was pretty much the only link between kingdoms), and for a very long while served as the only organized institution in Europe. You can point to Charlemagne, but his 'empire' disintegrated within 1 generation and then completely fell apart once MORE TRIBES invaded Europe in the year 900.

 

I'm all for criticizing Christianity where it deserves it, but I think we all have cause to consider ourselves fortunate that Constantine didn't decide to affirm the Roman pantheon instead of the big JC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early Medieval History (400-1000 CE) has always been a favorite of mine to read up on and what I've read goes along the lines of what Pockets was saying. The church didn't really become an anti-intellectual force in Europe till the late middle ages.

 

Though 300 CE Europe wasn't exactly post-apocalyptic, Rome was still around you know. And the primarily Gothic migrations weren't really such a bad thing, in many ways it helped revitalize a stagnant Roman world. Funny thing was they were Christian too, just Arian rather than Catholic. Europe didn't really get bad till the so called Viking Age after the breakup of Charlemagne's kingdom under his successors rule.

 

The Church was a bastion of learning and civilization throughout this time, they helped educate Rome's successors and as is often noted preserved a lot of Classical learning. Our system of music notation and theory came from monastery's as did a lot of other things.

 

Like most human institutions though it became too large and too corrupt, but it would be inaccurate to blame the "Dark Ages" (A debatable epoch) on the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, Christianity probably has been good for the development of science and human achievement, so I agree with you.

 

This is really a pointless debate because you can't go back and do a controlled experiment to see what developments would have occured without the influence of religion. Alisdar McGrath's book on Protestantism argues that Protestantism demystified the world. People saw the world as being part of the handiwork of God, and important for study, but just as the Bible was open to investigation, so was the natural world.

 

Of course, contemporary Protestantism and Catholicism seem to be working against the progress of science. But has nothing to do with their historical roles. To some extent, even when the Church was at its most backward and conservative, it was fostering on forces that ultimately would lead lead to the development of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early Medieval History (400-1000 CE) has always been a favorite of mine to read up on

Then perhaps you, or anyone else, could answer these questions. I've had them for a while and have always wondered about them...

 

 

I've heard that it was a xtian idea that bathing was a bad thing. IWO, one of the best ways to spot one of 'dem 'dere evil Joooos was because he was clean. Is this true and when did bathing become a bad thing?

 

Also, the Romans had plumbing. By the middle ages, no such thing was known. Can we blame the church for people wallowing in their own filth again or just human stupidity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphic is horrible western-centric. Even if the "dark ages" were as bleak as suggested (they aren't), it misses the fact that scientific progress advanced steadily in the Islamic and Chinese societies of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps you, or anyone else, could answer these questions. I've had them for a while and have always wondered about them...

 

 

I've heard that it was a xtian idea that bathing was a bad thing. IWO, one of the best ways to spot one of 'dem 'dere evil Joooos was because he was clean. Is this true and when did bathing become a bad thing?

 

Also, the Romans had plumbing. By the middle ages, no such thing was known. Can we blame the church for people wallowing in their own filth again or just human stupidity?

 

Heh, most of the histories I've read are silent on the matter. The plumbing thing has my curiosity piqued though.

 

I would hazard a guess that it was due to a combination of lack of concern or any sort of government structure capable of employing knowledgeable engineers in their city planning. I don't think that was something feudal lords cared much about.

 

Also there was a a sharp decline in urban centers while most of the population lived an agrarian lifestyle post-Rome so there wasn't much of a need. In the late middle ages when cities started to grow again and waste became a problem voila, sanitation.

 

Just what I would think based on what I know, think I'll look into it a bit more though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphic is horrible western-centric. Even if the "dark ages" were as bleak as suggested (they aren't), it misses the fact that scientific progress advanced steadily in the Islamic and Chinese societies of the time.

 

Most of us are Westerners, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Doc. That makes sense. But, damnit, I wanna blame the church!! :poke::fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm sure the church was an accomplice to all the rolling around in filth. Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can spin it any way you like the fact is Christianity has always hindered science. It's disingenuous to argue that the church protected knowledge when it was systems set up by the church that fed the environment of feudalism and ignorance to begin with. They preserved some knowledge at an elite level but they certainly didn't encourage knowledge or science. Just the opposite.

 

Once again Pockets holds the position that Christianity just really isn't that bad and that it gets a bum rap around here. I disagree.

