Medieval Ages and The Roots of Modern Science

How the Medieval Ages paved the way for modern scienceScientific Development in the Medieval Ages

Now we get into the medieval foundation of modern scientific thought. Contrary to common opinion, science was not “suppressed” as is the common understanding of this time period. Modern scholarship has brought about the reality that contrary to the common opinion, the Middle Ages actually is actually the root of modern scientific thought.

Some of the most compelling arguments came from the medieval times. For example prior to the start of Christianity, and definitely from the time of the Middle Ages, there was a popular scientific consensus that the universe was “eternal”, that was the belief that the universe had no beginning and no end. This belief was common throughout most if not all the pagan civilizations. This is true of the Babylonians, Aztecs, and even to some extent the Romans and Greeks. Modern science disregards this as wrong. Most atheists denounce this claim, stating that the universe is not eternal but rather created to what is referred to as the Big Bang. This belief in a created universe however roots itself in Christianity’s belief in a created universe by God, which was a predominant belief in medieval Europe; a predominant Catholic place.

Similarly prior to the medieval ages, and definitely prior to Christianity, there was a certain animism that was held in scientific consensus throughout the entire pagan world.

“Such stillbirths can be accounted for by each of these culture’s conceptions of the universe and their lack of belief in a transcendent Creator who endowed his creation with consistent physical laws. To the contrary, they conceived of the universe as a huge organism dominated by a pantheon of deities, and destined to go through endless cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. This made the development of science impossible. Created things had a mind and will of their own”¹Fr. Stanley Jaki further explains that it was the Christian belief in the Incarnation which helped disprove an “eternal” and animist universe. “The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation militates strongly against such thinking. Christ is the monogenes or “only begotten” Son of God. Within the Greco-Roman worldview, on the other hand, the universe was the ‘monogenes’ or ‘only begotten’ emanation from a divine principle not really different from the universe itself.”²

Astronomy was greatly advanced as well during this time period. It was the monasteries of the medieval world that provided scientists to develop their astronomical understandings and knowledge. Most monasteries during that time served not only as a sacred place of worship but also practically as solar observatories. “In its scientific zeal, the Church adapted cathedrals across Europe, and a tower at the Vatican itself, so their darkened vaults could serve as solar observatories. Beams of light that fell past religious art and marble columns not only inspired the faithful but provided astronomers with information about the sun, the earth and their celestial relationship”³It is shown that the Church gave a lot of financial support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries.

There are several other scientific breakthroughs and innovations which came about during the Middle Ages. For example a German monk named Gerbert de Aurillac (943-1003) became Pope Sylvester II. “History credits him as the Pope who introduced the system of Arabic numerals to the West”⁴

It was through Saint Thomas Aquinas who helped develop the scholastic approach to science, including philosophical inquiry that we use today. “A scholastic argument begins with a question, followed by a contrary argument and then to state the contrary to the contrary argument”⁵It was through this scholastic approach that Aquinas helped develop another modern scientific concept called the principle of objective reality. This states that things that can be observed are real (Metaphysical Realism).

Basically metaphysical reality holds that, “truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality”. Thus, that which exists in the mind must be similar (the same) with what is the case in reality for a thing to qualify as truth. This view of truth and knowledge which dates back to Aristotle was prevalent in the middle ages.

I think the best way to conclude this article is by briefly talking about the Galileo case which involved Galileo

Galilei. This is the most commonly used case against the Church, but in defense of the Church I will help give a brief background regarding the case itself and show that Galileo was not completely “blameless”. Cardinal John Henry Newman once stated that “ Galileo was the one stock argument against the Church” He found it amazing that this is in reality the only case that people could come up with in regards to the Church’s apparent opposition to science.

Before we get to Galileo and the case itself we should go back a little in regards to Nicholas Copernicus and Ptolemy. Nicholas Copernicus was a Catholic scientist who came from a devoutly religious family. Nicholas Copernicus believed in the Ptolemaic view of the universe. Ptolemy was a Greek philosopher who believed in the geocentric view of the universe. He believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that all the other planets including the sun revolved around it. He also believed that planets were perfect spheres and that they orbited in a perfectly constant speed.

