One of the Whopping Big Contributions of Christianity to Renaissance Humanism!

[Vouthon]

I gave my references and they are current scholarship including Oxford biographies. Claims of liberalism does not help you case. The difference and the influence of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism is clear and specific as defined from good sources,

I think that where you are misunderstanding the issue is as follows: you are confusing, or perhaps conflating, the Renaissance era valorisation and glorification of Greco-Roman artistic and literary greatness, on the one hand, with the actual moral and jurisprudential content of their humanistic philosophy which was a development of medieval Christian-canonistic innovations.

Renaissance humanists heavily imitated Greco-Roman culture but the actual ethical-jurisprudential intuitions underpinning their thought wasn't an exact replica of the ancients - indeed if it had been then it would have been very different in character from that which we are familiar with.

Liberalism is key here: the later enlightenment liberalism, beginning with John Locke in the 17th century, is directly indebted to the medieval canonistic notion of subjective natural rights (which didn't exist in classical philosophy) - a crucial precursor, therefore, of modern liberal theory (i.e. individual rights, the rule of law, equality and representative government). Perhaps this belongs more appropriately in the other thread by @Sunstone on Christian contribution to the Enlightenment, although it's connected to this one too since the Renaissance humanists were part of this development.

There is nothing in the Oxford Bibliography, from my reading of your quote, which contradicts or even explicitly deals with this because that's not its purpose.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that where you are misunderstanding the issue is as follows: you are confusing, or perhaps conflating, the Renaissance era valorisation and glorification of Greco-Roman artistic and literary greatness, on the one hand, with the actual moral and jurisprudential content of their humanistic philosophy which was a development of medieval Christian-canonistic innovations.

Renaissance humanists heavily imitated Greco-Roman culture but the actual ethical-jurisprudential intuitions underpinning their thought wasn't an exact replica of the ancients - indeed if it had been then it would have been very different in character from that which we are familiar with.

Liberalism is key here: the later enlightenment liberalism, beginning with John Locke in the 17th century, is directly indebted to the medieval canonistic notion of subjective natural rights (which didn't exist in classical philosophy) - a crucial precursor, therefore, of modern liberal theory (i.e. individual rights, the rule of law, equality and representative government). Perhaps this belongs more appropriately in the other thread by @Sunstone on Christian contribution to the Enlightenment, although it's connected to this one too since the Renaissance humanists were part of this development.

Liberalism is not the key, and my references are very clear and specific.

There is nothing in the Oxford Bibliography, from my reading of your quote, which contradicts or even explicitly deals with this because that's not its purpose.

There is and it is clear and specific as well as my other references.

Your stone walling and not reading the references.

 

[Vouthon]

Liberalism is not the key, and my references are very clear and specific.

Liberalism was in part one offshoot of Renaissance humanism (though not the only one, for some humanists defended political absolutism): an outgrowth of its freedom of enquiry and self-expression.

The Latin word libertas from which the etymological root of the term Liberalism is derived, was a staple element of the vocabulary of Renaissance humanists.

And Liberalism is key to my argument here because it is directly indebted to the natural rights tradition of medieval canon law, and this has been conclusively demonstrated by the scholars that I've mentioned.

There is and it is clear and specific as well as my other references.

Your stone walling and not reading the references.

My references in aforementioned posts are equally clear and specific.

 

[shunyadragon]

Liberalism was in part one offshoot of Renaissance humanism (though not the only one, for some humanists defended political absolutism): an outgrowth of its freedom of enquiry and self-expression.

The Latin word libertas from which the etymological root of the term Liberalism is derived, was a staple element of the vocabulary of Renaissance humanists.

No problem that liberalism was on part the product of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism. Not an issue.

My references in aforementioned posts are equally clear and specific.

OK, but nonetheless the antithesis of Christian Theism was Renaissance humanism by the definitions and the references I cited.

 

[Vouthon]

No problem that liberalism was on part the product of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism. Not an issue.

Renaissance humanism developed in two stages: in the 14th century it was scholarly and literary, and in the early 15th century it became a political movement.

