Science and Religion: Questions about the Scientific Revolution

A couple of months ago, I was on an online debate with a group of non-Christians (atheist/agnostic) discussing the interface between Religion and Science, particularly the Christian religion. This latter designation is important since all of them seemed to have been former Christians by their own account. The dialogue touched many topics and one of them is the claim that Christianity has been opposed to Science in previous centuries. When asked to prove their points, they offered the following two names as the alleged proof that there was religious persecution of scientists in Medieval time. Of course, they always go for many centuries in the past because it is not obvious now to use contemporary history to support their case. They always rely on ancient history, I assume, hoping that people would not check the historical record to verify their claims. I have learned that when in dialogue with a virulent secularist (atheists and others), ALWAYS FACT-CHECK them! ALWAYS! Their persuasiveness rely on their interlocutor ignorance of history, science, and philosophy.

I. QUESTION ABOUT RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS?

1) The Case of Michael Servetus:

Michael Servetus wasn't executed for his science but because he entered in conflict with protestant reformers by upholding the heretical doctrine of 'Unitarianism'. He published his book, The Restoration of Christianity, which put him in trouble with his co-religionist reformers. The book was not a scientific book as the title itself shows! The Cambridge trained Historian Dr. Hannam had this to say about Severus: 

"The book infuriated Calvin, to whom Servetus had foolishly sent an advance copy ... Servertus escaped but fled through Geneva where Calvin himself lived. There he was apprehended and at Calvin's insistence, executed as a heretic. In later years Servetus's work on the heart led to him enjoying a reputation as a martyr for science. This is unwarranted because he was executed for purely religious ideas that had nothing to do with anatomy."

- Source: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Chapter 14: The Reformation. Page 292 - (ePub version)

Even today when a Government enjails or executes someone for an ideological reason, that person doesn't automatically become a martyr for what the person happened to have studied at school (example, electrical engineer) nor doesn't he become a martyr for the type of professional work he does (example, electronic maintenance). His persecution is unrelated to his educational background or professional work. So it is the same as the ancient trials on heresy. If the trial is about doctrines, then this can't be transferred to whatever the person's job or lack of a job happened to be (gardener, scientist, book-keeper, etc). As sad and regrettable was Servertus trial, he was put in trial for his religious views, and NOT for any scientific ideas.

2) The Case of Bruno Giordano:

As unfortunate as Bruno death was, it is nevertheless important to present the historical data correctly. Bruno Giordano was not a scientist but rather a mystic as documented historian Tim O Neil (Tim is an atheist by the way):

Bruno the Mystic: To begin with, any knowledge of Bruno that goes beyond internet memes will make the idea that he was in any sense of the word a “scientist” immediately dubious.  Bruno was a brilliant and eclectic thinker who ranged over a number of the disciplines of his day, and so is difficult to put into any one category.  He was a metaphysicist, a magus, an expert in mnemonics, a neo-Pythagorean, a neo-Platonist and an astrologer. He advocated a kind of philosophical reasoning, but it was one focused on images and symbols and the use of visualisations and metaphors.  He had a cosmology that included the physical universe, but he rejected the use of mathematics to explore it, considering that too limiting and preferring what he believed was his own intuitive sense for symbols, sacred geometries and what simply felt right. His eccentric melange of ideas included things like Copernicus’ heliocentrism and Nicholas of Cusa’s centreless infinite universe, but it also included magic, stars and planets with animating souls, ancient Egyptian religion and Pythagorean symbolism.  Probably the best word to describe him in modern terms is to say he was a “mystic”."

- Source: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/

Moreover, Bruno's trouble with the Catholic Church had nothing to do with him doing science since he wasn't a scientist to start with. It was about theology. Heresy is always about a fight against orthodox theology from within the ranks and nothing else. Bruno wrote books calling (i) the Pope the beast of the apocalypse (while still being a Church member), (ii) denying the trinity, teaching the view that the Holy Spirit was the soul/spirit of the world, (iii) teaching that only the Hebrews descended from Adam and Eve and that the rest of the Nations descended from two people that God made the day before (hence questioning the doctrine on the original sin); (iv) that Christ was not God, but a distinguished magician that mocked people, etc.

