On the morning of June 22, 1633 in the hall of the convent of Santa Maria sopra Minvera in Rome, Galileo Galilei knelt before the Lord-Cardinal Inquisitors-General and publicly abjured his false opinion that the sun was the motionless center of the universe. Thus ended Galileo's personal trials; but the "Galileo affair," with its myriad attendant controversies and consequences rippling across the centuries, was just commencing. "Affair" rightly characterizes the tangled personal and political intrigues pervading this particular piece of jurisprudence.
But however thick it was with complicating and mitigating factors, in the end the Catholic Church blew it -- something acknowledged centuries later by a Pope proudly nurtured in Copernicus' homeland: "[Galileo] had to suffer a great deal -- we cannot conceal the fact -- at the hands of men and organisms of the Church" (Pope John Paul II, Nov. 10, 1979 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). When it came to interpreting scripture in light of scientific findings the Pope observed that "Galileo ... showed himself to be more perceptive ... than the theologians who opposed him (Oct. 31, 1992 address to the PAS).
For many, the Galileo affair was emblematic of Christianity's inherent antagonism towards science and reason. Galileo was no anomaly; no aberrant outlier in an otherwise contrary arrangement. No, Galileo culminated and crystallized the undeniable and irredeemable pattern of Church/science relations. Other exemplars affirming that pattern are easily discerned: In 415, a reactionary Christian mob brutally murdered pagan mathematician and astronomer Hypatia and burned the ancient world's great center of learning, the library of Alexandria; In 1277, Doctor Mirabilis (wonderful teacher) and Franciscan monk Roger Bacon was imprisoned for asking too many embarrassing questions; in 1600, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his scientific views; in 1925, Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin was exiled and his writings on human evolution were (later) banned -- and on it goes.
Sadly, the "pattern" theory has a problem. It's wrong. On it does not go. The above examples pretty much exhaust the "church oppresses science" list, and each entry is either inaccurate or has nothing to do with religion and science. Let's look at them:
Hypatia's murder by a crazed Christian mob had little to do with hatred of science or scientific women. In fact, one of Hypatia's closest friends was Synesius of Cyrene, the neo-Platonist Christian Bishop of Ptolemais. Our earliest historical source, Socrates Scholasticus (5th century), attributes her murder to her involvement with Orestes, the (Christian) imperial prefect of Alexandria who was in a power struggle with Cyril, the Alexandrian Bishop. Christians believed that she was scuttling a reconciliation between the two. Did Cyril instigate the murder? Was it in retaliation for earlier violence on Christians? As best as I can tell historians still debate these and other details. What seems clear is that sectarian violence was rife in Alexandria at the time and Hypatia's murder was one of many bloody incidents Christians, Jews, and Pagans inflicted upon one another. But it was about politics and power, not science and religion (see: David Lindberg's chapter in "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion", R. L. Numbers, ed. Harvard Press or "The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora, UC Press or Maria Dzielska's "Hypatia of Alexandria", Harvard Press.)
As for library-burning -- the great Alexandrian library was probably burned by Julius Caesar in 48 B.C.E. when he chased Pompey into Egypt. There may have been a small "daughter" library still housed in the Temple of Serapis in 391 C.E. (long before Hypatia's demise), whose holdings may have been largely destroyed when the temple was raised and converted to a Christian Church. But even if true (a big "if"), it says nothing about Christian attitudes toward science and learning. Instead, all it tells us is that Christians, Pagans, and Jews were doing lots of nasty stuff to each other in Alexandria at this time, something we already knew.
As for Roger Bacon: University of Wisconsin-Madison historian Michael Shank sums it up nicely:
"The assertion that Bacon was imprisoned (allegedly by the head of his own Franciscan order) first originates some eighty years after his death and has drawn skepticism on these grounds alone. Scholars who find this assertion plausible connect it with Bacon's attraction to contemporary prophecies that have nothing to do with Bacon's scientific, mathematical, or philosophical writings." (p. 21 from his chapter in "Galileo Goes to Jail").
On Giordano Bruno -- no question he was burned at the stake on the seventeenth of February, 1600, in Rome's Flower Market (see Jole Shackelford's chapter in "Galileo Goes to Jail"). But he was burned for his theological heresies, not his scientific beliefs. Bruno refused to recant his disbelief in the Trinity, Virgin Birth, divinity of Christ and other rather non-negotiable items (especially for a clergyman). Yes, his scientific/philosophic studies probably contributed to his fall from orthodoxy, but it was the fall, not the science, that the Church condemned and for which Bruno died.
Likewise with Teilhard de Chardin. His popularity with the current Pope notwithstanding, Teilhard strained the patience of his Jesuit superiors not because of his expert paleoanthropological work (he was part of the team that discovered "Peking" man) but because he turned that work into an elaborate, unorthodox, evolutionary-based theology. Luckily for Teilhard, by the 20th century, burning heretics was passé and his theological writings were simply suppressed until his (quite natural) death (see Amir Aczel's "The Jesuit and the Skull").
