Did Christianity save Europe from the dark ages? - Page 7 - Historum

mancman · May 7th, 2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloc

Copernicus was an ordained priest.

Copernicus published his work on his death although he had produced it . decades earlier. The main point being the world was not the centre of the universe. Galileo later followed the same ideas in 1633 and was put under house arrest for his entire life.

**antonina** · May 7th, 2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louise C

That Thomas Cahill book is good.

Seconded, I found it fascinating.
Imagine these Irish monks in their stone huts on the uppermost edges of Europe copying Ovid's love songs along with the Gospels! It looks like we owe them the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome.

**Belloc** · May 7th, 2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mancman

Copernicus published his work on his death although he had produced it . decades earlier. The main point being the world was not the centre of the universe. Galileo later followed the same ideas in 1633 and was put under house arrest for his entire life.

Copernicus sent a copy to the Pope, and Galileo had the patronage of the Pope as well for his scientific research. One of his daughters became a nun too.

**Belloc** · May 7th, 2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCG2U

In someway, yes. They did not encourage any kind of scientific advancement.

They did as much they could given the overall chaotic situation of the late Antiquity and early Medieval period. Historians of Science like David Lindberg give credit to the preservation of scientific knowledge during this period to the work of Christian monks.

Talking about Lindberg, here's him on Copernicus:

Quote:

If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him- Nicole Oresme (a bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicholas of Cusa (a cardinal) in the fifteenth-had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir.17Indeed, various churchmen, including a bishop and a cardinal, urged Copernicus to publish his book, which appeared with a dedication to Pope Paul 111. Had Copernicus lived beyond its publication in 1543, it is highly improbable that he would have felt any hostility or suffered any persecution. The church simply had more important things to worry about than a new astronomical or cosmological system. Although a few critics noticed and opposed the Copernican system, organized Catholic opposition did not appear until the seventeenth century.18

Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science

Oh and Galileo:

Quote:

The Galileo affair was a multi-faceted event. Certainly it raised serious questions about the relationship between reason and revelation and the proper means of reconciling the teachings of nature with those of scripture. Nonetheless, it was not a matter of Christianity waging war on science. All of the participants called themselves Christians, and all acknowledged biblical authority. This was a struggle between opposing theories of biblical interpretation: a conservative theory issuing from the Council of Trent versus Galileo's more liberal alternative, both well precedented in the history of the church. Personal and political factors also played a role, as Galileo demonstrated his flair for cultivating enemies in high places.26

DCG2U · May 7th, 2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

They did as much they could given the overall chaotic situation of the late Antiquity and early Medieval period. Historians of Science like David Lindberg give credit to the preservation of scientific knowledge during this period to the work of Christian monks.

I agree with you on this point BUT the Church sure did a great job of keeping all the knowledge to themselves (I can agree that during Charlemagne's reign, there was a "little Renaissance" going on but didn't last long).

Mark · May 7th, 2012, 01:33 PM

I'd give more credit to Islam than I would Christianity on the basis of advancement, particularly in the Balkans.

**Belloc** · May 7th, 2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCG2U

I agree with you on this point BUT the Church sure did a great job of keeping all the knowledge to themselves (I can agree that during Charlemagne's reign, there was a "little Renaissance" going on but didn't last long).

And who exactly were they supposed to be sharing with at this time? The Church was the one institution holding things together in much of Europe at this time. It was a rather chaotic time, which doesn't exactly lend itself to much scholarly sharing.

Bart Dale · May 7th, 2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCG2U

I agree with you on this point BUT the Church sure did a great job of keeping all the knowledge to themselves (I can agree that during Charlemagne's reign, there was a "little Renaissance" going on but didn't last long).

Most of the Renaissance scholars received their knowledge and training founded in universities founded by the Church. Most the great universities of Europe, Oxford, Cambridge, and the like were founded by the Church, and even in the US a number of prestigious American universties were founded by the Jesuits alone (Boston College, Georgetown University to name a coupe)

The universitied found by the Catholic Church as still major centers of learning and research.

And unlike the pagan Romans and the ancient & medieval Chinese, the Church did not ban or impede the dissecting of human corpses.

