The Catholic Church and Medieval Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter beleg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beleg

Guest
In class today, we had a lecture about Francis Bacon, and the lecturer was talking about how his Great Instauration was basically a response to the medieval view of the world, which she said was based on Aristotelian logic and Catholic doctrine. Basically, she seemed to be implying that there were specific Catholic doctrines that stated things like geocentricism and other pseudo-scientific things - which is ridiculous.

She never backed up her this implicit claim in any way, but I’d like to know if there are any sources that I can use to refute that. I have another class that talks about the lectures in small groups, so it would be useful to have sources to back up my claims that the lecturer was just not right.

Already, it’s apparent that there’s a huge misunderstanding within my discussion class about Catholicism, since a lot of people have misconceptions about it, and I like being able to clear up the misinformation. But here, I don’t know of any historical documents that can help me to do so.

I’d really appreciate it if someone could help me with this!
 
I think implying is open to interpretation. I suggest you ask to speak to the lecturer after class and politely ask, something like: “I’m confused by this statement you made.” Or, “Could you provide me with a book or other reference that supports this or that?” I suspect the average lecturer would be glad to clarify their position and/or point you to sources.

Aside from the few things you mentioned, are there other things/statements you’re concerned about? Other misconceptions?

Ed
 
The science fiction writer Michael Flynn has inadvertently become a fairly good starting place for research on medieval science, because he’s done a lot of research himself, in order to write accurate medieval Catholic science fiction. (The novel Eifelheim, which I recommend.)

He has a series of blog posts on the rise of heliocentrism, and how and why a lot of folks credited with getting it right (like Galileo) were pretty much entirely wrong, or right for the wrong, non-scientific reasons. This series is called The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown.

tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

There are some interesting old books by a gentleman named Lynn Thorndike, which are called The History of Magic and Experimental Science. He wrote them because he was a specialist in the history of science, and yes, that involves a lot of history of astrology, alchemy, spell diagrams, and various forms of the occult. Some of the volumes are online, if I’m not mistaken.

I don’t know if you’ll find exactly what you’re looking for, but you’ll find a lot of related material.
 
It seems that Mr. Thorndike wrote a book called The True Roger Bacon! So there we go!

Of course, you may want to check elsewhere for theology questions, since he’s a history of science guy. But it should be a good start.
 
edwest2 said:
Aside from the few things you mentioned, are there other things/statements you’re concerned about? Other misconceptions?
Click to expand...
Other misconceptions I’ve been able to clear up - the most egregious one being that the Church opposes science. That was, in theory, easy to explain (I may have botched the explanation a bit in my zeal to defend the Church from false information, but I managed to convey that the Church does not in fact oppose science).

I’ll see if I can talk to the professor about it, but I guess I’ll have to improvise if the subject comes up during discussion. Thanks for your help!
 
beleg said:
Other misconceptions I’ve been able to clear up - the most egregious one being that the Church opposes science. That was, in theory, easy to explain (I may have botched the explanation a bit in my zeal to defend the Church from false information, but I managed to convey that the Church does not in fact oppose science).

I’ll see if I can talk to the professor about it, but I guess I’ll have to improvise if the subject comes up during discussion. Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...
No problem. I’ve been overzealous myself and it’s best to ask than fear something that may be presented in a way that poses more questions that you would like answers to. I’ve found that there are only a few subjects where “the Church opposes science” claim comes up. But just keep on learning. It takes a while.

Best,
Ed
 
It is good that the puerile attacks on the Magisterium of Christ’s Church should be exposed as Fr Brian Harrison points out at: rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html:
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which: (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office; (c) was endorsed by the papacy for only 141 years (1616-1757); (d) was never greeted with the emphatic and morally unanimous endorsement of the world’s Bishops, only a respectful acquiescence; and (e) never in any case affected the concrete lives and destinies of any more than a handful of professional scientists such as Galileo.”
 
Abu said:
It is good that the puerile attacks on the Magisterium of Christ’s Church should be exposed as Fr Brian Harrison points out at: rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html:
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which: (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office; (c) was endorsed by the papacy for only 141 years (1616-1757); (d) was never greeted with the emphatic and morally unanimous endorsement of the world’s Bishops, only a respectful acquiescence; and (e) never in any case affected the concrete lives and destinies of any more than a handful of professional scientists such as Galileo.”
Click to expand...
Your arguments are why the word “apologist” was coined…
 
catholicity.com/mccloskey/westernciv.html
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005
A Book Review by Father John McCloskey
Father John McCloskey, reviewing *How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization *by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005, writes:
“Woods notes, ‘Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.’ ”
 
I would tred lightly here. Your instructor’s comment was likely benign and not meant as offensive. I would suggest you first take a look at the life of Galaleo and the response to his heliocentrism and specifically the Inquisition’s injunction of 1616. What occurred are simply historical facts from a long-bygone era.
 
Thomas_White said:
I would tred lightly here. Your instructor’s comment was likely benign and not meant as offensive. I would suggest you first take a look at the life of Galaleo and the response to his heliocentrism and specifically the Inquisition’s injunction of 1616. What occurred are simply historical facts from a long-bygone era.
Click to expand...
I agree you need not make a big issue of this. Still, the Thomas E. Woods book gives a good overview of such matters, and I recommend it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top