In the first stage, it was characterized by study and appreciation of classical texts and biblical criticism filtered through a classical lens - including those by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Early Church Fathers. Most of these humanists were poets and men of letters like Petrarch, with an emphasis upon philology and literature. They didn't contribute much of anything to political theory but they were, in the main, practicing Christians. Britannica encyclopedia notes about Petrarch that as a, "theologian (he was an ordained priest), he advanced the view, held by many humanists who followed, that Classical learning and Christian spirituality were not only compatible but also mutually fulfilling". And Petrarch is remembered as the founding father of Renaissance humanism.

In the latter stage, however, a political kind of civic humanism spread north across Europe from Florence and was developed by Christian humanists such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Thomas More and Erasmus.

It is the political, or "civic", humanism - partly indebted to Cicero and partly indebted to the Christian canonical tradition of natural law - that is pertinent to my argument. The first variety of humanism wasn't political, although they did help contribute to philosophical ideas to do with moral autonomy.

 

[Augustus]

The claim that Newtons science was supported by his faith in Christianity is at best anecdotal.

By anecdotal do you mean "repeatedly and explicitly stated himself in his own word in his own writings over many years"?

Newton - Principles of philosophy

Newton - Optiks

 

[shunyadragon]

Renaissance humanism developed in two stages: in the 14th century it was scholarly and literary, and in the early 15th century it became a political movement.

In the first stage, it was characterized by study and appreciation of classical texts and biblical criticism filtered through a classical lens - including those by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Early Church Fathers. Most of these humanists were poets and men of letters like Petrarch, with an emphasis upon philology and literature. They didn't contribute much of anything to political theory but they were, in the main, practicing Christians. Britannica encyclopedia notes about Petrarch that as a, "theologian (he was an ordained priest), he advanced the view, held by many humanists who followed, that Classical learning and Christian spirituality were not only compatible but also mutually fulfilling". And Petrarch is remembered as the founding father of Renaissance humanism.

In the latter stage, however, a political kind of civic humanism spread north across Europe from Florence and was developed by Christian humanists such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Thomas More and Erasmus.

It is the political, or "civic", humanism - partly indebted to Cicero and partly indebted to the Christian canonical tradition of natural law - that is pertinent to my argument. The first variety of humanism wasn't political, although they did help contribute to philosophical ideas to do with moral autonomy.

No by anecdotal I mean personal claims of motivation by believers remains anecdotal in the face of the history of the evidence.

Maybe partially developed by Christian Humanists, but not based on Christian Humanism as defined. IT was based on Greek philosophy at its roots.

 

[Augustus]

No by anecdotal I mean personal claims of motivation by believers remains anecdotal in the face of the history of the evidence.

My favourite ever argument on RF was when someone said if the Biblical account of the crucifixion was accurate, then Pilate's sympathy for Jesus would have led to him being crucified "with dignity and respect".

This is my new 2nd favourite:

"The explicit and unambiguous words of Sir Isaac Newton remain anecdotal in the face of my opinion."

 

[shunyadragon]

My favourite ever argument on RF was when someone said if the Biblical account of the crucifixion was accurate, then Pilate's sympathy for Jesus would have led to him being crucified "with dignity and respect".

This is my new 2nd favourite:

"The explicit and unambiguous words of Sir Isaac Newton remain anecdotal in the face of my opinion."

Every fallible human being that every lived statement of belief and the Divine guidance that guided their choices is anecdotal. Arguing from 'personal' authority in this case remains a fallacy.

I would not rely on any one person's 'personal opinion on this subject regardless.i

 

[Vouthon]

No by anecdotal I mean personal claims of motivation by believers remains anecdotal in the face of the history of the evidence.

Maybe partially developed by Christian Humanists, but not based on Christian Humanism as defined. IT was based on Greek philosophy at its roots.

