Catholic contributions to science

[dmar198]

This is a good point. I’m sure that some of the Catholic contributions listed here are really rather contributions by people who happen to be Catholic.

If we accept that the contribution of an individual who happens to be Catholic is a Catholic contribution, then we must also accept that an evil committed by someone who happens to be Catholic is a Catholic evil.

I don’t think so. A Catholic scientist working at Catholic facilities who follows ethical principles and invents something useful is doing science according to the guidelines set by the Church and by means provided by the Church, and therefore the Church can take some credit. But a Catholic scientist who works at the same facilities and disregards the Church’s ethical principles or who does something destructive is not in the same position. He is abusing resources that were given to him for the sake of doing something good. I don’t think you can legitimately attribute something to the Church that the Church forbids. Therefore we can make a distinction about how we take credit for scientific contributions: if they are ethical contributions and the Church helped make them, then the Church can take partial credit. If they are unethical contributions and the Church’s help was abused without the Church’s knowledge, we don’t have to take credit for that.

Also, I think your statement, if true, would prove too much. Harvard University’s research labs take credit for good research done in their labs, and no one says, “Well that researcher just happened to be using their facilities so Harvard didn’t really contribute anything.” No, they provided those facilities just so that good science could be done. And the Church does the same. Your statement would seem to take away the ability of all collaborators in scientific fields to take partial credit for accomplishments made with their help. Do you see why I think that’s a problem?

 

[tafan]

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how these topics will run their course.
Did anyone living in the time that any of these mentioned have a choice to be anything other than Catholic? Did that make them so?

That is really besides the point. What is undisputable is that modern science developed exclusively in Western Europe during the late middle ages and medieval times.
The point is, why did it develop there and no where else? A very good case can be made was because it was due to the Catholic culture, the impact of the Catholic religion in the way mankind “thinks”. Only in the Catholic religion do you have an believe in the congruence between faith and reason (one could possibly make the same case for Judaism, I am not sure). Only in the Catholic religion was the thought that understanding God’s creation was almost a means of understanding God himself. The Church never had a fear of the unknown, or the foreign. These traits of thought lead to the development of modern science.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t think so. A Catholic scientist working at Catholic facilities who follows ethical principles and invents something useful is doing science according to the guidelines set by the Church and by means provided by the Church, and therefore the Church can take some credit. But a Catholic scientist who works at the same facilities and disregards the Church’s ethical principles or who does something destructive is not in the same position. He is abusing resources that were given to him for the sake of doing something good. I don’t think you can legitimately attribute something to the Church that the Church forbids. Therefore we can make a distinction about how we take credit for scientific contributions: if they are ethical contributions and the Church helped make them, then the Church can take partial credit. If they are unethical contributions and the Church’s help was abused without the Church’s knowledge, we don’t have to take credit for that.

Also, I think your statement, if true, would prove too much. Harvard University’s research labs take credit for good research done in their labs, and no one says, “Well that researcher just happened to be using their facilities so Harvard didn’t really contribute anything.” No, they provided those facilities just so that good science could be done. And the Church does the same. Your statement would seem to take away the ability of all collaborators in scientific fields to take partial credit for accomplishments made with their help. Do you see why I think that’s a problem?

I don’t understand. Your post seems to prove my point.

I’m talking about Joe scientist working at XYZ Inc. who just happens to be Catholic. His invention is not a “Catholic contribution to science.” If Joe worked for a lab run by the Catholic Church, that would be different. It would clearly be Catholic.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

-Tim-

 

[dmar198]

I don’t understand. Your post seems to prove my point.

I’m talking about Joe scientist working at XYZ Inc. who just happens to be Catholic. His invention is not a “Catholic contribution to science.” If Joe worked for a lab run by the Catholic Church, that would be different. It would clearly be Catholic.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

-Tim-

Oh. Well, good. It’s just that I think virtually all the examples of Catholic contributions to science that are typically cited in these types of discussions are either done using Catholic facilities or by Catholics in religious orders – not just people who happen to be Catholic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Oh. Well, good. It’s just that I think virtually all the examples of Catholic contributions to science that are typically cited in these types of discussions are either done using Catholic facilities or by Catholics in religious orders – not just people who happen to be Catholic.

I don’t see how Galileo, Columbus and Gutenberg (see various posts above) would fit into this category.

Reminds of me of those radio ads (“Catholics Come Home” I think?) where seemingly the modern Catholic Church tries to take credit for the entirety of Western Civilization–at least that’s how it comes across. What a turn-off. IMO this kind of overreaching tends to obfuscate and detract from the actual legitimate contributions made to the world by the Catholic Church.

 

[BornInMarch]

I don’t see how Galileo, Columbus and Gutenberg (see various posts above) would fit into this category.

