# Did the church influence science?



## Clever-Fox (Oct 30, 2013)

I was in church one Sunday, and as the pastor was preaching his sermon, a thought popped into my head. Did the church influence science in any way?


----------



## Parson (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes. The church influenced science in all sorts of ways both positive and negative. Some positive items. Christianity, had as a backdrop that the world made sense. During a good share of the post Roman Empire world, the abbeys were the repositories of learning in a world which did not cherish it. 

Negatively, the church had a very dim view of any scientific challenge to what was "truth." This not only put down people who came up with these thought (Galileo) but also discouraged some avenues of experimentation. 

At some level, this is an obvious question. The church was the leading institution in the world for at least a 1000 years. Any institution the powerful for that wrong obviously effects every other thing going on.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 30, 2013)

Parson said:


> The church was the leading institution in the world for at least a 1000 years.


 
At least the Western world. Its influence elsewhere was much less than other institutions, or other religions. Obvious, perhaps, but worth remembering.

Other than that, I don't have much of a disagreement with Parson on this. I would even go so far as to note that many of the most important figures in the development of science were themselves religious figures, and the Church (meaning, in this instance, the Catholic church, as it was the most prominent one for so long in the West) did a great deal to encourage scientific enquiry. Nor did it always reject that which opposed accepted wisdom; sometimes it made accommodations in "dogma", sometimes not. For that matter, the church still has a part in modern scientific studies; it still does much to finance and provide resources for them. The problem is that when the two have disagreed, religion has always tended to be mulish about it and stand on its platform of "revealed truth", etc., at which point one can do little save completely lose respect for the institution that chooses the worldview (and knowledge) of 2000+ years ago over what we've learned through much painful (and painstaking) effort since....


----------



## Mirannan (Oct 30, 2013)

One influence of the Church over the sciences was that universities were heavily influenced by it. As an example, in the time of Newton one could not graduate from Cambridge without taking Holy Orders. I don't know whether that was the case for Oxford.

A somewhat lesser influence was that of language. Many early scientists (including Newton) published in Latin; the probable reason for this was that very many educated people were well-versed in Latin and again that was probably due to the Church's influence. Latin acted as a lingua franca for the educated.


----------



## Parson (Oct 30, 2013)

Parson said:


> Any institution the powerful for that wrong obviously effects every other thing going on.



I am going to have to proof read these posts!! Obviously I meant to write "Any institution that powerful for that long obviously effects every other thing going on." ---- [Parson looks crossly at his reflection in the monitor and thinks that he's getting senile at a  younger than average age.)


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 30, 2013)

Actually it could be argued that the Islamic religion had more influence over science during it's golden age than the Christian church, when their science was considerably superior to western science. The Islamic church exerted major influence both on what was studied and how. I understand that it had (and still does have) very strong ethical guidelines on scientific research.


----------



## farntfar (Oct 30, 2013)

I'd like to ask exactly what you mean by "the church".
Is your question only about the christian church or is it about religious bodies in general, because it makes a big difference.
As a christian specific thing, Parson, J D W, and Mirannon have already talked about the church as major sponsor of scientific research, while maintaining a stockholder type control on that research. (much as it did with art and architecture).

The arguments about whether to teach evolution and/or creationism are a modern example of the church trying to dictate the scientific knowledge that the the people are allowed.


----------



## Abernovo (Oct 30, 2013)

The Islamic scholars preserved the teachings of the Ancient Greeks, much of which was not always looked at favourably by some of the more zealous Christian theologians, who equated anything produced by non-Christians as suspect.

However, the Western Church also fostered the studies of William of Ockham (Occam's Razor) and Roger Bacon. There was also Hildegard of Bingen, an abbess, physician, mathematician and astronomer. She was impressive.

If you want to stretch science, two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, created Cyrillic text, which helped enable the proliferation of knowledge across Eastern Europe, in a similar way to Latin and Greek did elsewhere.

Did the various churches hold back science? Yes, often, but there were some enlightened clerics, as well. As with most things, there are lots of shades of grey.


