Christian repression of science

[Augustus]

Despite there vast majority of historians of science considering this perspective to have been throughly discredited, among many here, particularly atheists, it is almost a truism that the pre-Enlightenment Church was systematically and dogmatically 'anti-science', persecuted and killed numerous scientists and destroyed reams of ancient philosophical writings. The result of this was the retardation of progress as the knowledge of the ancient Greeks was forgotten until its rediscovery lead to the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment which managed to emerge despite the hostility of the Church.

I'm interested in how many people roughly agree with this perspective? If so, what do you consider the supporting evidence to be?

Bonus question: Which scientists were killed or persecuted specifically for their scientific views?

[Probably shouldn't have put this in debates as I'm more interested in reading people's opinions than debating them]

 

[metis]

To a large extent, I say "yes" to the OP, but the history of that era is not monolithic by any means.

 

[David T]

Despite there vast majority of historians of science considering this perspective to have been throughly discredited, among many here, particularly atheists, it is almost a truism that the pre-Enlightenment Church was systematically and dogmatically 'anti-science', persecuted and killed numerous scientists and destroyed reams of ancient philosophical writings. The result of this was the retardation of progress as the knowledge of the ancient Greeks was forgotten until its rediscovery lead to the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment which managed to emerge despite the hostility of the Church.

I'm interested in how many people roughly agree with this perspective? If so, what do you consider the supporting evidence to be?

Bonus question: Which scientists were killed or persecuted specifically for their scientific views?

[Probably shouldn't have put this in debates as I'm more interested in reading people's opinions than debating them]

It's complex and very tied into politics.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its a question for historians. I can tell you what I learned from a historian, but I'm just regurgitating. It is thought that the church fostered technology better than previous cultures since it viewed nature as good. When clocks or mills were invented by a Catholic monk they went into use, but in other cultures they were viewed as a threat. On the other hand Europe operated for a long time under systems of patronage, and patronage was a discovery killer. This affected the church and all kinds of potential progress.

 

[Polymath257]

I said 'no', but this is mostly because of the later church (after, say, 1000AD) instead of the early church (say, up to 700AD).

The *later* church had a number of people (Bradwardine, Oresme, etc) that were quite interested and innovative when it comes to 'science'. At that time, it wasn't particularly experimental or observational, but the ideas concerning inertia, and the attempts to 'keep appearances' in astronomy were crucial for later developments. Even at the time of Galileo, the church was quite happy to debate alternative explanations (not typically admitted, I must say).

On the other hand, the *early* church was quite nasty to the Greek sciences because of their association with paganism. The closing of the library of Alexandria, the closing of the schools of philosophy, the rejection of 'pagan' learning, were all pointed at a rejection of the science of the day.

 

[Augustus]

To a large extent, I say "yes" to the OP,

Can I ask what specifically makes you think this?

Thanks

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bonus question: Which scientists were killed or persecuted specifically for their scientific views?

Off the top of my head:

Killed: Giordano Bruno. Persecuted: Galileo.

 

[Polymath257]

Off the top of my head:

Killed: Giordano Bruno. Persecuted: Galileo.

Bruno was hardly a scientist. And he wasn't killed for his scientific views.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were episodic and egregious instances of persecution by a church that also hosted scientific scholarship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bruno was hardly a scientist. And he wasn't killed for his scientific views.

He was killed for suggesting that many worlds.

What criteria would you use for "scientist" in an era before modern science... even before Francis Bacon?

 

[Polymath257]

There were episodic and egregious instances of persecution by a church that also hosted scientific scholarship.

Precisely. The record is, at best, mixed. Was there *systematic* repression of science? Not usually.

 

[metis]

Can I ask what specifically makes you think this?

After my study of Christian history over about five decades and myriads of books. However, an expert I am not.

And thanks for the question.

 

[Polymath257]

He was killed for suggesting that many worlds.

Not quite. He was killed for his theology about those many worlds. It wasn't the science. It was the theology. Now, I'm not claiming that was a *legitimate* reason to kill him, but it wasn't for his scientific views that he died.

What criteria would you use for "scientist" in an era before modern science... even before Francis Bacon?

