Did tbe Church restrict scientific thought or development during the "Dark Ages"?

[gus]

Yeah, but wasn’t Galileo persecuted by the Church for teaching a heliocentric theory that the Catholic Church hundreds of years later asserted was correct? Why doesn’t the Galileo affair indicate that the Church erred in matters of science?

If the movement of the sun in Joshua 10:12-13 wasn’t intended to be interpreted in literal fashion, then what else can be meant by the medieval Church’s rejection of Galileo’s proposed “accomodative language” interpretation, except that the church was supremely certain of the truth of a bible interpretation that actually turned out to be wrong?

The Galileo affair is very complicated and I believe it really can’t be understood outside the context of the exact period in history.
In traditional Catholic non literalist scripture tradition dating back to Augustine and even before the heliocentric theory would not have been a bit of a problem .
Are those passages a problem for the Church today hardly.
But in the wake of the Regormation and the Church being pounded for its non literalist views by the reformers Galileo ( a devout very visible Cstholic shows up spouting how heliocentric theory contradicts scripture (. It doesn’t unless your a strict literalist) was a source of embarrassment.
Remember many of the leading astronomers of the time were Jesuits
These same Catholic astronomers gave us the calendar we still use primarily based on the heliocentric system. But that was earlier.
Germany was being torn apart by the 30 years war . Until WW1 the costliest war in Eutopean History. The post Trent Church was in defense mode. St Cardinal Belamaine requested that he not teach the heliocentric theory as fact unless he had absolute proof because of the obvious harm it could cause.Galileo agreed
Galileo was Actually a jerk and loved to inject scathing personal attacks in his writings against anyone who disagreed with him for example hiswork on Comets Assayer is a scathing attack on the
Jesuit Mathematician Grassi who correctly identified Comets as small heavily bodies
He thought they were earth born vapors
In the same vein when he wrote his book on tides which included reference and a famous diologue on the heliocentric theory he injected the Pope as a simpleton who opposed heliocentric theory.
The Pope a personal friend of his and a defender was not very happy and most of his former allies deserted him.
His enemies seized their opportunity. He had many and only his connections saved him.
The Roman Inquisition let him off with house arrest to his villa in Tuscany.
With a cook and servants. His daughter a nun in a nearby convent corresponded with him frequently. His was an old man when confined and lived another ten years .
We should all be punished like him.
He Actually published his best work after he was in house arrest on moving bodies.
He was wrong about tides also. He disagreed with the lunar theory in favor of the earth rotation causing them.
Most of the best advances in science in the next couple of centuries were made by people of religious belief.
In fact it’s easy to claim without the Church science could never exist

 

[jcrichton]

I am quite aware of why Galileo thought Heliocentrism was true. I find nothing in his arguments even remotely approaching the absurdity of unicorns. Can you quote Galileo directly to support your contention?

Hi!
Galileo had a little issue… his claim was not evidenced through scientific knowledge. He had a theory based on Copernicus model:

It was not until the 16th century that a geometric mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism)

Yet, because Galileo could not prove the parallax effect, the Pope, and every other thinker of his time, would accept his position only as theoretical:

Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus’ theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals.[66] On November 1, 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism)

Though there were people who did not speak well of the proposed heliocentric theory, the Church is constantly being blamed for his mode of thinking:

However, in 1539, Martin Luther said:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”[67]

Some years after the publication of De Revolutionibus John Calvin preached a sermon in which he denounced those who “pervert the order of nature” by saying that “the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns”.70

As technology and knowledge advances the Church responds to it–what once could only be accepted as theory would ultimately claim its rightful place as proven science:

Meanwhile, the Church remained opposed to heliocentrism as a literal description, but this did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar. In support of this effort it allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories called meridiane; i.e., they were turned into “reverse sundials”, or gigantic pinhole cameras, where the Sun’s image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral’s lantern onto a meridian line.

In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus (Index of Prohibited Books, published by order of Alexander VII, P.M.) which included all previous condemnations of heliocentric books.[97]

In the mid-eighteenth century the Church’s opposition began to fade. An annotated copy of Newton’s Principia was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians, with a preface stating that the author’s work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[98] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church currently operates the Vatican Observatory, home to multiple award winning scholars, showing their ultimate acceptance of heliocentrism by furthering the field. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think we’re missing the forest for the trees here. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t try to retard the progress of science. And of course we may attribute the establishment of universities etc. to the church. This is a matter of history. However, true to any institution which has gained in influence and power in the world, the churches motivation was control. She wanted to keep the direction and progress of science under her control and influence. Keep the control of scientific discovery, keep control of educational instruction, keep control of cultural evolution and you ensure your future survival . Those in charge at the time felt that the church would be in danger of being lost otherwise. Ironically I believe the all too human leadership of the church at the time focused more on keeping the church a powerful force in the world with all too secular devices than in the focus on faith and protection in the things of God. Of course they would do this under the guise of making these secular things “godly” things. Many of the problems encountered by the church were created because of the actions of the church as a result. Hence we have the pope apologizing for the churches past transgressions.
In thinking she can do no wrong because God has charged her with spreading his revelations the church in her pride has caused herself to be a stumbling block for many. A sad situation indeed.