Read this article published in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought by Siegfried Van Duffel on "Conciliarism", a movement that was directly indebted to the canon law tradition and was pioneered by Renaissance humanists like Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (recognized as "one of the first German proponents of Renaissance humanism") and Jean Gerson, and which in turn directly led to the seventeenth-eighteenth century Enlightenment political theories against absolute monarchy and in favour of popular sovereignty:

Conciliarism - The Encyclopedia of Political Thought - Duffel - Wiley Online Library

Abstract

The term “conciliarism” can be used broadly to refer to attempts, from the early Catholic church till today, to limit papal control over the church by means of a general council. In a stricter sense the term is often used to refer to the movement which emerged in response to the “western schism” (1378–1417), which briefly re-emerged after the “schism of Pisa” (1511–13). This movement served as a catalyst of medieval constitutional thought and contributed significantly to the development of the idea of “government by consent.” During the so-called western schism, the Catholic church found itself with two (and later three) rival popes. The situation was resolved only 40 years later (1414–18) at the council of Constance. Since the pope was normally considered the head of the church, the actions of the council needed special justification. The apologists of the council of Constance (among others: Conrad of Gelnhausen, Henry of Langenstein, and Pierre d'Aily) relied heavily on canonist corporation theory, and were also greatly indebted to John of Paris, William of Ockham, and Marsilius of Padua.

The council asserted supremacy for itself...From 1408–18 onward (in the later period apologists were Pierre d'Aily, Jean Gerson, and Franciscus Zabarella), conciliarism becomes more of a theology of the church. The general terms in which the arguments were put forward facilitated their transformation into all-purpose political principles. Several conciliarists proposed theories of mixed government, but at the council of Basel (1431–49) many went further in pronouncing the sovereignty of the whole church, which the church exercised through the council as its representative. Nicholas of Cusa, who delivered the most important contribution to the council of Basel, wrote about the foundation of government in a language resembling that of later social contract theorists: since all are by nature free, and equal in power, the properly ordained power of a ruler can only come from the agreement and consent of the subjects (Nicholas of Cusa 1991: 98). In the early sixteenth century, Jacques Almain and John Mair revived conciliarism, and – in doing so – provided a crucial link in the transmission of medieval constitutional thought. In their thought, the right of the church to depose a pope guilty of a notorious crime is treated as an application of the general rights of political communities – civil and ecclesiastical – to act for their preservation and well-being. These ideas were often echoed and cited by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century opponents of absolute monarchy.​

See also:

Nicholas of Cusa - Renaissance and Reformation - Oxford Bibliographies

Nicholas of Cusa (b. 1401–d. 1464) is a transitional figure between the Middle Ages and modernity. Born in the German town of Kues (later Bernkastel-Kues) on the Moselle River, he went on to attend the universities of Heidelberg, Padua, and Cologne. In Padua he associated with the Italian humanists, taking in their intellectual inquisitiveness while he was pursuing (and eventually obtained) the degree of doctor decretorum—a doctorate in canon law....

From 1438 to 1448 he served as Eugenius’s papal envoy to Germany, helping to sway the German nation toward backing the pope’s position. Eugenius’s successor, Pope Nicholas V, named him cardinal in 1448 and assigned to him the titular church of St. Peter in Chains in Rome...

Nicholas opens the door to modernity. His innovative cosmology and ontology open that door still wider. Ernst Cassirer calls him “the first modern philosopher.” ​

 

[shunyadragon]

Read this article published in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought by Siegfried Van Duffel on "Conciliarism", a movement that was directly indebted to the canon law tradition and was pioneered by Renaissance humanists like Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and Jean Gerson, and which in turn directly led to the seventeenth-eighteenth century Enlightenment political theories against absolute monarchy and in favour of popular sovereignty:

Conciliarism - The Encyclopedia of Political Thought - Duffel - Wiley Online Library

Abstract

The term “conciliarism” can be used broadly to refer to attempts, from the early Catholic church till today, to limit papal control over the church by means of a general council. In a stricter sense the term is often used to refer to the movement which emerged in response to the “western schism” (1378–1417), which briefly re-emerged after the “schism of Pisa” (1511–13). This movement served as a catalyst of medieval constitutional thought and contributed significantly to the development of the idea of “government by consent.” During the so-called western schism, the Catholic church found itself with two (and later three) rival popes. The situation was resolved only 40 years later (1414–18) at the council of Constance. Since the pope was normally considered the head of the church, the actions of the council needed special justification. The apologists of the council of Constance (among others: Conrad of Gelnhausen, Henry of Langenstein, and Pierre d'Aily) relied heavily on canonist corporation theory, and were also greatly indebted to John of Paris, William of Ockham, and Marsilius of Padua.