EDIT: farntfar, I've interpreted it as relating to the Christian churches. The wider question of religious organisations and science could take up a much longer post.


----------



## Gramm838 (Oct 31, 2013)

As it's implied that it's the christian church we're talking about, I suspect the answer is 'yes, but...', in much the same way that any large corporation today sponsoring some research will expect it to result in favouring the sponsor.

It won't expect the research they sponsor to come out emphatically against the corporations objectives - so the church would hold back any true research that helped to disprove the god myth.

Maybe someone should ask Galileo for his opinion?

Vertigo's point about the golden age of Islam is very true, but that was a looong time ago


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 1, 2013)

Gramm838 said:


> As it's implied that it's the christian church we're talking about, I suspect the answer is 'yes, but...', in much the same way that any large corporation today sponsoring some research will expect it to result in favouring the sponsor.
> 
> It won't expect the research they sponsor to come out emphatically against the corporations objectives - so the church would hold back any true research that helped to disprove the god myth.


 
Not necessarily.... While there is certainly generally resistance to such from organized religion, this is not across the board, curiously enough; any more than the church has always resisted the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, or any number of other scientific models which have seriously rocked the boat. Again, it all depends on the individual authorities concerned, as well as what the hierarchy believes can be absorbed without undermining the institution itself entirely (rather than something which can be accommodated in one way or another).



> Maybe someone should ask Galileo for his opinion?


 
Curiously (from my understanding), the Church pretty much agreed with what he was saying; they just wanted it to be introduced very gradually, to give the laity a chance to maintain equilibrium (with the Church's help, of course) rather than losing faith. Essentially, they knew quite well the older model was erroneous, but such a drastic alteration, with its equally drastic implications when it came to dogmatic beliefs, had to be introduced carefully and over time. Galileo, on the other hand, was (like Tycho Brahe) rather an irascible sort who had no patience for this sort of thing, and thus the two came to loggerheads... with the result we know.


----------



## JoanDrake (Nov 1, 2013)

Try reading "The Star" a short story by Arthur C. Clarke if you want a fairly accurate picture of how the Catholic Church feels about science


----------



## Liz Bent (Jan 20, 2014)

While not wanting to appear to bash Christianity too much, I'd point out that during the time of the Inquisition, there wasn't exactly a lot of scientific thinking going on- in fact, "witches" who cured patients of illnesses with antiseptic herbs or washing were burned at the stake. It wasn't until the stranglehold of political power the Roman Catholic Church had on people was loosened (Reformation, Enlightenment) that a lot of major scientific discoveries were made, and the process of scientific inquiry was developed.

During the middle ages, the same time as the Inquisition, mathematics, medicine and science were developing well in Islamic countries precisely because they interpreted the Koran as instructing the devout to study and understand Allah's creation (the natural world). I have not studied the more recent history of these countries, though, so I can't comment on the current state of scientific thought.


----------



## Lilmizflashythang (Jan 21, 2014)

I think the Church got a bad rap on the witch burnings. Yes, they proscribed burning for witches, at least the Catholic did. But, most of the burnings were a way for one person to get their neighbor's property. 'She's a witch,' would put the property up for sale.


Why else would it almost always be the 'undesirable' that died?


And Galileo got in trouble for mocking the Pope, nothing more.


----------



## Huttman (Jan 22, 2014)

I believe the church influenced ignorance, intolerance and power to subvert the lowly and innocent. I believe their corruption is so deep their understanding of the literal (scientific) world along with the spiritual world were and is still twisted. There is a reason fewer and fewer people put stock in any religious ideals anymore. 
 I believe that does not de-merit the bible, I just think the caretakers, the church, got careless of the point. There were priests who saw God's creation as explainable through a scientific means and I applaud them for that. They pursued these answers with their lives at stake. The Bible is not a science book. That being said, what things of science it describes were centuries ahead of its writing. It speaks of the Earth hanging upon nothing, not on elephants or turtles or Atlas' back. It speaks of the Earth as a globe, or sphere, not flat. It says that the Earth was created over an uncountable (at least then) measure of time, not six 24 hour periods as there is a Hebrew word for a 24 hour day. The word that was used was for an unspecified length of time, six of them meaning a really, really long period of time. Those are the things off the top of my head I remember. So I guess I would say the church delayed any advancement in science, it did not promote it.