Interesting take… so the Church vanished because science and technology took hold in spite of her hindering development?

Where are you getting your information… check this link so that you can enrich your understanding of the Church and the world:

The Catholic Church Builder of Civilization (youtube.com/watch?v=m5siHd1P5zk)

Remove the Catholic Church from society and we would most like be in deep Dark Ages–most everyone that had a little power was out to take over the world–only through the efforts of the Catholic Church did we survive the dark ages and onslaught of conquerors and raiders… don’t believe, just look over at the Orient where kill and oppress is the order of the day.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

Interesting take… so the Church vanished because science and technology took hold in spite of her hindering development?

Where are you getting your information… check this link so that you can enrich your understanding of the Church and the world:

Remove the Catholic Church from society and we would most like be in deep Dark Ages–most everyone that had a little power was out to take over the world–only through the efforts of the Catholic Church did we survive the dark ages and onslaught of conquerors and raiders… don’t believe, just look over at the Orient where kill and oppress is the order of the day.

Maran atha!

Angel

Thank you for responding. I can only speak of what my limited understanding gives me. Be gentle in your criticism though. While I may not be privy to the information you are, one thing we both have before us is the information I posted on here. Information which I believe you have misinterpreted.

Where did you get the idea that I said the “church” ever disappeared? Whatever you mean by that. If by controlling a things development you believe you hinder it’s development then ok, the church hindered scientific development. I personally don’t believe this simplistic view.

Remove the Catholic Church from the world and good or bad some other entity would most likely have filled the void to promote scientific progress. Most everyone was out to get power and little has changed today. Don’t excuse the Catholic Church from that statement though. As I’ve said the leadership was just as concerned with getting and keeping power as any other secular organization at the time.

Tell me, if you had a desire to make great discoveries in science and you were born into a world where there was a very powerful organization which had great influence over whether you were given these oportunities or not, what would you do? What could you do? The error is in assuming that scientific discovery was made because the discoverer was a Catholic rather than that the member of the only big name game in town was a good scientist. Just as well believe that the discoverer of a new cure did so because he was hired by company A rather than because company A happened to be the only company who had the equipment to make the discovery.
To remove the freedom to choose any alternatives then brag about being the reason anything got done is absurd.

Why dwell on the point that Galileos so called treatment/punishment by the church was not as harsh as portrayed by many and completely ignore the fact that the Church actually had the ability to punnish Galileo at all for such offenses let alone make his punishment much harsher. Presumably Galileo new this and this played a part in the eventual outcome of these events.
The whole scenario probably had more to do with political positioning than anything to do with being concerned with the things of God.
How many unknowns suffered the harsher punnishments? We may never know. Galilio was quite an advertisement, the unknowns of course were not and are lost to history.

The Catholic Church relied as much on the secular armies of the time to defend her as anything else from the so called barbarian hoards etc. What’s the difference? The Catholic Church had no standing army of her own. Again the relationship between these armies and the Catholic Church probably had more to do with political positioning than any over welming desire to be good Catholics in the eyes of the pope. Believing is not the same as merely giving “lip service”.

As far as the “Orient” goes, I’m assuming your primarily talking about radical Muslims as an example. Don’t make the mistake of believing Catholics don’t or didn’t kill or suppress. Individually many Christians kill and suppress with the best of them. And just look at…oh…say, the early middle ages.The only difference being that Muslims are more collectively overt about such things, perhaps because many actually believe they are being pious. In this manner at least Christianity is more advanced than Islam.
Some Christians have found other ways of suppressing and killing without being so overt.

When the Churches chains loosened and science started to progress without her influence did scientific progress collapse? Would it have if the Catholic church’s influence in the middle ages weren’t so great? Or she didn’t exist? Can we ever say for sure ?

 

[buffalo]

**Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History
**

As we all know and as many of our well established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history, Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were a stunting of the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment, and the religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?
In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of *The Rise of Christianity *(HarperSanFrancisco 1997) argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least positive light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so strongly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what, in fact, is the truth?
In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became the conventional wisdom, and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example,

• Instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.
• Instead of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title, “Hitler’s Pope,” Stark shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Pope Pius XII was widely praised for his vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.
• Instead of the Dark Ages being understood as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers will not only have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church, they will come to understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. *Bearing False Witness *is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth. amazon.com/Bearing-False-Witness-Debunking-Anti-Catholic/dp/1599474999

 

[Nicene]

The dark ages is a fallacy, as is the opposition of the church vs science. Here are some of the more prominent catholic scientists of the supposed dark ages from the 1600’s and prior:

