The Contributions of Religion to Modern Science vs. New Atheism

[Augustus]

You can also argue that science would have progressed quicker than it did. Curiosity was what was behind discovery and people would have been curious without religion holding them back as already having the answers.

You can argue that as it is ultimately unknowable, but we do have a lot of human societies to compare.

Many societies progressed technologically, but not necessarily scientifically (and many had worldviews that were not even really compatible with scientific progress as they saw the world as essentially chaotic).

People have curiosity about practical matters that impact their lives. For people to have curiosity, as well as the time and resources to ponder the unproductive pursuit of "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" and for this pursuit to bee seen as socially prestigious.

Technology can always get funding if it shows utility, but modern experimental science was mocked in the 17th C as people "measuring the weight of air", there is even a land in Gulliver's Travels (Lagado) which is basically mocking such people for living in their ivory towers and being so detached from the reality of everyday folks.

The pursuit of knowledge was traditionally only open to a narrow social elite who had others to labour for them (slaves, serfs or subjects). In most societies, social elites were also military elites and favoured martial pursuits over the pursuit of knowledge.

The funding of such research was based on patronage, and was thus capricious. When times got tougher, funding disappeared.

Something like the Church created a wealthy organisation, with many educated workers from a variety of social classes, with a fair amount of free time. These people (generally) had no military obligations, access to lots of scientific literature (which they preserved and spread), and a stable financial environment. The linking of "useless" abstract information with theological concerns gave it social prestige, and thus attracted further sources of funding.

The development of modern science was not simply a result of curiosity, but was contingent on a combination of ideological, social, economic and institutional factors.

Of course, these could have been produced by non-religious means, but the vast majority of human societies didn't produce them at all. As a result, I don't really see why we should consider the religious factors in the societies where they did emerge (and that appear to have contributed to these) as "holding them back" or assume that a non-religious society should produce them more quickly.

(I know you didn't specifically argue they would have, it seems to be a common assumption by many others though)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You can argue that as it is ultimately unknowable, but we do have a lot of human societies to compare.

Many societies progressed technologically, but not necessarily scientifically (and many had worldviews that were not even really compatible with scientific progress as they saw the world as essentially chaotic).

People have curiosity about practical matters that impact their lives. For people to have curiosity, as well as the time and resources to ponder the unproductive pursuit of "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" and for this pursuit to bee seen as socially prestigious.

Technology can always get funding if it shows utility, but modern experimental science was mocked in the 17th C as people "measuring the weight of air", there is even a land in Gulliver's Travels (Lagado) which is basically mocking such people for living in their ivory towers and being so detached from the reality of everyday folks.

The pursuit of knowledge was traditionally only open to a narrow social elite who had others to labour for them (slaves, serfs or subjects). In most societies, social elites were also military elites and favoured martial pursuits over the pursuit of knowledge.

The funding of such research was based on patronage, and was thus capricious. When times got tougher, funding disappeared.

Something like the Church created a wealthy organisation, with many educated workers from a variety of social classes, with a fair amount of free time. These people (generally) had no military obligations, access to lots of scientific literature (which they preserved and spread), and a stable financial environment. The linking of "useless" abstract information with theological concerns gave it social prestige, and thus attracted further sources of funding.

The development of modern science was not simply a result of curiosity, but was contingent on a combination of ideological, social, economic and institutional factors.

Of course, these could have been produced by non-religious means, but the vast majority of human societies didn't produce them at all. As a result, I don't really see why we should consider the religious factors in the societies where they did emerge (and that appear to have contributed to these) as "holding them back" or assume that a non-religious society should produce them more quickly.

(I know you didn't specifically argue they would have, it seems to be a common assumption by many others though)

This is a great post. I guess I see people today denying any evidence for lets say evolution because their religious beliefs don't allow for that. I see people in history without an explanation for the diversity of life believing the bible and see no need to explore any further.

It is probably more complicated that we know but in the end science is the best method to determine truth we have today.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm a bit surprised as to why it took so long to get human anatomy correct, given the predilection for so many to chop bits off and/or tear the innards out, and although it probably isn't purely down to religious interference, isn't it the case that such exploration was banned or frowned upon for long periods?

 

[Augustus]

isn't it the case that such exploration was banned or frowned upon for long periods?