Nicholas Copernicus believed in the Ptolemaic view of the universe and accepted most of its ideas for granted however he just wanted to change a few things. He stated that the sun was at the center and that all the planets revolved around it (heliocentric model). What should be noted is that for most part the Copernican theory of the universe (heliocentric model) was actually applauded by the Church. “Copernicus died in 1543 he had published a series of work at the urging of Catholic Cardinals. It was not primarily the Church, but astronomers who objected to it because they had strong arguments against it”⁶

Now we get into the actual topic of Galileo. Galileo Galilei was an astronomer who started to observe the universe through a telescope and he observed certain things which seemed to undermine the traditional Ptolemaic system. For example Galileo observed craters on the moon which seemed to contradict the notion of a perfect sphere which the Ptolemaic system was founded upon. Similarly he found moons on Jupiter which also seemed to contradict the traditional Ptolemaic system of the universe. What is to be noted is that Galileo’s work for a long period of time was actually celebrated by prominent churchmen. “In late 1610, Fr. Christopher Clavius wrote to tell Galileo that his fellow Jesuit astronomers had confirmed the discoveries he had made through his telescope”⁷

Furthermore even the popes of that time found favor in his scientific theories he was bringing forth. Galileo “enjoyed a long audience with Pope Paul V, and the Jesuits of the Roman college held a day of activities in honor of his achievements.”⁸Even Cardinal Maffeo Barberini who became Pope Urban VIII praised the work of Galileo. It was after all Pope Urban VIII who brought the case against Galileo. So the question is what happened? Why did such change take place in regards to Galileo?

What should be noted is that the Church always allowed Galileo to bring forth his scientific observations with the only prohibition that he treat them merely as theories until they are fully proven. It is specifically this which got Galileo in trouble “Galileo believed the Copernican system to be literally true rather than merely a hypothesis that yielded accurate predicitons.”⁹The problem is that Galileo did not have sufficient proof to back up his argument. As the scholar Jerome points out

Galileo was convinced that he had the truth. But objectively he had no proof with which to win the allegiance of open-minded men. It is a complete injustice to contend, as some historians do, that no one would listen to his arguments, that he never had a chance. The Jesuit astronomers had confirmed his discoveries; they waited eagerly for further proof so that they could abandon Tycho’s system and come out solidly in favor of Copernicanism. Many influential churchmen believed that Galileo might be right, but they had to wait for more proof¹⁰Thus the reality is that Galileo started to promote his scientific ideas against the prevailing geocentric Ptolemaic model, when he could not even find solid proof for defending his own argument. The only real argument that Galileo had for proving his scientific theory was in regards to tidal waves. For example Galileo used the example of a tidal wave and argued that the reason we see waves is because the earth is both rotating and revolving and the result is that it creates waves. While this argument is not altogether bad, it did not even come close to the arguments that his opponents had. When you study the prevailing ideas regarding those who held the geocentric model, you can easily see that they were not mere simpletons who had absolutely no scientific understanding. Rather it was precisely because their arguments were pretty well grounded that Galileo had a hard time refuting them.

In the first place, the geocentric ideas make common sense. If the universe is truly rotating and revolving the why don’t we feel like we are moving? On a more sophisticated level the geocentric model did work quite well for observing planetary motion. There would not be any reason why this model would have been used for about 2000 years if it were not the case. The most solid evidence that the geocentrists had however was in regards to stellar parallax. A parallax is simply the apparent displacement of an observed object due to a change in the position of the observer. A stellar parallax is simply the extension of a parallax in regards to stars. The geocentrists argued against Galileo stating that if he was so sure that the earth is revolving around the sun then why do we not see parallax shifts? This is a rather sophisticated argument.

Besides the fact that Galileo started to teach his own scientific views without sufficient evidence, which went against the prohibition of treating his views as mere theories, there are two other significant incidents which got Galileo further in trouble. The first one is simply Galileo’s insistence that all biblical verses which portray the world as motionless needed to be reinterpreted. The question that arose was, can a layman simply go around and demand that biblical verses be re-interpreted based on a theoretical model that he couldn’t even prove?

Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmine being more of a scientist than Galileo commented:

If there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me¹¹ The most significant incident that got Galileo in trouble was his Dialogue on the Great world Systems in which he expressed the Copernican heliocentric model as literal truth instead of as a mere theory. Furthermore Galileo wrote this book as a dialogue and one of the characters of this dialogue was named Simplicio (simpleton or simple-minded; stupid) an individual who did not know much. In this character he put Pope Urban VIII’s opinion which justifiably got him angry. Galileo was known for having a pretty rough personality which made it easy for him to make enemies.