Georgius Agricola (1494–1555) – father of mineralogy
Albertus Magnus (c.1206–1280) – patron saint of natural sciences
Adrien Auzout (1622–1691) – astronomer who contributed to the development of the telescopic micrometer
Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294) – Franciscan friar and early advocate of the scientific method
Daniello Bartoli (1608–1685) – Jesuit priest and one of the first to see the equatorial belts of Jupiter
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608–1679) – often referred to as the father of modern biomechanics
Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) – Archbishop and one of the discoverers of the mean speed theorem
Albert Brudzewski (c. 1445–c.1497) – first to state that the Moon moves in an ellipse
Jean Buridan (c.1300–after 1358) – French priest who developed the theory of impetus
Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712) – first to observe four of Saturn’s moons and the co-discoverer of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter
Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598–1647) – mathematician known for his work in optics and motion, calculus, and for introducing logarithms to Italy
Andrea Cesalpino (c.1525–1603) – botanist who also theorized on the circulation of blood
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806) – physicist known for developing Coulomb’s law
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) – first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology
Johann Baptist Cysat (c.1587–1657) – Jesuit priest known for his study of comets
René Descartes (1596–1650) – father of modern philosophy and analytic geometry
Bartolomeo Eustachi (c.1500–1574) – one of the founders of human anatomy
Hieronymus Fabricius (1537–1619) – father of embryology
Gabriele Falloppio (1523–1562) – pioneering Italian anatomist who studied the human ear and reproductive organs
Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) – number theorist who contributed to the early development of calculus
Jean Fernel (1497–1558) – physician who introduced the term physiology
William Gascoigne (1610–1644) – developed the first micrometer
Johannes Gutenberg (c.1398–1468) – inventor of the printing press
Eusebio Kino (1645–1711) – Jesuit missionary and cartographer who drew maps based on his explorations, first showing that California was not an island as was then believed
Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694) – father of comparative physiology
Edme Mariotte (c.1620–1684) – priest who independently discovered Boyle’s Law
Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698–1759) – known for the Maupertuis principle and for being the first president of the Berlin Academy of Science
Michele Mercati (1541–1593) – one of the first to recognize prehistoric stone tools as man-made
Marin Mersenne (1588–1648) – father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named
William of Ockham (c.1288–c.1348) – Franciscan friar known for Ockham’s Razor
Nicole Oresme (c.1320–1382) – 14th-century bishop who theorized the daily rotation of the earth on its axis
Abraham Ortelius (1527–1598) – created the first modern atlas and theorized on continental drift
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) – French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher
Georg von Peuerbach (1423–1461) – called the father of mathematical and observational astronomy in the West
Jean Picard (1620–1682) – French priest and father of modern astronomy in France
Francesco Redi (1626–1697) – his experiments with maggots were a major step in overturning the idea of spontaneous generation
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671) – Jesuit priest and the first person to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies
Domingo de Soto (1494–1560) – Spanish Dominican priest and professor at the University of Salamanca; in his commentaries to Aristotle he proposed that free falling bodies undergo constant acceleration
Nicolas Steno (1638–1686) – Bishop, father of stratigraphy
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) – gave the first geometrical analysis of the rainbow
Pierre Vernier (1580–1637) – mathematician who invented the Vernier scale
Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) – father of modern human anatomy

You’ll also find it interesting that many of those scientists were priests (though not credited on the list as such, for example Copernicus), Descartes, Gessendi etc.

But just for fun, the scientific community has a lot to answer for with regard trying to shut down religious scientists for nothing more than their prejudice. One of the great modern examples of this is Lious Pasteur for his work on vaccines, a theory they rejected, and attempting to shut him down on rabies and anthrax vaccines.

For more fun which should give some red cheecks. The Big bang theory and the theory on the expansion of the universe were proposed by a priest/physicist Georges Lemaitre who brought his theory to Einstein and worked the math on it for the next year before publishing their results.

Most of the modern sciences are based on work pioneered by Catholics. The dark ages are a myth perpetrated some protestant anti-Catholicism and quite a bit of anti religion on the part of the scientific community.

The above is just a list of 1600’s and prior. You will find a much more extensive list post 1600 and some you didn’t even realize are or were catholic.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Just an afterthought shouldn’t Occams Razor be employed on this subject? Or would that be objectionable since he was a priest

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Two other religious figures spring to mind during the “Dark Ages” Newton (Church of England) and Kepler (Lutheran). Just to be fair.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for responding. I can only speak of what my limited understanding gives me. Be gentle in your criticism though. While I may not be privy to the information you are, one thing we both have before us is the information I posted on here. Information which I believe you have misinterpreted.

Where did you get the idea that I said the “church” ever disappeared? Whatever you mean by that. If by controlling a things development you believe you hinder it’s development then ok, the church hindered scientific development. I personally don’t believe this simplistic view.

Remove the Catholic Church from the world and good or bad some other entity would most likely have filled the void to promote scientific progress. Most everyone was out to get power and little has changed today. Don’t excuse the Catholic Church from that statement though. As I’ve said the leadership was just as concerned with getting and keeping power as any other secular organization at the time.

Tell me, if you had a desire to make great discoveries in science and you were born into a world where there was a very powerful organization which had great influence over whether you were given these oportunities or not, what would you do? What could you do? The error is in assuming that scientific discovery was made because the discoverer was a Catholic rather than that the member of the only big name game in town was a good scientist. Just as well believe that the discoverer of a new cure did so because he was hired by company A rather than because company A happened to be the only company who had the equipment to make the discovery.
To remove the freedom to choose any alternatives then brag about being the reason anything got done is absurd.