It wasn’t banned, but, with a handful of exceptions, no one seems to have been that interested in it for medical purposes until about 1300. People might still chop up cadavers of saints to harvest relics or check for miraculous preservation of organs though.

After that it was quite common, although could be difficult to get corpses legally. In earlier times, people were unlikely to allow their relatives to be “disrespected” by having their naked bodies gawped at and chopped up by students.

 

[Ella S.]

You seem to be imagining things, an argument against the conflict thesis is not a "comic book hero myth", and yes it is the consensus among secular scholars. Sorry if that is inconvenient for you.

The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars.[3][4][5][6][7] Into the 21st century, historians of science widely accept a complexity thesis.[8]

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia

Some people are so emotionally attached to the conflict thesis that any attempt at correction, no matter how well grounded in scholarship, is seen as some kind of nefarious apologetics.



How many of these scientists can you actually name?

What scientific progress do you think was held back? Why do you think they translated, preserved "pagan" science if their goal was to "resist scientific progress full stop"?

How do you weigh these up against the numerous ways the church boosted scientific progress?



If your goal was to boost scientific progress in accordance with modern norms, you could have done better than the church of course. But in the reality we had, the church was the biggest provider of education, including in the sciences, and enabled more people from a more diverse range of backgrounds to gain an education than any other institution.

“the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions.T”4 Heilbron’s point can be generalized far beyond astronomy. Put succinctly, the medieval period gave birth to the university, which developed with the active support of the papacy. This unusual institution sprang up rather spontaneously around famous masters in towns like Bologna, Paris, and Oxford before 1200. By 1500, about sixty universities were scattered throughout Europe. What is the significance of this development for our myth? About 30 percent of the medieval university curriculum covered subjects and texts concerned with the natural world.5 This was not a trivial development. The proliferation of universities between 1200 and 1500 meant that hundreds of thousands of students—a quarter million in the German universities alone from 1350 on—were exposed to science in the Greco-Arabic tradition. Michael H Shank



Personally I disagree that presenting views supported by a diverse range of secular scholars constitutes being "delusional", but you do you.

An evidence-free, emotional response is, unfortunately, par for the course among the "defenders of science and reason against irrational prejudice" on this topic.

Incorrect. My position was quite clear in that thread, and multiple other posters understood it well. Your own misrepresentation of it is yours to contend with, not mine.



I cited scholarly sources stating that the Church's relationship with science was much more complex and multilayered than "the Church always loved science" or "the Church always hated science." You regard this as "defending overinflated credits"? How could someone claim to value evidence but then throw aside academic sources so easily?

I am NOT arguing for the conflict thesis, so you are both attacking a straw man. Which is typical of RF at this point.

 

[Augustus]

I am NOT arguing for the conflict thesis, so you are both attacking a straw man. Which is typical of RF at this point.

You were replying to me discussing the conflict thesis and disputed my correct claim that it is rejected by an overwhelming consensus of historians.

Try to get your own arguments correct before accusing others of attacking strawmen

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Millennia later, Christian theology would give rise to fundamental underpinnings of modern science and the Enlightenment. Far from being invoked only in justification of burnings at the stake or holy crusades, the name of God was at the core of numerous scientific endeavors that would later pave the way for our modern world to take its current shape.

I'd say that this has more to do with economics than with any sort of Christian theology. In that era, Christian churches were siphoning so much money off the societies that supported them that they were the only ones with the surplus wealth to engage in things like public art, science, and formal education to any significant degree.

 

[Heyo]

I'd say that this has more to do with economics than with any sort of Christian theology. In that era, Christian churches were siphoning so much money off the societies that supported them that they were the only ones with the surplus wealth to engage in things like public art, science, and formal education to any significant degree.

They were not the only ones. The rich merchants of the Italian city states basically started the Renaissance and the church continued that. It might have had to do with the fact that the rich merchants bought themselves the Papacy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm a bit surprised as to why it took so long to get human anatomy correct, given the predilection for so many to chop bits off and/or tear the innards out, and although it probably isn't purely down to religious interference, isn't it the case that such exploration was banned or frowned upon for long periods?

We're still getting there tbh. Accurate images of the internal anatomy of the clitoris as the entire y shaped organ with its own nerves and blood vessels, despite being a really important part of female reproductive anatomy, only started appearing in medical texts over the last *ten years*. And female specific anatomical dysfunction is still incredibly understudied.