Lilmizflashythang said:


> And Galileo got in trouble for mocking the Pope, nothing more.



_Hey, everyone, does this hat make me look taller too?_


----------



## JoanDrake (Jan 23, 2014)

The numbers agree with LilMiz on the Inquisition. In Germany, where it didn't exist, some 2 million "witches" died during the Witch Mania. In Spain it was about 8,000. Despite their use of torture the Inquisition courts also considered all evidence from all sides and generally exonerated more people than they convicted.


----------



## The Ace (Jan 23, 2014)

Funnily enough, these days, it isn't the Catholic Church that's the problem.

There are people out there who take everything the Bible says literally, or dip into Mosaic Law (the whole point of the New Testament is that _nobody _can keep to all of the Law, so Jesus fulfilled it) to support their present position.

The Book of Genesis was written down in the Bronze age from oral tradition - it's a philosophical treatise, attempting to answer the Great Questions, by an unsophisticated people.   "This is what our ancestors believed, and we don't have enough evidence to dispute it.  It also tells you who YOU are."

Taken on that basis, it tells you a lot about people and their beliefs, but very little about the scientific facts that were simply unknown at the time.

As to the second point, I still remember the Kirk debating the ordination of homosexuals, which prompted a demonstration outside the General Assembly, due to its contradiction of Leviticus;

The protesters were predominantly women ( Leviticus states that a woman who preaches to a man should be stoned to death - admittedly, the Kirk has several hundred female ministers, and around 45% of its elders are also female, so it's on shaky ground here).

They were wearing trousers (the raiment of a man, another major transgression), made of polyester/cotton (blended fabrics - Leviticus wasn't exactly ecstatic about this one).

They fortified themselves with tea and bacon rolls (two absolute no-no's here; bacon comes from pigs, and renders anyone who eats it unclean - and a virtual outcast until certain rituals are performed by a priest.  It's also forbidden to take meat and milk in the same meal, so those who put milk in their tea are beyond the Pale).

Thus, in promoting the bit of Law that supported their bigotry, they cr*pp*d all over the rest of it from a great height.

I'm not a fan of restrictive dietary laws, corporal and capital punishment, the denial of roles - other than those of wife and mother - for women, and a hundred other little joys of a system of law which the original recipients couldn't handle, but I don't have to be.  The New Commandment (Love the Lord with all your heart, Love your neighbour as yourself) is the only one that matters.

Unfortunately, certain, 'Religious,' people today don't seem to find love all that important when others have the temerity to disagree with them.


----------



## Lilmizflashythang (Jan 24, 2014)

Wait a minute there Ace. There is no* Biblical* law against eating milk and meat. Even Abraham served lamb and cheese to his 'visitors.' That law is of *Jewish* Tradition. 


And please tell me where Leviticus says that you stone a woman for preaching to a man. The only stoning laws for preaching were if the preacher was trying to lead people away from God, from what I remember.


Sorry to get off topic, but I dislike it when someone says that Jewish traditions are the laws of God. There hasn't been any Biblical basis for any of the ones that I've seen.  And I've read the whole Bible multiple times.


----------



## Bowler1 (Jan 24, 2014)

You don’t need history to see religion, organised or otherwise turning recognised science on its head.

The Taliban knocking off Doctors trying to administer the polio vaccine.
The Catholic church still standing against contraception and having a terrible impact on AIDS in Africa. 
Many in the Bible belt not believing in the evolutionary theory.

Religion and science are the best of bed fellows, now, or in the past.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 24, 2014)

Bowler1 said:


> Religion and science are the best of bed fellows, now, or in the past.



Is there not a 'not' missing from there somewhere, Bowler?


----------



## Bowler1 (Jan 24, 2014)

mosaix said:


> Is there not a 'not' missing from there somewhere, Bowler?