Why dwell on the point that Galileos so called treatment/punishment by the church was not as harsh as portrayed by many and completely ignore the fact that the Church actually had the ability to punnish Galileo at all for such offenses let alone make his punishment much harsher. Presumably Galileo new this and this played a part in the eventual outcome of these events.
The whole scenario probably had more to do with political positioning than anything to do with being concerned with the things of God.
How many unknowns suffered the harsher punnishments? We may never know. Galilio was quite an advertisement, the unknowns of course were not and are lost to history.

The Catholic Church relied as much on the secular armies of the time to defend her as anything else from the so called barbarian hoards etc. What’s the difference? The Catholic Church had no standing army of her own. Again the relationship between these armies and the Catholic Church probably had more to do with political positioning than any over welming desire to be good Catholics in the eyes of the pope. Believing is not the same as merely giving “lip service”.

As far as the “Orient” goes, I’m assuming your primarily talking about radical Muslims as an example. Don’t make the mistake of believing Catholics don’t or didn’t kill or suppress. Individually many Christians kill and suppress with the best of them. And just look at…oh…say, the early middle ages.The only difference being that Muslims are more collectively overt about such things, perhaps because many actually believe they are being pious. In this manner at least Christianity is more advanced than Islam.
Some Christians have found other ways of suppressing and killing without being so overt.

When the Churches chains loosened and science started to progress without her influence did scientific progress collapse? Would it have if the Catholic church’s influence in the middle ages weren’t so great? Or she didn’t exist? Can we ever say for sure ?

I was juxtaposing–the fact the science and development has expanded and the Church did not vanish (she is the only organization that has survived throughout the centuries).

Galileo was not punished because of science; he was punished because he elected to tell the Church to rethink Scriptures (meaning remove anything that contradicted his yet unproven theory, which he borrowed from Copernicus, and failed to defend to his contemporaries). The world as we know it was not as civil and democratic as we experience it in the west and it was through the Church’s influence that it became less oppressive and violent. And while you are correct that power mongering was not relinquished by some in the Church, she, nevertheless, was and has been the only entity to give up on temporal power.

Much of the confusion goes to the Church defense of the Faith–refusing to allow anti-Christian values to overrun Doctrinal Teachings.

Her great quest for the sciences has been to further Worship and to allow her members to experience the full Revelation of God (through both Worship and temporal exercise) not to amass wealth, recognition, and power.

The Church’s chains? …yet, the Church never had control of society since, as you’ve pointed out, people just used her to take advantage of the power and control that was associated with being part of her circle–man killed and oppressed one another and when the Church spoke against it they were lethargic in listening and quick to renege on any peaceful accordance. Quicker even to blame the Church for any evil in the world and steadfast on their resolve to not acknowledge the good brought onto the world by the Church. History has proven that the Church has aided science and progress not hindered it; yet, many only choose to think of her as you have expressed: When the Churches chains loosened and science started to progress. Misconstruction of the truth has never been so evident as the “the Galileo incident:” ‘Excuse man’s misconduct and blame the Church for hindering progress… aaah, that’s life!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The dark ages is a fallacy, as is the opposition of the church vs science. Here are some of the more prominent catholic scientists of the supposed dark ages from the 1600’s and prior:

Georgius Agricola (1494–1555) – father of mineralogy
Albertus Magnus (c.1206–1280) – patron saint of natural sciences
Adrien Auzout (1622–1691) – astronomer who contributed to the development of the telescopic micrometer
Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294) – Franciscan friar and early advocate of the scientific method
Daniello Bartoli (1608–1685) – Jesuit priest and one of the first to see the equatorial belts of Jupiter
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608–1679) – often referred to as the father of modern biomechanics
Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) – Archbishop and one of the discoverers of the mean speed theorem
Albert Brudzewski (c. 1445–c.1497) – first to state that the Moon moves in an ellipse
Jean Buridan (c.1300–after 1358) – French priest who developed the theory of impetus
Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712) – first to observe four of Saturn’s moons and the co-discoverer of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter
Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598–1647) – mathematician known for his work in optics and motion, calculus, and for introducing logarithms to Italy
Andrea Cesalpino (c.1525–1603) – botanist who also theorized on the circulation of blood
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806) – physicist known for developing Coulomb’s law
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) – first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology
Johann Baptist Cysat (c.1587–1657) – Jesuit priest known for his study of comets
René Descartes (1596–1650) – father of modern philosophy and analytic geometry
Bartolomeo Eustachi (c.1500–1574) – one of the founders of human anatomy
Hieronymus Fabricius (1537–1619) – father of embryology
Gabriele Falloppio (1523–1562) – pioneering Italian anatomist who studied the human ear and reproductive organs
Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) – number theorist who contributed to the early development of calculus
Jean Fernel (1497–1558) – physician who introduced the term physiology
William Gascoigne (1610–1644) – developed the first micrometer
Johannes Gutenberg (c.1398–1468) – inventor of the printing press
Eusebio Kino (1645–1711) – Jesuit missionary and cartographer who drew maps based on his explorations, first showing that California was not an island as was then believed
Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694) – father of comparative physiology
Edme Mariotte (c.1620–1684) – priest who independently discovered Boyle’s Law
Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1698–1759) – known for the Maupertuis principle and for being the first president of the Berlin Academy of Science
Michele Mercati (1541–1593) – one of the first to recognize prehistoric stone tools as man-made
Marin Mersenne (1588–1648) – father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named
William of Ockham (c.1288–c.1348) – Franciscan friar known for Ockham’s Razor
Nicole Oresme (c.1320–1382) – 14th-century bishop who theorized the daily rotation of the earth on its axis
Abraham Ortelius (1527–1598) – created the first modern atlas and theorized on continental drift
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) – French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher
Georg von Peuerbach (1423–1461) – called the father of mathematical and observational astronomy in the West
Jean Picard (1620–1682) – French priest and father of modern astronomy in France
Francesco Redi (1626–1697) – his experiments with maggots were a major step in overturning the idea of spontaneous generation
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671) – Jesuit priest and the first person to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies
Domingo de Soto (1494–1560) – Spanish Dominican priest and professor at the University of Salamanca; in his commentaries to Aristotle he proposed that free falling bodies undergo constant acceleration
Nicolas Steno (1638–1686) – Bishop, father of stratigraphy
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) – gave the first geometrical analysis of the rainbow
Pierre Vernier (1580–1637) – mathematician who invented the Vernier scale
Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) – father of modern human anatomy

