Did religion really stunt science and research during the Middle Ages to the extent at which they say, or is that just a meme atheists like to spout?
It's a meme.
It's a meme. The collapse of the empire is what caused that, and it had a lot more going on than just "muh Christianity"
>It's a meme
>>467947
Consider the extent to which religious idiots hinder science and progress in the United States today, and just imagine the stunting effect that a population immeasurably more zealous would have. There's no question that the negative effect it had was profound.
>>467979
>galileo
>middle ages
>>468008
>The point of the thread
>You
>>467947
I wouldn't be surprised if religion played some role in stunting science then but I think fedoras exaggerate the level of anti-intellectualism present. Logic and Aristotelian philosophy made huge advances during that time. I say that as an atheist and someone who is generally skeptical of the value of religion and the church.
>>467987
>consider how things happen in America today and arbitrarily apply it backwards with no context or knowledge of the time
k
It's 100% meme, anon. The majority of the scientists in medieval Europe were clergymen. The keepers of knowledge were monks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_European_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_European_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
You'll note that most of them are clergymen including at least two saints. But the church was totally against science...
>>468022
We aren't without knowledge of that time, and despite what your postmodernist junior college professors told you, there's no such thing as a "feminine" penis.
>>467979
Galileo couldn't sufficiently prove his heliocentric model. That's why he was tried, anon. The Church didn't bother Copernicus at all.
>>467987
>Consider the extent to which religious idiots hinder science and progress in the United States today
What, a bunch of soccer moms bitching about whether evolution should be in biology textbooks? I think you'll find that scientific progress is alive and well in the United States today. It's ridiculously simplistic to claim religion = bad. There are plenty of examples of religion being a positive influence, such as the fact they pretty much kept literacy alive and saved countless scientific books from being lost in post-Roman Europe.
>>468011
>Did religion really stunt science and research during the Middle Ages
>Middle Ages
>The Renaissance is now the Middle Ages
>>468036
What the fuck are you even saying?
>>468037
Right, so if a scientist couldnt sufficiently prove his assertions to the inquisition(Clergy) should be imprisoned and have his books burnt,
Because the church supports science
>>468036
Then how about you use the knowledge of that time instead of spouting stupid fucking statements like "think about how x thing you don't like today and then slap it on another time period uncritically like a fucking retard"
Priests were basically the only literate class for centuries in Europe. Start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
Now go fuck yourself.
Dunno about the middle ages but ethics stunt scientific research in the present and lets face it ethics in science are a vestifial remnant of religion.
So why go all the way to debate if religion stunted science so long ago when its happening right now.
It would be a gross exaggeration to say the clergy contributed to the stunting of science during the middle ages. The fact that during the middle ages there where few advancements compared to the late 15th century and beyond owes more to the simple fact that the great majority of people were illiterate, and those who could actually read (the clergy) kept books to themselves. Why even "release" this knowledge if they are the only ones that can make any use of it.
>>468042
We are well beyond the period of its usefulness. Any nonsensical dogma is a hindrance to scientific inquiry.
>>468073
Sounds like some goalpost moving to me considering your statement is 100% irrelevant to the thread topic.
>>468048
>>468050
>the only real example of the church acting against a scientist revolves around him not actually being scientific enough
>despite the dozens of other scientists, who were often clerics and saints, this proves the church was against science
>>468080
Not to the reply it was responding to. Read the thread before opening your yapper, faggot.
>>468073
That's a different subject altogether. This thread is about religion and science in the Middle Ages.
>>468099
I did, and it started with that fucking dipshit going "HURRDURR TODAY AMERIFATS RELIGIDUMB!" which is irrelevant to the thread subject. If he wants to make an argument about history he should use historical examples, not go "take this vague idea of dumb modern religious people versus smart atheist scientists and pretend with me that this is the way it always has been."
>>468082
>No records of church oppression of science in the Dark ages
>Church in control of records
Theres a reason people know about Galileo, its because he was renowned as a scientist, unlike the muddling theologians of the church
Why do internet atheists pretend that their "side" is somehow synonymous with science/engineering, even though historically speaking, most scientists have been devoutly religious? Heck, Yuri Gagarin was Russian Orthodox, but atheists still can't get enough of posting his fake "I see no God up here" quote.
>>468095
Not true. Believe it or not we're still in history and inferences can be drawn about the past based on the realities of the present.
Take for example the engorged nub between your legs that you call a penis. It's safe to assume the trait is hereditary and all your male ancestors were similarly impaired.