Clearly, his many grievances against the Church were doctrinal in nature and not scientific. And he was handed over to secular authority after his ecclesial judgment on these matters of doctrines and not for any science-related issue. Also, see the translated letter from 1606, the day he was executed by the secular authority that details the issues of Bruno in his many trials and they happened to have been doctrinal in nature. As unfortunate as his death was, Bruno doesn't qualify as the Science Martyr some ill-intended atheists try to pass him for.

II. OTHER QUESTION ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION?

3) Kick Starting the Scientific Revolution (1543 - 1632)

When the uninformed skeptics finally realize that Christianity has been quite favorable and conducive to the emergence and growth of modern science in the medieval period, they usually react in two ways: The first option, they recognize their error and concede the point and no longer regard Science and the Christian religion as being at war. The second option, they double down in their historical ignorance and try to find alternative reasons for how science might have arisen in medieval times without giving credit to Catholic Christianity.

In my experience, my skeptical interlocutor (usually the virulent no-nothing atheist type) chooses option two and proposes alternatives for he can't bring himself to the realization that he was historical clueless about his misgivings against Christianity. The particular skeptics I was exchanging with made two particular claims: (1) The precursor to the scientific revolution started by Christian scientists was preceded by the discovery of mathematical documents preserved by non-Christian Arabs. (2) The printing press was the technological advancement that kick-started the whole thing and that it is not thanks to Christian fervor or Christian interest to knowledge and progress.

Allow me to interacts with these two claims: 

(a) Recovery of Ancient Documents

The recovery of ancient Greek philosophy documents from Arab countries (which were the possession of Eastern Greek-speaking Christian Monk before the Islamic invasion) was recovered purposely by the Latin speaking Christian monks, priests and clerics of the West who would take these works written in classical Greek and Arabic languages and translate them in Latin for a wider consumption in Cathedral schools and later in Universities which were mainly promoted by the Church. These works were translated from the 12th century onward up to the time of the 'scientific revolution'.

As Cambridge historian Hannam acknowledges, these documents were acquired and translated by Churchmen:

"The most prolific of the translators was Gerard of Cremona (1114-84), who spent many years in Toledo working on the manuscripts in the library there."

Source: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution; Chapter 4: The 12th century Renaissance. Page 63

 We also know that Gerard of Cremona worked in concert with other translators in Toledo under the direction of Bishop Raymond.

(b) The Invention of the Printing Press

The Printing Press was produced by the religiously motivate German, Johannes Gutemberg. If you wondered, why on earth the Printing Press which spurred the scientific revolution as my skeptic friend would have argued was first invented? I bet that the answer to the inventor of the printing machine would surprise many. Here is a line that Gutemberg wrote on the first book that he printed:

"God suffers in the multitude of souls whom His word can not reach. Religious truth is imprisoned in a small number of manuscript books, which confine instead of spread the public treasure. Let us break the seal which seals up holy things and give wings to Truth in order that she may win every soul that comes into the world by her word no longer written at great expense by hands easily palsied, but multiplied like the wind by an untiring machine. Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall soon flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of man! Through it God will spread His Word. A spring of pure truth shall flow from it! Like a new star, it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine among men."

– Lines written in the Gutenberg Bible by Johannes Gutenberg

 Isn't it interesting to note that the printing press was made with the inventor's religious fervor to see the multi-production of Bibles to reach the whole world as the driving force and impetus for his ingenuity? 

 Hence we see that both main points the skeptic mentioned as instrumental to the scientific revolution were essentially done, carried out, and produced by motivated Christians in the Middle age. There is no escaping this fact. What is sure, there were NO atheists or skeptical secularists on the horizon when science was emerging. For all their grievances against religion, their historical contribution to science is nowhere to be found, except sadly in their internet Memes and/or Popular Atheistic books. What we do witness contrary to popular belief in our secular world, it is that fervent and passionate Christians along the way championed the emergence and progress of natural philosophy and science during the middle age (medieval period).

