French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation


Back     Printer Friendly Version  

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Bookmark and Share


Other than that Christianity is opposed to science.....blah blah blah

by Ferdinand III

Out of the 52 notable and most important Western European scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries only one, Edmund Halley, was not a Catholic or Protestant [see here]. Their efforts were spread across all main endeavours related to inquiry as compiled by Rodney Stark; Physics 15 or 29% of the 52; Astronomy 13, 25%; Biology/physiology 13, 25%; and Mathematics 11, 21%. The distribution is striking in its similarity across all sectors.

As Stark declares, the 'dark ages' never existed, and the 'enlightened geniuses' could be declared [my words] as decidedly unenlightened and uninformed. Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, and others drape themselves in the achievements of their so-called 17th century's 'Scientific Revolution' restating Marquis Laplace’s claim that God 'was now an unnecessary hypothesis'.

Of course not one of these 'Enlightened' figures played any part in the scientific enterprise. Not one was a scientist. Not one invented anything of value. Many such as Rousseau were retrograde forces, proposing simpleton ideas about social organization, premised on 'emotion and feelings' or some evolutionary pond-scum to philosopher nonsense. Try feeding your family with love in lieu of a thriving political-economy. Or convince yourself that you came from algae.

The real creators and those who advanced scientific achievements of the 16th and 17th centuries were not of 'skeptics' of religion but of course, profoundly Christian men. Of the 52 scientists cited at least 60 percent were devout. The era of the “Enlightenment” is as imaginary as the era of the “Dark Ages,” both myths perpetrated by the same people for the same reasons.

Scholar Paul J. Kocher aptly observed, “There was nothing in the dogmas of Catholicism, Anglicanism, or Puritanism which made any one of them more or less favorable to science in general than any of the others.… [In each, the majority held] that science should be welcomed as a faithful handmaid of theology.

Atheist-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead, a friend of the atheist Bertrand Russell, and no friend of the church, knew that science developed in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science … derivative from medieval theology.

Major medieval historian Grant: “The medieval university laid far greater emphasis on science than does its modern counterpart.” How true. Globaloneywarming? Tulips to Teachers ?

In all of the aforementioned disciplines and in medicine, the medieval church and the university system were producing enormous increases in knowledge by the 14th century. The 'revolution' in science in the 16th century was not a revolution, but simply an extension of what had already been long in progress.

Article Comments:

Related Articles:

Medieval/Early Modern Christianity




















6/1/2016:  Constantine, Clovis and Christianity








1/3/2016:  Aquinas, Aristotle and Mad Muhammad







10/17/2015:  Medieval Ontology, logic and Anselm






7/29/2015:  Parthia and the destruction of Byzantium











3/9/2015:  Philoponus, the Astrolabe and Galileo















8/18/2014:  The Lindisfarne Gospels and civilized art


7/21/2014:  Lies about Medieval Medicine

























5/3/2014:  Buttons and Medieval Capitalism



4/26/2014:  Chiara Frugoni and Medieval Inventions

4/25/2014:  Partial list of Medieval inventions







4/14/2014:  Horses and Iron industrialization














2/25/2014:  The Inquisition and its myths