Reminds of me of those radio ads (“Catholics Come Home” I think?) where seemingly the modern Catholic Church tries to take credit for the entirety of Western Civilization–at least that’s how it comes across. What a turn-off. IMO this kind of overreaching tends to obfuscate and detract from the actual legitimate contributions made to the world by the Catholic Church.

Galileo only got his education because he was a catholic Deacon. He only got a chance to make his discovery because of the same reason (the observatory where he made his discovery was in a facility owned by the Catholic Church).

Johannes Gutenberg’s catholic faith is probably why he set out to print an entire bible just months after having invented movable type.

Christopher Columbus was more of an explorer than a scientist, but his discovery was no less important. He, like Lief Erkisson, sailed west with the partial intent of spreading christianity.

I am not trying to claim the Catholic Church invented science, I am merely saying that it never tried to suppress science (like the Conflict Theory states). Anyone who blames Christianity for the Dark Ages blatantly forgets the monks who recorded all the work of antiquary, work which would otherwise have been lost.

 

[dmar198]

Galileo only got his education because he was a catholic Deacon. He only got a chance to make his discovery because of the same reason (the observatory where he made his discovery was in a facility owned by the Catholic Church).

Johannes Gutenberg’s catholic faith is probably why he set out to print an entire bible just months after having invented movable type.

Christopher Columbus was more of an explorer than a scientist, but his discovery was no less important. He, like Lief Erkisson, sailed west with the partial intent of spreading christianity.

I am not trying to claim the Catholic Church invented science, I am merely saying that it never tried to suppress science (like the Conflict Theory states). Anyone who blames Christianity for the Dark Ages blatantly forgets the monks who recorded all the work of antiquary, work which would otherwise have been lost.

I think it’s unfair to call those ages Dark. There was some darkness, but that’s only a partial truth, and I think the darkness came from the Barbarian Invasions rather than the Church. The Church preserved the light. And it spread a beautiful flame that lit up Europe and changed the world forever.

I wouldn’t call that a Dark Age.

 

[BornInMarch]

I think it’s unfair to call those ages Dark. There was some darkness, but that’s only a partial truth, and I think the darkness came from the Barbarian Invasions rather than the Church. The Church preserved the light. And it spread a beautiful flame that lit up Europe and changed the world forever.

I wouldn’t call that a Dark Age.

That is a valid point: many historians no longer think the Middle Ages were Dark at all.

However, the point I made was that even if the Middle Ages were dark, it is NOT the fault of the Church.

 

[JohnR77]

Christopher Columbus was more of an explorer than a scientist, but his discovery was no less important. … with the partial intent of spreading christianity.

Honoring Christopher Columbus
by WARREN H CARROLL

**ABSTRACT: Columbus was a flawed hero—as all men are flawed, including heroes—and his flaws are of a kind particularly offensive to today’s culture. But he was nevertheless a hero, achieving in a manner unequalled in the history of exploration and the sea, changing history forever. For some strange reason heroism is almost anathema to our age, at least to many of its most vocal spokesmen. But heroes and the inspiration they give are essential to uplift men and women; without them, faceless mediocrity will soon descend into apathy and degradation. Heroes need not be perfect; indeed, given the fallen nature of man, none can be perfect. It is right to criticize their failings, but wrong to deny their greatness and the inspiration they can give. **

That the conversion of the people he found was a central purpose of Christopher Columbus is made unmistakably clear by an entry in his log book written November 6, when he was exploring the coast of Cuba. It is addressed directly to Isabel and Fernando:
“I have to say, Most Serene Princes, that if devout religious persons know the Indian language well, all these people would soon become Christians. Thus I pray to Our Lord that Your Highnesses will appoint persons of great diligence in order to bring to the Church such great numbers of peoples …”
On the return voyage, the two surviving ships became separated, and barely survived. The final crisis came as Columbus was approaching the coast of Portugal through a furious storm … Between the moon and the lightning, at seven o’clock land was sighted dead ahead, high enough to mean cliffs. A rockbound lee shore in a near-hurricane for a ship driven before the wind means certain death if its course cannot be changed.
There is no more dramatic moment in all of maritime history. …

Read whole article at
ewtn.com/library/homelibr/columbus.htm

Why Columbus Sailed

Columbia spoke to Delaney about the fruits of her research, published in her book titled Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem (Free Press, 2011).

Columbia: You argue that most people misunderstand the purpose of Columbus’ voyage. According to your research, what were his motivations?

Carol Delaney: Everybody knows that Columbus was trying to find gold, but they don’t know what the gold was for: to fund a crusade to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims before the end of the world. …

Columbia: In addition to funding the crusade, did Columbus intend to evangelize the New World?