Galileo was indeed exceptional. Arthur Koestler pronounced this very verdict over fifty years ago in his well-regarded history of astronomy, "The Sleepwalkers": "The Galileo affair", Koestler asserted, "was an isolated, and in fact quite atypical, episode in the history of the relations between science and theology ... " (p. 523).
Even just the few cases cited above hint at Galileo's singularity. Yes, over the centuries some scholars suffered the Church's wrath; but is it not equally noteworthy that century after century the Christian Church kept producing superlative scholars? Bacon, Bruno, Copernicus, Teilhard -- even Galileo (not a cleric, but faithful to the end) -- why did the well not dry up in the face of such incessant intellectual oppression? In his book, "For the Glory of God", sociologist Rodney Stark identifies 15 clerics of the 16th and 17th centuries whom he considers "scientific stars" (pp. 198-199). Similarly, Stephen Barr's brief review easily finds over a dozen clergymen from the Middle Ages to modern times making substantial contributions to mathematics, physics, biology, genetics, and cosmology (see "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" pp. 9-10). Is it possible that Christianity has actually been science's oldest and dearest friend?
Clay Farris Naff: Can Physics Save Your Soul?
http://blogs.nature.com/soapbox_science/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages
And as per Galileo, his judgement was caused more due to the way he wrote Dialogues than the content of the book itself. Had he been more careful as the way he portrayed Pope Urban's arguments on his book, this would have probably been a non-issue and a footnote in history.
This is an excellent article you have written. You have proven, in your honest approach, that truth presents itself and becomes a redeeming quality that identifies a historical perspective missed by those who want to blame the church for everything.
Most people, presently, fail to recognize that God wants science to continue to discover new ideas and advance. God has nothing to fear, and He doesn't fear mankind's ever increasing desire for knowledge. He kindles it. From the story of Adam and Eve to this very second the quest has been for knowledge.
God did not place any limitations on the ability of man's brain to learn.
He concludes by asking, "Is it possible that Christianity has actually been science's oldest and dearest friend?"
Has he ever asked a more ludicrous question? I doubt it. It goes beyond ludicrous. It is simply disgraceful.
Christianity for centuries has made every thinking person fearful of speaking, teaching, or writing what they knew or believed about nature and the world they lived in, whenever their knowledge or beliefs differed from Christian dogma.
For every famous instance such as Galileo, there were not merely ten thousand, but more like a hundred thousand instances of individuals long forgotten, who were successfully stifled and frustrated by religious oppression or intimidation. Scientific progress was kept at a snail's pace for centuries as a direct result of religious antipathy to science and the scientific mentality.
It is heartbreaking to reflect on the vast waste of human genius that has occurred over the centuries simply because Christianity became so powerful. For anyone to try to claim that Christianity has been a "friend" to science is simply appalling. The role of Christianity with respect to science over the past two thousand years has been to muffle it, stifle it, thwart it, slander it, threaten it, punish it, deny it, reject it, expel it, imprison it, crush it, drown it out, and kill it.
Some "friend."
Actually, that was the standard position, described by Augustine of Hippo more than a thousand years earlier. And Thomas Aquinas noted in passing in both the Summa theologica and his commentary on the physics that the established consensus science of epicycles etc. was sufficient to explain the movements of the heavens, but was not necessary "inasmuch as some other theory might account for them."
But the rule was not to dismiss a narrative-historical reading unless there was solid empirical evidence to the contrary. Galileo did not have that; nor was it available until the 1790s/1803, save for one subtle demonstration in the mid 1700s. In the middle of the Thirty Years War, the Church was wary of private individuals announcing new interpretations of scripture. If he had not written the Letter to Castelli, he might have gotten away with a lot more. (Although one scholar told me that politics may have been the hot button: Galileo was a creature of Florence which was in play between Hapsburg and Bourbon. The Spanish Hapsburgs and the Borgias spread the story that the Pope was supporting (via the Bourbons) the nominally "Protestant" side in the war; there was a war scare in which Florence moved troops to assert control over a Roman territory. Galileo was seen by some as working for Florence.
You don't get it. Setting aside the fact that they burned a man alive, even if this explanation is true it still reaffirms the "science v religion" narrative. In either scenario a man is being killed for a "thought crime." "Thought crimes" are in and of themselves antithetical to reason, and being against reason is the entire point of this. If you are against reason you are against science. Maybe, rather than "science v. religion" we should call this more accurately "faith v. reason."
Also you're just wrong about the facts too, though it is correct that he was killed for mostly theological reasons, 2 of the reasons were because of scientific conclusions: he did not believe wine and bread could turn to blood and flesh respectively (a rather scientific conclusion,) and he did believe that there were other earths with other people on them (also pretty scientific, especially when you consider the fact that he theorized this while studying astronomy and cosmology.)