You’ll also find it interesting that many of those scientists were priests (though not credited on the list as such, for example Copernicus), Descartes, Gessendi etc.

But just for fun, the scientific community has a lot to answer for with regard trying to shut down religious scientists for nothing more than their prejudice. One of the great modern examples of this is Lious Pasteur for his work on vaccines, a theory they rejected, and attempting to shut him down on rabies and anthrax vaccines.

For more fun which should give some red cheecks. The Big bang theory and the theory on the expansion of the universe were proposed by a priest/physicist Georges Lemaitre who brought his theory to Einstein and worked the math on it for the next year before publishing their results.

Most of the modern sciences are based on work pioneered by Catholics. The dark ages are a myth perpetrated some protestant anti-Catholicism and quite a bit of anti religion on the part of the scientific community.

The above is just a list of 1600’s and prior. You will find a much more extensive list post 1600 and some you didn’t even realize are or were catholic.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Hi, Nicene!
Excellent post!

It is hard to face truth head on and call it “macaroni!” :whacky::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

**Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History
**

As we all know and as many of our well established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history, Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were a stunting of the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment, and the religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?
In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of *The Rise of Christianity *(HarperSanFrancisco 1997) argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least positive light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so strongly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what, in fact, is the truth?
In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became the conventional wisdom, and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example,

• Instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.
• Instead of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title, “Hitler’s Pope,” Stark shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Pope Pius XII was widely praised for his vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.
• Instead of the Dark Ages being understood as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers will not only have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church, they will come to understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. *Bearing False Witness *is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth. amazon.com/Bearing-False-Witness-Debunking-Anti-Catholic/dp/1599474999

This is what’s troubling me about these things. Human nature is human nature…call it what you will but we try one tact to prove a point and when that doesn’t work we adapt to another tact. Catholicism in my experience is no different than any other entity who reacts defensively or offensively to perceived threats to itself. And with the same so called secular methods that any worldly institution would use. Obfuscation, misdirection, minimization of the facts and by implication their effects in the world, character assassination etc. Do you honestly believe some members of the catholic church are not themselves subject to being egotistical or baring of false witness? In this regard the Catholic churches hands are just as dirty as anyone elses.
Is it of no concern that the Catholic Church was at one time in a position to determine what flattering records to keep and which to convineantly “disappear” if needed ?
Witness in our own life times how the leadership has handled the so called priest sex scandles. Evidence was suppressed, victims bullied, hush money payed, victimizers quitely moved elsewhere, where in many cases they were able to victimize again, and on and on. Shameful, worldly behavior. And this in our own lifetime when documents and evidence are much more readily available to the laity than centuries past when the church was often in the position of judge, jury and executioner.
In so focusing on self preservation she has apparently lost confidence in God and his revelations to take care of her and itself, by cocentrating on defending the reputation she has and not concentrating equally vigorously on ensuring her reputation stays “Godly” in the first place.
Thus the church focuses her energies on declaring that this or that was misunderstood, or not as bad as reported. A favorite defense has become to prove that these things have been grossly over exaggerated. Which is only natural i suppose. Let history defend herself with truth after all. If truth can be found in a world teeming with falsehood.
But shouldn’t the Church be as concerned with keeping her reputation Godly in the first place?
I’m hearing things like Galileos persecution wasn’t as severe as portrayed, the Inquisition didn’t involve as many victims as thought, and why pick on the Catholic Church for having some pedophile priests when the world at large has many more…continued in next post.

