Vatican Astronomer Maintains Christianity is Not Adverse to Science

by Kenneson 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gaiagirl

  When the bubonic plague struck the Roman Empire in 540 C.E., the Church declared the field of Greek and Roman medicine heresy, leaving the only treatment for sufferers of any ailment "bleeding".

  Concerning a spherical planet Earth, St. Augustine wrote "It is impossible that there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the Earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam."

  In 398, the Fourth Council of Carthage forbade bishops to read books written by non-Christians.

  Jerome, one of the Church fathers living in the fourth century wrote rejoicing that the classical writings of antiquity were being forgotten in his lifetime.

  In 415, a Christian mob attacked Hypatia, the head of the Library of Alexandria, and scraped the flesh from her bones with abalone shells, then burned her body. They then proceeded to burn the Library and its 700,000 volumes, which had been collected over several centuries.

  In 525, Cosmos Indicopleustes writes a Christian geography book titled "Topography", in which he denies the possibility of a spherical planet, describing earth as "quadrangular". He denies the possibility of containing oceans on a spherical world, and that earth cannot rotate on her axis, because a support for the axis cannot be seen.

  To claim the Christianity took the lead in any science is to be simply ignorant of history. To cite just a couple of examples:

  Greek astronomers knew Earth was spherical, and orbited the Sun, centuries before the Christian era.

  Ancient Egyptians understood the concept of I.U.D.s as contraceptive devices before the time of the Exodus.

  more can be found at this link

  http://www.ron521.homestead.com/HistoryScience.html

  Christianity has never led in any scientific field, but has always embraced scientific advances with the utmost reluctance.
• 

  Kenneson

  Frankie,

  Even if there were zero Christian scientists, does not mean that Christianity is anti-science. As a matter of fact, I would say that science, in a large part, owes its birth to Christianity. The great universities of western Europe were founded as Christian institutions and were pervasively Christian until the 19th century and provided the setting for most of the scientific advancements of their time. Churchmen like Albertus Magnus, Adelard of Bath, Robert Grosseteste and Jean Buridan, plus the ones previously mentioned, were hardly anti-science. Moreover, the inventions of clerics, mentioned in posts above, attest to the fact that that they were leaders ins science as well as church.. They knew that it was possible to have a common interactive relationship between the two.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  The system of higher education we have to day, the University, is a creation of the Church.

  Yes, the church officially oppossed science while at the same time many of it's clergy were involved in scientific discovery. But to say the church is only trying to "save face", is that how you put it, is ridiculous.
• 

  Simon

  I disagree Yeru. For centuries it has been religion that has stood in the way of science insisting, for instance, that the earth is flat, the centre of the universe etc... against all scientific evidence. Same with evolution and anything else that questions the bible's fairy stories and with it their own authority.
• 

  Kenneson

  Does anyone imagine that western civilization and modern science came to us from a vacuum? Or that there were no scientists but those who opposed the church?
• 

  logansrun

  I just love false dichotomies. "The Church has helped science!" "The Church has hindered science!" We're talking about a very large institution over the course of 2,000 years. There were good guys, there were bad guys. I think it's safe to say the Church has sometimes promoted science, sometimes fought against it.

  B.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Well said Bradley
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Brad,

  I agree with you. When it is in the Churches favor they helped,,and when it was not they hindered.

  They deserve no pat on the back,,either way.
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  The Skeptical Inquirer from March/April 2004 has an article about this, where it says:

  Liberal religions typically avoid conflict with science; indeed, in political battles over evolution in education, Liberal clergy are the best allies of scientists.

  There has been widespread reluctance historically to engage in such inquiries [Scientific examination of religious claims] since they were considered dangerous to the Faith. But after two centuries or more of meticulous scientific and scholarly criticism, there is a substantial literature that questions the received doctrines. Proponents of the Faith do not wish it questioned by agnostics or apostates. It is still considered in bad taste to be skeptical about these claims in America today; and indeed dangerous to one's health in other parts of the world where scientific inquiry is often considered blasphemous. ..

  Even though liberal clergy has changed some of their views according to scientific discoveries, I think religion as a whole continues to be very threatened by science. They make gloom & doom claims that the social cohesion religion has provided (?) would be threatened if people abandoned religion, because, then people wouldn't respect God's morals and their lives would have no "meaning". Realistically, religion creates as many problems as it fixes, and its social successes have more to do with maintaining the status quo than anything else.