The Church burned Bruno as a heretic for teaching things like the idea that Jesus wasn't divine and for denying the virgin birth and transubstantiation. These were wholly religious concepts. He had no scientific work to condemn and his mystical ideas intersected with the science of his time and with anything in the real world only by accident. To claim him as a martyr for "reason" is absurd. And to pretend he was a "scientist" in any sense is plain wrong.
Also virgin birth and transubstantiation are not "wholly religious concepts." Not even close, one means a woman got pregnant without sperm, that at the very least is related to science, the other is matter turning from one form to another, which you can say what you want but is totally related to science (and has been proven false repeatedly.)
Sorry, but you don't get it. Killing people for "thought crimes" is not a religious thing. There are plenty of people who died in the USSR and China who can attest to that. It is not about reason. It is about power. And the maintenance of power.
This reminds me of arguments about abortion being a political issue, not a religious issue. I'm not sure there is a way to separate the two.
To suggest Bruno's scientific arguments were not viewed as blasphemes is completely disingenuous. You could convince me they weren't seen as bad as the trinity blaspheme, I would agree with that. But both were about doctrine no matter what else you call it.
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/renaissance.astro/6.1.Supper.html
You cannot understand 17th century society without suspending 21st century prejudices. You take it on its own terms or you cease being an historian. Which is why, being an avid student of history, I have always been horrified at anyone who wanted to build a time machine to go backwards.
No, it isn't. Not in the least. As far as books and the opportunity to use them, the church was the only game in town after the fall of Rome, unless you were one of the very, very rare people wo wealthy and powerful that your home had a library. Bishops were central to Middle Age society due to the literacy they possessed, and they weren't at all shy about exercising their power. For most of history, books have been incredibly costly, and few people outside the church could read. Even after the invention of the printing press, they weren't exactly cheap.
Something tells me the com-box will ignore this blow to their fictional war. 2000 years, 5 (poor) examples of the Church oppressing scientific progress. Thousands of examples of the Church directly and actively promoting, funding, and engaging in science. "Church V Science" is a joke.
And something caused Science to reject religion in it's evolution over the last 300 years.
The adoption of a new cult by the Emperor tends to switch a lot of attention and money away from the old cults.
"Something caused the Jews to become dispossessÂed and persecutedÂ."
They were dispossed by the Romans after the Second Jewish Revolt in the early Second Century. They had been persecuted periodically in the Roman period and that continued. They often turned to the Catholic Church for shelter and protection during these pogroms.
"Something caused the Dark Ages to occur."
Yes, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The fall of your civilisation tends to set things back a bit, especially when followed by centuries of invasions.
"Something suppressed the teaching of math and science for almost a 1000 years."
"Suppressed"? Pardon? Now you're just dealing in muddled fantasies.
That's what bothers me - not that there are errors here. That this is dishonest.
The knowledgeable author omits any reference to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the infamous "Index" of prohibited works that suppressed not just scientists (and others) but their writings as well, for centuries beyond their deaths. Jean Buridan, Kepler, Galileo were all on it, as were others. You mention Bruno, who was burned at the stake - the Index didn't ban everyone from reading only his theological works, it banned all his scientific works as well. Conrad Gessner, the father of modern zoology. Otto Brunfels, one of the fathers of modern botany. The editor and translator of ancient medical texts, Janus Cornarius. Jacob Ziegler, mapmaker and geographer. Francis Bacon, Thomas Brown, and David Hume. Jean le Rond d'Alembert. Erasmus Darwin.
It's entirely fair to ask the public to take a more balanced, more accurate, less stereotypical view of the Roman Catholic church's attitude toward science -- but that more balanced, accurate view still needs to be completely frank and truthful.
Which scientific works?
All of Bruno's works, Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche, Berkeley, Locke, Kant, Heine, Voltaire, all of Zola's works were on the Index. Bergson was on it. It was practically a Who's Who of the European intelligentsia. It was almost an insult not to be on the Index. You can well imagine Schopenhauer or Nietzsche fuming, "Even Strauss is on the Index! Why not me?!"
The entire Christian right and most Republicans do not accept evolution or climate science.. .this includes almost all of the right wing Catholics I know.
The right-wing Christians don't accept evolution science because of their religion, not politics, and they could care less about science of climate. They're convinced it just doesn't matter, either because God won't let it happen or that the rapture is coming anyway.
But it misses the larger point; that the church burned heretics - well known and unknown - who dared question it during the Inquisition.
I don't know about present day but, during the 1960's and 1970's when I was at the mercy of the diocesan school system, questioning of any sort was not welcome. Those of us who did question had a very difficult time. We had to kneel on our hands, we were slapped, we were dragged by the hair and paraded as examples in front of other classes. It was a humiliating experience.
Well put, sir.
I don't know where you went to school but I've never heard the kind of horror stories in public schools that I heard about Catholic ones.