 

[setarcos]

It doesn’t seem to be concerning to any Catholics what’s so concerning to me. That she shouldn’t have had the kind of thinking that produced the use of torture in the Inquisition in the first place, even if it has been shown that the victims were far fewer than thought, or that Galileo should have been confined or persecuted by the church at all, even if it was actually very “gentle”, or that pedophile priests should be shuffled from parish to parish and their victims bullied by the clergy even if the numbers are far fewer than the total pedophiles in the world.
Individually, evil happens, even in the church. It’s our collective behavior dealing with these things and not sanctioning them with any excuse that really matters. We can either defend our ungodly behavior to the world, or we can make our defense godly behavior. Which do you think the better course to take?
You speak of the pride of others, but the pride within the church has apparently blinded the leadership to her own iniquities. We were once dogs in the eyes of Jesus and I’m sure, God being supreme judge, we can all become dogs in his eyes again if we’re not careful.

 

[Nicene]

It doesn’t seem to bother protestants. They don’t even admit they did it. I grew up in Boston, in this country we can start in Salem. Or we can go back to the tower of London among other places in Europe.

I live in Denver now, we can also discuss how it became a state with the massacre of all Catholics and the 4 tribes in the 4 corners (who were all catholic). Does it bother you? Or is it buried so deep you don’t know?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[jcrichton]

I am quite aware of why Galileo thought Heliocentrism was true. I find nothing in his arguments even remotely approaching the absurdity of unicorns. Can you quote Galileo directly to support your contention?

(…sorry, I’m coming around to touch on some of the points missed…)
Galileo introduced the Heliocentric model (borrowed from Copernicus) and one of his proofs was that the waves (ocean/sea) were caused by the motion of the planet rotating and going around the sun–pretty much a unicorn, don’t you think?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think we’re missing the forest for the trees here. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t try to retard the progress of science. And of course we may attribute the establishment of universities etc. to the church. This is a matter of history. However, true to any institution which has gained in influence and power in the world, the churches motivation was control. She wanted to keep the direction and progress of science under her control and influence. Keep the control of scientific discovery, keep control of educational instruction, keep control of cultural evolution and you ensure your future survival . Those in charge at the time felt that the church would be in danger of being lost otherwise. Ironically I believe the all too human leadership of the church at the time focused more on keeping the church a powerful force in the world with all too secular devices than in the focus on faith and protection in the things of God. Of course they would do this under the guise of making these secular things “godly” things. Many of the problems encountered by the church were created because of the actions of the church as a result. Hence we have the pope apologizing for the churches past transgressions.
In thinking she can do no wrong because God has charged her with spreading his revelations the church in her pride has caused herself to be a stumbling block for many. A sad situation indeed.

…it is a sad situation… is the Church (man) free of error? No. That is why we have the various episodes of unsound issues. Was the Church (man) tied to the temporal values? Yes. Power and Pride was often not relinquished by Religious, Priests, and Bishops alike… Was this rampant? No. Was the Church future dependent on Power and Wealth? No! Was the Church future dependent on control of development, technology, and discovery? No! The Church, stripped from political and military power, has remained in spite of all the onslaught brought about by both anti-Catholics and anti-God agencies.

Did the Church assert her Authority in matters of Faith? Yes! Did she err on the side of Scriptures and Doctrine? Yes! Did she holdfast to error? No!

Is the Church maligned by the poor action of some of her members? Yes!

Is the Church seeking the adulation of the people by pronouncing that she (man) erred in secular involvement (Priest and Bishops emulating the world through financial, political and personal ties)? No! The Church continuous to Teach and hold her Doctrine without change… does this cause her to be a stumbling block for many? Yep!, just as Jesus, her Founder, is!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for responding. I can only speak of what my limited understanding gives me. Be gentle in your criticism though. While I may not be privy to the information you are, one thing we both have before us is the information I posted on here. Information which I believe you have misinterpreted.

Where did you get the idea that I said the “church” ever disappeared? Whatever you mean by that. If by controlling a things development you believe you hinder it’s development then ok, the church hindered scientific development. I personally don’t believe this simplistic view.

Remove the Catholic Church from the world and good or bad some other entity would most likely have filled the void to promote scientific progress. Most everyone was out to get power and little has changed today. Don’t excuse the Catholic Church from that statement though. As I’ve said the leadership was just as concerned with getting and keeping power as any other secular organization at the time.

Tell me, if you had a desire to make great discoveries in science and you were born into a world where there was a very powerful organization which had great influence over whether you were given these oportunities or not, what would you do? What could you do? The error is in assuming that scientific discovery was made because the discoverer was a Catholic rather than that the member of the only big name game in town was a good scientist. Just as well believe that the discoverer of a new cure did so because he was hired by company A rather than because company A happened to be the only company who had the equipment to make the discovery.
To remove the freedom to choose any alternatives then brag about being the reason anything got done is absurd.