>>468119
Bede.
Look up Illuminationism. It was the dominate epistemology for hundreds of years entirely because it gave the church power. Illumanationism basically says that humans cannot understand the deeper parts of the world unless God tells them it, and God communicates through his chosen priests and their holy book.
Descartes introduced the new idea of Rationalism, and Bacon introduced Emperilism. Both rejected 'revealed word of God' as a something that should be unquestioned. They had their books banned for this. This type of slow down of rational thought was the norm for hundreds of years until the church was under secular law. The reason for this is simply because with illumanationism being the go to epistomology no one would question the church's rule. After it was lost people used that heretical Rationalism to devise new government systems which were not under papal law.
So yes. The Catholic church directly interfeared with aspect of gaining new knowledge pretty until it was under secular law. Whether this counts as "Christianity" slowing down religion is debatable.
>>468119
>unlike the muddling theologians of the church
Like Copernicus?
>>468131
>Take for example the engorged nub between your legs that you call a penis. It's safe to assume the trait is hereditary and all your male ancestors were similarly impaired.
You got me. Epic fucking burn.
Now how about you spend a little longer coming up with a better argument than "pretend the middle ages were today so my argument works" instead of obsessing over my dick, you fucking gradeschooler.
>>468131
>you have a penis
>therefore all males have penises
>therefore religion is bad, m'kay?
>>468148
>trying to discuss religion in a historical context must make you religious
Militant atheists who get triggered at the slightest mention of religion are fucking pathetic.
You can not believe in god and still discuss religion.
>>468131
Ok, let's use your very valid and rational system.
Look at all the pants-on-head retarded atheists we have today.
Now let's imagine they all went around being just as mature and responsible as you in the middle ages, talking about eachother's dicks instead of actually having a discourse, and let's ponder which ones held back scientific progress more.
Wow it's almost like this entire line of reasoning is totally fucking useless and that maybe we should just use historical evidence instead.
>>468148
>implying I'm religious
I just don't like edgy atheists who feel the need to rewrite history to fit in with their preconceived notion that religion and science are incompatible opposites, and that they're somehow the heroic vanguard of scientific advancement.
>>468037
Untrue. He was tried for heresy since heliocentrism goes against scripture.
>church-sponsored university system started, turning teaching into an institutional continuum rather than schools that die with the lecturer
>Condemnations of 1277 encourage scholars to question Aristotelian and other Greek dogma, creating a foundation for the shift to experimentalism in the early modern period
>"faith through reason" makes appreciable gains, bringing incredibly sophisticated logical arguments to popularity
>>468187
Even though Copernicus - a dominican - dedicated his heliocentric theories to the pope and he died at age 70 having suffered zero witch burnings.
>>468131
Wow man, you rekt the shit out of him.
Damn, what a burn.
Do you have a blog or something I could subscribe to?
>>468203
I'm on my phone right now but I don't see how that contradicts what I said
>>468119
>>468134
>Look up Illuminationism. It was the dominate epistemology for hundreds of years entirely because it gave the church power.
This was never popular, especially not with Aquinas who alongside Augustine is probably the most influential theologian. They did believe that the natural world has an order which we through reason observe and make sense of.
God in Catholicism communicates with man through scripture, magisterium and tradition.
>Descartes introduced the new idea of Rationalism
While he was a rationalist he didn't introduce it as such.
>and Bacon introduced Emperilism.
Empiricism?
> Both rejected 'revealed word of God' as a something that should be unquestioned.
Not sure about Bacon but this is untrue for Descartes as he specifically argues for the very specific Catholic faith. He also openly called every atheist a retard in the beginning of Discourse on Method...
He wrote it in French so that even the dumbest atheist could believe in God.
>They had their books banned for this.
Descartes wrote for a university ran by the church because they asked him to write it as they highly respected him.
>This type of slow down of rational thought was the norm for hundreds of years until the church was under secular law.
Church was vital to development of philosophy and logic which made scientific thought flourish after the death of humanism because it reintroduced a lot of nonsense like magic, alchemy and witch burning.
>The reason for this is simply because with illumanationism being the go to epistomology no one would question the church's rule.
But this was never the case. This is just a lie with no basis in anything.
>After it was lost people used that heretical Rationalism to devise new government systems which were not under papal law.
What the bloody fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously describing the complex centuries long process of law development in one sentence?
This is either bait or the dumbest comment I've read in a while.