Quote:

"Human dissection does not seem to have been practised regularly in pagan, Jewish, Christian or Muslim cultures before the end of the 13th century, she writes, except by some Greek scholars in third-century BC Alexandria.

Dissection in the service of teaching and research began in Bologna about 1300, inspired by renewed interest in Galen, the second-century writer. The first anatomy textbook based on human dissection was written by Mondino de' Liuzzi (1275-1326), and it was a staple of university instruction into the 16th century. From Italy, dissection spread north, being performed at universities in both Catholic and Protestant regions by the 16th century.

What Boniface's bull forbade was the boiling of the flesh of corpses from bones as a funerary practice. The prohibition was taken narrowly, and Mondino noted that it prevented him from boiling ear-bones to make them easier to examine. But dispensations from the law could be granted.
"I know of no case in which an anatomist was ever prosecuted," writes Professor Park, "and no case in which the Church ever rejected a request for a dispensation."

Anatomists did not rob graves because dissection was prohibited. Grave-robbing was forbidden by both ecclesiastical and secular authorities, before and after anatomists had resorted to it. Corpses were stolen because families did not want their relations publicly dissected. Naked exhibition of dead kin was shameful; private post mortems held no fears.
So Leonardo dissected an aged patient whom he had befriended at the hospital of Santa Maria Nova, Florence. As an artist he had no standing to request a corpse for medical research, but he did not get into trouble.
To Professor Parks I owe thanks for blowing away of this cobweb of false myth. It is a breath of fresh air.

" False myth of the anatomy lesson - Telegraph

In contrast, it was the pagan Romans who banned human dissection and so delayed the advance of modern medicine

Quote:

"Roman law forbade dissection and autopsy of the human body,[3] so physicians such as Galen were unable to work on cadavers. Galen for example dissected the Barbary Macaque and other primates, assuming their anatomy was basically the same as that of humans.[4][5][6]

Dissection

Nor were the vaunted Chinese much better:

Quote:

"In the entire history of China, even though there are
some records about anatomic incidents, no systematic anatomy was ever
developed until the Western medicine was introduced"

http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/N...01/Jingbao.pdf

The Church for many centuries was the leading source of all learning in Europe, and even the incident with Galileo is not as bad as it is made out.

Quote:

"Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
.
.
When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor"

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

Insulting the powerful is always a sure way to get yourself into trouble in any age, and if Galileo had done the same thing to the local secular ruler, he might have gotten off worse than house arrest. In addition, Galileo wrote his arguments in common Italian, rather than learned Latin. Since any real scholar back then would know Latin, (Newton wrote his famous work on gravity in Latin), he could be seen as being deliberately subversive.

DCG2U · May 7th, 2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Dale

Most of the Renaissance scholars received their knowledge and training founded in universities founded by the Church. Most the great universities of Europe, Oxford, Cambridge, and the like were founded by the Church, and even in the US a number of prestigious American universties were founded by the Jesuits alone (Boston College, Georgetown University to name a coupe)

The universitied found by the Catholic Church as still major centers of learning and research.

And unlike the pagan Romans and the ancient & medieval Chinese, the Church did not ban or impede the dissecting of human corpses.

" [/I]False myth of the anatomy lesson - Telegraph

In contrast, it wat the pagan Romans who banned human dissection and so delayed the advance of modern medicine

Dissection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nor was vaunted Chinese any better:

"In the entire history of China, even though there are
some records about anatomic incidents, no systematic anatomy was ever
developed until the Western medicine was introduced" http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/N...01/Jingbao.pdf

The Church for many centuries was the leading source of all learning in Europe, and even the incident with Galileo is not as bad as it is made out.

"Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
.
.
When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor" The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

Insulting the rich and powerful is always a sure way to get yourself into trouble, and if Galileo had done the same thing to the local secular ruler, he might have gotten off worse than house arrest. In addition, Galileo wrote his arguments in common Italian, rather than learned Latin. Since any real scholar back then would know Latin, (Newton wrote his famous work on gravity in Latin), he could be seen as being deliberately subversive.

lol you and Belloc pwned me!

I guess what I have learned all my life about Medieval Era (which is my favorite historical period) was false. You bring up good arguments but that won't change my position towards the Church. I knew it protected the knowledge but I didn't know to such an extent.