 

http://markhumphrys.com/science.religion.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can spin it any way you like the fact is Christianity has always hindered science. It's disingenuous to argue that the church protected knowledge when it was systems set up by the church that fed the environment of feudalism and ignorance to begin with. They preserved some knowledge at an elite level but they certainly didn't encourage knowledge or science. Just the opposite.

 

Once again Pockets holds the position that Christianity just really isn't that bad and that it gets a bum rap around here. I disagree.

 

Please explain how Christianity is responsible for feudalism, that's one I've never heard before. And how can you claim that the preservation of knowledge isn't encouraging knowledge? And BTW "science" as we might think of it didn't exist until at least 1650, and it wasn't even coined as "science" until (i think) the early 1900s.

 

I don't attempt to lecture you about the economy, so don't prance around pretending to be some sort of medievalist. And, for the record, I don't care whether Christianity is portrayed favorably or unfavorably (that's YOUR hangup), I simply want to get at reality. I think you just need a bad guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how Christianity is responsible for feudalism

 

Divine right of kings and it all flowed down from there.

 

And how can you claim that the preservation of knowledge isn't encouraging knowledge?

 

Knowledge which they felt worthy of preserving was preserved merely for the elites. It was completely discouraged amongst those outside the seminary system. Any knowledge that didn't fit inside their own little christian box was discouraged. Read the link I presented.

 

I don't attempt to lecture you about the economy, so don't prance around pretending to be some sort of medievalist. And, for the record, I don't care whether Christianity is portrayed favorably or unfavorably (that's YOUR hangup), I simply want to get at reality. I think you just need a bad guy.

 

No I'm not an expert in Medeval history but don't go playing the degree card on me here I can recognize spin as well as the next guy. That I find you pissy and annoying has nothing to do with what I need or don't need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot damn... well, I'll be the first to say that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. I don't think it's coincidence that Constantine was the last Emperor to see the territory of the Empire expand. Frankly, Christianity undermined civic virtue in the empire- it was also responsible for the downward climb of military service. The excess of mercenary use that came with Christianity led to a weak military, and an inability to throw back invaders. The Empire stood proudly for hundreds of years, and the Republic for hundreds more, but it took less than a century from Christianity becoming the Roman religion and the fall of the Western Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divine right of kings and it all flowed down from there.
No. Feudalism begins with tribal ties and the absence of central authority, not with theology -- theology comes afterward and serves to sanctify the system already in place. Feudalism has existed in several different continents and people groups, and none of them needed some priest to tell them how to create vassals. That's not to say the church itself wasn't heavily feudal, it was, there's simply no causal link between the two.

 

Knowledge which they felt worthy of preserving was preserved merely for the elites. It was completely discouraged amongst those outside the seminary system. Any knowledge that didn't fit inside their own little christian box was discouraged.
No shit. Who else should read? Joe the Peasant? And what's this? They discouraged ideas they didn't agree with? How absur-- typical, believable, and (at the time) totally reasonable. None of this does anything to refute the claim that Christianity was instrumental in preserving & encouraging what knowledge there was in the early and high middle ages. (psst: mainly because there was no one else)

 

Idk why I let you get under my skin, Vigile. You're an asshole AND a dumbass. I know I'm right about this, I know that allll the evidence supports my position, and yet your stubborn little shenanigans are fucking irritating. I think I hate people like you as much or more than fundamentalism. Like I told you before, I'm not going to take your shit, so FUCK OFF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot damn... well, I'll be the first to say that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. I don't think it's coincidence that Constantine was the last Emperor to see the territory of the Empire expand. Frankly, Christianity undermined civic virtue in the empire- it was also responsible for the downward climb of military service. The excess of mercenary use that came with Christianity led to a weak military, and an inability to throw back invaders. The Empire stood proudly for hundreds of years, and the Republic for hundreds more, but it took less than a century from Christianity becoming the Roman religion and the fall of the Western Empire.

 

That sounds a whole lot like something some Christians I knew used to say: that homosexuality was the reason for Rome's decline. They'd list all kinds of reasons which made them think their claim more plausible, until eventually the "fact" that Rome's collapse was because of its homosexuality became the common "sense" of their group! So congratulations on being the first person to say something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot damn... well, I'll be the first to say that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. I don't think it's coincidence that Constantine was the last Emperor to see the territory of the Empire expand. Frankly, Christianity undermined civic virtue in the empire- it was also responsible for the downward climb of military service. The excess of mercenary use that came with Christianity led to a weak military, and an inability to throw back invaders. The Empire stood proudly for hundreds of years, and the Republic for hundreds more, but it took less than a century from Christianity becoming the Roman religion and the fall of the Western Empire.