**Carol Delaney: **He was very much interested in evangelizing. He wrote against the idea that the natives could just be baptized and automatically become Christian. Rather, they really needed to be instructed about the Christian faith before being converted. He wrote to the pope requesting that good priests be sent to provide this instruction and even left money in his will for it.
See article at
kofc.org/un/en/columbia/detail/2012_06_columbus_interview.html

Hopefully, someday I will be able to expand more on why tafan was so correct in analysis in post #22 above.

.

 

[SecretCatholic]

The Jesuits were known for their contributions to seismology: seismosoc.org/inside/eastern-section/ES_Jesuits.php

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I am not trying to claim the Catholic Church invented science…

I think the ads I’d referred to (Catholics Come Home) do make this claim. I think they are overreaching.

 

[Estevao]

I was reading Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” recently, as Darwin is one of the great figures of the enlightenment tradition, and I was struck by how his application of natural selection to Humans was affected by his poor understanding of history generated by the anti-religious polemical nature of historical scholarship in his time. Today, historical scholars looking objectively at the facts have demonstrated that the notion of a “dark ages” and a progress stalling Catholic Church is a total myth. But if you read Part 1, Chapter 5 of Darwin’s book, you see that he thinks the exact opposite.

 

[Estevao]

I think the ads I’d referred to (Catholics Come Home) do make this claim. I think they are overreaching.

The development of the scientific method followed in the thought tradition of medieval scholastic philosophers, like Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. Coupling this with the tradition of the Catholic Church being a patron of the sciences, I think it’s a very defensible claim.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The development of the scientific method followed in the thought tradition of medieval scholastic philosophers, like Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. Coupling this with the tradition of the Catholic Church being a patron of the sciences, I think it’s a very defensible claim.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that. In any event the claim comes across as extremely braggadocious. Just my perspective.

 

[BornInMarch]

I was reading Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” recently, as Darwin is one of the great figures of the enlightenment tradition, and I was struck by how his application of natural selection to Humans was affected by his poor understanding of history generated by the anti-religious polemical nature of historical scholarship in his time. Today, historical scholars looking objectively at the facts have demonstrated that the notion of a “dark ages” and a progress stalling Catholic Church is a total myth. But if you read Part 1, Chapter 5 of Darwin’s book, you see that he thinks the exact opposite.

Of course Darwin would believe in conflict theory. England during Darwin’s time is a Protestant nation, and as such Catholics would have been demonized and despised by the English population.
The very tragic fact is that this is why Darwin felt he wasn’t able to reconcile his theories with Christianity, because the only version of Christianity he had access to was the Church of England. While the Catholic Church as an institution never denounced evolution, the Church of England did.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Of course Darwin would believe in conflict theory. England during Darwin’s time is a Protestant nation, and as such Catholics would have been demonized and despised by the English population.
The very tragic fact is that this is why Darwin felt he wasn’t able to reconcile his theories with Christianity, because the only version of Christianity he had access to was the Church of England. While the Catholic Church as an institution never denounced evolution, the Church of England did.

There’s more to it than that though. Darwin’s claim is more than the conflict between religion and science: he asserts that the “evil” of the “Catholic Church” in particular (not the Anglican Church) stifled the advance of civilization, not just science. (p. 179) (The old myth about) the Inquisition is mentioned. It “selected with extreme care the freest and boldest men in order to burn or imprison them.”

Also Newton was an Anglican. Darwin would have known that.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Of course Darwin would believe in conflict theory. England during Darwin’s time is a Protestant nation, and as such Catholics would have been demonized and despised by the English population.
The very tragic fact is that this is why Darwin felt he wasn’t able to reconcile his theories with Christianity, because the only version of Christianity he had access to was the Church of England. While the Catholic Church as an institution never denounced evolution, the Church of England did.

politicalquotes.org/Eigen%20Quotation%2045144.html

Excommunication Proclamation, 1878
Chil y Marango had studied the Spanish controlled Canary Islands showing some of the primitive behavior of early man there which did injury to the Church’s view of Adam and Eve and denial of any evolution. Ironically, today the Catholic Church accepts evolution as valid science and religion while some other churches do not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

There’s more to it than that though. Darwin’s claim is more than the conflict between religion and science: he asserts that the “evil” of the “Catholic Church” in particular (not the Anglican Church) stifled the advance of civilization, not just science. (p. 179) (The old myth about) the Inquisition is mentioned. It “selected with extreme care the freest and boldest men in order to burn or imprison them.”

Also Newton was an Anglican. Darwin would have known that.

Was Darwin wrong about that?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Was Darwin wrong about that?

I don’t know of any current historian specializing in the subject and with up-to-date access to the primary sources who teaches that the Inquisitors carefully selected “the freest and boldest men in order to burn or imprison them.”

I would suggest reading , University of California Press, 1989Inquisition. He teaches at Penn.

Peters makes quite clear the myths of the Inquisition floating around and what scholarly history has uncovered.