In conclusion it is most definitely true that the Galileo case could have been handled better, but the fact is that Galileo is not altogether blameless. The Church allowed Galileo to express his scientific theory with the only provision that he treat them as such and not as anything more without sufficient proof. For this reason Galileo went against this provision with a lack of proof and solid arguments to defend his position. Furthermore his personality was noted to be quite rude in general.

Another point vis a vis pantheism: it is the logical outworking of the pattern of our “sin in Adam.” If the universe is Ours rather than His, we give pantheistic ideas the highball.

It would be unfair to characterize pantheistic societies as having no science or technology. They generally had what they needed to produce the kind of lifestyle they wanted. The actual God kept on revealing truth from above just as the bible says. We have to be careful not to indulge in a kind of group solipsism that pretends that “we” or even “our philosophy” (except what was already in the supernatural realms and we embraced) initiated science. Rather, the imperative to “subdue” the wild world initiated science. When powered by Judeo-Christian worldviews, this science reached far beyond what anyone might have envisioned at the time as necessary for support of their lifestyle. Who needed to know systematic behavior of magnetism or electricity? Who needed to know chemistry that didn’t have the gross production of precious substances from base substances as its goal? Who needed to measure the gargantuan dimensions of the visible universe?

Modern forms of atheism are a vanity only made possible by the coattails of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Westernized society is a victim of its own scientific and technical success, used wrongly. The curse has never left the ground and accordingly, great challenges are left to believers.

It does look like Galileo had no respect for the underpinnings of the natural philosophy he rode upon the crest of. Modern atheistic takes on science, likewise, like to cite him as a champion against a “recalcitrant, backwards” church. They forget that the church ended up embracing the new natural revelations once scriptural repercussions were carefully examined.

If there is a problem in many of the halls of modern fundamentalism, it is ironically an over-scientism. Can we presume on some kind of independent clock that works exactly the same way that our modern technologically developed clocks, operating from the word “go” in the divine acts of creation? In modern parlance, do we refuse to consider embracing a day-age theory of creation because those just have to be 24 x 60 minute days with all the modern implications? Because we invented clocks, did God’s concept of a daily labor punch card need to obey such clocks? Or is the partitioning of the story intended to underscore the divine humility in bestowing the large “days” of eternity in miniature upon the tiny, fleeting earth? We have to remember that God measures us. We cannot measure God.

Jaki cites two major causes for the rise of Science in the West, as opposed to its stillbirths in the East.

The first is the idea that the universe is comprehensible. Christ is the logos --Truth Itself. Therefore, God's Creation must be intelligible.

Secondly, modern physics arose from the promulgation of the dogma of "Creation from nothing." This cemented the idea of the linear progression of time, rather than eternal cycles. The theories of Buridan, Oresme and Newton followed.

Creation ex nihilo also had an impact on our notion of motion and inertia. The ancient philosopher Aristotle (4th century BC) had taught that matter was eternal (opposite of creation ex nihilo) and so motion must likewise be eternal (i.e., intrinsic). For Aristotle, a thrown object moves because the air closing in behind it pushes it forward. A corollary to Aristotle’s understanding of motion is geocentrism, i.e., that the Earth is at rest while the Sun and planets rotate around us. In other words, if the Earth was moving then we should feel it moving beneath our feet, and since we don’t observe that, the Earth must be at rest at the center of the universe.
Aristotle’s view of motion dominated Western thinking for 1,700 years and directly hindered the development of heliocentrism. It was Jean Buridan (14th century), and his successor Nicholas of Oresme (14th century), who developed a new understanding of motion that directly challenged Aristotle’s view (see Stanley L. Jaki and Michel Bumbulis). Buridan believed that everything had a beginning (i.e., creation ex nihilo), hence motion must likewise have a beginning.
Just as it is God who imputed motion to the universe, it is the thrower who imputes motion to the thrown object (not the air). If someone wants to throw something farther, then they simply need to throw it harder. This simple idea became known as “impetus theory.” For a rotating Earth, impetus theory argues that objects on Earth receive the same motion as the Earth and so move in sync with the Earth’s rotation, which is why we don’t fly off the planet’s surface. Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler (16th century) looked to Buridan (rather than Aristotle) for their understanding of motion, which helped eliminate the biggest objection to a heliocentric model of the solar system. Remarkably, impetus theory also anticipated Newton’s first law of motion (17th century).