 

That sounds a whole lot like something some Christians I knew used to say: that homosexuality was the reason for Rome's decline. They'd list all kinds of reasons which made them think their claim more plausible, until eventually the "fact" that Rome's collapse was because of its homosexuality became the common "sense" of their group! So congratulations on being the first person to say something like this.

 

As I mentioned above, though not to you, this debate is pointless because you can't go back and do a controlled experiment to see what developments would have occured without the influence of religion.

 

Of course, contemporary Protestantism and Catholicism seem to be working against the progress of science. But has nothing to do with their historical roles. To some extent, even when the Church was at its most backward and conservative, it was fostering on forces that ultimately would lead lead to the development of science. Science grew out of the religious experience of the west. Science, as we know it today, has a pariticular history and mode of development.

 

We can note that at certain times Christianity, particularly elements within the Roman Catholic Church, made proclamations that were not helpful to scientific progress. But the history is far too complex and far too mixed to make statements like "religion hindered science" or "relgion promoted science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theology comes afterward and serves to sanctify the system already in place.

 

Sounds like a downplay to me.

 

Idk why I let you get under my skin, Vigile. You're an asshole AND a dumbass. I know I'm right about this, I know that allll the evidence supports my position, and yet your stubborn little shenanigans are fucking irritating. I think I hate people like you as much or more than fundamentalism. Like I told you before, I'm not going to take your shit, so FUCK OFF.

 

Feel free to stop responding to my threads then. Your opinion of me what it is, there are many who might disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned above, though not to you, this debate is pointless because you can't go back and do a controlled experiment to see what developments would have occured without the influence of religion.

 

Of course, contemporary Protestantism and Catholicism seem to be working against the progress of science. But has nothing to do with their historical roles. To some extent, even when the Church was at its most backward and conservative, it was fostering on forces that ultimately would lead lead to the development of science. Science grew out of the religious experience of the west. Science, as we know it today, has a pariticular history and mode of development.

 

We can note that at certain times Christianity, particularly elements within the Roman Catholic Church, made proclamations that were not helpful to scientific progress. But the history is far too complex and far too mixed to make statements like "religion hindered science" or "relgion promoted science."

 

Great answer and one that I think wraps up this thread. Much more reasonable than my rantings on the subject to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned above, though not to you, this debate is pointless because you can't go back and do a controlled experiment to see what developments would have occured without the influence of religion.

 

Well yeah, we can't make a claim about whether they furthered "science" per se. But we can look at history and see where the church did some good in the area of learning and where they did poorly. It varies, the church of then is not the church of now, credit where credit is due eh?

 

And no they did not only help out the elites of feudal society, look up what friars did sometime. The church played an integral and largely beneficial role in early Medieval history. I mean look at the existing belief systems of the time, like what the so called barbarians were into, Christianity was pretty progressive for the time. After all we still can say today that most of the teachings of Jesus are pretty good if only people would follow them, imagine what it was like back then when trial by ordeal was all the rage and there was always some group of new Asiatic or Northern people migrating through killing everyone.

 

Seems we have a common interest here Pockets, are you a history major?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I majored in history (and philosophy) with a concentration on the medieval period. I spent a lot of time looking at 11th century Iberia -- its historians are sort of separate from the normal medievalists, so there's actually not that much out there. Which is a shame, because now people are very interested in how Christians, Jews, and Muslims got on sharing a peninsula. There's an unusual amount of interesting source material for the time, stuff from Islamic warlord poets & early Christian biographers. I would say that its my favorite time period. Its a subject that probably deserves its own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm just an amateur myself but yeah Medieval Spain is a fascinating subject. I've just scratched the surface but the stuff about the old Basques (They were in the song of Roland right?) and Visigoths and the subsequent Caliphates in the south and the Kingdom of the Asturias and others in the north is unlike any other history I've known. So many religions and rich cultures mixing..

 

I don't suppose you know of any good books on the subject that would be available most places? Most of what I've read is from broader works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.