There’s some serious oversimplification going on here.
The obvious fallacy is that the Church was either pro- or anti-science. In reality, it is both: there has always been a pro-science faction and an anti-science faction. Like in any large organization, depending on the prevailing cultural winds of the time, one faction or the other will get on top and drive the policy.
This is very nicely described in
A canticle for Leiboivitz. It’s a sci-fi story, set in a Catholic monastery, after the nuclear war wiped out the present civilization. The monks preserve the pre-war books, and they do a great job. After several hundres years, a renaissance finally comes and science gets reborn. A scientist comes and asks to see the old books. And here’s the twist: he gets opposed by the
librarian. The librarian says, that his job (and vocation) is
preservation of books, and so, he keeps them in air-tight, sealed containers. He’s afraid that if he gives them to the scientist, these (truly priceless) books could be destroyed. An argument ensues; the abbott finally sides with the “progressive” faction, and the library is opened. (There’s another notable argument later after it’s realized that the library contains Darwin’s works.) Anyway…
The Church’s contribution to preserving knowledge during the Dark Ages is undeniable. And it’s undeniable that the Church, acting as a stabilizing force in Europe, has contributed to the start of Renaissance. Nevertheless, one must remember that the Church had a direct interest in the preservation of
status quo, and was the last force wanting modernization. So the European Renaissance itself has happened independently of the Church, because of a favorable combination of other factors such as Gutenberg’s invention, Columbus’ voyage, fall of Cordoba and fall of Constantinople. Massive social change followed; let’s just note that Gutenberg’s Bible which went on sale in 1454 was instrumental in Luther’s 1517 reformation. The world changed, while the Church was still sticking to an old way of thinking; the ideas which were at the forefront of human thought in 1200s, were becoming horribly outdated. The change was seen as a bad development; the hardline conservatives got in power, in what the historians now call the Counter-Reformation. By 1600s, the Church went from being conservative to being anti-progress. That’s the era which gave us The Inquisition, and The Thirty Year’s War, culminating with the Galileo Trial, followed by 200 years of formal ban on studying the heliocentric system – which was nothing else than an open war on science. Fortunately, by Galileo’s time the kings have both gained enough independence from the Church and realized the power of advanced weapons, so while playing lip-service to the doctrinal orthodoxy, they started funding science while turning a blind eye to accusations of heresy.
This thread has some less than charitable statements on the Islamic contributions. One must be reminded of the existence of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, between ca. 750 AD and 1250 AD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age At that era, the Arabic societies have been much more advanced than Europe. Notable contributions include: the number zero; algebra (the concept of using letters for describing variables); chemistry, astronomy (the bright stars are still today called by Arabic names) and medicine. The Arabs also had an extensive library of translations of classical works. Some argue that it was the conquest of Cordoba in 1492 which was instrumental instrumental in starting the Renaissance, as the Arabic libraries got in hands of laity, and so, the ancient Greek texts became known in Europe. The Church had its copies, of course, but they were kept under lid for ideological reasons.
Some have argued that the decline of Islamic civilization after 1250 AD has been due to increasing religious orthodoxy, which has finally eliminated creative science. Fortunately, 300 years later in Europe, things have turned out differently.
There is a very important lesson here.
TL;DR The Church was at the forefront of science in Europe in the Middle Ages, but by Galileo’s time is has became anti-scientific.