4) Why for 1,500 years did Christianity fail to produce a Scientific Revolution?

The other question I received once from a skeptic was rather unexpected but I think It had some good legitimacy. If Christianity was the principal cause that brought the Scientific Revolution and the emergence of modern science in the 16th Century, why didn't modern science arise earlier? I guess this is a fair question. It is important to note that this question doesn't nihilate what we have already covered above about Christian scientists' contribution to new field of scientific studies or the role the Church played with the translated documents and the innovative emergence of the printing press.

Nevertheless, let consider the question on its own right.

First, though Christianity emerged in the first century in Palestine as a persecuted minority throughout the Roman Empire. It wasn't an established institution until many centuries later, as it contended against many powers trying to control it until Pope Gregory VII in 1066 AD freed the Church from the political hands of European political leaders (Kings, Nobles, and Dukes) and strengthen Church discipline.

Second, the scientific revolution didn't occur in a vacuum. The 16th century might have been the revolutionary period but it was preceded by many natural scientific endeavors from earlier on which aggregated knowledge from the previous Millenium. Many minds had to succeed to each other while leaving a growing body of knowledge to the new generation. As an example the Franciscan priest Roger Bacon (who is considered as one of the founders of the scientific method, empiricism) in the 13th century (1214-1294 AD) built on the work on previous Christian thinkers.

As Medieval historian, Tim O Neil (who happens to be an atheist) points out, the advent of the Scientific Methods was preceded by an aggregation of prior knowledge from Christian thinkers, each adding their own contributions to the vast body of knowledge growing incrementally toward the eventual explosive 'Scientific Revolution'. Tim puts it this way about the pre-scientific revolution thinkers, which many have contested did not exist due to the alleged Church persecution of scientists, and I quote: 

"I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong."

This quote from an atheist such as Tim also resolves one of the frequent misleading assumptions of skeptics which assumes that natural scientists/philosophers pre- 16th Century were either inexistent or living in fear of the Church. Clearly this is an unfounded claim.

Thirdly, regarding the emergence of Modern science when it did, it is not always obvious to know why something happened (cause-effect relationship) but sometimes a simple correlation can be indicative of a hidden parameter. I submit this view: Christianity was still expanding throughout Europe during those 1500 years and meeting obstacles to its philosophical views in the European continent. But when all Europe became fully Christianized, that's when its view which was already being practiced by those who held the Church views on nature, philosophy, and theology exploded throughout the continent unimpeded as new knowledge aka modern science. The evidence for this reasoning of mine is that I noticed that it just happened that the scientific revolution occurred in the same time laps of when Europe was fully Christianized. I quote again Tim,

"Jenkins notes that we tend to think of Christianity as a religion which began in the Middle East and then spread west, via the Roman Empire, eventually finding some kind of natural home in Europe before expanding across the globe from there in the Modern Era.  Whereas, in fact, it was not until around 1500, with the conversion of the last European pagans in the Baltic and the expulsion of the last major Muslim presence in Spain, that Europe became fully Christian." 

- (Review of the history book, The Lost History of Christianity, by Professor of History at Baylor University, Dr. Philip Jenkins)

I think this information from Dr. Philip Jenkins does point us toward a possible answer. Europe was still being Christianized, and hence growing in awareness in what Christianity could offer intellectually. Therefore it took time for Christianity to bring about the rise of science. However, when everybody was embracing the same natural sciences and philosophical worldview (scholasticism) proposed by the Catholic Church, that's when the scientific revolution of the 16-17th century started to emerge forcefully throughout continental Europe. Hence, Christianity is absolutely in the heart of the process for the rise of science despite the time it took to be fully formed as a new discipline of investigation of the natural order created by the Creator.