Yes... It's missing ok. Such a little word, such a big difference in meaning.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 25, 2014)

Lilmizflashythang said:


> Wait a minute there Ace. There is no* Bibin 2 ical* law againinn Deutt eating milk and meat. Even Abraham served lamb and cheese to his 'visitors.' That law is of *Jewish* Tradition.
> 
> 
> And please tell me where Leviticus says that you stone a woman for preaching to a man. The only stoning laws for preaching were if the preacher was trying to lead people away from God, from what I remember.
> ...



I am sure there are mentions of not mixing certain kinds of meat and milk produce in 2 passages in Exodus and also in Deutronomy (sp).


----------



## Parson (Jan 25, 2014)

*Svalbard,*

I'd assumed that the milk and meat thing was an extension from  Exodus  23:19; Exodus 34:26; and Deuteronomy 14:21 where Israel is commanded "Do  not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." But the issue there isn't the mixture but the use of the mother's life/milk to cook her offspring. 

I'd also assumed that the stoning a woman for preaching to a man was a  reach from either Rev. 2:20 -- Nevertheless, I have this against you:  You tolerate that *woman* Jezebel, who calls herself a *prophet*.  By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the  eating of food sacrificed to idols. --- Of course here we are dealing with a "false" prophet. Not one of the true God. Or Paul's injunctions against women  in leadership roles. (this a real shortsighted reading  of Paul and the New Testament. Paul calls Phoebe a "deacon" not a  "deaconess" which could be construed to be the wife of a deacon so obviously she's a leader in the church, plus we have Priscilla, an associate of Paul's, who was one of those who taught Apollos in Acts the "truth about the Holy Spirit" in Acts. Added to this we have Philip's 4 daughters who were prophets in Acts. In the Old Testament as well there are examples of women who are prophets (Huldah) and leaders of the country (Deborah), plus in Corinthians Paul gives  instructions for how a woman is to keep her head covered when  prophesying in church. 1 Cor. 11:5)

On the whole I would say that you characterization of those Biblical injunctions was flawed at best.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 25, 2014)

To be honest I wouldn't know the Bible well enough to qoute chapter and verse. What I do feel is that it is open to interpretation and can mean different things to so many people. My reading of Paul would be contrary to yours, but that is not the subject of this thread.

On topic, I would think the Catholic Church over the course of millenia has on the whole had a positive influence upon science with some blips along the way.


----------



## Parson (Jan 27, 2014)

Agreed. Didn't mean to take us off course.


----------



## Aquilonian (Feb 1, 2014)

Overall, any dogmatic system of belief will tend to retard scientific progress, because science depends on freedom of thought, ie following a chain of thought where the logic leads, without fear of contravening some prohibition. Nowadays science itself is treated as a religion, and scientists are treated like priests were treated in medieval times, ie deferred to without question, but also expected to have the answer to every problem. Real scientists don't take this attitude, it's more people who "respect" science without having actually studied it. Also, politicians (very few of whom are scientifically educated) use scientific evidence when it backs their proposals, but ignore it when it does not- just as kings used religion in former times. 

There is no such thing as "the Church" unless you belong to a specific church that is so bigoted that they don't accept any other churches as being real Christians. Even in Medieval times there were the Catholic and Orthodox churches, plus many other small groups who worked in secret due to being classed as heretics by the big two. 

Finally, you have to distinguish between "The Church" as an institution (or group of institutions) and people who happen to be members of a church. Same goes for other religions- those who favour Islam often quote the great Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages, who were far more advanced than Europeans of that period. However this has more to do with the fact that Muslims had conquered several areas that had the longest history of civilisation, eg Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, and the Eastern Roman Empire. If Muhammad had been a Viking and his warriors had conquered Scandinavia and Germany, it would have been a different story.


----------



## AlexanderSen (Mar 1, 2014)

An interesting note regarding the spirit of science is the Zambia's 1964 Space Program. In some ways it was more of a church than an actual Space Program. They sure got in the spirit of the times. In the spirit of science! 

Meet 'The Afronauts': Zambia's Forgotten Space Program (Photos) | Space.com

Zambia's forgotten space program 1964 - YouTube


----------