The council asserted supremacy for itself...From 1408–18 onward (in the later period apologists were Pierre d'Aily, Jean Gerson, and Franciscus Zabarella), conciliarism becomes more of a theology of the church. The general terms in which the arguments were put forward facilitated their transformation into all-purpose political principles. Several conciliarists proposed theories of mixed government, but at the council of Basel (1431–49) many went further in pronouncing the sovereignty of the whole church, which the church exercised through the council as its representative. Nicholas of Cusa, who delivered the most important contribution to the council of Basel, wrote about the foundation of government in a language resembling that of later social contract theorists: since all are by nature free, and equal in power, the properly ordained power of a ruler can only come from the agreement and consent of the subjects (Nicholas of Cusa 1991: 98). In the early sixteenth century, Jacques Almain and John Mair revived conciliarism, and – in doing so – provided a crucial link in the transmission of medieval constitutional thought. In their thought, the right of the church to depose a pope guilty of a notorious crime is treated as an application of the general rights of political communities – civil and ecclesiastical – to act for their preservation and well-being. These ideas were often echoed and cited by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century opponents of absolute monarchy.​

This is FACT.

See also:

Nicholas of Cusa - Renaissance and Reformation - Oxford Bibliographies

Nicholas of Cusa (b. 1401–d. 1464) is a transitional figure between the Middle Ages and modernity. Born in the German town of Kues (later Bernkastel-Kues) on the Moselle River, he went on to attend the universities of Heidelberg, Padua, and Cologne. In Padua he associated with the Italian humanists, taking in their intellectual inquisitiveness while he was pursuing (and eventually obtained) the degree of doctor decretorum—a doctorate in canon law....

From 1438 to 1448 he served as Eugenius’s papal envoy to Germany, helping to sway the German nation toward backing the pope’s position. Eugenius’s successor, Pope Nicholas V, named him cardinal in 1448 and assigned to him the titular church of St. Peter in Chains in Rome...

Nicholas opens the door to modernity. His innovative cosmology and ontology open that door still wider. Ernst Cassirer calls him “the first modern philosopher.” ​

Facts or other wise, you are arguing well down the road of the origins of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism, both of which had their influence, and reflection of both in the changes taking place in the world of the churches and science.

 

[Vouthon]

Facts or other wise, you are arguing well down the road of the origins of Renaissance Humanism and Christian Humanism, both of which had their influence, and reflection of both in the changes taking place in the world of the churches and science.

Could you explain your meaning here? I don't quite know what your trying to say.

 

[shunyadragon]

Could you explain your meaning here? I don't quite know what your trying to say.

You explaining the influence of Renaissance Humanism, and Christian Humanism, and not the question of origin.

 

[Vouthon]

You explaining the influence of Renaissance Humanism, and Christian Humanism, and not the question of origin.

No, I've been quite clear in stressing that Renaissance Humanism - even the earlier literary-linguistic stage begun by Petrarch, himself a theologian - was equally inspired by both classical literature and Christianity, which were seen as mutually compatible and enlightening sources.

Additionally, I've been clear in stressing that a particular variant of the Christian humanist movement in the 15th century became political, pioneered by Nicholas of Cusa and Jean Gerson, and adapted the earlier medieval canon law "natural rights" tradition of the 12th-13th centuries (i.e. Decretum, William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua etc.) into the first coherent theory of popular sovereignty which then directly influenced modern liberal constitutionalism through John Locke in the 17th century.

I really don't understand why you would find any of this controversial if you are familiar with the scholarship, because everything I'm saying is from the scholarship.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I've been quite clear in stressing that Renaissance Humanism - even the earlier literary-linguistic stage begun by Petrarch, himself a theologian - was equally inspired by both classical literature and Christianity, which were seen as mutually compatible and enlightening sources.

As far as the enlightenment of Renaissance Humanism, and its beliefs it is indeed the antithesis of Theism and was inspired by the Greek classics. By definition it as not mutually compatible with Christian Humanism. Read again:

From: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html
Humanism is the term generally applied to the predominant social philosophy and intellectual and literary currents of the period from 1400 to 1650. The return to favor of the pagan classics stimulated the philosophy of secularism, the appreciation of worldly pleasures, and above all intensified the assertion of personal independence and individual expression. Zeal for the classics was a result as well as a cause of the growing secular view of life. Expansion of trade, growth of prosperity and luxury, and widening social contacts generated interest in worldly pleasures, in spite of formal allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine. Men thus affected -- the humanists -- welcomed classical writers who revealed similar social values and secular attitudes.