And that is an issue. Natural philosopher would be a natural working definition. Again, Bruno didn't come to his position based on natural philosophy. And there were many such philosophers investigating things like the concept of a vacuum, the concept of inertia, the questions of motion, etc. While they were mostly *wrong*, they were supported by the church and were allowed a fair amount of autonomy in their thoughts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My prediction of how this thread will go; @Augustus - correct me if I'm wrong:

Only people working in academia will meet the bar of being a "scientist." However, since we're mainly talking about an era when academia wad controlled by churches, what you're really asking for is someone who:

- had enough standing with the religious authorities to get a position as professor or whatnot,

- wrote papers that were orthodox enough to get an imprimatur in a society where publishing was censored by the religious authorities, but also

- at the same time, was so hated and disseminated such anti-orthodox views that he was executed or otherwise persecuted for them

Augustus: is this the sort of person you're looking for?

 

[Augustus]

My prediction of how this thread will go; @Augustus - correct me if I'm wrong:

Only people working in academia will meet the bar of being a "scientist." However, since we're mainly talking about an era when academia wad controlled by churches, what you're really asking for is someone who:

- had enough standing with the religious authorities to get a position as professor or whatnot,

- wrote papers that were orthodox enough to get an imprimatur in a society where publishing was censored by the religious authorities, but also

- at the same time, was so hated and disseminated such anti-orthodox views that he was executed or otherwise persecuted for them

Augustus: is this the sort of person you're looking for?

No. Anyone who can reasonably be considered to have been a natural philosopher/'scientist' within a fairly standard definition of the term will do.

As far as I am aware, there are no records of people being killed for such views (some for theology though). Even finding those who have been persecuted is surprisingly difficult.

Want to see if anyone else can help in this regard.

 

[Augustus]

There were episodic and egregious instances of persecution by a church

which examples would you give for this?

Thanks.

 

[Muffled]

Despite there vast majority of historians of science considering this perspective to have been throughly discredited, among many here, particularly atheists, it is almost a truism that the pre-Enlightenment Church was systematically and dogmatically 'anti-science', persecuted and killed numerous scientists and destroyed reams of ancient philosophical writings. The result of this was the retardation of progress as the knowledge of the ancient Greeks was forgotten until its rediscovery lead to the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment which managed to emerge despite the hostility of the Church.

I'm interested in how many people roughly agree with this perspective? If so, what do you consider the supporting evidence to be?

Bonus question: Which scientists were killed or persecuted specifically for their scientific views?

[Probably shouldn't have put this in debates as I'm more interested in reading people's opinions than debating them]

I believe the church thought it was acting on behalf its authority and beliefs. That which ran counter was apt to run into ecclesiastical opposition. So for that reason I believe it was not simply a pogrom against science.

 

[Muffled]

I said 'no', but this is mostly because of the later church (after, say, 1000AD) instead of the early church (say, up to 700AD).

The *later* church had a number of people (Bradwardine, Oresme, etc) that were quite interested and innovative when it comes to 'science'. At that time, it wasn't particularly experimental or observational, but the ideas concerning inertia, and the attempts to 'keep appearances' in astronomy were crucial for later developments. Even at the time of Galileo, the church was quite happy to debate alternative explanations (not typically admitted, I must say).

On the other hand, the *early* church was quite nasty to the Greek sciences because of their association with paganism. The closing of the library of Alexandria, the closing of the schools of philosophy, the rejection of 'pagan' learning, were all pointed at a rejection of the science of the day.

I believe you will have to admit though that it was paganism that was being attacked and not science itself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were episodic and egregious instances of persecution by a church

which examples would you give for this?

Thanks.

Given that the original post read:

There were episodic and egregious instances of persecution by a church that also hosted scientific scholarship.

your question strikes me as instructively one-sided.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Despite there vast majority of historians of science considering this perspective to have been throughly discredited, among many here, particularly atheists, it is almost a truism that the pre-Enlightenment Church was systematically and dogmatically 'anti-science', persecuted and killed numerous scientists and destroyed reams of ancient philosophical writings. The result of this was the retardation of progress as the knowledge of the ancient Greeks was forgotten until its rediscovery lead to the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment which managed to emerge despite the hostility of the Church.

I'm interested in how many people roughly agree with this perspective? If so, what do you consider the supporting evidence to be?

Bonus question: Which scientists were killed or persecuted specifically for their scientific views?

[Probably shouldn't have put this in debates as I'm more interested in reading people's opinions than debating them]

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo.

I think a better argument can be made that atheism v science has been the far greater conflict; there are many anecdotes, but fundamentally a materialist conclusion inherently seeks to 'close the book' with the simplest, easiest God-refuting hypothesis at hand.

'God asks more questions than it answers' is a common complaint- as was the case for quantum mechanics and the Big Bang

A theistic conclusion has no ideological resistance to looking ever deeper and farther, finding yet another layer of complexity, sophistication in creation to explore and appreciate