It concerned me in 2009 that a book with both “philosophers” and “medieval” in its title might elicit only blank-faced stares among potential readers. Of course I was viewing it from an American perspective; the English are undoubtedly more sophisticated about these things than we are. If it had that effect anywhere it would be a shame, for Hannam, a Ph.D. historian of science with degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, knows how to write readable history — and the tale he tells is truly fascinating. The U.S. version comes with Genesis and Science placed provocatively together in the title instead. I hope that stirs up a sizable readership, for this book deserves it.
It is the latest entry in a controversy with a history of its own. Hannam tells of the myth that “there was no science worth mentioning in the Middle Ages,” and “the Church held back what meagre advances were made.” These beliefs took flower as late as the 19th century with Thomas Henry Huxley, John William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, who tried to paint religion as the enemy of science. Their story has been told often; Hannam himself has blogged on it.
A.D. White’s part is particularly unfortunate, in that he produced a highly influential, heavily footnoted, apparently scholarly tome on the historic warfare between science and religion. Hannam assesses his work this way:
Anyone who checks his references will wonder how he could have maintained his opinions if he had read as much as he claimed to have done.
Hannam situates these myths in historical context:
The denigration of the Middle Ages began as long ago as the sixteenth century, when humanists, the intellectual trendsetters of the time, started to champion classical Greek and Roman literature. They cast aside medieval scholarship on the grounds that it was convoluted and written in ‘barbaric’ Latin. So people stopped reading and studying it…. The waters were muddied further by … Protestant writers not to give an ounce of credit to Catholics. It suited them to maintain that nothing of value had been taught at universities before the Reformation.
This is no simplistic apologetic for Christianity as the root of scientific thinking. Hannam summarizes the church’s relationship with natural philosophy as one of “creative tension.” Nevertheless it’s impossible not to notice who led the way in medieval natural philosophy:
A mathematician Pope at the turn of the last millennium.
A monk in 1092 who used an astrolabe to construct the lunar calendar.
St. Anselm and Peter Abelard, clerics who elevated the role of reason and logic in philosophy and theology.
Cathedral school scholars who taught that “God is loving and consistent rather than capricious and arbitrary” paving the way for the study of a consistently operating world of nature.
The universities, products of the Church.
The influential bishop of Paris who condemned certain (not all, especially in view of the work of St. Thomas Aquinas) Aristotelian-based dogmas. It was an act that remains controversial, yet one which clearly opened the door for experimental study, rather than restricting natural philosophy to Aristotle’s pure reasoning.
A Polish clergyman, Copernicus, who challenged Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the heavens.
I could go on, but you get the point; and I am on the verge of conveying a false impression about the book. It’s a narrative, not a list of arguments. It’s a story showing that the tension between religion and natural philosophy was indeed a creative one: it led to new technologies (improved plows, the stirrup, clocks, the compass, eyeglasses, mills, and more), new theories (impetus/momentum, theories of acceleration), new observational tools (observatories, telescopes), and new institutions of learning (cathedral schools and universities).
And as the author states in his conclusion, it also produced the metaphysical cornerstone for modern science:
We take it for granted and we do not worry about why people began studying nature in the first place….
To understand why science was attractive even before it could demonstrate its remarkable success in explaining the universe, it is necessary to look at things from a medieval point of view. The starting point for all natural philosophy in the Middle Ages was that nature had been created by God. This made it a legitimate area of study because through nature, man could learn about its creator. Medieval scholars thought that nature followed the rules that God had ordained for it. Because God was consistent and not capricious, these natural laws were constant and worth scrutinising. However, these scholars rejected Aristotle’s contention that the laws of nature were bound by necessity. God was not constrained by what Aristotle thought. The only way to find out which laws God had decided on was by the use of experience and observation. The motivations and justification of medieval natural philosophers were carried over almost unchanged by the pioneers of modern science.
Hannam brings us a straightforward account of important inventions and world-altering innovations in thinking, grown out of a continent dominated by Christian thinking. The conclusion is clear: the roots of modern science go down deep into Christian culture, theology, and practice. Those who think otherwise would do well to learn some more history.
By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.
Copyright, Permissions, Marketing
Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.