Historians are pretty much agreed on the general outlines of those mental attitudes and scholarly interests which are assembled under the rubric of humanism. The most fundamental point of agreement is that the humanist mentality stood at a point midway between medieval supernaturalism and the modern scientific and critical attitude. Medievalists see humanism as the terminal product of the Middle Ages. Modern historians are perhaps more apt to view humanism as the germinal period of modernism.

Perhaps the most we can assume is that the man of the Renaissance lived, as it were, between two worlds. The world of the medieval Christian matrix, in which the significance of every phenomenon was ultimately determined through uniform points of view, no longer existed for him. On the other hand, he had not yet found in a system of scientific concepts and social principles stability and security for his life. In other words, Renaissance man may indeed have found himself suspended between faith and reason.

As the grip of medieval supernaturalism began to diminish, secular and human interests became more prominent. The facts of individual experience in the here and now became more interesting than the shadowy afterlife. Reliance upon faith and God weakened. Fortuna (chance) gradually replaced Providence as the universal frame of reference. The present world became an end in itself instead of simply preparation of a world to come. Indeed, as the age of Renaissance humanism wore on, the distinction between this world (the City of Man) and the next (the City of God) tended to disappear.

This Humanist side is definitely rooted in the Greek Philosophies and Classics. Yes, the Theist Christian Humanism definitely did evolve in this period and influenced the church and the reformation, but the distinct direction Renaissance Humanism took is by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540). Rudolphus Agricola (1443-1485).

The subject is whether traditional Christianity was the major source of Renaissance Humanism. I will acknowledge influence through the evolving Christian Humanism, but no not the dominant source.

 

[Augustus]

Every fallible human being that every lived statement of belief and the Divine guidance that guided their choices is anecdotal. Arguing from 'personal' authority in this case remains a fallacy.

I would not rely on any one person's 'personal opinion on this subject regardless.i

The subject for those quotes was "the philosophy and theology of Sir Isaac Newton". You have ruled that it is a 'fallacy' to rely on what Newton said in his own words when discussing "the philosophy and theology of Isaac Newton".

In light of the other thread you posted about the limitations of reason.

In this thread, you have implicitly, or explicitly made the following statements:

Atheist poster: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Atheist historian of science: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Agnostic historian of science: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Jewish historian of science: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Christian historian of science: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Oxford University Press: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Harvard University Press: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Cambridge University Press: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Numerous other academic sources: extremely biased thus untrustworthy
Newton explaining his own philosophy: anecdotal, argument form authority
World famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun mentioning your 'university' in 14th C without noticing there was, in fact, a thriving university there: 'not evidence'
Defining university by the tangible, real world characteristics of universities: prejudiced

In response to this you have quoted 1 scholarly source, which doesn't actually support the point you are making, some random chap's blog and wikipedia (which is an authority when it supports your view, but 'extremely biased thus untrustworthy' when it contradicts your view). You also passed up the chance to discuss the issue purely based on academic resources, to lower the chance of the myriad of pop-culture myths that surround the issue getting in the way of modern scholarship.



Do you believe that there is any chance that some of the cognitive limitations to reason (which affect every single one of us) are affecting your judgement on this issue? Given the wide range of backgrounds and scholarly credentials of those involved, don't you think that dismissing them out of hand while uncritically accepting a much narrower range of non-scholarly writings may represent confirmation bias and a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance regarding a strongly held belief? To me, it seems like you are trying to find reasons to justify why you can ignore them, rather thanks seeking to evaluate their arguments. But then again, maybe that's just my bias.

In regards to this, just for one post, would you like to swap 'sides'? Using your materials in this thread, I'll make a post giving the best possible reasons for your perspective, and you can do likewise for mine.

 

[Ponder This]

CAUTION: The following views are my own and are offered here not as Gospel Truths, but rather to stimulate conversation. Having said that, I am of course undoubtedly right about everything I say. ​

I am of the alarming and insufferable opinion that the Renaissance begins on April 26, 1336 with Petrarch's attaining the summit of Mont Ventoux.