Why dwell on the point that Galileos so called treatment/punishment by the church was not as harsh as portrayed by many and completely ignore the fact that the Church actually had the ability to punnish Galileo at all for such offenses let alone make his punishment much harsher. Presumably Galileo new this and this played a part in the eventual outcome of these events.
The whole scenario probably had more to do with political positioning than anything to do with being concerned with the things of God.
How many unknowns suffered the harsher punnishments? We may never know. Galilio was quite an advertisement, the unknowns of course were not and are lost to history.

The Catholic Church relied as much on the secular armies of the time to defend her as anything else from the so called barbarian hoards etc. What’s the difference? The Catholic Church had no standing army of her own. Again the relationship between these armies and the Catholic Church probably had more to do with political positioning than any over welming desire to be good Catholics in the eyes of the pope. Believing is not the same as merely giving “lip service”.

As far as the “Orient” goes, I’m assuming your primarily talking about radical Muslims as an example. Don’t make the mistake of believing Catholics don’t or didn’t kill or suppress. Individually many Christians kill and suppress with the best of them. And just look at…oh…say, the early middle ages.The only difference being that Muslims are more collectively overt about such things, perhaps because many actually believe they are being pious. In this manner at least Christianity is more advanced than Islam.
Some Christians have found other ways of suppressing and killing without being so overt.
When the Churches chains loosened and science started to progress without her influence did scientific progress collapse? Would it have if the Catholic church’s influence in the middle ages weren’t so great? Or she didn’t exist? Can we ever say for sure ?

…again, Galileo… a practical jackass whose contemporary fellows brushed him off when he made his presentation of ‘motion causes the waves’ and other fallacies. The same Heliocentric theory was supported by the Church when Copernicus introduced it (prior to Galileo) and he was even encouraged to publish his theory (a theory is a scientific thought lacking experimental/proven proof; something that was missing from Galileo’s staunch “it’s a fact not a theory” stance).

While there may have been instances where the Church acted against heresies that to the modern world may seem extreme, I doubt that you, as society in general, would hold non-Catholic/Christian agents to such stringent and mythical (exaggerations of what is perceived that the Church did wrong and downplay of facts that both clear her of wrongdoings and demonstrates her promotion of the sciences and progress) accountability, even though history proves, time and again, their barbarities, obsessions, and power and wealth mongering.

Can I become an insane jackass that would oppress, torture, terrorize, and kill others (individuals and groups/clans)? Yes… the depths to which man can succumb is beyond comprehension (ie; in the news there was the story of an unemployed man whose brother had taken him in–in spite of all the support he was receiving, he decided to kill his brother’s family; why, because, like Cain, he lusted for power and control). Would that mean that the Catholic Church (all of Christendom) is to be held responsible? Absolutely not!

Yet, that’s the criterion which you, as many in society, are using to view the Catholic Church; while, simultaneously, blinding yourselves not just to the facts but to the truth that non-Christians have (and still do) oppressed, tortured, terrorized, and murdered millions upon millions (some of those millions for being guilty of, of all things, having the courage to freely Believe in Yahweh, God).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is what’s troubling me about these things. Human nature is human nature…call it what you will but we try one tact to prove a point and when that doesn’t work we adapt to another tact. Catholicism in my experience is no different than any other entity who reacts defensively or offensively to perceived threats to itself. And with the same so called secular methods that any worldly institution would use. Obfuscation, misdirection, minimization of the facts and by implication their effects in the world, character assassination etc. Do you honestly believe some members of the catholic church are not themselves subject to being egotistical or baring of false witness? In this regard the Catholic churches hands are just as dirty as anyone elses.
Is it of no concern that the Catholic Church was at one time in a position to determine what flattering records to keep and which to convineantly “disappear” if needed ?
Witness in our own life times how the leadership has handled the so called priest sex scandles. Evidence was suppressed, victims bullied, hush money payed, victimizers quitely moved elsewhere, where in many cases they were able to victimize again, and on and on. Shameful, worldly behavior. And this in our own lifetime when documents and evidence are much more readily available to the laity than centuries past when the church was often in the position of judge, jury and executioner.
In so focusing on self preservation she has apparently lost confidence in God and his revelations to take care of her and itself, by cocentrating on defending the reputation she has and not concentrating equally vigorously on ensuring her reputation stays “Godly” in the first place.
Thus the church focuses her energies on declaring that this or that was misunderstood, or not as bad as reported. A favorite defense has become to prove that these things have been grossly over exaggerated. Which is only natural i suppose. Let history defend herself with truth after all. If truth can be found in a world teeming with falsehood.
But shouldn’t the Church be as concerned with keeping her reputation Godly in the first place?
I’m hearing things like Galileos persecution wasn’t as severe as portrayed, the Inquisition didn’t involve as many victims as thought, and why pick on the Catholic Church for having some pedophile priests when the world at large has many more…continued in next post.

…if I don’t misread you… you are insinuating that the Church should be held to higher standards because she claims to represent God?

If that is your argument, I fully concur!

There’s no room for argument on this particular plane.

However, lumping in all sorts of accusations and exaggerating the wrong while minimizing or razing the good is very much a mute point.

Is the Church God? No!