“In conclusion it is most definitely true that the Galileo case could have been handled better, but the fact is that Galileo is not altogether blameless. Furthermore his personality was noted to be quite rude in general.”

Handled better as in butt out completely. The Church as a civil government was a nightmare that resembled nothing Christ like. When in hell did they get the idea that they could arrest and try people? Utterly unchristian insanity.

So yes, Galileo was blameless. He should have been left alone. Of the church didn’t like his work, his terminology, or his conclusions, the MORAL course for them was to ignore it, forbid it in the church, publish their own opinions, etc. If he says bible verses need change in light of a heliocentric view, the Roman Church had the same options.

And he was “rude”? He should have been. An illegitimate government, ignoring the rights of the individual, and making demands they have no right to, should always be given the finger.

Ill wait now for the legalistic “explanation” that the Vatican wasn’t the government, and is blameless because it would be merely turning him over to the civil government for punishment. But that’s simply intellectually dishonest to blame the ones who do the dirty work.

And you were being polite, but Galileo was an ass. He brought the whole thing on himself.

_________________________________________________________________

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo

(June 22, 1633)

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

_________________________________________________________________

In your opinion, was that a just punishment? Or do you think his unalienable Rights were violated?

“but Galileo was an ass. He brought the whole thing on himself.”

One being an ass somehow giving a church the right to arrest and try them is a cornerstone of ISIS. It is wholly against everything Christ lived and taught.
The church in that period was tragically lost spiritually.

If he was an ass, then they could ignore, refute, or forbid their members from referring to it. Anything else made them no better than Stalin, ISIS, King George, the democrat party, or the Nazis.

The author does a good job of recounting the Galileo controversy.

His quote from Cardinal Bellarmine sums it up:

If there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."

Cardinal Bellarmine took the reasonable position that he would accept Galileo's theory once convincing evidence was provided. Galileo had the correct answer, but little evidence. Today, we would categorized his view as a "theory," which is what the Church at the time did.

Moreover, Galileo wanted the Church to promote his theory as established fact (which is outside the purview of the Church).

+ + +

But the author leaves out some important facts regarding Copernicus. Not only were several cardinals supporting Copernicus' research into heliocentrism, they helped to fund it.

Copernicus dedicated his book, "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs" to Pope Paul III, in the hope that the Pope would protect him from antagonistic astronomers and Protestant revolutionaries, or "reformers."

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs," in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Handled better as in butt out completely.

Did you read the article? The astronomical research of Copernicus, who was writing books regarding heliocentrism at the same time as Galileo, was funded by several Cardinals. Copernicus even dedicated one of his books on heliocentricity to Pope Paul III, because he felt that the pope might protect him from antagonistic Protestant astronomers, and even Luther himself.

Galileo's "proofs" for heliocentrism were wrong. They were erroneous. He had the correct answer, but no scientific evidence to support his claim. Today, we would classify Galileo's claim as a "theory," which is what the Church did. But Galileo demanded that the Church declare his theory to be fact.

“In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.” (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine’s residence and ordered
“... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.”

— The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616.

So no, the Romans were not simply conducting rigorous peer review of a scientific publishing. They were a despotic government. As for the pythons, if it were not basically true, the comedy would have simply made no sense. There is a reason they are poking fun at them. The same comedy would have got them killed at the hands of the church a few centuries earlier.

Look, no sane person today argues that the catholic church today is a murderous, despotic, institution, spreading more fear than Christianity. But back then, it did indeed. The apologetics are a waste of time. And are simply not needed. While we may quibble on doctrine wars, the church today is basically good. The respect one can hold for the church today does not depend on defending those A-holes.

Bullshine. The church itself contradicted that just last year. The Roman inquisition was not a simple search for rigorous academic standards.
By their OWN records, they forbade him to even defend his theories, stop all defense of them, and said they were against the scripture.

But whatever, the arguments about his “proof” etc,, misses the elephant in the room. By what right to they arrest and try ANYONE? Where did Jesus teach that? They made it up out of whole cloth.

“Copernicus even dedicated one of his books on heliocentricity to Pope Paul III, because he felt that the pope might protect him from antagonistic Protestant astronomers, and even Luther himself.”

Picked one gangster to protect him from another. The simple fact is that in that era, a scientist had to be very careful that his work did not threaten the theology of where he lived or he might wind up dead or imprisoned. So that fact alone makes it very specious to argue that that science exploded because of ANY church. At best, the churches were dragged kicking and screaming along. That’s protestants and catholics.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.