/
RSS Feed
Myths abound concerning Christianity and the early development of science. You’ll find the truth to be quite a surprise. This talk, delivered at a Cru student conference in Albany last Thursday, is the third in a series I’m posting this week on faith and science.
Related Resources:
- Books:
The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution by James Hannam
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark - Articles:
The Myth of Conflict by James Hannam (you might want to explore the rest of his website there)
Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science by Lindberg and Numbers
Also very informative with respect to the role of Christianity for scientific progress is the following article, written by Bjørn Are Davidsen:
http://www.telektronikk.com/volumes/pdf/2.2004/Page_005-025.pdf
A good example of technological innovation as explained in the article is the watch industry in Switzerland, which is outlined in the following link:
http://www.fhs.ch/en/history.php
That telektronnik.com article in particular is really worth reading. Thanks, Patrick.
Hmm, you claim Copernicus’s books were on the Index, but Galileo’s weren’t. But wikipedia says Galileo’s works were listed (maybe not all of them, but at least some of them):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/congregation.html
================
In the cases of the Copernican System, the Church was slow to act because it did not see immediate danger to the faithful in De Revolutionibus (1543). For one thing, it was written by a member of the Church. Copernicus was a canon in a monastery, and he dedicated his book to Pope Paul III. For another, the book contained a preface (discovered by Kepler not to have been written by Copernicus) that stated that the geocentric system proposed in the book was only a mathematical hypothesis and made no claims about how the universe was really constituted. But with Galileo’s writings, which reached out to a wide audience and brought the argument about Copernicus into the mainstream of educated discourse, the Church acted. In 1616, after 73 years, it placed De Revolutionibus on the Index subject to revision, along with several other books that defended the Copernican System. It is interesting to note that the revisions required in Copernicus’s book were, in terms of the total work, actually very minor. Copies of De Revolutionibus that were in Italy at this time show the revisions: a few deleted passages and a few changes of individual words. None of Galileo’s books were placed on the Index at this time. Kepler’s New Astronomy, his Epitome of Copernican Astronomy, and his World Harmony were quickly placed on the Index. During the proceedings against Galileo in 1633, his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World was placed on the Index, where it remained until 1824.
================
Apparently then it was placed on the Index 73 years later. Nevertheless:
Source
Recall what I said, Nick. The relation between the church and science has been complex and multifaceted. The relation between Christianity as a system of thought and science has been that Christianity provided the necessary (though not the only necessary) motivation that launched the pursuit of science.
The relation between Christianity as a system of thought and science has been that Christianity provided the necessary (though not the only necessary) motivation that launched the pursuit of science.
I admire your modesty. But I’ve got to say – let’s not be modest here.
Christianity provided not only necessary motivation – it also provided a tremendous number of cleric scientists, built and sustained universities – many of which persist to this day, supported all manner of scientific endeavors materially, and encouraged philosophers, theologians and metaphysicians who stressed the intelligibility of nature. These were not exceptions – they were the rule.
Absolutely, the relation has been multifaceted and complicated. But not so much that the above can’t be said, without qualification.