So, unquestionably, there will be errors committed by her members; some of it out of pride; some of it out of greed; some of it out of fear.

But the exaggerations and the onslaught, if it is brought about by the need to hold the Church to a higher standard, is merited!

What is not merited is the insane-asylum rendering of facts and myths whereas the Church is forever portrayed as the evil doer while society is portrayed as the unsuspecting victim.

You’ve just used the issue of the sex scandal/s to make your point; yet, you’ve made my point: homosexuals infiltrated the Church (the victims, as I understand it, have been nearly all (if not 100%) males) whose acts, as deplorable as they are, were not immediately brought to accountability; yet, there were various factors that accounted for this (not excusing the act) which includes the social practices of the period.

Yet, if you are truthful to your “quest,” you must agree that those things which you, and the media, are now using against the Church is the general practice that was accepted in society at the time where those crimes were committed–you may not recall (or be aware) that in the US till the sixties, though I may be wrong–it could extend to the seventies, a rape of a woman by her husband was not considered a crime. Again, not using it as an excuse but attempting to bring balance to the equation, most of the cases against the Church, as I understand it, stem from decades ago (cases that had been closed or remained unreported); in comparison, we do not hear about the cases involving non-Catholic Clergy from the same time period–and, even those of recent times, unless it’s Catholic Church related, seem to not have much of a broadcasting importance.

Again, if you are intimating that the Church must be held to a higher standard and that she must purge herself of the tare that has infiltrated her, I fully support your concern.

Yet, if you simply want to voice your concern for the Church as an agent of wrongdoing, I cannot but disagree with your estimations.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t want to de-rail this thread, but what about what the Church does for the homeless? For those caught in war? For the impoverished? The accusations originally leveled are not, what it seems, are being argued over at the moment. Anyway, just to point out, the members of the Church happen to be responsible for most of the world’s charity. Carry on.

 

[setarcos]

It doesn’t seem to bother protestants. They don’t even admit they did it. I grew up in Boston, in this country we can start in Salem. Or we can go back to the tower of London among other places in Europe.

I live in Denver now, we can also discuss how it became a state with the massacre of all Catholics and the 4 tribes in the 4 corners (who were all catholic). Does it bother you? Or is it buried so deep you don’t know?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply Catholicism was the only institution suffering from these problems. We simply happen to be on a Catholic sight so I’m addressing my concerns toward the Roman catholic Church. As I’ve said in my post I don’t believe the Catholic Church is any different in these matters from any other institution. You seem to be doing what is troubling to me though. You seem to be trying to deminish the sins of the Church by comparing them to others. I know your not justifying Catholic problems by comparing them to the sins of others? How does this justify the actions of Catholics in Gods eyes?
Besides this, if you believe Roman Catholicism is God’s Church and the only path to salvation then surely you would be more concerned with and hold her to higher standards than those of the rest of the world. Her defense many times seems to be by comparing her to the world on an equal footing. I believe she soils her garments more than cleans them by doing this.
As I’ve said, you can spend your energies defending her by justifying her ungodly behavior or by being concerned with making sure her behaviour is godly.
Why do you ask if it bothers me? The only reason I’m on here and post my opinions is for constructive dialogue…because these things bother me. I wish to please God what else can I do. And no I am not some devious Protestant agent trying to justify their sins by questioning Catholics. I would be considered at this point nondenominational I suppose.
May we finally embrace God’s peace together.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply Catholicism was the only institution suffering from these problems. We simply happen to be on a Catholic sight so I’m addressing my concerns toward the Roman catholic Church. As I’ve said in my post I don’t believe the Catholic Church is any different in these matters from any other institution. You seem to be doing what is troubling to me though. You seem to be trying to deminish the sins of the Church by comparing them to others. I know your not justifying Catholic problems by comparing them to the sins of others? How does this justify the actions of Catholics in Gods eyes?
Besides this, if you believe Roman Catholicism is God’s Church and the only path to salvation then surely you would be more concerned with and hold her to higher standards than those of the rest of the world. Her defense many times seems to be by comparing her to the world on an equal footing. I believe she soils her garments more than cleans them by doing this.
As I’ve said, you can spend your energies defending her by justifying her ungodly behavior or by being concerned with making sure her behaviour is godly.
Why do you ask if it bothers me? The only reason I’m on here and post my opinions is for constructive dialogue…because these things bother me. I wish to please God what else can I do. And no I am not some devious Protestant agent trying to justify their sins by questioning Catholics. I would be considered at this point nondenominational I suppose.
May we finally embrace God’s peace together.

I think the reason people point out that this isn’t just a Catholic problem is precisely because it is only the Catholic Church being held to account for this stuff. No school system has ever been sued by victims, and no Protestant organization has ever been sued by victims, nor any sports organization or Youth club of any kind - in those cases it’s recognized that the person committing the crime was acting outside the laws of that organization and only the actual criminal is held to account - despite there being orders of magnitude many more perpetrators there than in the Catholic Church. But if someone who happens to be Catholic commits a crime, even if he hasn’t been to Mass in decades, it’s the Church that gets sued; not the criminal.