Safer, more conservative souls -- including many scholars -- have dated the Renaissance from when Petrarch began his ascent of the mountain, or from when he descended from it, but I myself snort loudly and decisively at all such overly-cautious interpretations: 'Twas when he summitted the mountain that the Renaissance began.

It was then that Petrarch (after reading a chance passage in Augustine's Confessions) was stunned into silence by the thought (which he attributed not to Augustine, but rather to "Pagan philosophers") that "...nothing is wonderful but the soul, which, when great itself, finds nothing great outside itself."

Thus began the Renaissance -- with a thought.

Here are two takeaways from that thought. First, Petrarch effectively makes humanity (i.e. "the human soul") the source of all value in this world. Second, he ascribes the view that humanity is the source of all value, not to Christian theologians, but to "Pagan philosophers". Thus, the Renaissance has sometimes been seen by low and scurrilous sorts of people as merely a rebirth of ancient Grecco-Roman humanism.

However, I myself feel deeply compelled to submit to you my unbearable opinion that Renaissance humanism, although heavily inspired and informed by humanistic Grecco-Roman philosophies, etc, also owed a lot to Christianity. Bushels and bushels, in fact!

I believe we see this not only in the incidental fact that most of the early Renaissance thinkers, including Petrarch himself, were churchmen, but also in the more significant fact that Renaissance humanism was not the province of a relatively small elite -- as had been classical humanism -- but was intended from its start to be a broad based, almost democratic movement of the whole citizenry.

By why would it be significant that the early proponents of Renaissance humanism sought to make it as broad based as possible? It is significant, I believe, because I say so because they did so influenced by the Christian notion of the "equality of all souls".

Or at least something similar to that.

The notion that everyone is equal on the level of the soul (and somewhat later on the notions that everyone ought to be equal before the law, have equal opportunities in life, etc, etc.) would have been inconceivable to classical thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Those thinkers accepted as fact that some lives -- usually the lives of the poor and powerless -- were of less worth and value than other lives -- usually the lives of the rich and powerful.

Christians, on the other hand, saw everyone as equal before God. They were apparently inspired by Judaism's social consciousness to see folks that way, although it seems they added their own twist to it by expanding on and universalizing that social consciousness. Thus, when the noble moment in history arrived to invent Renaissance humanism, the guiding lights of the movement (who, as I have noted, were for the most part Christian clergymen) simply found it natural to make the movement as broad based and inclusive as possible because they believed in the equality of souls baseball, and apple pie. Had those folks been ancient Grecco-Roman Pagans, they would more likely have focused any such movement more or less on the nobles alone.

It should go almost without saying that today's humanism is a direct descendant of Renaissance humanism. Although it has changed and evolved over the centuries, humanism even today is an essentially democratic movement and ideology. Thank you, Christianity!

And that is, more or less, your Uncle Sunstone's take on just one of the whopping big contributions of Christianity to humanism and ultimately to the modern world. I believe there are several other contributions that I might or might not post about in the near future.

Comments? Observations? Mouth-frothing Rants? Deranged off-topic meanderings?


Special thanks to @Vouthon for having inspired this thread's topic by a post of his in another thread.

Have you also considered the argument that the birth of Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman civilization and the entrance into the Dark Ages of Medieval Europe? I mean it was literally all downhill for Rome from that point on wasn't it? The religious underpinnings that gave birth to Roman culture were devastated, vilified, dismantled, and Rome collapsed. Well, you be the judge...

 

[Augustus]

Have you also considered the argument that the birth of Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman civilization

While the Gibbonian argument was in vogue from the 18th to early 20th C, it is no longer seen as credible by any academic historians as far as I'm aware.

and the entrance into the Dark Ages of Medieval Europe?

Again, this has been thoroughly discredited by historians, even the concept of the 'Dark Ages' as this backward time is unsustainable in light of the evidence against it.

No institution or cultural force of the patristic period offered more encouragement for the investigation of nature than did the
Christian church. Contemporary pagan culture was no more favorable to disinterested speculation about the cosmos than was Christian culture. It follows that the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than damaged, the development of the natural sciences.

Myth 1: That Christianity was responsible for the decline of ancient science - David C. Lindberg (in Galileo goes to Jail and other myths about science and religion)